Fishers and seafarers in international law – Really so different?

Abstract

Fishers and seafarers are treated differently under international law. This differentiation has negative consequences for fishers whose lives at sea attract less attention and protective action than seafarers. This marginalisation has been cemented through separate conventions protecting seafarers and fishers: the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC) and the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (C188), respectively. Whilst the MLC is regarded as innovative and successful and has attracted widespread ratification, C188 has seen far fewer ratifications and establishes weaker protections for fishers overall.This article examines four possible reasons for the difference in treatment – (1) The varied fisher population, (2) the nature of employment in the fishing industry, (3) the historic interaction with maritime zones, and (4) the role of international organisations representing fishers and seafarers.The article demonstrates that invalid assumptions held in these four areas help perpetuate weak protection for fishers and often lead to severe consequences for them. Furthermore, a multitude of initiatives by international organisations and bodies to create legal frameworks for the safety and decent work of fishers are either confusing and ineffective or create parallel systems to C188. This in turn means that only some groups of fishers are prioritised. Whereas one option might be to revisit including large-scale commercial fishers within the scope of the MLC this would require extensive renegotiations. More effective solutions are likely found in a concerted effort to support and promote the ratification of C188 by all States and ensure more alignment across States and international bodies.