Open Access
Changes in the migration routes of shared fish stocks and the case of the Mackerel war : confronting the cooperation maze
Loading...
Files
2015_Vatsov_LLM.pdf (1021.86 KB)
Embargoed until 2019
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Florence : European University Institute, 2015
EUI; LAW; LLM Thesis
Cite
VATSOV, Mihail, Changes in the migration routes of shared fish stocks and the case of the Mackerel war : confronting the cooperation maze, Florence : European University Institute, 2015, EUI, LAW, LLM Thesis - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/39044
Abstract
The aim of this thesis was to examine the effects of changes in the migration routes (CMRs) of shared (transboundary and straddling) fish stocks on the cooperative conservation and management efforts of States. The CMR phenomenon, while not completely novel, appears to be intensifying in recent years with climate change playing an important role. Examining it is important because CMRs represent changes in factual circumstances with considerable legal effects that are largely unexplored in the legal literature. The thesis examined how States must cooperate in a CMR situation and what are the consequences should they fail to do so. In doing this, the thesis used the Mackerel dispute as case study because it is a recent and comprehensive CMR dispute, fittingly exemplifying a wide range of the legal issues that CMRs can create. The analysis focused, first, on the application of the duty to cooperate in CMR cases and, second, on the consequences of unsuccessful cooperation. In the application discussion, three common threads of CMRs were discerned, involving changes in the (1) nature of the stock, (2) States involved in the fishery, or (3) zonal attachment of the stock. The impact of these changes was found to range from distorting legitimate fishing interests and equitable arrangements to changing the applicable law. Furthermore, two perspectives were identified, under which States must cooperatively address CMRs. Under the voluntarist perspective, States may ignore a CMR if they so agree. Under the conservationist perspective, however, such discretion was found to be lacking when the viability of a stock is threatened. In analysing the consequences of unsuccessful cooperation, the thesis focused on three issues – pre-CMR agreements, dispute settlement and self-help measures. It was found that CMRs can be a basis for the termination of international agreements and that, while existing dispute settlement mechanisms may provide some answers for CMR-related issues, the sweeping jurisdictional limitations for fisheries cases can provoke retaliation and counter-measures instead of further cooperation. These findings show that CMRs can have tremendous legal implications and, due to their specificities, need to be examined in detail and separately from other conservation and management issues. Furthermore, States and scholars alike must be very attentive to CMRs in the future for the issues they can create.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Award date: 12 November 2015
Supervisor: Prof Dr Marise Cremona, EUI
Supervisor: Prof Dr Marise Cremona, EUI