Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:07:51.764Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE LAW-MAKING EFFECTS OF THE FAO DEEP-SEA FISHERIES GUIDELINES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2018

Lene Korseberg
Lene Korseberg*
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, Department of Law, European University Institute, lene.korseberg@eui.eu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The second half of the twentieth century saw major improvements in the legal regime for fisheries management. This notwithstanding, the deep seas remain largely unregulated under international law, until recently only being covered by the general environmental and management provisions found in UNCLOS. In light of this regulatory gap, this article evaluates the potential law-making effects, if any, of the FAO Deep-Sea Fisheries Guidelines, a voluntary instrument designed to provide States with a regulatory framework for the management of their deep-sea fisheries. It considers how the Guidelines may inform, interpret and influence the content of the general high-sea obligations in UNCLOS. Despite the vagueness and generality of those provisions, some indication of their substantive content has been given in recent decisions, particularly the South China Sea Arbitration. By assessing their compatibility, and their level of acceptance by the international community, this article argues that the FAO Deep-Sea Guidelines are beginning to have a law-making effect by providing an authoritative interpretation of the general high-sea obligations found in UNCLOS relating to deep-sea fisheries.

Keywords

public international lawenvironmental lawenvironmental managementfisheries managementGAIRSlaw of the sealegal interpretationsoft lawUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 801 - 832
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Professor Joanne Scott and the two anonymous reviewers for invaluable feedback on the article, and Professors Elisa Morgera and Alan Boyle for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this text.

References

1 FAO, ‘Deep-Sea Fisheries’ (2016) <http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/4440/en>.

2 FAO, ‘Deep-Sea Ecosystems’ (2016) <http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/166310/en>.

3 ibid.

4 Harrison, J, Making the Law of the Sea: A Study in the Development of International Law (Cambridge University Press 2011) 215CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warner, R, ‘Conserving Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Co-Evolution and Interaction with the Law of the Sea’ in Rothwell, DR et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015)Google Scholar.

5 Gjerde, KM and Freestone, D, ‘Unfinished Business: Deep-Sea Fisheries and the Conservation of Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2004) 19(3) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 209, 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 As elaborated in FAO, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (adopted 31 October 1995) FAO Doc 95/20/Rev/1, Preface; UN, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Report from the Secretary-General, Sixty-ninth session, A/69/71 (21 March 2014) paras 49–59. See also Gjerde and Freestone (n 5) 211; Gjerde, KM, ‘High Sea Fisheries Management’ in Freestone, et al. (eds), Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (Oxford University Press 2006) 288–9Google Scholar.

7 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3, art 56(1)(a).

8 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (adopted 4 August 1995, entered into force 11 December 2001) 2167 UNTS 3.

9 UNFSA (n 8) arts 9–10.

10 Gjerde and Freestone (n 5) 209. The UNGA has passed a resolution calling for the development of a legally binding instrument under the UNCLOS to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in ABNJ. The process is now moving forward to formal international negotiations. However, it is uncertain at this time whether such an instrument, if ever concluded, would include fisheries, as this is one of the more contentious issues in the negotiations, see UNGA Res 69/292 (6 July 2015) UN Doc A/RES/69/292.

11 FAO, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the Committee on Fisheries (7–11 March 2005, 26th Sess), FAO Fisheries Report No 780 (FIPL/R780 (En)) para 86.

12 UNGA Res 61/105 (8 December 2006) UN Doc A/RES/61/105, para 89.

13 FAO, Report of the Technical Consultation on International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas (4–8 February and 25–29 August 2008) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No 881 (FIEP/R881 (Tri)).

14 FAO, International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas (adopted August 2008) <http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0816t/i0816t00.htm> Abstract.

15 UNGA Res 69/245 (29 December 2014) UN Doc A/RES/69/245, Preamble.

16 UNCLOS (n 7) Preamble.

17 A Boyle, ‘Further Development of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: Mechanisms for Change’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 563, 563–4. See also Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 22 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331, art 31(3)(c); C McLachlan, ‘The Principle of Systemic Integration and Art 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 279, 312.

