# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is LAW OF THE SEA? What does LAW OF THE SEA mean? LAW OF THE SEA meaning & explanation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Causes, Effects and Solutions of Marine Habitat Loss and Destruction | Earth Eclipse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The marine habitat destruction and loss is where the marine environment or the ecological set up is unable to support life due to degradation. This is a process that is contributed by various natural and human activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the last decade, animal law has grown into a much more significant field of law. There are attorneys who exclusively dedicate themselves to using the law to make better the lives of all varieties of animals, such as companion pets, farm animals, and wild animals. The law as it relates to fish though, including fish exploitation, has existed for over a century.

Fishing law has existed for so long because, contrary to widespread assumptions, overfishing is not a new phenomenon. A study released in 2001 revealed that overfishing reaches back thousands of years to aboriginal coastal populations, such as the Aleuts of the Aleutian Islands, who decimated sea otter populations beginning 2,500 years ago.[1]In 1376, King Edwards III of England instituted a ban on dragging weighted nets along the bottom of rivers, a process known as trawling.[2] Holland banned trawling in 1583, and France soon followed, going so far as to make trawling a capital offense.[3] Modern overfishing can be traced to the 1800s, when whales were hunted for their blubber.[4] During this century, the international community started to develop agreements and treaties to provide a legal foundation for fishing law. In 1882, various nations of Northwestern Europe ratified a regional fishing agreement, though this was more about policing the conduct of the fishermen than about conservation.[5] Many more international agreements have been established, particularly since the mid-1900s, and yet today we find our oceans are on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.

In a modern, industrialized world, these international agreements have failed to meet the challenges of a planet with seven billion people - 200 million of whom depend on fishing for their livelihood or food.[6] One in five persons rely on fish as their primary source of protein.[7]These statistics particularly hold true for much of the developing world. This makes approaching overfishing from a legal perspective a difficult proposition, because developing countries often lack the ability to not only create their own laws, but enforce them. Additionally, protecting fish stocks has yet to reach some of the most fervent animal activists. As author Paul Greenberg notes in his studies on fish populations, "[n]o one has yet motored a Greenpeace zodiac between a school of breaching bluefin tuna and the boat that would haul them in to market. Whales have become wildlife. But tuna have remained food."[8]

To create a viable legal solution to this crisis, it is important to examine modern international fishing treaties to see where they have failed to protect fish stocks, and then compare them to some successes that the United States has had. Only then can a truly global solution be strategized.
II. International Fishing Agreements
One of the early modern international fishing agreements was the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Signed in 1949, it was one of the first conventions directed at protecting fish, rather than the fishermen. The convention originally applied to the United States and Costa Rica, though today, the European Union, France, China, Japan, Canada, and much of Central America are also members.[9]

William Bishop explains the fisherman-centered aspect to this treaty in his Columbia Law Review article, noting that the treaty attempts to specify how member nations may lawfully enact and apply conservation rules, and under what circumstance those rules can be applied to foreign vessels operating on the high seas.[16] Hypothetically, should Australian laws on southern yellowtail fishing apply to Malaysian fishermen that catch yellowtail just outside of Australian jurisdiction in the Tasman Sea?

ICCAT is responsible for monitoring populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes throughout the Atlantic. Fish species falling under the commission's auspices include the traditional tuna species such as bluefin, yellowfin, albacore, and bigeye tunas, as well as billfish species that have also come under extraordinary fishing pressure, including swordfish, marlins, and spearfishes.[26] The commission is structured such that each contracting party may be represented by up to three delegates, who then meet every two years. ICCAT has the authority to establish fish panels based on species, group species, or geographic areas. These panels may then propose recommendations for joint actions by the contracting states on issues such as recommended maximum sustainable catch allowances for various species of commercially valuable tunas.[27]

Finally, the preeminent international agreement that addresses overfishing is the most recent meeting of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas ("UNCLOS"). The third of such UNCLOS meetings, this particular convention concluded in 1982, and fully came into force in 1994.[31] Despite the fact that UNCLOS has one hundred and fifty-eight signatories, the United States has refused to follow suit. In 2004, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whose ranking member at the time was the current Vice-President of the United States, Joseph Biden, voted unanimously in favor of ratifying UNCLOS. Despite this showing of support, the Republican leader in the United States Senate, Bill Frist, refused to bring the convention to a floor vote.[32]

