marine protected areas; access to genetic marine resources and repartition of these
resources; the impact of certain infrastructures in the marine environment; capacity
building and transfer of technology.
24 On genetic resources, the issue of relevance
pertains to the definition of fisheries resources and the place of these resources within
the scope of the future instrument.
25
Another issue that should be brought to our attention is the action of RFMOs.
These organizations play a significant role in maritime spaces relevant to the
exploitation of marine living resources, mainly the high seas. Over time, they have
developed management rules that go beyond mere recommendations or advice. They
have also influenced the behaviour of non-contracting parties to multilateral binding
instruments. One can identify a number of competences of a scientific, technical and
institutional nature that have been attributed to them, namely coordination of
scientific activities, the fixing of total admissible catches and fishing effort, the
adoption of proposals of regulation and rules on protected species, minimum sizes,
fishing gear and fishing seasons, the definition of mechanisms of control and
surveillance, the exchange of information and the promotion of peaceful settlement
of disputes.
26 We must underline that UNCLOS explicitly appeals to the action of
international organizations.
27 As a previous consideration, it is not foreseeable, in
our view, that the regime of rights and duties in operation on the high seas is likely to
be affected by such an action. In any case, attention should be paid to the role of
formal international organizations in the future, since the growing complexity of
resource conservation and management justifies greater interplay between these
organizations and the States. The challenges ahead pertain to the relationship
between the specialized production of rules by international organizations and the
legal instruments adopted by the States. In this context, it is worth recalling that it is
the internal legal system of the States that must foresee the control and sanctioning
regime
28 and give effect to the general duty of cooperation. Taking into account the
competences generally recognized as being those of international organizations in
the field of conservation and management of fisheries resources (production of rules,
enforcement, recommendations on standards), it has proved crucial that they be
given the appropriate means with which to perform their duties under political,
financial and technically adequate conditions. The possible redefinition of the
functions of international organizations in various fields (fisheries, biodiversity,
pollution, targeted management of certain resources) and the setting up of more
24 For an overview of the general context of the negotiation, Cf. Tladi (2015), pp. 259–271.
25 For further developments regarding the different maritime spaces, Cf. Kalinoe (2005),
pp. 100–113; Nunes (2011), pp. 259–283; Kirchner-Freis and Kirchner (2014), pp. 377–395.
26 Cf. Gómez (2002), Sydnes (2005), pp. 117–135; Losa (2009), pp. 159–183.
27 In this context, we should specially mention Part V (Exclusive Economic Zone) and Part VIII
(High Seas) of the Convention. Under the provisions included in Part XII (Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment) and Part XIII (Marine Scientific Research), obligations of
cooperation have also been established. Cf. Arts 239, 242 to 244, 246 to 249, 252 and
254, UNCLOS.
28 For a global view on control, Cf. Palma-Robles (2016), pp. 139–160.
6 Considerations on Some Global Institutional Challenges Within the Context of. . .
117
resources; the impact of certain infrastructures in the marine environment; capacity
building and transfer of technology.
24 On genetic resources, the issue of relevance
pertains to the definition of fisheries resources and the place of these resources within
the scope of the future instrument.
25
Another issue that should be brought to our attention is the action of RFMOs.
These organizations play a significant role in maritime spaces relevant to the
exploitation of marine living resources, mainly the high seas. Over time, they have
developed management rules that go beyond mere recommendations or advice. They
have also influenced the behaviour of non-contracting parties to multilateral binding
instruments. One can identify a number of competences of a scientific, technical and
institutional nature that have been attributed to them, namely coordination of
scientific activities, the fixing of total admissible catches and fishing effort, the
adoption of proposals of regulation and rules on protected species, minimum sizes,
fishing gear and fishing seasons, the definition of mechanisms of control and
surveillance, the exchange of information and the promotion of peaceful settlement
of disputes.
26 We must underline that UNCLOS explicitly appeals to the action of
international organizations.
27 As a previous consideration, it is not foreseeable, in
our view, that the regime of rights and duties in operation on the high seas is likely to
be affected by such an action. In any case, attention should be paid to the role of
formal international organizations in the future, since the growing complexity of
resource conservation and management justifies greater interplay between these
organizations and the States. The challenges ahead pertain to the relationship
between the specialized production of rules by international organizations and the
legal instruments adopted by the States. In this context, it is worth recalling that it is
the internal legal system of the States that must foresee the control and sanctioning
regime
28 and give effect to the general duty of cooperation. Taking into account the
competences generally recognized as being those of international organizations in
the field of conservation and management of fisheries resources (production of rules,
enforcement, recommendations on standards), it has proved crucial that they be
given the appropriate means with which to perform their duties under political,
financial and technically adequate conditions. The possible redefinition of the
functions of international organizations in various fields (fisheries, biodiversity,
pollution, targeted management of certain resources) and the setting up of more
24 For an overview of the general context of the negotiation, Cf. Tladi (2015), pp. 259–271.
25 For further developments regarding the different maritime spaces, Cf. Kalinoe (2005),
pp. 100–113; Nunes (2011), pp. 259–283; Kirchner-Freis and Kirchner (2014), pp. 377–395.
26 Cf. Gómez (2002), Sydnes (2005), pp. 117–135; Losa (2009), pp. 159–183.
27 In this context, we should specially mention Part V (Exclusive Economic Zone) and Part VIII
(High Seas) of the Convention. Under the provisions included in Part XII (Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment) and Part XIII (Marine Scientific Research), obligations of
cooperation have also been established. Cf. Arts 239, 242 to 244, 246 to 249, 252 and
254, UNCLOS.
28 For a global view on control, Cf. Palma-Robles (2016), pp. 139–160.
6 Considerations on Some Global Institutional Challenges Within the Context of. . .
117