The Legal Regime of the Baltic Sea Fisheries

M. Fitzmaurice-Lachs

doi:10.1017/S0165070X00012766

The Legal Regime of the Baltic Sea Fisheries

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009

M. Fitzmaurice-Lachs

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

One reason at least, as the writer of this study tries to show, is that the Baltic Sea has to a great extent formed a “microcosms” reflecting the changing priniciples of the law of the sea. Thus the classic terms of the law of the sea such as “mare liberum”, “freedom of fishing”, “conservation”, “growing interests of the coastal states”, “exclusive fisheries zones” are all relevant to the Baltic Sea. The legal aspects of the Baltic Sea fisheries pose questions, also, which concern the general theory of international law, such as the law of treaties (both bilateral and multilateral agreements), the relationship between international law and muncipal law (the resolutions of international organization and muncipal law) and the law relating to international organizations (in particular the role of resolutions of international organizations in the law making process).

Type: Articles
Information: Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , August 1982 , pp. 174 - 251

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X00012766 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Whilst the general concept of freedom of the high seas was first propounded by Grotius in the XVIIth century, it cannot be said to have been applied in practice in the Baltic Sea at least until 1857 when, under the Treaty of Copenhagen, Denmark finally abandoned the levying of tolls for passage through the Danish Straits which it controlled. The Parties to the Convention were Denmark, on the one hand, and Sweden, Norway, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, France, The Nehterlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Russia, on the other hand. See, Sebek, V., The Eastern European States and the Development of the Law of the Sea (Oceana 1978) p. 222Google Scholar.

2. Tunkin, G.J., Therory of International Law (London 1974) p. 142CrossRef Google Scholar; Art. 2 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas of 2 April 1958, adopted on 29 April 1958, came into force on 30 September 1962.

3. On the high seas, see Bierzanek, R., “Le nature juridique de la Haute Mer”, RGDIP (1961) pp. 233–259Google Scholar; Bos, M., “La liberté de la Haute Mer, Quelques Problèmes d'Actualité”, NTIR (1965) pp. 337–364Google Scholar.

4. Koers, A., International Regulations of Marine Fisheries (London 1973) p. 16Google Scholar.

5. United Nations Third Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) “Draft Convention of the Law of the Sea” referred to as “Draft Convention”. A/CONF. 62/L. 78, 28 August 1981.

6. This view is generally accepted, see: Zaorski, R., Ekspoatacja biologicznych zasobow morza w swietle prawa miedzynarodowego [The Exploitation of the Biological Resources of The Sea in International Law] (Gdynia 1957) p. 147Google Scholar; Fauchille, , Traite de Droit International Public (Paris 1925)Google Scholar; Rousseau, Ch., Droit International Public (Paris 1953)Google Scholar; Dupuis, Ch., “La Liberté de Vois des Communications, Relations Internationales”, RC 1924, vol. 2Google Scholar; see also: Grotius, , Mare Liberum, Classics of International Law (New York 1916) p. 42Google Scholar; Bynkershoek, C., De Domino Marts Dissertation, Classics of International Law (New York 1923) Chapter IX, p. 402Google Scholar; but see: Foscaneanu, L., “Le Droit Maritime de l'Océan et ses Mers Adjacents”, AFDI (1964) p. 179Google Scholar. For a general survey of views, see Zaorski, R., supra, p. 14 et seqGoogle Scholar.

7. Koers, , op.cit., supra note 3, p. 17Google Scholar.

8. Raested, A., La Chasse à la Baleine en Mer Libre (Paris 1938), p. 36Google Scholar.

9. Zaorski, R., “The Legal Problems of Conservation and Rational Exploitation of the resources of the Sea”, in Scientific and Technological Revolution and the Law of the Sea (Warszawa 1979) p. 172Google Scholar; also Larsen, D.L., ed., Major Issues of the Law of the Sea (Dur-ham, New Hampshire 1975) p. 82Google Scholar. One of the first international agreements on conservation was concluded between France and Great Britain on 24 May 1843, and concerned the conservation of oysters in the North Sea. A further agreement concluded between the same parties related to the conservation of herring, oysters, and mackerel. In the 1920's and 1930's, several bilateral agreements werd concluded, e.g., between the United States and Canada. The efforts of the Baltic States relating to the conservation in the Baltic Sea began on a greater scale in 1920. Salmon and seatrout were the subjects of many conventions between the Baltic States.

