The shaky foundations of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement: how watertight is the legal seal against port access for foreign fishing vessels?
The shaky foundations of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement: how watertight is the legal seal against port access for foreign fishing vessels?
The Port State Measures Agreement aims to influence fishing vessels’ high seas activities, normally under the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag States, by withholding access to parties’ ports to unload catch and resupply. This works inter partes, but many flag States are unlikely to become party to it. The Agreement assumes States may nonetheless exclude foreign vessels from their ports, giving parties leverage to impose conditions derived from it on vessels of non-parties seeking access. But this assumption is valid only if the port State retains its right to exclude; many have bargained it away, in old bilateral treaties or as World Trade Organization members with freedom of transit obligations. The settlement on terms favourable to the European Union of both the Swordfish and Herring disputes, representing the flag State in one and port States in the other, suggests that market power vulnerable to abuse, not jurisdictional authority, may have been the decisive factor.
422-441
Serdy, Andrew
0b9326c4-8a5a-468f-9ca8-7368ccb07663
2016
Serdy, Andrew
0b9326c4-8a5a-468f-9ca8-7368ccb07663
Serdy, Andrew
(2016)
The shaky foundations of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement: how watertight is the legal seal against port access for foreign fishing vessels?
The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 31 (3), .
(doi:10.1163/15718085-12341408).
Abstract
The Port State Measures Agreement aims to influence fishing vessels’ high seas activities, normally under the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag States, by withholding access to parties’ ports to unload catch and resupply. This works inter partes, but many flag States are unlikely to become party to it. The Agreement assumes States may nonetheless exclude foreign vessels from their ports, giving parties leverage to impose conditions derived from it on vessels of non-parties seeking access. But this assumption is valid only if the port State retains its right to exclude; many have bargained it away, in old bilateral treaties or as World Trade Organization members with freedom of transit obligations. The settlement on terms favourable to the European Union of both the Swordfish and Herring disputes, representing the flag State in one and port States in the other, suggests that market power vulnerable to abuse, not jurisdictional authority, may have been the decisive factor.
Text
Utrecht Ports Seminar paper final clean.docx
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 20 June 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 27 June 2016
Published date: 2016
Organisations:
Southampton Law School
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 397301
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/397301
ISSN: 0927-3522
PURE UUID: 74da839f-2591-49c7-bdf4-d20507a635ba
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 27 Jun 2016 09:57
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 05:42
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
