Fishing for interpretation: The ITLOS advisory opinion on flag state responsibility for illegal fishing in the EEZ
Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Standard
Fishing for interpretation : The ITLOS advisory opinion on flag state responsibility for illegal fishing in the EEZ. / Schatz, Valentin.
in: Ocean Development and International Law, Jahrgang 47, Nr. 4, 01.10.2016, S. 327-345.Publikation: Beiträge in Zeitschriften › Zeitschriftenaufsätze › Forschung › begutachtet
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Fishing for interpretation
T2 - The ITLOS advisory opinion on flag state responsibility for illegal fishing in the EEZ
AU - Schatz, Valentin
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2016/10/1
Y1 - 2016/10/1
N2 - On 2 April 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rendered its first full-bench Advisory Opinion. In its reply to the request of the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission the ITLOS found that Arts. 62(4), 58(3), 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contain obligations for a flag state to ensure that vessels flying its flag do not engage in illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zones of coastal states. The Advisory Opinion has widely been praised for bringing clarity to the inadequate international fisheries law regime. This article undertakes to analyze the ITLOS’s interpretive approach, expose interpretive deficiencies, and offer possible explanations for some of the outcomes where the ITLOS itself did not do so.
AB - On 2 April 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rendered its first full-bench Advisory Opinion. In its reply to the request of the West African Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission the ITLOS found that Arts. 62(4), 58(3), 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contain obligations for a flag state to ensure that vessels flying its flag do not engage in illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zones of coastal states. The Advisory Opinion has widely been praised for bringing clarity to the inadequate international fisheries law regime. This article undertakes to analyze the ITLOS’s interpretive approach, expose interpretive deficiencies, and offer possible explanations for some of the outcomes where the ITLOS itself did not do so.
KW - Due diligence
KW - Flag state responsibility
KW - Illegal fishing
KW - International tribunal for the law of the sea
KW - Law
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991759045&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00908320.2016.1229939
DO - 10.1080/00908320.2016.1229939
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:84991759045
VL - 47
SP - 327
EP - 345
JO - Ocean Development and International Law
JF - Ocean Development and International Law
SN - 0090-8320
IS - 4
ER -