is decimating whale populations that also occur in US waters, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act allows for a certification to Congress, which in turn enables the Secretary of
Commerce or the Interior to initiate the process under the Pelly Amendment.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Packwood Magnuson Amendment of 1979 is noteworthy. The amendment considers
a reduction of 50% of a foreign country’s fishing rights in US waters if it is in direct
violation of the ICRW. The Secretary of Commerce certifies a country under this
amendment.
So far, the US has not factually gone through with the imposing of trade barriers
based on the certification under the Pelly or the Packwood Magnuson Amendment.
But a certification corresponds rather to a yellow card in football, imposing pressure
onto other states to change their behaviour. It is not a red card in the sense as the US
would sanction other states. After all, since whaling states, such as Japan or Iceland,
are close partners in many different areas of cooperation, trade sanctions would
cause disruptions in the US-led free trade agenda. However, the existence of these
amendments and the possibility of certification under both is likely to have
contributed to Japan having withdrawn its objection to the moratorium.
5.4
Other International Instruments and Bodies
As we have seen in Chap. 4, the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals
(CMS) constitutes an important international instrument relevant for the protection
of whales. Since the CMS is a framework convention that sets standards for the
protection of migratory species, it is up to its parties to enter into agreements that
more precisely apply the convention’s provisions. To recapitulate, two mechanisms
are possible in this regard: first, the conclusion of new, legally-binding agreements
that enact the CMS for particular species and/or regions; second, the entering into
Memoranda of Understanding, which are legally non-binding agreements, but
essentially policy alignments and closer cooperation on a specific conservation
matter between those states having entered into an MoU.
One agreement and one MoU have been concluded that serve as conservation
tools for whales. One is the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the
Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS),
20
which was concluded in 1996 and entered into force in 2001. The ACCOBAMS is
similar to its sister, the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the
Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), see below, but differs in so far as it
encompasses all cetaceans and not just small cetaceans. However, the main purpose
of the ACCOBAMS is to achieve or maintain a favourable conservation status of all
cetacean species and to prevent the deliberate taking of cetaceans. Moreover, the
20 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous
Atlantic area.
5.4 Other International Instruments and Bodies
111
Act allows for a certification to Congress, which in turn enables the Secretary of
Commerce or the Interior to initiate the process under the Pelly Amendment.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the
Packwood Magnuson Amendment of 1979 is noteworthy. The amendment considers
a reduction of 50% of a foreign country’s fishing rights in US waters if it is in direct
violation of the ICRW. The Secretary of Commerce certifies a country under this
amendment.
So far, the US has not factually gone through with the imposing of trade barriers
based on the certification under the Pelly or the Packwood Magnuson Amendment.
But a certification corresponds rather to a yellow card in football, imposing pressure
onto other states to change their behaviour. It is not a red card in the sense as the US
would sanction other states. After all, since whaling states, such as Japan or Iceland,
are close partners in many different areas of cooperation, trade sanctions would
cause disruptions in the US-led free trade agenda. However, the existence of these
amendments and the possibility of certification under both is likely to have
contributed to Japan having withdrawn its objection to the moratorium.
5.4
Other International Instruments and Bodies
As we have seen in Chap. 4, the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals
(CMS) constitutes an important international instrument relevant for the protection
of whales. Since the CMS is a framework convention that sets standards for the
protection of migratory species, it is up to its parties to enter into agreements that
more precisely apply the convention’s provisions. To recapitulate, two mechanisms
are possible in this regard: first, the conclusion of new, legally-binding agreements
that enact the CMS for particular species and/or regions; second, the entering into
Memoranda of Understanding, which are legally non-binding agreements, but
essentially policy alignments and closer cooperation on a specific conservation
matter between those states having entered into an MoU.
One agreement and one MoU have been concluded that serve as conservation
tools for whales. One is the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the
Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area (ACCOBAMS),
20
which was concluded in 1996 and entered into force in 2001. The ACCOBAMS is
similar to its sister, the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the
Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), see below, but differs in so far as it
encompasses all cetaceans and not just small cetaceans. However, the main purpose
of the ACCOBAMS is to achieve or maintain a favourable conservation status of all
cetacean species and to prevent the deliberate taking of cetaceans. Moreover, the
20 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous
Atlantic area.
5.4 Other International Instruments and Bodies
111