Search

Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a widely used designation for a broad range of fishing practices with a common theme: whether illegal or not, they cause damage to marine fish stocks and the human communities that depend on them. Yet, when subjected to thorough analysis, this pragmatic governance tool is revealed in a light that calls for caution against uncritical application. Unwrapping its uneasy relationship with international law, this study is ultimately a qualified defence of the IUU fishing paradigm, but also a practical proposal for its reform. This original book makes a genuine contribution to the international fisheries law and policy literature.

Frontiers in International Environmental Law explores how law and legal scholarship has responded to some of the most important oceans and climate governance challenges of our time. Using the concept of the frontier, each contributor provides a unique perspective on the way that we can understand and can shape the development of law and legal institutions to better protect our marine environment and climate system, and reduce conflicts in areas of legal uncertainty. The authors show how different actors influence legal development, and how legal transitions occur in marine spaces and how change influences existing legal regimes. They also consider how change creates risks for the protection of vulnerable environment, but also opportunities for creative thinking and better ways of governing our environment.

In 2000, the case brought by Australia and New Zealand against Japan's unilateral experimental fishing programme for southern bluefin tuna controversially failed to reach the merits for lack of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. It was widely supposed that it would ultimately have failed anyway because of international courts'reluctance to consider scientific matters, the dispute's underlying cause being the parties'scientific disagreements regarding both the tuna stock itself and the nature and risks of the experiment. In 2014, however, the ICJ decided in Australia's favour the case against Japan's scientific whaling, based on flaws in the design of that experiment. Reviewing the tuna experiment's evolving design, the propositions it was to (dis)prove and the use Japan intended for that proof, Andrew Serdy suggests that similar factors were at play in both disputes and that a similar outcome of the tuna case, though not inevitable, would have been amply justified.