|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/49) Yaounde, 30 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — Indonesia has stated unequivocally that any instrument agreed at the World Trade Organization on fisheries subsidies must not undermine the rights and jurisdiction of coastal states as established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This declaration came in a statement issued on 29 March at the World Trade Organization’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon. In its statement (WT/MIN(26)/W/33), Indonesia said that its position is grounded on firm principles, noting that this is “at a time when elements of the international system are under strain, when unilateral actions, selective interpretations of law, and power asymmetries are not only increasingly visible but also causing death of innocent civilians, including women and children.” In a hard-hitting statement, Indonesia said that “it is essential that multilateral agreements reinforce, not erode, established international legal frameworks.” According to Indonesia, for fisheries, that framework is clear in that it is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It maintained that UNCLOS is “not peripheral” but a “constitutional framework of the oceans, defining rights, jurisdiction, and obligations of coastal States, particularly within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where coastal States exercise sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing natural resources.” As one of the largest archipelagic States in the world, with over 6 million sq km of maritime jurisdiction, rich tuna and fisheries ecosystems, and located strategically at the crossroads of major fishing routes, Indonesia said that it is one of the primary victims of global Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUUF). Jakarta stated that it will continue to exercise its rights of arresting, prosecuting, and sinking illegal foreign fishing vessels firmly and without hesitation under UNCLOS 1982 and national laws. It maintained that, because of its commitment to sustainability, it is raising a major concern “on the Draft Ministerial Decision on Fisheries Subsidies text.” Indonesia said it “believes that certain formulations within FISH I risk creating ambiguity or even tension with UNCLOS 1982, particularly in three areas: * First, Jurisdictional Integrity of Coastal States: UNCLOS clearly establishes that coastal States have sovereign rights over living resources in their EEZ. Any WTO discipline that indirectly constrains how a coastal State manages, supports, or enforces within its EEZ must be carefully scrutinized. Secondly, citing the disproportionate impact on coastal states vs. distant water fishing (DWF) nations, Indonesia stated that, as a coastal state, it is bearing “the cost of surveillance, the burden of enforcement and the ecological responsibility of resource sustainability.” “Yet, global fishing pressure is often driven by large-scale, distant water fleets operating far from their own jurisdictions,” it added. “There is even dangerous trend of possibly allowing countries to fish in other countries’ EEZ based on so- called “historical practices”, which could mean many things including the return of colonialism or worse, a tool to force maritime claims at sea. This term was rejected during 20 years’ negotiation of UNCLOS 1982, and now is emerging.” Thirdly, on the interpretative risk in dispute settlement, Indonesia said, “without explicit safeguards, there is a real possibility that WTO disciplines could be interpreted in a manner that constrains legitimate coastal State measures, or creates legal exposure for actions fully consistent with UNCLOS 1982. This is not a theoretical concern. It is a systemic risk to the coherence of international law.” “However, we firmly believe that no WTO instrument should be interpreted or applied in a manner that undermines the rights and jurisdiction of coastal States as established under UNCLOS 1982.” “This is not a defensive position. It is a principled position to preserve the integrity of international law, that is now under relentless attack,” it said.. Indonesia firmly stated that under no circumstances will it give up its rights “under international law to ensure that no multilateral instrument erodes the legal framework established by UNCLOS 1982.” “Should there be any situation where the implementation or interpretation of FISH I that undermines coastal State jurisdiction, or creates inconsistency with UNCLOS obligations, we will consider all available legal avenues, including recourse to International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to uphold the integrity of international law.” Adam Wolfenden, Deputy Coordinator, Pacific Network on Globalisation, said that “the statement from Indonesia raises legitimate concerns about the rights that many members already have under international law and how these may be eroded under the WTO agreements.” He added, “The legal ambiguities that are of concern for Indonesia need to be addressed before the Fish 2 negotiations commit many developing countries, who are largely the resource holders of fish, to commitments that will undermine the rights and obligations that many countries already have under international law to fish their waters.” +
|
||
