Established in 1946 through the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is mandated to regulate
whaling activities. In this regard, a moratorium on commercial whaling has been in
place since the 1980s with the objective of improving fish stocks. Nevertheless, it is
arguable that the regime has transformed from treating whales as a resource in the
1940s into considering them as living creatures with intrinsic value.
56 Another
related regime is the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 and the London Protocol 1996 (LC/LP).
These regime has been focusing specifically on the issue of dumping at sea (or ocean
dumping), with particular attention to industrial wastes. The governing bodies to the
LC/LP regularly review the types and amounts of permitted dumping, as well as
addresses emerging themes such as ocean fertilization.
57
Moving on to biodiversity, the overarching treaty governing this subject is the
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD). In the context of the marine
environment, as the human population largely relies on fish stocks for food, the
health of the marine environment and its ecosystems is critical to ensure continuous
supply to meet this demand. The decisions adopted by the Conference of Parties has
a bearing on member States, particularly through the establishments of Ecologically
or Biologically Significant Marine Area (EBSAs). The CBD, through Article 22, further requires member States to ‘implement the CBD consistently with the rights and
obligations of States under the law of the sea’. As such, measures taken under the
CBD regime has some levels of implication to other regimes that operate with
specific mandates pertaining to the marine environment.
58
As a whole, this sub-section has identified the extensive impact that
non-UNCLOS and non-UN related agencies have on shaping the law of the sea
and influencing marine environmental protection measures. It is important to recall
that these actors operate within the same sphere as UNCLOS organizations and UN
agencies do. Given the multiplicity of international organizations and regimes that
operate in this specific area of governance, issues pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction, gaps in governance, as well as the adoption of conflicting or inconsistent
measures would inevitably arise. The following section addresses these concerns.
3 The Fragmentation Quagmire: Institutional Interactions,
Coordination and Cooperation
Due to the high number of institutional frameworks that consider differing issues
surrounding the protection of the marine environment within their remit, the concern
of fragmentation inevitably arises. Essentially, the concern is that there are overlaps
56 Gillespie (2005).
57 Sielen (2009).
58 Boyle (2005).
3 International Organizations and the Protection of the Marine Environment
49
Whaling, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is mandated to regulate
whaling activities. In this regard, a moratorium on commercial whaling has been in
place since the 1980s with the objective of improving fish stocks. Nevertheless, it is
arguable that the regime has transformed from treating whales as a resource in the
1940s into considering them as living creatures with intrinsic value.
56 Another
related regime is the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 and the London Protocol 1996 (LC/LP).
These regime has been focusing specifically on the issue of dumping at sea (or ocean
dumping), with particular attention to industrial wastes. The governing bodies to the
LC/LP regularly review the types and amounts of permitted dumping, as well as
addresses emerging themes such as ocean fertilization.
57
Moving on to biodiversity, the overarching treaty governing this subject is the
Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 (CBD). In the context of the marine
environment, as the human population largely relies on fish stocks for food, the
health of the marine environment and its ecosystems is critical to ensure continuous
supply to meet this demand. The decisions adopted by the Conference of Parties has
a bearing on member States, particularly through the establishments of Ecologically
or Biologically Significant Marine Area (EBSAs). The CBD, through Article 22, further requires member States to ‘implement the CBD consistently with the rights and
obligations of States under the law of the sea’. As such, measures taken under the
CBD regime has some levels of implication to other regimes that operate with
specific mandates pertaining to the marine environment.
58
As a whole, this sub-section has identified the extensive impact that
non-UNCLOS and non-UN related agencies have on shaping the law of the sea
and influencing marine environmental protection measures. It is important to recall
that these actors operate within the same sphere as UNCLOS organizations and UN
agencies do. Given the multiplicity of international organizations and regimes that
operate in this specific area of governance, issues pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction, gaps in governance, as well as the adoption of conflicting or inconsistent
measures would inevitably arise. The following section addresses these concerns.
3 The Fragmentation Quagmire: Institutional Interactions,
Coordination and Cooperation
Due to the high number of institutional frameworks that consider differing issues
surrounding the protection of the marine environment within their remit, the concern
of fragmentation inevitably arises. Essentially, the concern is that there are overlaps
56 Gillespie (2005).
57 Sielen (2009).
58 Boyle (2005).
3 International Organizations and the Protection of the Marine Environment
49