Assessing Drifting Fish Aggregating Device (dFAD) Abandonment under International Marine Pollution Law

IF 2.6 1区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Valentin Schatz
{"title":"Assessing Drifting Fish Aggregating Device (dFAD) Abandonment under International Marine Pollution Law","authors":"Valentin Schatz","doi":"10.1017/s2047102524000098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article asks whether the abandonment of drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs) is illegal under international marine pollution law. To answer this question, it provides a brief overview of the general international legal framework for the protection of the marine environment as well as specific legal regimes, namely the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC), its 1996 Protocol (LP), and Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The article concludes that the abandonment of dFADs contravenes the LC/LP and/or, depending on the preferred interpretation, MARPOL Annex V. The decision as to which of the two regimes is applicable depends on whether dFAD abandonment can be classified as ‘incidental to, or derived from the normal operations of vessels … and their equipment’ or not. The negligent loss of dFADs always violates MARPOL Annex V. The article also shows that certain state practice and <span>opinio juris</span> suggests a parallel applicability of the two regimes with respect to deliberate dFAD abandonment. While such a development would ensure more comprehensive coverage of the relevant standards and prohibitions, a clear regulatory decision as to which of the two regimes is the correct one would be preferable from an implementation and enforcement perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":45716,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Environmental Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transnational Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2047102524000098","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article asks whether the abandonment of drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs) is illegal under international marine pollution law. To answer this question, it provides a brief overview of the general international legal framework for the protection of the marine environment as well as specific legal regimes, namely the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (LC), its 1996 Protocol (LP), and Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The article concludes that the abandonment of dFADs contravenes the LC/LP and/or, depending on the preferred interpretation, MARPOL Annex V. The decision as to which of the two regimes is applicable depends on whether dFAD abandonment can be classified as ‘incidental to, or derived from the normal operations of vessels … and their equipment’ or not. The negligent loss of dFADs always violates MARPOL Annex V. The article also shows that certain state practice and opinio juris suggests a parallel applicability of the two regimes with respect to deliberate dFAD abandonment. While such a development would ensure more comprehensive coverage of the relevant standards and prohibitions, a clear regulatory decision as to which of the two regimes is the correct one would be preferable from an implementation and enforcement perspective.

根据国际海洋污染法评估漂流集鱼装置(dFAD)废弃情况
本文提出的问题是,根据国际海洋污染法,弃置漂流集鱼装置(dFADs)是否违法。为了回答这个问题,文章简要概述了保护海洋环境的一般国际法律框架以及具体法律制度,即《防止倾倒废物及其他物质污染海洋的伦敦公约》(LC)及其 1996 年议定书(LP)和《国际防止船舶造成污染公约》(MARPOL)附件五。这篇文章的结论是,抛弃 dFAD 的行为违反了 LC/LP 和/或 MARPOL 附件 V(取决于倾向于哪种解释)。决定适用这两种制度中的哪一种取决于 dFAD 的抛弃是否可归类为 "船舶......及其设备的正常作业所附带或产生的"。疏忽造成的 dFAD 丢失总是违反《防污公约》附件 V。文章还表明,某些国家实践和法律确念表明,在故意遗弃 dFAD 的情况下,两种制度可平行适用。虽然这种发展将确保更全面地涵盖相关标准和禁令,但从实施和强制执行的角度来看,更可取的做法是就两种制度中哪一种才是正确的制度做出明确的监管决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
16.30%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信