Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The Necessity of Indonesia's Measures to Sink Vessels for IUU Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone

  • Dita LILIANSA (a1)

Abstract

Indonesia has been burning or sinking foreign vessels in its efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in its exclusive economic zone. Opinions on how much longer this measure should continue are manifold. While political issues may easily mask the situation, the underlying legal question remains: whether burning or sinking foreign vessels is a legal and necessary enforcement measure for Indonesia. Even though Article 73(1) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not make any reference to this type of measure, it allows coastal states to take measures that are “necessary to ensure compliance with their laws and regulations”. This paper examines the meaning of the term “necessary” within the ambit of Article 73(1) to evaluate whether Indonesia's measure to burn or sink foreign vessels is necessary.

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All
*

Research Associate, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore. The author would like to express her utmost gratitude to Craig H. Allen, Wouter G. Werner, Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Alex O. Elferink, and anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on earlier drafts. Any remaining errors are solely attributable to the author.

Footnotes

References

Hide All

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals”, online: FAO <http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/I9540EN.pdf>.

2. Mas A. SANTOSA, “Indonesia's Multi-door Approach in Combating Fisheries Crime: The Fight against Fisheries and Associated Crimes in Indonesia”, online: Fishcrime <http://fishcrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Presentation_Mas-Achmad-Santosa.pdf>. The figure came from a study by Arif Satria, advisor for Indonesia's Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, for a one-year period between 2013 and 2014.

3. Ibid.

4. “Susi Akui RI Pernah Rugi Rp 2,000 T Akibat Illegal Fishing” CNBC Indonesia (26 June 2018), online: CNBC Indonesia <https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20180626075822-4-20458/susi-akui-ri-pernah-rugi-rp-2000-t-akibat-illegal-fishing>.

5. Law No. 45 of 2009 on the Amendment of the Law No. 31 of 2004 on Fisheries [Law 45/2009], art. 69(1).

6. Ibid., art. 76A.

7. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (entered into force 16 November 1994) [UNCLOS], art. 73(1) (emphasis added).

8. See Nadirah H. RODZI, “Malaysia Turns Up the Heat, Sets Foreign Boat Ablaze for Illegal Fishing” The Straits Times (30 August 2017), online: The Straits Times <http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/malaysia-turns-up-the-heat-sets-foreign-boats-ablaze-for-illegal-fishing>.

9. See The M/V Virginia G (No. 19) (Panama v. Guinea-Bissau), Case No. 19, Judgment of April 14, 2014, [The M/V Virginia G], Dissenting Opinion Judge Ndiaye, 14 ITLOS Rep. 1 at para. 205.

10. See Brian WILSON, “Human Rights and Maritime Law Enforcement” (2016) 52 Stanford Journal of International Law 243.

11. Ibid.

12. Prior to the M/V Virginia G case, one of the articles that provide an immense discussion on art. 73(1) of UNCLOS concludes that even though art. 73(1) contains a non-exhaustive list of a coastal state's enforcement measures, such measures must provide access to prompt release actions and domestic recourse. See BLAKELY, Laurence, “The End of the Viarsa Saga and the Legality of Australia's Vessel Forfeiture Penalty for Illegal Fishing in Its Exclusive Economic Zone” (2008) 17 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 677.

13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing” (23 June 2001), online: FAO <http://www.fao.org/3/a-y1224e.pdf>.

14. Illegal fishing is defined as fishing activities that are conducted without a coastal state's permission, or in violation of a coastal state's law, or any regional or international regulation related to fisheries conservation and management. Unreported fishing, on the other hand, is related to how the catch is documented and reported to the relevant authority. Unregulated fishing refers to fishing activities for which there is an absence of applicable conservation or management measures, either because they are conducted by stateless vessels in the area beyond national jurisdiction or by vessels of a non-party to the RFMO. Ibid.

15. THEILEN, Jens T., “What's in a Name? The Illegality of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing” (2013) 28 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 533 at 543, 546.

16. Minister of Marine and Fisheries’ Regulation No. Kep.50/MEN/2012 on National Plan of Action to Prevent and to Combat IUU Fishing 2012–2016.