18 Boyle, A and Chinkin, C, The Making of International Law (Oxford University Press 2007) 212Google Scholar; Boyle, A, ‘Soft Law in International Law-Making’ in Evans, MD (ed), International Law (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2018)Google Scholar.

19 VCLT (n 17) art 31(3)(a).

20 ibid art 31(3)(b).

21 ibid art 31(3)(c).

22 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark and The Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 72.

23 van Reenen, W, ‘Rules of Reference in the New Convention on the Law of the Sea, in Particular in Connection with the Pollution of the Sea by Oil from Tankers’ (1982) 12 NYIL 5Google Scholar.

24 An example of the former is seen in relation to shipping standards (UNCLOS (n 7) art 211) whereas the latter is exemplified in the provision on the duties of flag States (UNCLOS (n 7) art 94(3)(b)).

25 Harrison (n 4) 225.

26 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan; New Zealand Intervening) [2014] ICJ Rep 226, paras 137 and 144. This conclusion only applied to those instruments that had been ‘adopted by consensus or by a unanimous vote’, as confirmed in paras 46 and 83.

27 UNCLOS (n 7) art 117. See also P Birnie and A Boyle, International Law and the Environment (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2009) 150.

28 Boyle and Chinkin (n 18) 223. See also Houghton, K, ’Identifying New Pathways for Ocean Governance: The Role of Legal Principles in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2014) 49 Marine Policy 118Google Scholar.

29 Barrett, J, ‘UNCLOS: A ‘‘Living” Treaty?’ in Barrett, J and Barnes, R (eds), Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty (BIICL 2016) 23Google Scholar (emphasis added). See also Contini, P and Sand, P, ‘Methods to Expedite Environmental Protection: International Ecostandards’ (1972) 66 AJIL 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 ibid 20.

31 Whaling in the Antarctic Case (n 26) para 46.

32 As per VCLT (n 17) art 31(3).

33 eg arts 9–10 UNFSA (n 8) specify the obligations imposed upon RFMOs, several of which mirror the equivalent requirements in the Guidelines. In particular, art 10(c) requires the parties to ‘adopt and apply any generally recommended international minimum standards for the responsible conduct of fishing operations’, a provision which is generally understood as referring to soft law instruments as those discussed in this article.

34 Guilfoyle, D, ‘The High Seas’ in Rothwell, et al. , The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015) 206Google Scholar. Although most States currently engaged in DSFs are parties to both treaties, the difference may still be important in cases where non-UNFSA parties open new DSFs or in cases of withdrawal from UNFSA. See Molenaar, EJ, ‘Addressing Regulatory Gaps in High Seas Fisheries’ (2005) 20 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 533, 555CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Boyle and Chinkin (n 18) 223.

36 UN, ‘Fourth Informal Consultations of States Parties to the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks’ (2005) ICSP4/UNFSA/REP/INF.1, Annex V.

37 Takei, Y, Filling Regulatory Gaps in High Seas Fisheries: Discrete High Seas Fish Stocks, Deep-Sea Fisheries and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (BRILL 2014) 107Google Scholar; Molenaar (n 34) 555.

38 Takei (n 37) 4.

39 FAO, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and Deep-Sea Fisheries’ (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2018) <http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/166304/en>.

40 Guidelines (n 14) para 8(i) and (ii).

41 ibid para 11.

42 UNCLOS (n 7) art 86.

43 ibid art 117.

44 As per ibid art 118 and the good-faith requirement set out in art 300. See also S Nandan and S Rosenne (eds), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary. Vol III (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995) para 117.9(b).

45 ibid art 94.

46 Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area (request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber) [2011] ITLOS Rep 10, para 110. As confirmed in Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) [2015] ITLOS No 21, para 129; South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v The People's Republic of China) [2016] (Award of 12 July 2016, given under a Tribunal constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) PCA Case No 2013-19, ICGJ 495, para 944.

47 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep 14, para 197.

48 Fisheries Commission Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 119.

49 See also South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 944: ‘the obligation of a flag State to ensure its fishing vessels not be involved in activities which will undermine a flag State's responsibilities under the Convention’ requires ‘due diligence’, regardless of where the activity took place.

50 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 197; Barnidge, RP Jr, ’The Due Diligence Principle under International Law’ (2006) 8 International Community Law Review 81, 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Seabed Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 117.

