历史性的捕鱼权和专属经济区

Q3 Social Sciences
Leonardo Bernard
{"title":"历史性的捕鱼权和专属经济区","authors":"Leonardo Bernard","doi":"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime under Part V of the LOS Convention grants coastal States the exclusive right to fisheries within 200 nautical miles (M) of their coasts. However, the EEZ seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Yet, is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ. China, for example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. This article seeks to explore this issue, by analysing the relationship between the EEZ regime and historic fishing rights, and identifying the circumstances where historic fishing rights can exist alongside the EEZ regime. The article will also distinguish between historic waters and historic fishing rights; as well as discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights.","PeriodicalId":36998,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS AND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE\",\"authors\":\"Leonardo Bernard\",\"doi\":\"10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime under Part V of the LOS Convention grants coastal States the exclusive right to fisheries within 200 nautical miles (M) of their coasts. However, the EEZ seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Yet, is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ. China, for example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. This article seeks to explore this issue, by analysing the relationship between the EEZ regime and historic fishing rights, and identifying the circumstances where historic fishing rights can exist alongside the EEZ regime. The article will also distinguish between historic waters and historic fishing rights; as well as discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17304/IJIL.VOL18.2.807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

《联合国海洋法公约》第五部分规定的专属经济区制度赋予沿海国在其海岸200海里范围内从事渔业的专属权利。然而,专属经济区似乎是以牺牲历史捕鱼权为代价,承认沿海国的专属捕鱼权。然而,这是对适用法律的准确解读吗?尽管《联合国海洋法公约》没有明确承认历史性捕鱼权,但许多国家仍然在其专属经济区以外的地区主张这些权利。例如,中国一直声称对南海九段线内的渔业资源拥有历史性权利。本文试图通过分析专属经济区制度与历史性捕鱼权之间的关系,并确定历史性捕鱼权与专属经济区制度并存的情况,来探讨这一问题。该条还将区分历史性水域和历史性捕鱼权;以及讨论各国在历史性捕鱼权利方面的做法和国际法院和法庭的先例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
HISTORIC FISHING RIGHTS AND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
The exclusive economic zone (EEZ) regime under Part V of the LOS Convention grants coastal States the exclusive right to fisheries within 200 nautical miles (M) of their coasts. However, the EEZ seems to recognise the exclusive fishing rights of coastal States at the expense of historic fishing rights. Yet, is this an accurate reading of applicable law? Despite the fact that historic fishing rights are not expressly recognised in the LOS Convention, many States still claim these rights in areas beyond their EEZ. China, for example, has consistently made claims that it has historic rights over the fisheries resources within the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. This article seeks to explore this issue, by analysing the relationship between the EEZ regime and historic fishing rights, and identifying the circumstances where historic fishing rights can exist alongside the EEZ regime. The article will also distinguish between historic waters and historic fishing rights; as well as discuss the practice of States and precedents of international courts and tribunals in relation to historic fishing rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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