17. Presidential Regulation No. 115 of 2015 on Task Force to Combat Illegal Fishing.

18. David G. ROSE, “‘China Calls It Fishing, Indonesia Calls It Crime’: Pudjiastuti Finds Her Target for Oceans Summit” South China Morning Post (18 October 2018), online: South China Morning Post <https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2169153/china-calls-it-fishing-indonesia-calls-it-crime-pudjiastuti>.

19. Law No. 31 of 2004 on Fisheries, as amended by Law 45/2009 [Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009], art. 103.

20. Memorandum of Understanding Between Chief Supreme Court, Minister of Law and Human Rights, Attorney General, Chief National Police No. 131/KMA/SKB/X/2012, M.HH-07.HM.03.02, KEP-06/E/EJP/10/2012, B/39/X/2012 of 2012 on the Implementation of The Limits of Petty Crimes and The Total Fines, Prompt Investigation, and Implementation of Restorative Justice, art. 1(1).

21. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, art. 35A.

22. Ibid., art. 41(3).

23. See Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, arts. 104, 105; Law 45/2009, supra note 5, arts. 66C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 83A, and commentary, art. 73.

24. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, art. 71; Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, art. 106. Indonesia has designated five Fisheries Courts in North Jakarta, Medan, Pontianak, Bitung, and Tual to adjudicate fisheries crimes. Crimes occurring outside the territory of these courts remain tried in the respective District Courts.

25. See Decision of High Court of Jayapura No. 70./Pid.Sus-Prk/2015/PT JAP (Indonesia v. Guo Yunping); Decision of High Court of Pekanbaru No. 46/Pid.Sus/2016/PT PBR (Indonesia v. Huynh Duy Phu).

26. Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries’ Regulation No. 56/PERMEN-KP/2014 on Fishing Moratorium in Indonesia's Fishing Zones [Minister's Regulation 56/2014], art. 1(2). In addition to the moratorium, the Minister also issued a ban on transhipment and the use of unsustainable fishing gear. See Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries’ Regulation No. 2 of 2015 on the Prohibition of Trawls and Seine Nets in Indonesia's Fisheries Management Zone.

27. Minister's Regulation 56/2014, art. 3.

28. Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries’ Regulation No. 10 of 2015 on the Amendment of Minister of Marine and Fisheries’ Regulation No. 56/PERMEN-KP/2014 on Fishing Moratorium in Indonesia's Fishing Zones, art. 3.

29. Santosa, supra note 2.

30. Ibid.

31. Yunus HUSEIN, “Indonesia's Approach in Tackling Fisheries Crime: Strategy on Combating IUU Fishing and Post Moratorium Policies Plan” (12 October 2015), online: Fishcrime <http://www.fishcrime.info/assets/Uploads/Yunus-Husein-Indonesian-Approach-To-Tackling-Fisheries-Crime.pdf>.

32. The list of the blacklisted vessels is spelled out in the Letters of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Number B-195/SJ/11/2016 and B-755/SJ/VI/2016 which were issued on 11 February 2016 and 16 June 2016, respectively. The letters also identify eighty-one persons and entities that do not make the list, meaning, they have never received administrative sanctions, are not being investigated, and still have tolerable level of compliance to Indonesian fisheries laws and regulations. The country of origin of the blacklisted vessels varies: Australia, Belize, China, Honduras, Japan, Panama, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, and the US.

33. See Presidential Regulation No. 44 of 2016 on the List of Business Fields Closed and Opened with Conditions to Investment at 29.

34. Indonesia's fisheries management zone includes Indonesian waters, Indonesia's EEZ, and freshwater areas such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, swamps, or other potential fishing zones in Indonesia. See Law No. 31 of 2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, art. 5(1).

35. “Hari Kemerdekaan, Pemerintah Tenggelamkan 125 Kapal Pelaku Illegal Fishing” (21 August 2018), online: Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Republik Indonesia <https://kkp.go.id/artikel/5714-hari-kemerdekaan-pemerintah-tenggelamkan-125-kapal-pelaku-illegal-fishing>.

