9.5
Scenario 4: The Formation of an International Marine
Mammal Commission
In this scenario I briefly summarise and present the idea that Cameron Jefferies put
forward in his excellent treatise Marine Mammal Conservation and the Law of the
Sea.
2 In his book, Jefferies puts great effort into the idea of an International Marine
Mammal Commission (IMMC). As the legal basis for this idea serve articles 65 and
120 of the UNCLOS since they require states to cooperate on the management and
conservation of marine mammals, both in EEZs as well as in the high seas (see Sect.
4.2.3). The underlying idea, of course, is that the current legal framework for marine
mammal conservation is not sufficient and that it is in need of reform. The justification for this assessment lies in three characteristics: the framework is too fragmented;
it is insufficient in terms of species coverage and threat inclusion; and it is outdated
since modern principles of conservation are not included.
Yet before we enter into the discussion, let me briefly outline why I think, it is
unlikely that the world will see an international treaty on seals and sealing. Throughout the book I hope I have demonstrated that there is a key difference between
whaling and sealing regimes: contrary to whaling, sealing occurs in areas closer to
land (if not even on land) and is therefore subject to national regulation. In the past,
regional regimes existed, but in those areas in which sealing is still actively being
conducted, this occurs in the sovereign territories of nation states. In the Antarctic,
sealing is regulated by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.
Therefore, there is no need to further advance the idea of a sealing treaty for the
Antarctic. Moreover, trade in seal products has already declined significantly due to
the collapse of international markets. Economically, the seal hunt does therefore not
play such an important role anymore which would warrant the conclusion of a
specific sealing treaty.
Enters the proposal put forward by Cameron Jefferies. In light of the current
situation, he proposes the formation of a new treaty, a UN Marine Mammal
Agreement. The main purpose of this new regime would be the rational management
and long-term conservation of marine mammals worldwide. However, the International Marine Mammal Commission, which would be established under this regime,
would have dual competencies: on the one hand, it would have primary power to
take decisions over marine mammal conservation and utilisation on the high seas; on
the other, it would require the consent of the coastal state to make regulatory
decisions over its EEZs.
With this approval, the IMMC would be able to implement management advice
from its Scientific Committee. These decisions would all be taken by consensus.
While states would be able to express their dissatisfaction with specific decisions,
Jefferies’ point of departure is that there would not be a formal way of objecting to a
decision or to lodge official reservations. A special role that would fall onto the
Scientific Committee would be able to propose the establishment of marine protected
2 Jefferies (2016).
194
9 The Future of International Marine Mammal Law
Scenario 4: The Formation of an International Marine
Mammal Commission
In this scenario I briefly summarise and present the idea that Cameron Jefferies put
forward in his excellent treatise Marine Mammal Conservation and the Law of the
Sea.
2 In his book, Jefferies puts great effort into the idea of an International Marine
Mammal Commission (IMMC). As the legal basis for this idea serve articles 65 and
120 of the UNCLOS since they require states to cooperate on the management and
conservation of marine mammals, both in EEZs as well as in the high seas (see Sect.
4.2.3). The underlying idea, of course, is that the current legal framework for marine
mammal conservation is not sufficient and that it is in need of reform. The justification for this assessment lies in three characteristics: the framework is too fragmented;
it is insufficient in terms of species coverage and threat inclusion; and it is outdated
since modern principles of conservation are not included.
Yet before we enter into the discussion, let me briefly outline why I think, it is
unlikely that the world will see an international treaty on seals and sealing. Throughout the book I hope I have demonstrated that there is a key difference between
whaling and sealing regimes: contrary to whaling, sealing occurs in areas closer to
land (if not even on land) and is therefore subject to national regulation. In the past,
regional regimes existed, but in those areas in which sealing is still actively being
conducted, this occurs in the sovereign territories of nation states. In the Antarctic,
sealing is regulated by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.
Therefore, there is no need to further advance the idea of a sealing treaty for the
Antarctic. Moreover, trade in seal products has already declined significantly due to
the collapse of international markets. Economically, the seal hunt does therefore not
play such an important role anymore which would warrant the conclusion of a
specific sealing treaty.
Enters the proposal put forward by Cameron Jefferies. In light of the current
situation, he proposes the formation of a new treaty, a UN Marine Mammal
Agreement. The main purpose of this new regime would be the rational management
and long-term conservation of marine mammals worldwide. However, the International Marine Mammal Commission, which would be established under this regime,
would have dual competencies: on the one hand, it would have primary power to
take decisions over marine mammal conservation and utilisation on the high seas; on
the other, it would require the consent of the coastal state to make regulatory
decisions over its EEZs.
With this approval, the IMMC would be able to implement management advice
from its Scientific Committee. These decisions would all be taken by consensus.
While states would be able to express their dissatisfaction with specific decisions,
Jefferies’ point of departure is that there would not be a formal way of objecting to a
decision or to lodge official reservations. A special role that would fall onto the
Scientific Committee would be able to propose the establishment of marine protected
2 Jefferies (2016).
194
9 The Future of International Marine Mammal Law