jurisdiction. As a consequence, the contents of the Code must articulate coherently
with the rights and duties set out in the relevant provisions of UNCLOS (Articles
61 to 64, 66 and 116 to 120). Furthermore, Articles 6 (6.12) and 7 (7.1.3) of the Code
provide clear guidance in this sense, when establishing that States must cooperate
through international organizations and implement responsible practices, taking into
account the need to adopt measures applicable to marine resources in all geographical areas where they are present and that such measures must be compatible within
the limits of national jurisdiction and beyond. Article 6 of the Code underlines the
importance of international cooperation in the case of transboundary and straddling
stocks, through the appropriate organizations or the approval of international agreements or arrangements. However, adequate responses to these issues depend largely
on technical capacity, the available legal frameworks and the general nature of the
fishing sector in coastal States. In fact, one has to recognize that the adoption of such
measures shows the prominence of State practice despite the action of international
organizations in this context.
11 We assume that the effective application of the Code
depends on action that must take place at two levels: firstly, active participation in
international organizations and multilateral negotiations designed to adopt and
implement general legal frameworks and, secondly, the adoption of adequate
national measures.
In future years, one might expect to see developments in some of the binding
instruments or ‘soft law’, but this will mainly be the result of State action and formal
international organizations, which are the privileged actors of UNCLOS. In any
event, it is foreseeable that growing importance will be given to instruments of
voluntary application. Here it is worth highlighting some aspects of the document
issued by the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20).
12
The formal document of the conference appeals for integrated and sustainable
management of our natural resources and ecosystems in order to ensure the viability
of fisheries and aquaculture, which in turn imply strengthened food security,
improved living conditions for less fortunate populations and sustainable economic
development. In this context, the document refers to two fundamental topics:
governance and international cooperation. Governance should take place within a
multilaterally efficient and reinforced system, whilst cooperation should be assured
by an intergovernmental mechanism. Since the document gives prominence to
UNCLOS as the starting point for action, the question arises regarding the most
adequate instruments for interventions designed to tackle issues requiring specific
responses (e.g. the acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels, coastal erosion,
access to markets for Small Island States and coral protection). The main challenges
here are, on the one hand, the choice of means available to the ‘international
community’ (since there is no clear definition of the criteria that should govern
such choice) and, on the other hand, the compatibility of such desiderata with the
11 Cf. Fleischer (1985), pp. 910–911.
12 Document ‘The Future We Want’ (Document A/CONF.216/L.1.). Cf. the Chapter ‘Oceans and
seas’.
114
F. C. Cardoso
with the rights and duties set out in the relevant provisions of UNCLOS (Articles
61 to 64, 66 and 116 to 120). Furthermore, Articles 6 (6.12) and 7 (7.1.3) of the Code
provide clear guidance in this sense, when establishing that States must cooperate
through international organizations and implement responsible practices, taking into
account the need to adopt measures applicable to marine resources in all geographical areas where they are present and that such measures must be compatible within
the limits of national jurisdiction and beyond. Article 6 of the Code underlines the
importance of international cooperation in the case of transboundary and straddling
stocks, through the appropriate organizations or the approval of international agreements or arrangements. However, adequate responses to these issues depend largely
on technical capacity, the available legal frameworks and the general nature of the
fishing sector in coastal States. In fact, one has to recognize that the adoption of such
measures shows the prominence of State practice despite the action of international
organizations in this context.
11 We assume that the effective application of the Code
depends on action that must take place at two levels: firstly, active participation in
international organizations and multilateral negotiations designed to adopt and
implement general legal frameworks and, secondly, the adoption of adequate
national measures.
In future years, one might expect to see developments in some of the binding
instruments or ‘soft law’, but this will mainly be the result of State action and formal
international organizations, which are the privileged actors of UNCLOS. In any
event, it is foreseeable that growing importance will be given to instruments of
voluntary application. Here it is worth highlighting some aspects of the document
issued by the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20).
12
The formal document of the conference appeals for integrated and sustainable
management of our natural resources and ecosystems in order to ensure the viability
of fisheries and aquaculture, which in turn imply strengthened food security,
improved living conditions for less fortunate populations and sustainable economic
development. In this context, the document refers to two fundamental topics:
governance and international cooperation. Governance should take place within a
multilaterally efficient and reinforced system, whilst cooperation should be assured
by an intergovernmental mechanism. Since the document gives prominence to
UNCLOS as the starting point for action, the question arises regarding the most
adequate instruments for interventions designed to tackle issues requiring specific
responses (e.g. the acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels, coastal erosion,
access to markets for Small Island States and coral protection). The main challenges
here are, on the one hand, the choice of means available to the ‘international
community’ (since there is no clear definition of the criteria that should govern
such choice) and, on the other hand, the compatibility of such desiderata with the
11 Cf. Fleischer (1985), pp. 910–911.
12 Document ‘The Future We Want’ (Document A/CONF.216/L.1.). Cf. the Chapter ‘Oceans and
seas’.
114
F. C. Cardoso