36. Ibid.

37. UNCLOS, supra note 7, art. 56(1).

38. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9 at para. 211.

39. UNCLOS, supra note 7, art. 73(1).

40. Virginia Commentaries refer to the seven-volume commentary to UNCLOS, prepared by Myron Nordquist and others under the auspices of the University of Virginia Center for Oceans Law and Policy. ITLOS has acknowledged the commentaries as the “most authoritative” source on the Convention. See The M/V Saiga (St. Vincent & Grenadines v. Guinea), ITLOS Case No. 2, Order of 1 July 1999, at 38.

41. Arts. 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are the heart of the formulation for treaty interpretation; the ICJ has recognized both norms to bear the status of a customary international law. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980) [VCLT]; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, I.C.J., at 645.

42. The M/V Virginia G (No. 19) (Panama v. Guinea-Bissau), Case No. 19, Judgment of April 14, 2014, 14 ITLOS Rep. 1, Memorial of the Republic of Panama [Memorial of the Republic of Panama], at 55.

43. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9 at 58.

44. Ibid., at 61–2.

45. Ibid., at 63.

46. Ibid., at 64.

47. Ibid., at 66, 68, 69.

48. Ibid., at 70.

49. Ibid., at 73.

50. Ibid., at 76.

51. Ibid., at 79.

52. Ibid., at 82.

53. Ibid., at 161.

54. Ibid., at 250.

55. Ibid., at 251–3.

56. Ibid., at 253.

57. See The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ndiaye, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jesus, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Servulo Correia, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Hoffmann and Judges Marotta Rangel, Chandrasekhara Rao, James L. Kateka, Zhiguo Gao, and Boualem Bouguetaia.

58. DORR, Oliver and SCHMALENBACH, Kirsten, eds. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (New York: Springer, 2012) at 542.

59. Ibid.

60. GARNER, Bryan A., ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed. (St Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters, 2014).

61. Oxford Dictionary Online, online: Oxford Dictionaries <https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/>.

62. See Korea–Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, Appellate Body Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/R (11 December 2000) [Korea–Various Measures on Beef, Appellate Body Report]; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 I.L.M. 1153 (entered into force 1 January 1995) [GATT 1994].

63. Korea–Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, Panel Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/R (31 July 2000) [Korea–Various Measures on Beef, Panel Report] at para. 659.

64. Ibid., at paras. 660–4.

65. Ibid., at para. 666.

66. Ibid., at paras. 674–6.

67. Korea–Various Measures on Beef, Appellate Body Report, supra note 62 at para. 22.

68. Ibid., at para. 23.

69. Ibid., at para. 25.

70. Ibid., at paras. 55, 63, 73.

71. Ibid., at para. 56.

72. Ibid., at para. 160.

73. Ibid., at para. 161.

74. Ibid.

75. Ibid., at para. 164.

76. Ibid., at para. 170.

77. Ibid., at para. 173. By asking South Korea to demonstrate that there were no reasonably available alternative measures which are consistent with WTO rules, the Panel thus followed the standard in United States–Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Panel Report WTO Doc. L/6439-36S/345 (adopted 7 November 1989), at para. 5.26.

78. Korea–Various Measures on Beef, Appellate Body Report, supra note 62 at paras. 174, 179, 182.

79. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik.

80. Ibid., at para. 9.

81. Korea–Various Measures on Beef, Appellate Body Report, supra note 62 at para. 163.

82. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik at para. 25 (emphasis added).

83. Ibid., at para. 7.

84. Ibid., at para. 10.

85. Ibid., at para. 11.

86. Ibid., at para. 15.

87. Ibid.

88. Necessity refers to extraordinary situations where the only means by which a state can protect an essential interest of its own is by suspending its performance of an international obligation. See Article 25 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibilities of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 31; UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1; Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 3 August 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility], art. 25.

89. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik, at para. 18.

