The loophole dispute from an Icelandic perspective

unep.ch, 2004

The paper argues that while individually the four classes of responses do not meet the major challenges facing fisheries today, collectively they provide a very comprehensive and elaborate framework. What is required is more effective implementation of these instruments, through among other things the better coordination within and between national, regional and global institutions; efforts towards assisting developing countries, particularly small island developing States and Territories, with implementation through capacity building; improving data and information for improved decision-making. The paper concludes that there are sufficient instruments and tools to address the current major challenges of fisheries management. Effective implementation of the existing instruments, rather than negotiating additional instruments.

Ecology Law Quarterly, 1989

German Law Journal

The invasive but highly profitable snow crab has made its way into the waters of the High Arctic, precipitating a direct confrontation between the EU and Norway over the interpretation of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty. Norway claims the Treaty does not apply due to its strict interpretation of the Treaty's terms, which pertain only to the archipelago's terra firm and territorial sea. The EU claims the Treaty's equal access and non-discrimination provisions follow the evolution of the international law of the sea, and make the living (and mineral) resources of Svalbard's surrounding continental shelf and waters open to all states parties to the Treaty. The dispute has gone on for decades, but this Article maintains, through a review of Norway's increasingly isolated legal and political stance that time is out of joint for Norway and its long-term appropriative design and strategy to territorialize this area of the High North.

The Barents Sea Treaty was signed on 15 September 2010 in Murmansk, bringing almost forty years of negotiations between Norway and Russia to an end. This master thesis undertakes an assessment of its implications for fisheries management in the Barents Sea, including the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard. The main research question is whether the provisions of the Barents Sea Treaty affect the cooperation and conservation obligations of Norway and Russia. Keywords: Barents Sea, fish, Norway, Russia.

Security policy challenges in the high north should be approached both as an insight into the international legal framework on which coexistence in the region rests and as a sober realpolitik analysis. Against this background, the objective of this article is to paint a more balanced picture of security policy options in Norway's Arctic waters, rather than observing contemporary general discourse on the topic might suggest. Management of marine resources, delimitation of unresolved maritime boundaries and relations with Russia in the northern maritime areas are used as examples to substantiate our main thesis which is that dispassionate diplomacy is more likely to resolve disputes than is military confrontation.

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2018

The first part of this article explores the extent to which the European Union (EU) is an actor in the law of the sea. After explaining when, why and how the EU became such an actor, it considers the legal and political constraints on the capacity of the EU to act; the interests that have shaped its role as an actor; and the various means by which it acts. The second part of the paper applies the conclusions from this analysis to outline the role that the EU has so far played in the ongoing development of the legal regime of the marine Arctic and to predict the role that it will continue to play, especially as regards navigation, fisheries, the exploitation of offshore oil and gas, and the protection of the environment.

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2007

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of all matters related to the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea relating to fisheries. An overview of the main provisions of the LOSC on the matter serves as an introduction. The author then expounds on the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction relating to fisheries in great detail while differentiating between its jurisdiction to deal with the substance of fisheries disputes on the one hand and provisional measures as well as prompt release orders on the other hand. He concludes that while the Tribunal theoretically has jurisdiction to deal with fisheries disputes not only arising from the LOSC and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement but also from over 20 other treaties, it has so far rarely been called on to do so. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has made a not insignificant impact on international fisheries law. This becomes obvious in the course of the following analysis of its jurisprudence on these matters. Before turning towards his final remarks, the author considers the prospects for the development of the Tribunal's fisheries jurisprudence. He concludes that it is difficult to predict the extent to which the Tribunal may be asked to resolve fisheries disputes and thus given an opportunity to develop its jurisprudence, but points out both that States have historically been reluctant to refer fisheries disputes to binding third-party settlement and that there are considerable jurisdictional obstacles to the Tribunal hearing fisheries disputes.

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2016

The Port State Measures Agreement aims to influence fishing vessels’ high seas activities, normally under the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag States, by withholding access to parties’ ports to unload catch and resupply. This works inter partes, but many flag States are unlikely to become party to it. The Agreement assumes States may nonetheless exclude foreign vessels from their ports, giving parties leverage to impose conditions derived from it on vessels of non-parties seeking access. But this assumption is valid only if the port State retains its right to exclude; many have bargained it away, in old bilateral treaties or as World Trade Organization members with freedom of transit obligations. The settlement on terms favourable to the European Union of both the Swordfish and Herring disputes, representing the flag State in one and port States in the other, suggests that market power vulnerable to abuse, not jurisdictional authority, may have been the decisive factor.

Routledge eBooks, 2022

The concept of "Baseline" bears special credence in the arena of International law of the Sea. Baselines are considered as the starting point to calculate different maritime zones of coastal states. In this writing i endeavored to explain fundamental aspects of baseline and the relevant UNCLOS 1982 provisions as well as a comprehensive oversight of some baseline related ICJ decisions most importantly the Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case 1951".

Arctic Review, 2014

The Barents Sea contains some of the most valuable fish resources in the world, including the world's largest cod stock. Since the mid-1970s, Norway and the Soviet Union/Russia have managed the most important stocks in the area together, through the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission. During the 1990s, the precautionary approach was adopted as the leading device for global fisheries management, introducing a requirement for additional precaution when scientific evidence is uncertain, as well as a number of practical regulatory measures related to scientific research, regulation and enforcement. Since the late 1990s, the Joint Commission has gradually adopted a number of measures required by the precautionary approach. Russia has never formally introduced the principle in its own fisheries legislation, but by and large employed regulatory measures in line with it. The article presents the major precautionary regulatory measures adopted by the Commission, including precautionary reference points for spawning stocks and fish mortality, a harvest control rule for quota settlement and various enforcement initiatives. A particular focus is on Norwegian-Russian collaboration and how Norway has bargained with Russia for precautionary management measures.

Unlike most western countries, marine fisheries in Iceland and Norway is still of some national significance. For more than two decades now, the two countries have managed their fisheries with complicated quota systems. The main rules of these two systems are explained in the article. However, the main purpose of the article is to describe how harvest rights in the two countries have been allocated since 1990. In both countries the principle of grandfathering the harvest rights has prevailed, i.e., the initial allocation has protected the professional interest of those that have already participated in the fisheries. Despite this, rules on the matter have not been engraved in stone since they have been dynamic and contingent on various amendments by the legislature and government. Basic rules on allocation have been stipulated in acts in Iceland, while in Norway they have mostly been based on regulations. Since harvest rights are transferable in Iceland, this, in principle, should make the harvest rights better protected than in Norway. However, when the matter is scrutinized, it becomes clear that the Icelandic parliament has in fact reallocated harvest rights on a recurrent basis. In Norway, rules on allocation of harvest rights have been relatively stable. This can be partly explained by the fact that the most important stakeholders in the Norwegian fisheries have in practice had important say on how the harvest rights have been allocated.

International Community Law Review

The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 2012

International fisheries governance contains no specific provisions detailing States' rights and obligations in respect of fisheries in maritime zones classified as falling under the sovereignty of coastal States, namely: internal waters, archipelagic waters and territorial seas. Using a case-study of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, this article demonstrates that there is still a gap in international fisheries governance relating to fisheries in 'waters under sovereignty' which requires remedying, and concludes by providing some possible management options to fill the gap.