36
S. Sakamoto
On 11 December 2019, the 199th Session of the Diet passed an amendment bill
which seeks to provide State support for promoting technologies related to catching
and processing whales in an effort to wean commercial whaling off public subsidies.
The aim of this amendment bill as lawmaker-initiated legislation is apparently in
recognition to the fisheries industry, which fears possible reductions in the State
funding it is allocated.
2.6 Conclusion
As the foundation of the maritime order, UNCLOS has taken the approach of dividing
the oceans into discrete zones to determine the rights and obligations of coastal States
and other States vis-à-vis those waters. It has also created separate regulatory regimes
governing navigation, fishing, maritime resource development, marine conservation,
and scientific research. In international waters, enforcement of regulations follows
the flag state doctrine. Yet UNCLOS itself affirms the need for unified regulation in its
preamble, which states that “the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and
need to be considered as a whole.” It was the inability of regional fishery authorities
to control illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing on the high seas that led
to the conclusion of the Agreement on Port State Measures in 2009, which expanded
port State jurisdiction over foreign vessels engaged in illegal fishing. Here we witness
a further attempt to unify international marine regulation through a coordinated effort
to keep IUU fishing off the market.
On 19 June 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (69/292) on the
“development of an international legally binding instrument under the UNCLOS on
the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond
national jurisdiction.”
62 It calls for international negotiations to address, together
and as a whole, marine genetic resources, including the sharing of benefits; areabased management tools, including marine protected areas; environmental impact
assessments; and capacity building and transfer of marine technology. Thus, the UN
campaign began to put together an international agreement on marine biological
diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction, (BBNJ). This effort began with the
formation of a preparatory committee, which met on four occasions between March
2016 and July 2017.
In the ‘non-paper on elements of a draft text’ issued at the final meeting of the
preparatory committee, the committee chair offered an extensive compilation of
ideas, proposals, and options for a new agreement, including a host of matters on
which the delegations had failed to reach consensus. For example, with respect to the
scope of the instrument, there was disagreement as to whether it should encompass
just the seabed beyond national jurisdiction or both the seabed and high seas, and
whether it should apply only to in situ marine genetic resources (MGRs) (in their
original habitat) or also to ex situ resources (such as genetic material stored in gene
62 A/RES/69/292, pp. 1–3.
S. Sakamoto
On 11 December 2019, the 199th Session of the Diet passed an amendment bill
which seeks to provide State support for promoting technologies related to catching
and processing whales in an effort to wean commercial whaling off public subsidies.
The aim of this amendment bill as lawmaker-initiated legislation is apparently in
recognition to the fisheries industry, which fears possible reductions in the State
funding it is allocated.
2.6 Conclusion
As the foundation of the maritime order, UNCLOS has taken the approach of dividing
the oceans into discrete zones to determine the rights and obligations of coastal States
and other States vis-à-vis those waters. It has also created separate regulatory regimes
governing navigation, fishing, maritime resource development, marine conservation,
and scientific research. In international waters, enforcement of regulations follows
the flag state doctrine. Yet UNCLOS itself affirms the need for unified regulation in its
preamble, which states that “the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and
need to be considered as a whole.” It was the inability of regional fishery authorities
to control illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing on the high seas that led
to the conclusion of the Agreement on Port State Measures in 2009, which expanded
port State jurisdiction over foreign vessels engaged in illegal fishing. Here we witness
a further attempt to unify international marine regulation through a coordinated effort
to keep IUU fishing off the market.
On 19 June 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (69/292) on the
“development of an international legally binding instrument under the UNCLOS on
the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond
national jurisdiction.”
62 It calls for international negotiations to address, together
and as a whole, marine genetic resources, including the sharing of benefits; areabased management tools, including marine protected areas; environmental impact
assessments; and capacity building and transfer of marine technology. Thus, the UN
campaign began to put together an international agreement on marine biological
diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction, (BBNJ). This effort began with the
formation of a preparatory committee, which met on four occasions between March
2016 and July 2017.
In the ‘non-paper on elements of a draft text’ issued at the final meeting of the
preparatory committee, the committee chair offered an extensive compilation of
ideas, proposals, and options for a new agreement, including a host of matters on
which the delegations had failed to reach consensus. For example, with respect to the
scope of the instrument, there was disagreement as to whether it should encompass
just the seabed beyond national jurisdiction or both the seabed and high seas, and
whether it should apply only to in situ marine genetic resources (MGRs) (in their
original habitat) or also to ex situ resources (such as genetic material stored in gene
62 A/RES/69/292, pp. 1–3.