90. Ibid.

91. Ibid., at paras. 19–20.

92. Dorr and Schmalenbach, supra note 58.

93. For instance, within Part V of UNCLOS, the term “necessary” also occurs in arts. 60(4) and 63(1), in addition to art. 73(1). In art. 60(4), the term “necessary” comes within the purpose of establishing safety zones around artificial islands, installations, and structures which fall under the coastal state's jurisdiction, whereas in art. 63(1), the term “necessary” arises out of the context of conservation of species occurring within the EEZ of two or more coastal states.

94. The Juno Trader Case (Prompt Release) (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea-Bissau), Case No. 13, Judgment of 18 December 2004 [The Juno Trader Case] at para. 77.

95. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik at para. 23.

96. Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jesus at para. 15.

97. Ibid., at para. 16.

98. See ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Jesus at para. 17, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ndiaye at 290, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Servulo Correia at para. 20.

99. Cambridge Dictionary Online, online: Cambridge Dictionary <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/>.

100. Oxford Dictionary Online, supra note 61.

101. NORDQUIST, Myron H., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary, Vol. II (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) at 794.

102. HARRISON, James, “Safeguards against Excessive Enforcement Measures in the Exclusive Economic Zone–Law and Practice” in RINGBOM, Henrik, ed., Jurisdiction over Ships: Post-UNCLOS Developments in the Law of the Sea (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015), at 221.

103. UNCLOS, supra note 7, art. 73(2).

104. JONAS, David S. and SAUNDERS, Thomas N., “The Object and Purpose of a Treaty: Three Interpretive Methods” (2010) 43 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 565 at 578.

105. UNCLOS, supra note 7, preamble.

106. DREMLIUGA, Roman, “A Note on the Application of Article 234 of the Law of the Sea Convention in Light of Climate Change: Views from Russia” (2017) 48 Ocean Development and International Law 128 at 130.

107. UNCLOS, supra note 7.

108. Ibid., art. 73(1).

109. The Monte Confurco (Prompt Release) (Seychelles v. France), Judgment of 18 December 2000, at para. 70.

110. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik at para. 24.

111. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9 at para. 253.

112. Ibid., at para. 268.

113. Harrison, supra note 102 at 244.

114. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Dissenting Opinion of Vice President Hoffman and Judges Marotta Rangel, Chandrasekhara Rao, James L. Kateka, Zhiguo Gao, and Boualem Bouguetaia. at paras. 54–5.

115. Ibid., Separate Opinion of Judge Paik at para. 29.

116. Korea–Various Measures on Beef, Appellate Body Report, supra note 62 at para. 162 (emphasis added).

117. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik at para. 36.

118. Harrison, supra note 102 at 244.

119. The M/V Virginia G, supra note 9, Separate Opinion of Judge Paik at paras. 31–3.

120. The International Law Commission has codified the concept of “state of necessity” in art. 25 of the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility. A state seeking to invoke the necessity defence must meet several conditions: (1) the state's “essential interest” must have been threatened by a “grave and imminent peril”; (2) the act must be the “only means” to safeguard that essential interest; and (3) the state must not have “contributed to the occurrence of the state of necessity”. See Article 25 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibilities of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, supra note 88; Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, supra note 88.

121. HARRISON, James, “Article 73: Enforcement of Laws and Regulations of the Coastal State” in PROELSS, Alexander, ed., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2017), at 558.

122. GOODMAN, Camille, “Striking the Right Balance? Applying the Jurisprudence of International Tribunals to Coastal State Innovations in International Fisheries Governance” (2017) 84 Marine Policy 293 at 298.

123. See Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, arts. 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99; Law 45/2009, supra note 5, arts. 85, 93, 94A, 98.