52 Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 149. See also French, D, ‘Treaty Interpretation and the Incorporation of Extraneous Legal Rules’ (2006) 55 ICLQ 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 UNCLOS (n 7) art 119(1)(a).

54 As per the Court's statement in the Whaling in the Antarctic case (n 26) paras 137 and 144.

55 In the South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 964, the Tribunal confirmed that the due diligence obligation requires States to adopt ‘appropriate rules and measures’ to address an activity that may cause damage to the marine environment.

56 Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 148. As confirmed in Pulp Mills (n 47) para 223.

57 Guidelines (n 14) para 26.

58 ibid para 21(i). The Guidelines specifically refer to the FAO Code of Conduct (n 6) paras 7.5.2 and 7.5.3, in this regard, and apply the understanding of reference points set out in that instrument.

59 ibid para 21(v).

60 ibid paras 56–57. This is also required by UNCLOS (n 7) art 94(2)(a).

61 ibid paras 21(vi) and 54.

62 UNCLOS (n 7) art 119(1)(a).

63 Nandan and Rosenne (n 44) para 119.7(d).

64 UNCLOS (n 7) art 200.

65 Guidelines (n 14) paras 21(iii), 31–3, 37–9.

66 As argued by Nandan and Rosenne (n 44) para 119.7(d).

67 Seabed Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 131. See also Freestone, D, ‘International Fisheries Law since Rio: The Continued Rise of the Precautionary Principle’ in Boyle, A and Freestone, D (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press 1999)Google Scholar.

68 UNCLOS (n 7) art 1(1): ‘‘‘Area” means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.’

69 Seabed Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 132. The Court did this by referring to Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) (Provisional Measures) [1999] Permanent Court of Arbitration, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol XXIII 1-5777, para 77. This was confirmed in the Fisheries Commission Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 125, where the Tribunal found that, although the relationship between flag States and their vessels and between sponsoring States and contractors ‘is not entirely comparable’, the findings of the Tribunal in the Seabed Advisory Opinion on ‘the meaning of the expression “responsibility to ensure” and the interrelationship between the notions of obligations “of due diligence” and obligations “of conduct”’ still applied.

70 Seabed Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 117.

71 Guidelines (n 14) para 23.

72 Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 734. See also Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) [1997] ICJ Rep 7, paras 67–68.

73 UNCLOS (n 7) art 119(1)(a).

74 Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 590–1.

75 Tanaka, Y, The International Law of the Sea (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2015) 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nelson, D, ‘The Development of the Legal Regime for High Seas Fisheries’ in Boyle, A and Freestone, D (eds), International Law and Sustainable Development (Oxford University Press 1999) 126Google Scholar.

76 See eg. Tanaka (n 75) 236; Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 591.

77 Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 564.

78 ibid 735.

79 FAO Code of Conduct (n 6) art 7.2.1.

80 Guidelines (n 14) para 65.

81 ibid para 65.

82 UNCLOS (n 7) art 119(1)(b).

83 Gjerde and Freestone (n 5) 210.

84 FAO, ‘Deep-Sea Ecosystems’ (n 2).

85 UNCLOS (n 7) art 119(1)(b).

86 Guidelines (n 14) para 75.

87 ibid para 76. The FAO Code of Conduct (n 6) para 6.9, only makes a brief reference to such plans as part of a ‘Coastal Management Plan’. Such plans are also included in the FAO, International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity (adopted February 1999) <http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/X3170E/X3170E00.HTM> paras 19–24. However, here the focus is on national plans of action for managing fishing capacity, not specific fisheries as such.

88 ibid paras 75–76.

89 Goodwin, EJ, ‘Threatened Species and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems’ in Rothwell, et al. , The Oxford Handbook of the Law of the Sea (Oxford University Press 2015) 801Google Scholar.

90 See eg UNGA Res 61/105 (n 12).

91 See eg UN, Oceans and the Law of the Sea. Report of the Secretary-General (22 March 2011, 66th Sess) UN Doc A/66/70.

92 UNCLOS (n 7) art 192.

93 ibid art 194(5).

94 See eg Rosenne, S and Yankov, A (eds), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol IV (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1990)Google Scholar para 192.1.

