Some 18 years after the enactment of the Marine Living resources Act (18 of 1998), which gives express recognition to the subsistence or small-scale fisheries sector, a regime addressing the needs of this sector has finally been promulgated. That regime consists of the Policy for the Small Scale Fisheries Sector (20 June 2012) in South Africa and the Regulations relating to Small Scale Fishing (8 March 2016). Through a paradigm shift in small-scale fisheries governance, the regime seeks to put an end to the marginalisation and exclusion of these fishers from the fishing rights allocation process that has persisted in the absence of a formal regulatory regime. The Policy for the Small Scale Fisheries Sector purports to adopt and promote a human rights based approach and focuses on food security and livelihood. It seeks to employ co-management of the common pool resources and promote customary practices. It allocates a basket of multi-species rights to community legal entities allowing for a community based resource management with a strong developmental agenda. This paper seeks to reflect on the effectiveness of this regime by critically examining the regime governing the small scale fishing sector against the body of knowledge that has developed internationally regarding successful and effective management of the Small Scale fishing Sector.

The regime of islands, as captured in Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) grants a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelf to all islands apart from "rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own." The provision was undoubtedly drafted in an intentionally ambiguous manner in order to strike a compromise between the contrasting views of States surrounding the regime of islands. Consequently, Article 121 is riddled with textual ambiguities. For example, the text does not further define the word "rock"; nor does the provision explain what it means to "sustain human habitation or economic life". As a result of these ambiguities, many States are of the opinion that Article 121 allocates a 200 nautical mile zone to every piece of land that protrudes above water. This provision is problematic as it potentially allocates vast amounts of ocean space to nations claiming sovereignty over tiny uninhabited islands speckled throughout the oceans, severely limiting the space that remains for the "common heritage of mankind". In addition, the ambiguous wording of Article 121 has resulted in various territorial disputes between nations in relation to both the interpretation and application of the Article. This dissertation seeks primarily to investigate whether the international community is moving towards certainty on the interpretation of Article 121 of the LOSC, with particular reference to the distinction between islands and rocks. In doing so, this dissertation will explore the body of jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals insofar as it relates to Article 121 of the LOSC. This is a fruitful exercise as any clarification in this regard will undoubtedly unify State practice surrounding the application of Article 121. This may have the effect of reducing conflict between States and ensuring that ocean spaces around insular formations are apportioned in an equitable and standardised manner.