124. See Supreme Court Decision No. 1355 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Dao Van Tuan); Supreme Court Decision No. 131 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Nguyen Phan Sy); Supreme Court Decision No. 168 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Nguyen Van Be); Supreme Court Decision No. 170 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Le Van Vuong); Supreme Court Decision No. 174 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Bui Han Hanh); Supreme Court Decision No. 618 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Tran Ngoc Quang); Decision of High Court of Pekanbaru No. 46/Pid.Sus/2016/PT PBR (Indonesia v. Huynh Duy Phu); Decision of District Court of Medan No. 2/Pid.Sus.PRK/2016/PN MDN (Indonesia v. Khin Maung Win); Decision of High Court of Langsa No. 79/Pid.Sus/2016/PN LGS (Indonesia v. Montree Sama-Ae); Decision of High Court of Jayapura No. 70./Pid.Sus-Prk/2015/PT JAP (Indonesia v. Guo Yunping); Supreme Court Decision No. 2563 K/Pid.Sus/2015 (Indonesia v. Chen Xiangqi); Decision of District Court of Tanjungpinang No. 23/Pid.Sus.Prkn/2015/PN.TPg (Indonesia v. Dang Ngoc Quy).

125. See High Seas Task Force, Closing the Net: Stopping Illegal Fishing on the High Seas, Governments of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand, and the UK, WWF, IUCN, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University (Bellegarde: Sadag, 2006) at 34.

126. The Volga Case (Prompt Release) (Russia v. Australia), Case No. 11, Order of 23 December 2002, 42 I.L.M. 159 at para. 34.

127. Ibid., at paras. 75, 88.

128. Interview with the District Court of Ranai (author's personal communication, 2016).

129. Under Indonesian law, confinement/jail or pidana kurungan only lasts for a minimum of one day and maximum of one year but can be extended up to one year and four months. See Penal Code of Indonesia, arts. 18(1), 18(3).

130. Penal Code of Indonesia, art. 30(2).

131. The exact wording of art. 102 of the Law 31/2004 (as amended) is pidana penjara or “imprisonment” which, under Indonesia's criminal law, can last for a lifetime. See Penal Code of Indonesia, art. 12.

132. Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, art. 102.

133. See Supreme Court Decision No. 471 K/Pid.Sus/2013 (Indonesia v. Nguyen Van Hai); Supreme Court Decision No. 168 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Nguyen Van Be); Supreme Court Decision No. 99 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Duong Van Tien); Supreme Court Decision No. 170 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Le Van Vuong); Supreme Court Decision No. 131 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Nguyen Phan Sy); Supreme Court Decision No. 618 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Tran Ngoc Quang); Supreme Court Decision No. 1355 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Dao Van Tuan).

134. The Court used the term “substitute punishment” and “subsidiary punishment” interchangeably. See Supreme Court Decision No. 174 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Bui Han Hanh) at 11, 12; Supreme Court Decision No. 608 K/Pid.Sus/2013 (Indonesia v. Tran Van Se) at 7, 12, 13, 16.

135. Supreme Court Decision No. 174 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Bui Han Hanh) at 12.

136. Ibid., at 13.

137. The Natuna Islands consist of about 272 islands that are located in the South China Sea, off the northwest coast of Borneo. Natuna is bordering Vietnam and Cambodia in the north, Singapore in the west, and Malaysia in the east. See “Natuna Archipelago”, online: Indonesia Tourism <http://www.indonesia-tourism.com/riau-archipelago/natuna.html>.

138. Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, art. 104(2).

139. Ibid., commentary, art. 104(2).

140. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, arts. 76A, 76C(1).

141. Ibid., art. 76A.

142. Supreme Court's Directive No. 1 of 2015 on the evidence in the form of vessel in fisheries cases [Supreme Court's Directive 1/2015], at para. b.

143. Ibid., at para. c.

144. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, art. 76C(1).

145. Ibid., art. 76C(5).

146. Interview with the MMAF Civil Servant Investigator of Ranai (author's personal communication, 2016).

147. Interview with the MMAF Civil Servant Investigator of Bitung (author's personal communication, 2017).

148. Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Code of Criminal Procedures, art. 45(1).

149. Ibid., art. 45(2).

150. In Dao Van Tuan and in Nguyen Van Be, the vessels were sold at auction for IDR 8.910.000 (approximately US$650) and IDR 48m (approximately US$3,400), respectively. See Supreme Court Decision No. 1355 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Dao Van Tuan) and Supreme Court Decision No. 168 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Nguyen Van Be).

