Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Ocean Development and International Law |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Pages (from-to) | 327-345 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| ISSN | 0090-8320 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 01.10.2016 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 14 Life Below Water
Research areas and keywords
- Due diligence
- Flag state responsibility
- Illegal fishing
- International tribunal for the law of the sea
- Law
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Development
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
- Law
- Political Science and International Relations
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Fishing for interpretation: The ITLOS advisory opinion on flag state responsibility for illegal fishing in the EEZ'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver