existing specialized mechanisms.
121 It can also be inferred from the discussions of
the PrepCom that Japan preferred using or strengthening existing bodies, including
RFMOs, rather than relying on an overarching global institution.
122 However, if the
ILBI simply recognized the competence of existing regimes rather than solving their
shortcomings, there would still be a lack of global regime in respect of the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ, thus it would make little sense to have such an ILBI. As
maintained by the European Union, there is a need for the ILBI to establish a global
regime in that respect.
123
4.3 Hybrid Model
The hybrid model is a compromise-option between the global model and the
sectoral/regional model. Under this model, the global institution would have, to
some extent (but not fully), the competence to establish an MPA in ABNJ, together
with the existing regimes, which would retain their competence in that matter.
124
Nevertheless, the hybrid model would contribute to ensuring universal participation
of States in the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ and the achievement of cooperation
or coordination between different legal regimes related to such establishment.
Firstly, the global institution under the hybrid model could oversee the decisionmaking process of existing regional/sectoral regimes by requiring States parties to
the ILBI that are also parties to the existing relevant regimes to cooperate within the
existing legal regimes.
125 This would ensure that the existing legal regimes duly
respect the guidance and process developed by the global institution, and contribute
to the promotion of cooperation and coordination for the establishment of MPAs
among relevant competent bodies. Secondly, the decisions made by existing regional
or sectoral mechanisms might be legally binding on all States parties to the ILBI
through the recognition by the global institution.
126 Unlike the global model, there
are less political objections to the hybrid model. Some of the States not favouring the
global model, such as Australia and New Zealand, are in favour of this hybrid
approach and consider this approach as a global mechanism of cooperation and
coordination with relevant regional and sectoral bodies.
127
121 See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16.
122 See DOALOS (2017a), p. 53.
123 Millicay (2018), pp. 167–168; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 38.
124 DOALOS (2017b), para. 241.
125 Id., para. 122.
126 Ibid.
127 IISD (2017), p. 15.
370
C. Blanchard et al.
121 It can also be inferred from the discussions of
the PrepCom that Japan preferred using or strengthening existing bodies, including
RFMOs, rather than relying on an overarching global institution.
122 However, if the
ILBI simply recognized the competence of existing regimes rather than solving their
shortcomings, there would still be a lack of global regime in respect of the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ, thus it would make little sense to have such an ILBI. As
maintained by the European Union, there is a need for the ILBI to establish a global
regime in that respect.
123
4.3 Hybrid Model
The hybrid model is a compromise-option between the global model and the
sectoral/regional model. Under this model, the global institution would have, to
some extent (but not fully), the competence to establish an MPA in ABNJ, together
with the existing regimes, which would retain their competence in that matter.
124
Nevertheless, the hybrid model would contribute to ensuring universal participation
of States in the establishment of MPAs in ABNJ and the achievement of cooperation
or coordination between different legal regimes related to such establishment.
Firstly, the global institution under the hybrid model could oversee the decisionmaking process of existing regional/sectoral regimes by requiring States parties to
the ILBI that are also parties to the existing relevant regimes to cooperate within the
existing legal regimes.
125 This would ensure that the existing legal regimes duly
respect the guidance and process developed by the global institution, and contribute
to the promotion of cooperation and coordination for the establishment of MPAs
among relevant competent bodies. Secondly, the decisions made by existing regional
or sectoral mechanisms might be legally binding on all States parties to the ILBI
through the recognition by the global institution.
126 Unlike the global model, there
are less political objections to the hybrid model. Some of the States not favouring the
global model, such as Australia and New Zealand, are in favour of this hybrid
approach and consider this approach as a global mechanism of cooperation and
coordination with relevant regional and sectoral bodies.
127
121 See IISD (2017), pp. 11–12, 15–16.
122 See DOALOS (2017a), p. 53.
123 Millicay (2018), pp. 167–168; See also DOALOS (2017a), p. 38.
124 DOALOS (2017b), para. 241.
125 Id., para. 122.
126 Ibid.
127 IISD (2017), p. 15.
370
C. Blanchard et al.