geographic scope of its provisions. It was therefore not necessarily the species of seal
that was to be protected, or managed, but rather the seal species at a given location.
Another prominent example in this regard is the Schedule to the ICRW. Leaving
aside the moratorium for a minute, the original idea of the Schedule contained
geographic limitations for specific species. This means that the overall population
of either one species of whales or either the super-family of cetaceans has been
subdivided into different stocks that can be found within certain geographic
boundaries. Depending on the species these are further subdivided into stocks that
can, or cannot, sustain a certain degree of exploitation. Based on this, the
amendments to the Schedule over the years have applied different criteria for
exploitation on different stocks.
The idea of geographic limitations has furthermore been advanced in the case of
whale sanctuaries. The establishment of whale sanctuaries is an effective tool of
advancing the conservationist agenda of the International Whaling Commission.
While the term ‘sanctuary’ implies that whales are free from pursuit, this does not
mean that whales are free from other dangers. In other words, whale sanctuaries are
merely attempts to limit—or prohibit—the hunt for whales in a specific area. This
limitation, however, does not include dangers related to pollution, noise pollution,
ship strikes or habitat degradation. The imposition of a zero catch quota for specific
regions is consequently merely a very limited attempt to ensure the protection of
whales, either for a specific region or in the world. As we have discussed in Sect. 4.4,
whale sanctuaries can therefore not be considered marine protected areas in the
strictest sense. I would consequently argue that marine protected areas that take into
account a diverse threat-landscape within a given location, including ways and
means to include human use of the marine environment, can be considered marine
mammal sanctuaries. After all, by developing comprehensive strategies to protect
the marine and coastal environment, for instance through coastal zoning which
clearly denotes where vessels can operate and where they can’t, also marine
mammals are positively affected.
Geographic limitations, especially concerning bi- or multilateral environmental
agreements, are, by definition, a necessity that take into consideration different
sovereign territories of nation states. A regional agreement between two states can
therefore not be applicable to a third state that has not signed or ratified an agreement
(i.e. the pacta tertiis principle). The CMS has taken special measures to address this
issue in the form of its Agreements and the different MoUs. Range states of a certain
species that have neither become party to the convention itself nor to an Agreement
are still considered in the organisational set up of the respective instrument. Contrary
to the notion of whale sanctuaries, the limitations of which are artificially and
politically determined, the limitations under the CMS and its agreements correspond
to the limits determined by ecological parameters. The comprehensive approach of
the CMS is inherently species-based, but is not limited to merely political boundaries
or to the eradication of one particular threat. The OSPAR regime, on the other hand,
is a regime which is also limited in its geographical scope and which also pays regard
to marine mammals. While this consideration is also done on a species basis, it
considers them as part of the overall marine environment in the North Atlantic. It
176
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law
that was to be protected, or managed, but rather the seal species at a given location.
Another prominent example in this regard is the Schedule to the ICRW. Leaving
aside the moratorium for a minute, the original idea of the Schedule contained
geographic limitations for specific species. This means that the overall population
of either one species of whales or either the super-family of cetaceans has been
subdivided into different stocks that can be found within certain geographic
boundaries. Depending on the species these are further subdivided into stocks that
can, or cannot, sustain a certain degree of exploitation. Based on this, the
amendments to the Schedule over the years have applied different criteria for
exploitation on different stocks.
The idea of geographic limitations has furthermore been advanced in the case of
whale sanctuaries. The establishment of whale sanctuaries is an effective tool of
advancing the conservationist agenda of the International Whaling Commission.
While the term ‘sanctuary’ implies that whales are free from pursuit, this does not
mean that whales are free from other dangers. In other words, whale sanctuaries are
merely attempts to limit—or prohibit—the hunt for whales in a specific area. This
limitation, however, does not include dangers related to pollution, noise pollution,
ship strikes or habitat degradation. The imposition of a zero catch quota for specific
regions is consequently merely a very limited attempt to ensure the protection of
whales, either for a specific region or in the world. As we have discussed in Sect. 4.4,
whale sanctuaries can therefore not be considered marine protected areas in the
strictest sense. I would consequently argue that marine protected areas that take into
account a diverse threat-landscape within a given location, including ways and
means to include human use of the marine environment, can be considered marine
mammal sanctuaries. After all, by developing comprehensive strategies to protect
the marine and coastal environment, for instance through coastal zoning which
clearly denotes where vessels can operate and where they can’t, also marine
mammals are positively affected.
Geographic limitations, especially concerning bi- or multilateral environmental
agreements, are, by definition, a necessity that take into consideration different
sovereign territories of nation states. A regional agreement between two states can
therefore not be applicable to a third state that has not signed or ratified an agreement
(i.e. the pacta tertiis principle). The CMS has taken special measures to address this
issue in the form of its Agreements and the different MoUs. Range states of a certain
species that have neither become party to the convention itself nor to an Agreement
are still considered in the organisational set up of the respective instrument. Contrary
to the notion of whale sanctuaries, the limitations of which are artificially and
politically determined, the limitations under the CMS and its agreements correspond
to the limits determined by ecological parameters. The comprehensive approach of
the CMS is inherently species-based, but is not limited to merely political boundaries
or to the eradication of one particular threat. The OSPAR regime, on the other hand,
is a regime which is also limited in its geographical scope and which also pays regard
to marine mammals. While this consideration is also done on a species basis, it
considers them as part of the overall marine environment in the North Atlantic. It
176
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law