151. Interview with the District Court of Ranai, supra note 128.

152. In Dao Van Tuan, the Supreme Court considered Tuan's prior and prolonged acts of illegal fishing. The Court specifically stated that Tuan had been illegally fishing in Indonesia's EEZ for “a long period” and “dozens of times”. See Supreme Court Decision No. 1355 K/Pid.Sus/2014 (Indonesia v. Dao Van Tuan) at 14.

153. “Menteri Susi Kecewa Kapal Asing yang Disita Malah Dilelang” CNN Indonesia, (5 January 2015), online: CNN Indonesia <http://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20150105163430-92-22497/menteri-susi-kecewa-kapal-asing-yang-disita-malah-dilelang/>.

154. Decision of High Court of Pekanbaru No. 46/Pid.Sus/2016/PT PBR (Indonesia v. Huynh Duy Phu).

155. Decision of High Court of Jayapura No. 70./Pid.Sus-Prk/2015/PT JAP (Indonesia v. Guo Yunping).

156. UNCLOS, supra note 7, arts. 58(1), (2).

157. Ibid., art. 58(2).

158. Ibid., art. 73(3).

159. See LINDPERE, Heiki, “Prompt Release of Detained Foreign Vessels and Crews in Matters of Marine Environment Protection” (2005) 33 International Journal of Legal Information 240 at 240–1.

160. UNCLOS, supra note 7, art. 292(1).

161. Ibid., art. 73(4).

162. Ibid., art. 292(1).

163. Ibid., art. 73(2).

164. The Grand Prince Case (Prompt Release) (Belize v. France), Case No. 8, Judgment of 20 April 2001 at para. 61.

165. The Juno Trader Case, supra note 94 at paras. 52, 53, 58.

166. The Tomimaru Case (Prompt Release) (Japan v. Russia), Case No. 15, Judgment of 6 August 2007 [The Tomimaru Case] at para. 59.

167. Ibid., at paras. 72, 75.

168. Ibid., at para. 76. Similarly, in the Juno Trader case, the Tribunal also recognized that humanity and due process of law considerations are pivotal in exercising the duty of prompt release. See The Juno Trader Case, supra note 94 at para. 77.

169. The Tomimaru Case, supra note 166 at para. 78.

170. Ibid., at para. 79.

171. See The Camuoco Case (No. 5) (Panama v. France), Case No. 5, Order of 7 February 2000, 39 I.L.M. 666 [The Camuoco Case] at para. 57.

172. OXMAN, Bernard H., “The ‘Tomimaru’ (Japan v. Russian Federation). Judgment. ITLOS Case No. 15” (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 316 at 321.

173. Law 31/2004 as amended by Law 45/2009, supra note 19, art. 104(1).

174. Ibid.

175. Ibid., commentary, art. 104(1).

176. Interview with the District Court of Ranai, supra note 128.

177. The Camuoco Case, supra note 171 at para. 29.

178. Ibid., at para. 78.

179. High Seas Task Force, supra note 125 at 33.

180. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 3 August 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), art. 25.

181. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, art. 69(3).

182. Ibid., art. 69(4).

183. Ibid., commentary, art. 69(4).

184. Ibid.

185. Ibid.

186. See Supreme Court Decision No. 2563 K/Pid.Sus/2015 (Indonesia v. Chen Xiangqi).

187. Presidential Regulation No. 178 of 2014 on Maritime Security Agency. The current coast guard [Maritime Security Agency] is a modification from a previous institution of a similar function called Maritime Security Coordination Agency which was established in 2005. See Presidential Regulation No. 81 of 2005 on Maritime Security Coordination Agency. Nevertheless, the Indonesian coast guard is only authorized to conduct hot pursuit, stopping, inspecting, arresting, bringing, and delivering a vessel to the relevant authority which has the power to conduct further maritime law enforcement. See Presidential Regulation No. 178 of 2014 on Maritime Security Agency, art. 4, para. 1.

188. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, art. 73(2).

