and non-governmental organizations have strongly criticized Japan’s decision, just
like many criticized earlier decisions by Norway and Iceland to resume commercial
whaling pursuant to their objections to the moratorium. It is submitted that the
interests pursued by Iceland, Japan and Norway are not merely utilization-oriented
but are also grounded in what they regard as a fundamental right of every sovereign
State to harvest the living resource of its choice, provided this is consistent with its
obligations under international law.
6 Conclusions
Since the first RFMO avant la lettre was established almost a century ago, there has
been a remarkable growth and evolution in the number of, and diversity among
RFMO/As. Distinctions between RFMO/As can relate to many issues, including
institutional status and setting, species and geographical coverage, and membership.
Their key functions have evolved in many ways as well, for instance from focusing
predominantly on target species towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and by developing an increasingly sophisticated and technology-driven
suite of monitoring, control and surveillance measures.
Whether or not a body qualifies as an RFMO or an RFMA determines the
applicability of particular rights and obligations under international fisheries law.
These rights can be relevant for participants as well as non-participants. Especially
relevant for non-participants is the right to fish on the high seas and the right of States
with a ‘real interest’ to participate in RFMO/As. Relevant rights for participants
include the mandate to deal with non-participants that undermine the efforts of
RFMO/As due to their behavior as free riders.
The issue of qualification as an RFMO or an RFMA has so far arisen in three
cases: JNRFC, the CAOF Agreement and CCAMLR. The analysis concludes that
the former two qualify as RFMAs and the latter as ‘more than an RFMO’. It is
submitted that qualifying CCAMLR as ‘more than an RFMO’ is not so much
justified by its unique objective or the key role accorded to scientific research, but
above all by its integration in the ATS, whose principal role is safeguarding peace.
CCAMLR can therefore be regarded as performing a role in safeguarding peace in
addition to its role on the conservation and management of fisheries resources. This
gave rise to the proposition that RFMO/As can perform additional roles besides
conservation and management of fisheries resources. This ‘role-oriented approach to
RFMO/As’ is supported by the rules and practices of several (other) RFMO/As,
namely GFCM, JNRFC and NASCO. Such a role-oriented approach can also be
applied more broadly to regional ocean governance mechanisms that operate under
the overarching framework of the international law of the sea. In light of the
considerable diversity among such existing mechanisms, looking at them through
the lens of roles can provide a better understanding on what they actually do.
The international community’s recognition that RFMO/As are the preeminent
institutions of international fisheries law was first reflected in the Fish Stocks
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
107
like many criticized earlier decisions by Norway and Iceland to resume commercial
whaling pursuant to their objections to the moratorium. It is submitted that the
interests pursued by Iceland, Japan and Norway are not merely utilization-oriented
but are also grounded in what they regard as a fundamental right of every sovereign
State to harvest the living resource of its choice, provided this is consistent with its
obligations under international law.
6 Conclusions
Since the first RFMO avant la lettre was established almost a century ago, there has
been a remarkable growth and evolution in the number of, and diversity among
RFMO/As. Distinctions between RFMO/As can relate to many issues, including
institutional status and setting, species and geographical coverage, and membership.
Their key functions have evolved in many ways as well, for instance from focusing
predominantly on target species towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and by developing an increasingly sophisticated and technology-driven
suite of monitoring, control and surveillance measures.
Whether or not a body qualifies as an RFMO or an RFMA determines the
applicability of particular rights and obligations under international fisheries law.
These rights can be relevant for participants as well as non-participants. Especially
relevant for non-participants is the right to fish on the high seas and the right of States
with a ‘real interest’ to participate in RFMO/As. Relevant rights for participants
include the mandate to deal with non-participants that undermine the efforts of
RFMO/As due to their behavior as free riders.
The issue of qualification as an RFMO or an RFMA has so far arisen in three
cases: JNRFC, the CAOF Agreement and CCAMLR. The analysis concludes that
the former two qualify as RFMAs and the latter as ‘more than an RFMO’. It is
submitted that qualifying CCAMLR as ‘more than an RFMO’ is not so much
justified by its unique objective or the key role accorded to scientific research, but
above all by its integration in the ATS, whose principal role is safeguarding peace.
CCAMLR can therefore be regarded as performing a role in safeguarding peace in
addition to its role on the conservation and management of fisheries resources. This
gave rise to the proposition that RFMO/As can perform additional roles besides
conservation and management of fisheries resources. This ‘role-oriented approach to
RFMO/As’ is supported by the rules and practices of several (other) RFMO/As,
namely GFCM, JNRFC and NASCO. Such a role-oriented approach can also be
applied more broadly to regional ocean governance mechanisms that operate under
the overarching framework of the international law of the sea. In light of the
considerable diversity among such existing mechanisms, looking at them through
the lens of roles can provide a better understanding on what they actually do.
The international community’s recognition that RFMO/As are the preeminent
institutions of international fisheries law was first reflected in the Fish Stocks
5 Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
107