interests.
4 The terms “region” and “regional” include “subregion” and “subregional,” and not only mean a group of States that are geographically close but
also a group of States that share certain common interests.
2 CMFS and the PPME Under the UNCLOS
in International Courts and Tribunals
Before examining the activities of universal and regional organizations, it may be
worthwhile to sum up the phenomena of the overlapping of matters concerning
CMFS and those concerning the PPME in the precedents of international courts and
tribunals.
In the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases, the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS) stated that “the conservation of the living resources of the sea is an
element in the protection and preservation of the marine environment.”
5 The ITLOS
confirmed this view in its advisory opinion in the SRFC case
6 and stated its findings
that the duty to cooperate in the prevention of pollution of the marine environment
under Part XII of the UNCLOS and general international law in its Order in the Mox
Plant case “extends also to cases of alleged IUU fishing activities”.
7
The dispute in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration essentially reflects
the overlap of these matters. In its fourth submission, Mauritius argued the compatibility of the designation of Marine Protected Area (MPA) by the United Kingdom
with the provisions in the UNCLOS.
8 Both Parties raised the arguments based on the
provisions relating to fishing activities and the PPME. Regarding the jurisdiction of
the Arbitral Tribunal, the Parties referred the interpretation of Article 297(1)
(c) setting out the compulsory jurisdiction to the dispute concerning the PPME
and Article 297(3)(a), excluding the compulsory jurisdiction in the disputes
concerning fishery resources. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction
only regarding the fourth submission of Mauritius, in which Mauritius argued the
compatibility of the Marine Protected Area established by the United Kingdom with
the UNCLOS. In the context of the arguments on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
while Mauritius based the jurisdiction in accordance with Article 297(1)
(c) regarding the dispute concerning the protection of the marine environment, the
4 Schermers and Blokker (2018), pp. 33–51; Sands et al. (2009), pp. 15–16. The author draws
insights from Boisson-Chazournes (2010).
5 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order
of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 295, para. 70.
6 Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Commission, Advisory Opinion,
2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, p. 37, para. 120.
7 Id., p. 43, para. 140.
8 Mauritius’ made four submissions and the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction only to the fourth one.
Chagos Marine Protected Area (Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland), Arbitral Award of 18 March 2015, paras. 323.
2 Implementation of the Rules of the UNCLOS Through Universal and Regional. . .
11
4 The terms “region” and “regional” include “subregion” and “subregional,” and not only mean a group of States that are geographically close but
also a group of States that share certain common interests.
2 CMFS and the PPME Under the UNCLOS
in International Courts and Tribunals
Before examining the activities of universal and regional organizations, it may be
worthwhile to sum up the phenomena of the overlapping of matters concerning
CMFS and those concerning the PPME in the precedents of international courts and
tribunals.
In the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases, the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS) stated that “the conservation of the living resources of the sea is an
element in the protection and preservation of the marine environment.”
5 The ITLOS
confirmed this view in its advisory opinion in the SRFC case
6 and stated its findings
that the duty to cooperate in the prevention of pollution of the marine environment
under Part XII of the UNCLOS and general international law in its Order in the Mox
Plant case “extends also to cases of alleged IUU fishing activities”.
7
The dispute in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration essentially reflects
the overlap of these matters. In its fourth submission, Mauritius argued the compatibility of the designation of Marine Protected Area (MPA) by the United Kingdom
with the provisions in the UNCLOS.
8 Both Parties raised the arguments based on the
provisions relating to fishing activities and the PPME. Regarding the jurisdiction of
the Arbitral Tribunal, the Parties referred the interpretation of Article 297(1)
(c) setting out the compulsory jurisdiction to the dispute concerning the PPME
and Article 297(3)(a), excluding the compulsory jurisdiction in the disputes
concerning fishery resources. The Arbitral Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction
only regarding the fourth submission of Mauritius, in which Mauritius argued the
compatibility of the Marine Protected Area established by the United Kingdom with
the UNCLOS. In the context of the arguments on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
while Mauritius based the jurisdiction in accordance with Article 297(1)
(c) regarding the dispute concerning the protection of the marine environment, the
4 Schermers and Blokker (2018), pp. 33–51; Sands et al. (2009), pp. 15–16. The author draws
insights from Boisson-Chazournes (2010).
5 Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan), Provisional Measures, Order
of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 295, para. 70.
6 Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Commission, Advisory Opinion,
2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, p. 37, para. 120.
7 Id., p. 43, para. 140.
8 Mauritius’ made four submissions and the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction only to the fourth one.
Chagos Marine Protected Area (Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland), Arbitral Award of 18 March 2015, paras. 323.
2 Implementation of the Rules of the UNCLOS Through Universal and Regional. . .
11