189. Supreme Court's Directive 1/2015 at para. a.

190. Regulation of the Director General of Surveillance for Marine and Fisheries Resources No. 11/Per-DJDSDKP/2014 on the Technical Guidance in Enforcing Special Measure to Foreign Fishing Vessel [Director's Regulation 11/2014], art. 7.

191. Ibid., art. 8(1).

192. Ibid., art. 8(2).

193. Ibid., art. 8(3).

194. Ibid.

195. Ibid., art. 9(2).

196. Ibid., art. 9(1).

197. Ibid., art. 10.

198. Ibid., art. 11.

199. Interview with the MMAF Civil Servant Investigator of Ranai, supra note 146.

200. Law 45/2009, supra note 5, art. 76A.

201. Decision of District Court of Medan No. 2/Pid.Sus.PRK/2016/PN MDN (Indonesia v. Khin Maung Win).

202. “Hari Kemerdekaan, Pemerintah Tenggelamkan 125 Kapal Pelaku Illegal Fishing”, supra note 35; “Lanal Ranai Laksanakan Penenggelaman Kapal Ikan Asing Pelaku Tindak Pidana Illegal Fishing di Perairan Natuna” (22 August 2018), online: KoArmada I <https://koarmada1.tnial.mil.id/BERITA/Beritamiliter/tabid/71/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/8506/Default.aspx>.

203. “Susi Gets Angry Over Illegal Fishing Vessel Auction–Rakyat Merdeka” (6 January 2015) online: Atlas Information Monitors <http://aim-services.co.id/susi-angry-illegal-fishing-vessel-auction-rakyat-merdeka/>.

204. Reniel B. CABRAL et al., “Rapid and Lasting Gains from Solving Illegal Fishing” (2018) 2 Nature Ecology and Evolution 650 at 653.

205. The Tomimaru Case, supra note 166 at para. 78.

206. Even though Indonesia submitted 13,466 names of its islands at the 10th United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names, and an additional 875 islands in 2017, it has claimed that the total number of its islands is 17,504 islands, pending official names to be submitted to the United Nations. See E/Conf.101/119 on the National Report of the Republic of Indonesia, submitted by Indonesia, 30 May 2012; E/Conf.105/86/Crp.86 on the Report of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, submitted by Indonesia, 23 June 2017; E/Conf.105/115/Crp.115 on the Identification of Islands and Standardization of Their Names, submitted by Indonesia, 30 June 2017.

207. See Treaty Relating to the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas of the Two Countries in the Straits of Malacca, Indonesia-Malaysia, 17 March 1970, online: <https://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=MYS-1970-0010.pdf>.

208. See Treaty Relating to the Territorial Seas of the Two Countries in the Strait of Singapore, Indonesia-Singapore, 25 May 1973, online: <https://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=SGP-1973-0007.pdf>; Treaty Relating to the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas of the Two Countries in the Western Part of the Strait of Singapore, Indonesia-Singapore, 10 March 2009, online: <https://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=SGP-2009-0035.pdf>; and Treaty relating to the Delimitation of the Territorial Seas in the Eastern part of the Strait of Singapore, Indonesia-Singapore, 3 September 2014, online: <https://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=SGP-2014-0047.pdf>.

209. See Agreement Concerning Certain Boundaries Between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, Indonesia-Australia, 12 February 1973, online: <https://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=AUS-1973-0010.pdf>.

210. Agreement Concerning Maritime Boundaries Between the Republic of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and Cooperation on Related Matters, Indonesia-Papua New Guinea, 13 December 1980, <http://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=PNG-1980-0003.pdf>, art. 4.

211. Treaty Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries, Indonesia-Australia, 14 March 1997.

212. Agreement Concerning the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary, Indonesia-Philippines, 23 May 2014.

213. Agreement Concerning the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Boundary, Indonesia-Vietnam, 26 June 2003, online: <http://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=VNM-2003-0021.pdf>.

214. “Vietnamese Coast Guard Prevented Indonesia from Arresting Poachers” The Straits Times (23 May 2017), online: The Straits Times <https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/vietnamese-coast-guard-prevented-indonesia-from-arresting-poachers>.