For the states that have ratified it, UNCLOS grants coastal member nations up to 12 nautical miles within which to establish exclusive jurisdiction. UNCLOS allows for these coastal states to determine the allowable catch of fish in its exclusive economic zones, based on the state's own scientific information.[33] However, any member states that exploit highly migratory species - defined as tunas, billfishes, mackerels, and bonitos - must then comply with any appropriate international organizations to ensure the conservation of those particular fish species.[34]

Unlike some of the aforementioned agreements that clearly lacked any official enforcement mechanism, UNCLOS created the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas, located in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal is composed of twenty-one independent members, elected from "... persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity in the field of the law of the sea."[35] These members have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the convention. Disputes that arise between members states over issues such as fishing limits are settled in any of four different forums: the Tribunal itself, the International Court of Justice, or either of two arbitral tribunals. The parties to the dispute have the option of choosing their preferred tribunal.[36]

A significant problem arises, though, when these tribunals administer judgments. According to UNCLOS, the decisions of these tribunals shall be complied with by all parties.[37] But what happens if one of the parties fails to comply? Hypothetically, if Canada has a dispute with Japan regarding Japanese exploitation of Pacific salmon, and a tribunal renders a decision favorable to Canada, are Japanese courts simply expected to enforce the tribunal's decision? The obvious answer is no. There is simply no way to outsource a tribunal's decision to a member state, such that the member state will be forced to comply with the decision. Thus, while UNCLOS provides a formal process for adjudicating fishing disputes between member states, it lacks the power to truly enforce its own judgments.

These international agreements make clear that using international legal systems to protect declining fish stocks is an exceedingly difficult proposition. Individual nations though, such as the United States, have had a more significant, yet still limited, record of success of not only codifying laws and adjudicating disputes, but also providing for enforcement so that those laws and decisions actually do help fish stocks.
III. The United States' Statutory Approach to Overfishing
The United States has a complex statutory approach to dealing with overfishing. This approach provides a complicated, yet adequate, system to manage overfishing.

United States statutory law is based upon the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The law established a 200-mile fishery conservation zone, and created Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of federal and state officials.[38] The law also established exclusive United States management authority over three categories of fish: all fish within the its exclusive economic zone, all fish on the continental shelf, and all anadromous fish throughout their migratory range, except when in a foreign state's waters.[39]

Anadromous fish provide a stark example of the Magnuson Act's jurisdictional reach. Such fish are born in freshwater, migrate to saltwater, and return to freshwater to spawn.[40] One better-known example of such a fish that the Act would govern under this provision is the Pacific salmon, a family of five unique species found along the Pacific coast. The Magnuson Act's jurisdiction thus gives the United States management authority over Pacific salmon while they spawn in United States rivers and when they migrate through the high seas. However, when these salmon unknowingly cross into Japanese or Russian waters during their migration, the management of these fish is no longer governed by United States law, at least until the fish leave those foreign waters.

The Act is implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), a subdivision of both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") and the United States Commerce Department ("the Department"). NMFS currently governs eight specified Regional Fishery Management Councils, and it outsources authority over most fish species to these councils. The councils then prepare, and submit to the Secretary of Commerce, fishery management plans for each fishery within the United States' geographic area of authority that requires conservation and management. An important caveat to this, however, is that the Secretary of Commerce retains authority over highly migratory fish species, defined as tuna, billfishes, and sharks. After these eight councils deliver their reports, the Secretary annually reports to Congress on the status of fisheries within each council's respective geographic district. The councils must then respond to any unfavorable findings by taking steps to end regional overfishing and rebuild depleted stocks.[44]

Unlike international treaties, violators of the updated Act face the possibility of severe sanctions. Persons found to have violated the provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act are subject to civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation. Additionally, persons who commit specified offenses under the Act are punishable by criminal fines of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to six months, or both.[45] Such punishments provide an obvious incentive for fishermen to cooperate with the Act.

Enforcement of the Act has produced some encouraging results. From 1997-2002, overfishing has been corrected twenty-six times, and depleted stocks have rebuilt their biomass thresholds twenty times.[46] Atlantic species that have seen such rebounds include winter flounder, king mackerel, gag grouper, redfish.[47] Additionally, another Atlantic fishery that was too late to be included in 1997-2002 survey, yet saw significant improvement in its stocks, was swordfish. Swordfish saw an improved fishery because NOAA regulated the species through limited entry into fishing waters, seasonal area closures to protect undersized fish, minimum size restrictions, and strict quotas.[48] On the Pacific coast, the Pacific Fishery Management Council reported in the survey that groundfish had a dramatic biomass increase, which was especially encouraging considering there are at least eighty-two distinct species of groundfish that require monitoring.[49] Still, as of 2003, sixty-six stocks in United States waters have experienced overfishing, and eighty-six have been outright overfished. NMFS has, thus far, successfully placed seventy of these overfished species under rebuilding programs.[50]

A second federal statute that addresses overfishing is the United States' 1998 ratification of ICCAT.[51] Known as the Atlantic Tuna Convention Act ("ATCA"), it vests its authority with the Secretary of State, not the Secretary of Commerce.[52] This is probably in part due to the fact that ICCAT is an international agreement that requires the diplomatic expertise of the State Department, not simply the economic expertise of the Commerce Department. However, the law does give the Commerce Department the power to implement recommendations of the international treaty, so long as the State Department approves of those recommendations.[53]

The statute states that it is unlawful for any person in charge of a fishing vessel, or for any fishing vessel subject to United States jurisdiction, to violate any regulation adopted by the Commerce Department and recommended by the international treaty. It is also unlawful for any person subject to United States jurisdiction to ship, transport, purchase, sell, import, export, or have custody of any tuna or other fish, delineated under the statute, that the person knows or should have known was taken contrary to the recommendations of the international treaty. Violations of the statute subject individuals to significant punishments. All fish that are taken or retained in violation of the statute, or the monetary value of such fish, may be forfeited to authorities.[54]

Additionally, ATCA provides an enforcement mechnism. Under the statute, any person authorized to enforce the provisions may, with or without warrant, board any vessel subject to United States jurisdiction and inspect the vessel and the fish it has caught. If it is determined that the vessel and its fishermen have taken tunas and other applicable species in violation of the statute, then the fishermen may be arrested, with or without warrant. The fish may then be disposed of pursuant to a court order or in a manner prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce.[55] The power to board such ships, arrest the fishermen, and dispose of their catch is an enormous step toward combating overfishing. Such penalties give fishermen a strong incentive to follow fishing regulations.

Regulations such as the Sustainable Fisheries Act and the United States' codification of ICCAT clearly contain enforcement mechanisms that directly benefit threatened fish species such as bluefin tuna and yellowfin tuna. Similarly, recent United States case law has laid down important precedents that protect such fish stocks.
IV. United States Case Law
Because such a significant share of fisheries management occurs through the Commerce Department, many fishing disputes end up hauling the Secretary of Commerce into federal court to defend the department's actions.

What sparked the Society's lawsuit was overfishing that occurred during the 1996 tuna-fishing season. The Department had allowed an overharvest of tuna during the 1996 season, and never adjusted for the 1997 season by subtracting the amount overfished. The Department argued that the Society's claim was moot, because the suit was filed in 1998, and the regulations only allowed for an adjustment, due to an overharvest, for consecutive years.[59] The District Court, however, ruled that one of two classic constitutional exceptions to mootness applied - the Department's actions were capable of repetition yet evading review. The Society had a reasonable expectation that it would be subject to the same injury of overfishing again (capable of repetition), and that it would not be able to adjudicate a similar proceeding within one fishing year (evading review).[60] Because the Society satisfied this mootness exception, the court granted summary judgment in favor the Society on the count that the Department's action in allowing an overharvest of tuna was unlawful.[61]

This case laid down an important precedent - that the Commerce Department has an obligation to strictly follow federal regulations designed to reduce overfishing. A few years later, the Department found itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit for doing just that.

On July 13, 2000, NMFS issued emergency regulations, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that closed areas of the Atlantic beyond the United States' exclusive economic zone to United States long-lining for swordfish, tuna, and shark.[62] The Blue Water Fishermen's Association ("Blue Water") filed suit against the Department, seeking a preliminary injunction and to have enforcement of this emergency regulation precluded. Blue Water alleged that NMFS, under the guidance of President Bush's Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans, could not extend the Magnuson-Stevens Act beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.[63]

The District Court ruled that both ATCA and ICCAT provided exceptions that permit extraterritorial extension of NMFS authority beyond the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The court noted that these exceptions were important to advance United States efforts to comply with unenforceable international treaties such as ICCAT.[64]

Cases such as these obviously do not provide a solid foundation of legal precedent for such a global problem. They do, however, suggest that United States courts may have found a method for ensuring that their regulatory agencies protect fish stocks: keeping those agencies on a tight leash when it comes to adhering to the law, yet giving the leash some slack when those agencies take emergency steps that protect fish.
V. An International Solution
The facts on the ground - or rather in the water - make clear that international fishing law is inadequate because it lacks any real enforcement. International agreements need better enforcement mechanisms, something that is much easier for a country to impose on its own citizens than for an international agreement to impose on citizens from multiple nationalities. United States law, both statutory law and case law, have proved to be national successes, but we outsource too much of the responsibilities to so many bureaucratic organizations that our methods cannot provide a workable solution on the international stage. Accordingly, there must be a complete revamping of international fishing law, and the result must have an enforcement mechanism that sanctions violators.

Thus, there should be one primary international fishing convention that applies to fishing on the high seas. The convention must have a treaty drafted not by lawyers, but by the top scientists from the contracting states. These scientists must organize individual commissions to focus on threatened fisheries, such as tuna, cod, and salmon, and they should be responsible for setting quota limits. Regarding enforcement, commercial fishermen from contracting states should be required to register with the convention to obtain fishing licenses and privileges. These fishermen must then report their catches back to their respective commission. Any fisherman who violates quotas shall face severe sanctions. The convention must have an international tribunal to adjudicate fishing violations, and fishermen who do violate quota limits must have their fishing licenses revoked.

Such a convention will obviously invite ridicule, considering that the high seas have historically fallen under no jurisdictional limitations. But there are steps that can be taken that would encourage states to ratify such a treaty. First, states must know that the treaty would only apply to fishing on the high seas, not in their coastal jurisdictions or exclusive economic zones. Additionally, member states can exert significant pressure on nonmembers by boycotting fish from countries that fail to ratify. Finally, member states can boycott buying or selling fish from countries that do ratify the treat but continue to violate it.

This solution will obviously be controversial. But much of the law of the sea is based on customary international law. With the passage of time, contracting states will likely have no qualms about adhering to such a treaty. In the end though, saving collapsing fish stocks with such a treaty may just come down to pure economics. One bluefin tuna caught in the waters off Massachusetts can be bought for as much as $400,000 in Tokyo. Considering Japan's apparent addiction to tuna, how many bluefin can the United States refuse to sell to the Japanese before they begin to control their own destructive fishing practices? I would venture to guess not many.

[16] Bishop at 1209.

[24] Greenberg at 201.

[29] Greenberg at 217.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the last decade, animal law has grown into a much more significant field of law. There are attorneys who exclusively dedicate themselves to using the law to make better the lives of all varieties of animals, such as companion pets, farm animals, and wild animals.

# data[].attributes.body
Target 14.C Implement and enforce sea law

# data[].attributes.headline
Problem 3- Destruction of marine habitats

# data[].attributes.subject
Problem 3- Destruction of marine habitats

# data[].attributes.body
Target 14.5 Conserve Coastal and Marine Areas

# data[].attributes.body
Target 14.4 Sustainable Fishing

# data[].attributes.body
Target 14.1 Reduce Marine Pollution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine the world in 2030, fully inclusive of persons with disabilities

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Targets

By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution

By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans

Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels

By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics

By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information

By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation

By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism

Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries

Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets

Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want
Conversations
Forward your comments, suggestions, references and/or new information of the SDGs and persons with disabilities to enable@un.org or follow @UNEnable on Facebook and Twitter anduse hashtag#Envision2030 to join the global conversation and help create a world that is fully inclusive of persons with disabilities by 2030.
(Forthcoming)
Resources
(Suggestions for resources related to the above Goal are welcome - Email enable@un.org)(Forthcoming)Envision2030 Homepage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#Envision2030 Goal 14: Life Below Water | United Nations Enable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine the world in 2030, fully inclusive of persons with disabilities Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development Targets By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution By