HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS AND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

Leonardo Bernard

doi:10.17304/ijil.vol18.2.807

Abstract

The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime under Part V of the LOS Convention grants coastal States the exclusive right to fisheries within 200 nautical miles (M) of their coasts. However, the EEZ seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Yet, is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ. China, for example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. This article seeks to explore this issue, by analysing the relationship between the EEZ regime and historic fishing rights, and identifying the circumstances where historic fishing rights can exist alongside the EEZ regime. The article will also distinguish between historic waters and historic fishing rights; as well as discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights.

Highlights

The establishment of the Exclusive Economic Zone Regime (EEZ) by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982 (LOS Convention)1 created a new fisheries regime for coastal States
The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ
For example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea.3. These claims generally are based on two arguments: that the LOS Convention recognizes the existence of historic fishing rights; and that historic fishing rights are regulated under customary international law

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The establishment of the Exclusive Economic Zone Regime (EEZ) by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea 1982 (LOS Convention) created a new fisheries regime for coastal States. The EEZ regime, which has been widely accepted as a rule of customary international law, seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. In Part III, the article will discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights Cases such as the 1959 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case between UK and Norway, the 1969 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case between UK and Iceland, the 1984 Gulf of Maine Case between USA and Canada, the 1993 Jan Mayen Case between Greenland and Norway, and the Eritrea/Yemen award in 1999, as well as the 2006 maritime delimitation case between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, will be examined to see whether historic fishing rights can exist within the maritime zones as defined by the LOS Convention. Part IV of the article will analyze the compatibility of historic fishing rights with the EEZ regime

HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS AND HISTORIC WATERS

INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS ON HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS

THE COMPATIBILITY OF HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS AND THE EEZ

CONCLUSION