Agreement on Measures for Regulating the Catch and Conserving Stocks of Seals in
the Northeastern Part of the Atlantic Ocean.
14
Fundamentally, the agreement mirrored the approach of the Bering Sea Interim
Convention: on the one hand it strongly fostered the sustainable use of seals; on the
other it focused on a scientific approach concerning management advice. This means
that the overall objective of the agreement was maintaining of seal populations to
ensure a maximum sustainable catch as well as the extension of scientific research in
order to determine the condition of seal stocks in the agreement area. However,
while the Bering Sea regime focused merely on Northern fur seals, the NorwegianSoviet sealing agreement took into account three seal species: the Greenland (harp)
seal (Phoca groenlandica/Pagophilus groenlandicus), the hooded seal (Cystophora
cristata) and the walrus (Odobaenus rosmarus). The agreement was designed in a
way to be able to also include the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) and the ringed
seal (Phoca hispida). Most interestingly, however, the agreement was potentially
also expandable to include the polar bear. Whether this has ever occurred remains in
the realm of speculation. The agreement is therefore not a regime that is solely
concerned with seals, but takes a wider approach to ice-dependent marine mammals.
The agreement area was clearly defined in the Annex, spanning from the
Greenland Sea and Denmark Strait to the Barents Sea. In order to set specific hunt
limits, a commission was established, which consisted of three member of each party
and which was responsible for providing management advice to the parties, to
submit proposals for further research and to oversee the implementation of
regulations concerning seal hunts.
The commission was therefore the ‘heart and soul’ of the agreement and the
crucial element in its implementation. The decision-making power rested nevertheless still with the nation states. After all, the commission provided merely advice to
governments and did not hold decision-making power on its own. The national
government was therefore able not to follow the advice of the commission and to
pursue its own agenda. In how far this would undermine the entire raison d’être of
the agreement is, of course, a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, the national
governments were therefore also the entities that the agreement entitled to issue
sealing licences irrespective of the management regulations that were taken based on
the commission’s advice.
As in the Bering Sea Convention, these licences applied to seal hunts for scientific
research as well as seal hunts conducted by the local (indigenous) population. The
parentheses around the term indigenous are quite significant. The licensing
provisions were outlined in Article IX of the agreement. In the authentic texts—in
Norwegian and Russian—the term ‘indigenous’ does not occur, but instead the
Norwegian term ‘stedlige’ and the Russian term ‘коренно’ were used to describe
the population in question. The former is rather translated into ‘resident’ and the
latter into ‘native’ or ‘aboriginal’. In the French translation the term ‘autochtone
14 Agreement on Measures for Regulating the Catch and Conserving Stocks of Seals in the
Northeastern Part of the Atlantic Ocean, 22 November 1957 (1958 UNTS 280).
6.4 The Second Half of the Twentieth Century
139
the Northeastern Part of the Atlantic Ocean.
14
Fundamentally, the agreement mirrored the approach of the Bering Sea Interim
Convention: on the one hand it strongly fostered the sustainable use of seals; on the
other it focused on a scientific approach concerning management advice. This means
that the overall objective of the agreement was maintaining of seal populations to
ensure a maximum sustainable catch as well as the extension of scientific research in
order to determine the condition of seal stocks in the agreement area. However,
while the Bering Sea regime focused merely on Northern fur seals, the NorwegianSoviet sealing agreement took into account three seal species: the Greenland (harp)
seal (Phoca groenlandica/Pagophilus groenlandicus), the hooded seal (Cystophora
cristata) and the walrus (Odobaenus rosmarus). The agreement was designed in a
way to be able to also include the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) and the ringed
seal (Phoca hispida). Most interestingly, however, the agreement was potentially
also expandable to include the polar bear. Whether this has ever occurred remains in
the realm of speculation. The agreement is therefore not a regime that is solely
concerned with seals, but takes a wider approach to ice-dependent marine mammals.
The agreement area was clearly defined in the Annex, spanning from the
Greenland Sea and Denmark Strait to the Barents Sea. In order to set specific hunt
limits, a commission was established, which consisted of three member of each party
and which was responsible for providing management advice to the parties, to
submit proposals for further research and to oversee the implementation of
regulations concerning seal hunts.
The commission was therefore the ‘heart and soul’ of the agreement and the
crucial element in its implementation. The decision-making power rested nevertheless still with the nation states. After all, the commission provided merely advice to
governments and did not hold decision-making power on its own. The national
government was therefore able not to follow the advice of the commission and to
pursue its own agenda. In how far this would undermine the entire raison d’être of
the agreement is, of course, a matter of speculation. Nevertheless, the national
governments were therefore also the entities that the agreement entitled to issue
sealing licences irrespective of the management regulations that were taken based on
the commission’s advice.
As in the Bering Sea Convention, these licences applied to seal hunts for scientific
research as well as seal hunts conducted by the local (indigenous) population. The
parentheses around the term indigenous are quite significant. The licensing
provisions were outlined in Article IX of the agreement. In the authentic texts—in
Norwegian and Russian—the term ‘indigenous’ does not occur, but instead the
Norwegian term ‘stedlige’ and the Russian term ‘коренно’ were used to describe
the population in question. The former is rather translated into ‘resident’ and the
latter into ‘native’ or ‘aboriginal’. In the French translation the term ‘autochtone
14 Agreement on Measures for Regulating the Catch and Conserving Stocks of Seals in the
Northeastern Part of the Atlantic Ocean, 22 November 1957 (1958 UNTS 280).
6.4 The Second Half of the Twentieth Century
139