It Don't Come EEZ : The Failure and Future of Coastal State Fisheries Management

Early in the negotiations of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) there was widespread agreement that coastal states should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries in an extended economic zone (EEZ). A number of premises formed the basis for the Law of the Sea Convention's grant of exclusive fishery management authority to coastal states. The first was that coastal state jurisdiction could provide a more functional fisheries management regime. Most fisheries are located within 200 miles of a coast, making the 200-mile [EEZ] a rational area for management. Second, by placing these areas under exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal state, entry into fisheries would be controlled, thereby reducing both the potential for overfishing and for overcapitalization of fishing fleets. In addition, coastal states would have authority to enforce regulations against all vessels within the [EEZ] and not be dependent on the weak flag state enforcement that characterized regulation by international fisheries organizations. Finally, prevailing theories of fisheries management were presumed to be adequate to protect and maintain fisheries if jurisdictional control and effective enforcement authority were established. None of these premises turned out to be entirely valid. This article discusses the continuing decline of the state of fisheries since coastal states were given virtually complete discretion in interpreting and implementing their duties under the LOS Convention and the failure of coastal states to meet their most fundamental obligation -the prevention of overexploitation of EEZ fish stocks. The future of EEZ management is discussed from the perspective of international law, focusing on the role of the LOS Convention, other international treaties and obligations, and relevant developments in international environmental law