95 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 941. Also confirmed in MV ‘Lousia’ (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Kingdom of Spain) (Provisional Measures) [2010] ITLOS No 18, para 76; Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and Côte D'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Provisional Measures) [2015] ITLOS No 23, para 69.

96 Southern Bluefin Tuna case (n 69) para 70.

97 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 956. Such reasoning builds on the Court's finding in the Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226, para 29, that States must ‘ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control’. See also Declaration of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (1992) UN Doc A/CONF151/26/Rev 1, Principle 2: ‘States have (…) the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.’

98 As confirmed in Chagos Marine Protected Areas Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom) [2015] Award of 18 March, Permanent Court of Arbitration <http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/MU-UK%2020150318%20Award.pdf> para 320; South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 945.

99 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 959.

100 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 33 June 1992, entered into force 20 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79, art 2.

101 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 945.

102 Guidelines (n 14) para 7.

103 ibid (n 14) paras 42(i)–(v).

104 ibid (n 14) para 42(i) and (iii) respectively.

105 UNCLOS (n 7) art 194(5). See also South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 945.

106 Guidelines (n 14) paras 42(ii) (iv) and (v) respectively.

107 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 959.

108 Guidelines (n 14) para 41 and Annex.

109 In fact, much of the work carried out by RFMOs in relation to rare and fragile ecosystems has been done through the designation of such areas as VMEs. For a further discussion, see section IV.B of this paper.

110 Guidelines (n 14) para 61.

111 ibid para 66.

112 ibid para 63(i–iii).

113 ibid para 71(i).

114 ibid para 71(ii).

115 ibid para 67.

116 ibid para 67.

117 Arbitration Regarding the Iron Rhine (‘Ijzeren Rijn’) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands [2005] Permanent Court of Arbitration, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol XXVII 35–125, para 59. As confirmed in Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v India) (Partial Award) [2014] Award of 18 February, Permanent Court of Arbitration <https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1681> para 451; South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 941.

118 Guidelines (n 14) para 71(iii).

119 Such concerns have been raised in several UN General Assembly resolutions and reports by the UN Secretary-General, see eg UNGA Res 59/25 (17 January 2005) UN Doc A/RES/59/25, para 66 and UN, Oceans and the Law of the Sea (n 91) para 40.

120 UNGA Res 59/25 (n 119) para 66.

121 UNGA Res 44/225 (22 December 1989) UN Doc A/RES/44/225, para 4(a). As confirmed in UNGA Res 45/197 (21 December 1990) UN Doc A/RES/45/197; UNGA Res 46/215 (21 December 1991) UN Doc A/RES/46/215; UNGA Res 59/25 (n 119).

122 For a good discussion on this topic, see Rothwell, DR, ‘The General Assembly Ban on Driftnet Fishing’ in Shelton, D (ed), Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System (Oxford University Press 2000)Google Scholar. Some authors now argue that the moratorium on driftnet fishing has been accepted as forming part of customary international law, see eg Sands, P and Peel, J, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press 2012) 431CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123 Sands and Peel (n 122) 431–2, 439–40.

124 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 960.

125 ibid para 959.

126 ibid para 953.

127 ibid para 960.

128 FAO, ‘Bottom Trawls’ (2016) <http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/205/en>.

129 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 960.

130 ibid para 960.

131 Guidelines (n 14) para 47.

132 UNCLOS (n 7) art 206.

133 Elferink, AGO, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2012) 27 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 449, 450Google Scholar; Craik, N, The International Law of Environmental Impact Assessment (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 98–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

134 Seabed Advisory Opinion (n 47) para 145. The principle is also set out in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (n 97) art 17.

135 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 204: ‘it may now be considered a requirement under general international law to undertake an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity may have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context, in particular, on a shared resource’.

136 Seabed Advisory Opinion (n 46) para 148.

137 Rosenne and Yankov (n 94) para 206.6(a). As confirmed in South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 948.

138 Despite its legal basis, however, the implementation of this requirement is still highly uneven across the various RFMOs. See section IV.B and Elferink (n 133).

139 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 204; confirmed in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) [2015] ICJ Rep 150, para 153.

