碩士 / 東吳大學 / 法律學系 / 95 / Recently, as the attention to the conservation for marine resources become higher and higher, and after the UNCLOS has been set up, many RFMOs have come out with the support of Article 64 of UNCLOS. According to Article 64 of UNCLOS : in regions for which no appropriate international organization exists, the coastal State and other States whose nationals harvest these species in the region shall co-operate to establish such an organization and participate in its work. The provisions of paragraph 1 apply in addition to the other provisions of this Part. The goal of UNCLOS is to conservative and manages specific type of fish. Since ROC is not the contracting party of UNCLOS, it is not allowed to access many RFMOs and as a result not to become their members officially.
Since UNFSA created the term “fishing entity” in 1995, Article 1.3 of the UNFSA: This Agreement applies mutatis mutandis to other fishing entities whose vessels fish on the high sea. And Article17.3: States which are members of a subregional or regional fisheries management organization or participants in a subregional or a regional fisheries management arrangement shall, individually, or jointly, request the fishing entities referred to in article 1, paragraph 3, which have fishing vessels in the relevant area to cooperate fully with such organization or arrangement in implementing the conservation and management measures it has established, with a view to having such measure applied de facto as extensively as possible to fishing activities in the relevant area. Such fishing entities shall enjoy benefit from participation in the fishery commensurate with their commitment to comply with conservation and management measures in respect of the stock. These agreements have given a new explanation to legal status of fishing entity. They helped ROC, as a fishing entity, to get a special status in International fishery law, and to make ROC accessing the RFMOs more successfully.
Currently, ROC has accessed several RFMOs as an identity of “fishing entity.” There are five famous RFMOs, such as: Commission of Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), and Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). Among these RFMOs, ROC has accessed as different identities such as Member, Observer and Invited Expert, etc. Especially, in CCSBT and WCPFC, ROC accessed as their member. On the contrary, in ICCAT and IATTC, ROC is only as an observer since its identity has been regarded a province of China.
Therefore, what is the legal status of “fishing entity” of ROC in RFMOs? What are the rights and obligations of ROC? What’s the difference between “fishing entity” and “contracting party” when they both are the member identities? In this essay, we tried to discuss the questions above through the practice of five RFMOs. Moreover, these questions themselves are the topics of this essay. Hope we can verify and clarify where should ROC go and how to improve and how to reach a better status through the discussion in the essay.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:TW/095SCU05194059 |
| Date | January 2007 |
| Creators | Tsung - Lung Li, 李宗龍 |
| Contributors | none, 高聖惕 |
| Source Sets | National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan |
| Language | zh-TW |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Format | 128 |
Page generated in 0.0193 seconds