Economic implications of indiscriminate fishing of Marine Resources in the High Seas

Abstract

    The study of maritime spaces as part of the territory of a state must not only be considered with a character linked to issues of national defense, and therefore with strictly sovereign assessments, in terms of the situation of subjects of international law in the planet, but also involves economic and patrimonial issues, the latter aspect that has acquired relevance, given the food shortage that affects humanity, added to the difficulties linked to the protection of existing renewable resources in the area, an issue that it is strongly aggravated by environmental difficulties, preferably accentuated by global warming and the pollution of certain maritime areas.

    Regarding the origins of this matter, it is pertinent to remember the position that some authors formulated, in terms of the legal, geopolitical and economic vision of the maritime space, highlighting Hugo Groccio (1) in this matter, who promoted the idea of ​​mare liberum or sea Libre and John Selden, who for his part "supported the doctrine of the Mare Clausum (Closed Sea) or the Right of Nations to the Right of Property over Seas, Coasts and Waters that correspond to them" (2). The divergence between these philosophies, Mare Liberum and Mare Clausum (3), are the basis of the Law of the Sea, which corresponds as a property right to each nation. Selden's idea was supported, from the beginning of the 17th century, by the Dutchman Cornelius Van Bynkershoek (4) for whom sovereignty in the territorial sea should extend to the strip of sea where the coastal State had effective powers, at that time it was considered that it was as far as a cannonball launched from the coast would reach, thus originating the theory of three nautical miles. The idea of ​​a territorial sea was based on the purpose of defending the territory; This was convenient for the great powers since it allowed their fleets freedom of navigation in most of the seas, but it was detrimental to the States that tried to exercise sovereignty in a wider area of ​​their maritime territory for reasons of security or to exercise exclusive rights over their fisheries over longer distances. This difference prevented the generation of a uniform practice, therefore, the three-mile rule could not be considered as a customary norm. From 1930 is when more changes occurred in this regard, which led to the holding of the Hague Conference under the auspices of the League of Nations in order to codify various matters of International Law and the Law of the Sea. In 1958, the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea took place in Geneva, from which three reports emerged; in the first one, a 6 nautical mile extension was proposed in the territorial sea; in the second, 12 nautical miles, while in the third report it was reduced to 3 nautical miles, leaving open the possibility of its extension. The final text concluded that given that international practice is not uniform, it was considered that the territorial sea should not extend beyond 12 nautical miles. This conference culminated in 4 conventions and an optional protocol on compulsory jurisdiction for the settlement of disputes:

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone; Convention on the Continental Shelf; Convention on the High Seas, Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas.

   The Geneva conventions did not have a large number of ratifications or accessions, however, some States, although they were not bound by these treaties, included some provisions in their internal legislation.