140 UNCLOS (n 7) art 206.

141 FAO, Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas: Ensuring Sustainable Use of Marine Resources and the Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (2009) <http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i1064e/i1064e00.htm>.

142 See eg Gjerde and Freestone (n 5); Sands and Peel (n 122) 431–3, 440.

143 FAO, Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas (n 141) 7.

144 Guidelines (n 14) paras 47(ii–vii).

145 ibid para 17.

146 ibid para 18.

147 ibid paras 51–52.

148 UNCLOS (n 7) arts 205, 206.

149 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 948.

150 UNCLOS (n 7) art 119(1)(a).

151 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 205. As confirmed in the Border Activities Case (n 139) para 104.

152 As confirmed in the South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 948.

153 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 205.

154 ibid para 197.

155 Guidelines (n 14) paras 47(i)–(ii).

156 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 211: The ICJ could not ‘fail to note that any decision on the actual location of such a plant along the River Uruguay should take into account the capacity of the waters of the river to receive, dilute and disperse discharges of effluent from a plant of this nature and scale’.

157 ibid para 210.

158 Guidelines (n 14) para 47(iii).

159 UNCLOS (n 7) art 194(5).

160 Guidelines (n 14) para 47(iv).

161 ibid para 47(v).

162 ibid para 47(vi). ’Significant Adverse Impacts’ are defined in para 17 of the Guidelines as ‘those that compromise ecosystem integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) in a manner that: (i) impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves; (ii) degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats; or (iii) causes, on more than a temporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types’.

163 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 205.

164 As defined in the Guidelines (n 14) para 18.

165 ibid para 47(v).

166 ibid para 47(ii).

167 ibid para 47(vii).

168 South China Sea Arbitration (n 46) para 944.

169 Birnie and Boyle (n 27) 172–3.

170 Pulp Mills (n 47) para 205. As confirmed in the Border Activities Case (n 139) para 104 (emphasis added).

171 Gjerde and Freestone (n 5) 211–2.

172 UNGA Res 61/105 (n 12) para 89.

173 UN, ‘Oceans and the Law of the Sea in the General Assembly of the United Nations. General Assembly resolutions and decisions’ (2016) <http://www.un.org/depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm>.

174 Harrison (n 4) 201.

175 The most notable exceptions are the aforementioned resolutions calling for a ban on driftnet fishing and bottom trawling. See UNGA Res 44/225 (n 121) and UNGA Res 61/105 (n 12) respectively.

176 Harrison (n 4) 204.

177 ibid 204.

178 FAO, Report of the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Committee on Fisheries (5–9 March 2007, 27th Sess) FAO Fisheries Report No 830 (FIEL/R830 (En)) xiii. See also FAO, ‘The Committee on Fisheries (COFI)’ <http://www.fao.org/fishery/about/cofi/en>: COFI is a subsidiary body of the FAO Council, and ‘constitutes the only global inter-governmental forum where major international fisheries and aquaculture problems and issues are examined’.

179 FAO, Report of the Technical Consultation (n 13). These events included an Expert Consultation on Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas in Bangkok, Thailand in 2006 and a Skippers and Fleet Managers Workshop on the International Guidelines in Cape Town, South Africa in 2008. For a full list of events, see Guidelines (n 14) para iv.

180 FAO, ‘The FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas’ (2016) <http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/166308/en>.

181 FAO, ‘Better Management for Fishing's ‘‘Last Frontier’’’ (Press Release) (2008) <http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2008/1000916/index.html>.

182 ibid.

183 FAO, Deep-Sea Fisheries in the High Seas (n 141) 3.

184 FAO, Report of the Technical Consultation (n 13) 8–26.

185 FAO, Report of the Twenty-Eighth Session of the Committee on Fisheries (2–6 March 2009, 28th Sess), FAO Fisheries Report No 902 (FIEL/R902 (En)) para xxii.

186 ibid para 51.

187 FAO, Report of the Council of FAO (15–19 June 2009, 136th Sess) FAO Council Report No 136 (CL 136/REP) para 5–6.

188 Harrison (n 4) 204.

189 ibid 205.

190 Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (adopted 16 October 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) TIAS 12134, art XIV.

191 FAO, ‘FAO Members’ (2016) <http://www.fao.org/legal/home/fao-members/en/>. The Faroe Islands and Tokelau are both Associate Members.

192 The UNGA has noted ‘the critical role played by the [FAO] in providing expert technical advice, in assisting with international fisheries policy development and management standards, and in collecting and dissemination of information on fisheries-related issues’. See UNGA Res 61/105 (n 12) para 88. See also Harrison (n 4) 205.

193 UNGA Res 63/112 (5 December 2008) UN Doc A/RES/63/112, paras 41 and 102.

194 UNGA Res 64/72 (4 December 2009) UN Doc A/RES/64/72, para 119(d).

195 Caddell, R, ‘Precautionary Management and the Development of Future Fishing Opportunities: The International Regulation of New and Exploratory Fisheries’ (2018) 33 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 1, 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

196 See also A Rogers and M Gianni, The Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea Fisheries on the High Seas. Report prepared for the Deep-Sea Conservation Coalition. International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO 2010); FAO, ‘Review and Analysis of International Legal and Policy Instruments related to Deep-Sea Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2017) <http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7009e.pdf>.

197 UNGA Res 71/351 (22 August 2016) UN Doc A/RES/71/351.

198 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems: Processes and Practices in the High Seas (2016) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 595 <http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5952e.pdf>.

199 Guidelines (n 14) para 88.

200 Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems: Processes and Practices in the High Seas, was prepared as a sister publication to the Worldwide Review of Bottom Fisheries in the High Seas (2009) FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 522 (Rev.1) <http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1116e/i1116e00.htm>.

201 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 7.

202 FAO, ‘VME DataBase’ (2016) <http://www.fao.org/in-action/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems/en/>; FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 1.

203 UNGA Res 61/105 (n 12) para 90.

204 Guidelines (n 14) para 21(ii).

205 Guidelines (n 14) para 21(iii).

206 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198)181; UN, Actions taken by States and regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements in response to paragraphs 113, 117 and 119 to 124 of General Assembly resolution 64/72 and paragraphs 121, 126, 129, 130 and 132 to 134 of General Assembly resolution 66/68 on sustainable fisheries, addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks. Report of the Secretary-General (22 August 2016, 71st Sess) UN Doc A/71/351, paras 47–60. See also Caddell (n 195).

207 UN Doc A/71/351 (n 197) para 87.

208 ibid para 88–91.

209 ibid para 88.

210 ibid paras 92 and 93.

211 Guidelines (n 14) para 27.

212 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 180.

213 SPRFMO and SIOFA were established in 2012, whereas NPFC was established in 2015. See FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 107–56.

214 UN, Oceans and the Law of the Sea. Report of the Secretary-General (13 March 2009, 64th Sess) UN Doc A/64/66, para 66.

215 FAO, Vulnerable marine ecosystems (n 198) 184; UN Doc A/71/351 (n 197) paras 156–162.

216 Caddell (n 195) 54.

217 UN Doc A/71/351 (n 197) para 79.

218 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 182.

219 ibid 182.

220 ibid 182. The one notable exception is the designated VME on Valdivia Bank in the southeast Atlantic Ocean. Here, SEAFO decided to close the area to all gears except pots and longlines.

221 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 182.

222 ibid 180.

223 ibid 181.

224 ibid 181.

225 Guidelines (n 14) para 47.

226 Caddell (n 195) 54.

227 UN Doc A/71/351 (n 197) para 163.

228 ibid para 163.

229 FAO, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (n 198) 181.

230 ibid 182; UN Doc A/71/351 (n 197) paras 54–60.

231 UN Doc A/71/351 (n 197) para 163.

232 FAO, Report of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the Committee on Fisheries (n 11) para 86.

233 Freestone, D and Makuch, Z, ‘The New International Environmental Law of Fisheries’ (1996) 7 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

234 Caddell (n 195) 60.

235 Guidelines (n 14) Abstract.

236 Boyle and Chinkin (n 18) 213.

237 Chinkin, CM, ‘The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law’ (1989) 38 ICLQ 866CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

238 ibid 866.

239 Adler, E, Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations (Routledge 2005)Google Scholar.