215. See Arya DIPA and Agnes ANYA, “Indonesia Slams Vietnam for Disrupting Arrests” The Jakarta Post (27 February 2019), online: The Jakarta Post <https://www.thejakartapost.com/seasia/2019/02/27/ri-slams-vietnam-for-disrupting-arrests.html>; Aloysius UNDITU, “Sinking Captured Fishing Boats is Deterrent, Not Retaliation, Indonesia Says After South China Sea Clash with Vietnam” South China Morning Post (2 May 2019), online: South China Morning Post <https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3008485/sinking-captured-fishing-boats-deterrent-not-retaliation>.

216. Memorandum of Understanding in Respect of the Common Guidelines Concerning Treatment of Fishermen by Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies of Malaysia and the Republic of Indonesia, Indonesia-Malaysia, 27 January 2012, online: <http://treaty.kemlu.go.id/apisearch/pdf?filename=MYS-2011-0127.pdf>, art. 5.

217. Ibid., art. 3.

218. See Decision of District Court of Medan No. 2/Pid.Sus.PRK/2016/PN MDN (Indonesia v. Khin Maung Win) at 18; Directive of the Head of Coordinating Body of Maritime Security No.1/Ketua/Bakorkamla/II/2013 on the Technical Guidance on the Treatment of Fishers by Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies of Indonesia in Unresolved Maritime Boundaries of Indonesia-Malaysia.

219. UNCLOS, supra note 7, art. 74(3).

220. DAVENPORT, Tara, “Southeast Asian Approaches to Maritime Boundaries” (2014) 4 Asian Journal of International Law 309 at 333.

221. Guyana v. Suriname, Award of 17 September 2007, PCA Case No. 2004-04 [Guyana v. Suriname] at para. 465.

222. Ibid., at para. 480.

223. Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (No. 23) (Ghana v. Côte d'Ivoire), Case No. 23, Provisional Measures Order of 25 April 2015 at para. 99.

224. Ibid., at para. 89.

225. Yoshifumi TANAKA, “Article 74: Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone Between States with Opposite or Adjacent Coasts” in Proelss, supra note 121 at 581.

226. Millicent MCCREATH and Zoe SCANLON, “The Dispute Concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire: Implications for the Law of the Sea” (2019) 50 Ocean Development and International Law 1 at 15.

227. Guyana v Suriname, supra note 221 at paras. 202, 274.

228. Ibid., at para. 441.

229. Ibid., at para. 445.

230. Ibid.

231. Irini PAPANICOLOPULU, Enforcement Action in Contested Waters: The Legal Regime, online: International Hydrographic Organization <https://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/ABLOS/ABLOS_Conf6/S7P2-P.pdf>.

232. Patricia Jimenez KWAST, “Maritime Law Enforcement and the Use of Force: Reflections on the Categorisation of Forcible Action at Sea in the Light of the Guyana/Suriname Award” (2008) 13 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 49 at 55, 86.

233. Ibid., at 70.

234. Ibid., at 89.

235. Ibid., at 49.

236. See Khanh LYNH, “Vietnam Opposes Indonesia's Use of Force on Fishers” VN Express International (2 May 2019), online: VN Express International <https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-opposes-indonesia-s-use-of-force-on-fishers-3917475.html>; “China Detains Vietnamese Fishermen in Disputed Water” Reuters (22 March 2012), online: Reuters <https://www.reuters.com/article/china-vietnam/china-detains-vietnamese-fishermen-in-disputed-water-idUSL3E8EM3YJ20120322>.

237. Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Tribunal), Advisory Opinion, ITLOS Case No. 21, 2 April 2015, at para. 138.

238. Ibid., at para. 139.

* Research Associate, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore. The author would like to express her utmost gratitude to Craig H. Allen, Wouter G. Werner, Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Alex O. Elferink, and anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback on earlier drafts. Any remaining errors are solely attributable to the author.

The Necessity of Indonesia's Measures to Sink Vessels for IUU Fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone

  • Dita LILIANSA (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed