SOAS Research Online

Abstract

This thesis analyses the characteristics and legal implications of International Regime Theory with special focus on fisheries on the high seas on the basis of a critical examination of the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (SSA). The theoretical framework adopted in this investigation suggests that the emerging international regime for fisheries on the high seas relies on four interconnected elements; first, a scientific and diplomatic consensus about the nature of specific issues regarding fisheries; secondly, a core of informal and formalized principles, norms and rules contained mainly in the 1995 SSA, as well as in other related international legal instruments; thirdly, a set of organizations and decision making procedures that constitute the operation of the international regime; and fourth, a set of compliance and enforcement mechanisms to help international society to manage the problem of fisheries as a global common. These four elements characterise the continuous process of development and refinement of International Environmental Law to protect the environment in particular in relation to conservation of the living resources of the sea. The thesis also considers the way in which the regime can operate as an institution able to influence the behaviour of States and their subjects to manage the international problem of fisheries on the high seas. The findings of this investigation yield both theoretical and pragmatic results. First, the application of the theoretical framework can enhance understanding of the problems and potentialities of the International Law for the protection and management of the global commons and, in particular, of fisheries on the high seas. Secondly, the theoretical framework offers explanations as to the manner in which the emerging new international regime for fisheries is limiting and reshaping the legal principle of freedom of fishing on the high seas. Further, as this thesis aims to demonstrate, state sovereignty is not incompatible with international progress in solving common problems.