Paris Convention of 3 August 1839 between France and Great Britain, Martens, , Nouveau Réceutt Général, Series I, vol. IX, p. 954 et seqGoogle Scholar. The second agreement was denounced by Great Britian on 29 June 1963 with effect from 24 June 1964. Halibut Conventions of 2 March 1923, 9 May 1930, and 28 January 1937 (replaced by an agreement of 2 March 1953), Société des Nations, RéceuU des Traités, vol. 32, p. 94; idem vol. 115, p. 93 et seq.; idem, p. 210 and Treaties and Other International Acts, series 2900. Department of State of the United States of America, publication 5372.

E.g., between Estonia and Latvia in 1925, Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 54, p. 231.

The Convention on the Conservation of Plaice in Skagerrak, Kattegat, and Sund of 1932, between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 139, pp. 190–203, To list all international agreements relating to conservation would exceed the scope of this study.

For a survey of international agreements on fisheries, see League of Nations, Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law (Geneva 1927) C. 196, II 70 1927, p. 125 et seq.Google Scholar; the UN Secretariat published the list of these agreements: List in Chronological Order of International Agreements Relating to Fisheries and Other Questions Affecting the Unitilization and Conservation of the Resources of the Sea, prepared by the Secretariat of the UN, Doc. A/Conf. 13/231.

10. 20 FAO Yearbook of Fishery Statistics (1965) p. 4–5, also Zaorski, R. op.cit. supra note 5, p. 10Google Scholar.

11. Major Issues, op.cit., supra note 9, p. 84.

12. Zaorski, , loc. cit., supra note 9, p. 178Google Scholar.

13. Zaorski, , op.cit., supra nota 5, p. 154Google Scholar.

14. Idem, p. 155; also the same view is expressed by United Nations, Report by the International Law Commission (ICL Report), (1965) p. 26.

15. But see A. Koers, who relates this provision exclusively to fisheries, Koers, , op. cit., supra note 3, p. 19Google Scholar.

16. Preamble to the 1958 Geneva Convention includes the following words “… adopted the following provisions as being generally declaratory of established principles of international law”.

17. On the subject of conservation in general see, Amador, F.C. Garcia, The Exploitation and Conservation of the Resources of the Sea (London 1963)Google Scholar; idem, Addendum to the Exploitation and Conservation of the Resources of the Sea (Leyden 1963); Gros, A., “La Convention sur la Pêche et la Conservation des Richesses Biologiques de la Haute Mer”, 97 RC (1959)Google Scholar; Jessup, Ph. C., “L'Exploitation des Richesses de la Mer”, 29 RC (1929)Google Scholar; Mahé, P.E., “Protection des fonds et conventions internationales”. La Peche Maritime, No. 933 (1955)Google Scholar; de Ferron, O., Le Droit International de la Mer (Geneve 1958–1960)Google Scholar; Colombos, J.C., The International Law of the Sea (London 1962)Google Scholar.

18. E.g., Koers, , op. cit., supra note 3, p. 45 et seq.Google Scholar, treats “conversation” as basically a biological phenomenon, whereas Zaorski, , op. cit., supra note 5, p. 164 et seq.Google Scholar, deals mainly with its legal aspects.

19. Other aspects of conservation encompass, in particular, such factors as rate of recruitment, rate of growth, and rate of mortality. As these factors may vary from year to year, the maximum sustainable yield of a stock may also fluctuate in time. Obviously, this is the first difficulty in adjusting actual catches to the maximum sustainable yield. A second problem iscaused by the fact that taking the maximum sustainable yield from one species may affect the catch that is available from another species. For example, increasing the size of the fur seal herds for the purpose of achieving their maximum sustainable yield of a stock requires a great dal of information which in many cases does not yet exist. Thus, apart from political problems involved in reaching international agreement on conservation measures, there is also a great deal of scientific uncertainty that makes conservation a very difficult problem. Fortunately, experience shows that most stocks of fish are quite resilient to overfishing, and that they usually recover from a reduction in stock size. (Koers, A., “The Freedom of Fishing in Decline, The Case of the North-East Atlantic”, in Churchill, R. et al. , eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea, vol. III (London 1973) pp. 19 et seqGoogle Scholar. On the biological aspects of fishing, see in particular: Coull, J.R., Fisheries Resources of Europe (London 1942.)Google Scholar

20. The “International Convention for the- North West Atlantic Fisheries” was signed on 8 February 1949 in Washington and came into force on 3 July 1950. Text in UNTS, vol. 157, p. 158.

22. Graham, M., “Overfishing” in VII Proceedings of the United Nations Scientific Conference in Conservation and Utilization of Resources, Lake Success, 17 08 – 6 09 1949, p. 20Google Scholar.

23. See Koers, , op.cit., supra note 3, p. 51 et seqGoogle Scholar. Straburzynski, A., “Ochrona zywych zasobow Batyku na tie postanowien Konwencji Gdanskiej” [The Conservation of the Living Resources of the Baltic Sea against the Background of the Gdansk Convention], 5 Panstwo i Prawo [State and Law] (1974)Google Scholar.

24. Wolfke, K., Custom in Present International Law (Wroclaw 1964) p. 78Google Scholar.

25. On the problem of the creation of customary law see in particular Meijers, H., “How is International Law Made?” Stages of Growth of International Law and Use of its Customary Rules”, NYIL (1978) p. 20 et seqGoogle Scholar.

26. Adopted on 29 April 1958, came into force on 20 March 1966, Official Documents A/CONF. 13/38, pp. 157–160.

26a. (Article 6(1)), which introduced the concept of the “special rights of coastal states” has been the subject of criticism on the grounds, firstly, that it did not state the breadth of the area of the high seas over which the coastal state may exercise its “special interests”. Under the Geneva Convention coastal states have rights to adopt unilateral measures of conservation appropriate to any particular stock of fish or other marine resources in any area of the high seas adjacent to their territorial sea. (Article 7). On the Convention see in particular; Herrington, C.W., “The Future of the Geneva Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea”, in Alexander, L. M., ed., The Future of the Sea's Resources (Kingston, Rhode Island 1968), pp. 63–65Google Scholar; idem, “The Convention on Fisheries and Conservation of Living Resources: Accomplishments of the 1958 Geneva Conventions”, in D. Cushing, ed., Fisheries Resources of the Sea and Their Management (Oxford 1975) pp. 19 et seq.; Amador, Garcia, op. cit., supra note 17, pp. 187–194Google Scholar; Bishop, W., “The 1958 Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas”, Columbia Law Review (1962) pp. 1206–1230Google Scholar.

27. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was established in 1901 by Belgium, Holland, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Russia and is the oldest international fisheries organization. Although its Statues have been changed from time to time, the Council's main function throughout its existence has been to encourage and coordinate the scientific investigations of its Member States; only occasionally did it conduct its own investigations. In order to formalize the status of the Council, a new Convention was signed in 1964, which entered into force in July 1968. The present members of ICES are: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USSR. Under the new Convention the functions of the Council are:

(a) to promote research for the study of the sea, particularly with respect to the sea's living resources;

(b) to draw up research programs;

These functions must be carried out in the Atlantic Ocean and especially in the North Atlantic. The International Council conducts its business through a number of committees and working groups; at present there are 12 standing committees, each of which deals with a specific area or with a specific topic. A Consultative Committee co-ordinates their activities. In addition to its committee structure, ICES has a Bureau with certain executive functions and a Secretariat with about 18 full-time officials. Apart from co-ordinating the research work of its member states, the Council's main activities are:

(a) the collection and publication of hydrographic data;

(b) the standardization of research methods;

(d) the publication of a wide variety of studies.

All detail from Koers, , loc. cit., supra note 19, p. 23Google Scholar.

28. Zaorski, R. “Wspólpraca miedzynarodowa w dziedzinie ochrony zasobów biologicznych morza Baltyckiego” [International Co-operation in the Field of Conservation of Biological Resources of the Baltic Sea] Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny, i Socjologiczny [Legal, Economic, and Sociological Movements] (1963) No.1, p. 42Google Scholar.

29. The Convention of 1929 on the Regulation of Fishing of Flounder and Plaice, Societe des Nations, Receuil des Traites, vol. 54, No. 2679, p. 93 et seq. and the Convention of 1932 between Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 139, pp. 190–203 are examples of this category.

30. North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention was signed on 24 January 1959 in London entered into force on 27 June 1963, text in UNTS vol. 486.

31. North-West Atlantic Fisheries Convention. See op. cit. supra note 20.

32. When the Parties to the Convention ol 1932, op. cit., supra note 29 wished to extend the provisions of the Convention to cover also dab, it was necessary to replace the whole Convention with the Convention of 1937, between the same Parties.

33. Koers, , op. cit. supra note 3, p. 23Google Scholar.

35. Gelberg, , op. tit., supra note 18, p. 11Google Scholar.

36. Report of the ICES Working Group on Pollution of the Baltic Sea (Copenhagen, February 1970) Co-operative Research Report 15 SA, p. 331; see also, Boczek, B., “International Protection of the Baltic Sea Environment agsinst Pollution, A Study in Marine Regionalism, vol. 72 AJIL (1978) pp. 782 et seqGoogle Scholar.

37. de Yturriaga, J.A., “Regional Conventions on the Protection of the Marine Environment”, RC (1979), p. 334Google Scholar.

38. For more information on the subject see: Cushing, D., ed., Fisheries Resources of the Sea and Their Management (Oxford 1975) p. 13 et seq.Google Scholar; Chapman, W.M., “Fishery Resources in Off-Shore Waters”, in Alexander, L.M., ed., Off-Shore Boundaries and Zones (Columbus, Ohio 1967) pp. 93–98Google Scholar; M.B. Schaefer, “The Future of the Sea's Resources”, in idems, p. 127.

39. Koers, , op. cit., supra note 3, p. 24Google Scholar.

40. Schachter, O. and Sewer, D., “Marine Pollution, Problems and Remedies”, AJIL (01 1971) p. 103Google Scholar.

41. De Yturriaga, , loc. cit., supra note 37, p. 343 et seqGoogle Scholar.

42. Demel, K., Nasz Baltyk [Our Baltic] op. cit., supra note 34, p. 43Google Scholar; average salinity is between 4 and 6 percent, which may be compared with a level of salinity of 35 percent in the North Atlantic.

43. Gilas, J., “Legal Problems of Protection of the Baltic Environment”, 4 Polish Western Affairs (1977) p. 331Google Scholar.

44. ICES Survey of Fisheries Resources in the ICES area (June 1973) pp. 39–42; and Demel, K., Biologia Morza [Biology of the Sea] (Warszawa 1959) p. 37Google Scholar; idem, Biologia Ryb Baltyku [Biology of Fish in the Baltic] also, J.R. Coull, op. cit., supra note 19.

45. Sibthorp, M., ed., The North Sea, Challenge and Opportunity (London 1975) p. 3 et seqGoogle Scholar.

46. International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (“IBSFC”) Proceedings of the Fifth Session, Warsaw, 09 1979, pp. 19–21Google Scholar.

47. Rocznik Gospodarki Morskiej [Statistical Yearbook of Marine Economy] (1974) p. 234.

48. Gelberg, , Co-operation of the Baltic States (Legal Problems) (Warszawa 1981) p. 83Google Scholar; also Report of the Liaison Committee of the ICES to the Second Session of the IBSFC (1976) Doc. 2/5/76/3, p. 7.

49. Koers, , op. cit., supra note 3, p. 32Google Scholar.

50. Ibid. p. 27.

51. Carroz, J. E., “The Management of the Living Resources of the Baltic Sea and the Belts”, 4 Ocean Development and International Law (1977) p. 215CrossRef Google Scholar.

52. Specific technical requirements for fishing gear are set out n Art. 9 as amended by Recommendation No. 5 (1978). The text of the Recommendation is included in the Fishery Rules of the Convention as new Rules 9.3, 9.4. and 9.5; see IBSFC Proceedings of the Fifth Session of the Commission, op. cit. supra note 46.

53. Koers, , op. cit., supra note 3, p. 33Google Scholar.

54. Johnson, B., “The Baltic”, in Churchill, R., ed., The New Directions in the Law of the Sea, vol. III (London 1973) p. 210Google Scholar.

55. On the conservation of living resources of the Baltic Sea, see in particular: Gilas, op. cit., supra note 41; Zaorski, op. cit., supra note 28; idem, “Zagadnienia ochrony zasobow morza Baltyckiego” Questions concerning Protection of the Biological Resources of the Baltic Seal in Zagadnienia Prawne Baltyku |Legal Problems of the Balticl| (Wroclaw 1963) pp. 169–183; idem, “Problems of Conservation of Living Resources in the Baltic Sea”, Polish Yearbook of International Law (PYIL) (1970) p. 39 et seq.; idem, “The Gdansk Convention on Conservation of Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts”, PYIL (1975) p. 5 et seq.; Góralczyk, W., “La Mer Baltique et les problèames des cooperations des Etats Riveraines”. 1 RGDIP (1980) p. 270 et seq.Google Scholar; Topuski, J., “Piawne problemy wspolpracy wzakresie korzystania z Baltyku” [Legal Problems of Co-operation in the Field of the Utilization of the Baltic Sea], 7 Sprawy Miedzynarodowe [International Affairs] (1978) p. 110 et seq.Google Scholar; Jaworski, M., “Baltyk jako przedmiot wspolpracy panstw nadbreznych [The Baltic as a Subject of Cooperation between Coastal States] 2 Sprawy Miedzynarodowe [International Affairs] (1978) p. 20 et seq.Google Scholar; idem, Miedzynarodowa ochrona zasobow biologicznych i srodowisika morskiego Baltyku, Aktualny Stan i perspektywy (II) [The International Conservation of the Living Resources and the Environment of the Baltic Sea, The Present State and Perspectives] (Waiszawa 1974); idem, “The Baltic as the Object of Co-operation of Coastal States. The Protection of Baltic Biological Resources”, 12 Studies on International Relations (1979); idem, “Miedzynarodowa ochrona zasobow biologicznych i srodowiska morskiego Baltyku” [international Protection of the Living Resources and the Baltic Environment] 7 Sprawy Miedzynarodowe [International Affairs] (1974) pp. 109–118; Carroz, J.E., loc. cit., supra note 51, p. 217 et seq.Google Scholar; Johnson, B., loc. cit., supra note 54, p. 209 et seq.Google Scholar; idem, “The Baltic Conventions”, 25 ICLQ (1976) p. 1 et seq.; Gelberg, op. cit., supra note 48, p. 60 et seq.Google Scholar; idem, “Rechtsprobleme des Schutzes des lebenden Ressources in der Ostsee”, 18 Jahrbuch fur Internationales Recht (1975) p. 204 et seq.; Straburzynski, A., loc. cit., supra note 23, p. 109 et seq.Google Scholar; idem, and Netzel, J., The Baltic States Co-operation in the Field of Protection of the Marine Environment and Living Resources of the Baltic Sea (Gdynia) p. 9Google Scholar.

56. Convention on the Regulation of Fisheries on the Waters Adjacent to Their Territory, between Denmark and Sweden of 1899, Zaorski, , op. cit., supra note 28, p. 38Google Scholar.

57. Convention of 31 December 1932 concluded by Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in Stockholm, text in Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, op.cit., supra note 29, pp. 190–203.

58. Convention on Protection of Plaice and Dab concluded between Norway, Sweden and Denmark of 6 September 1937 in Oslo, , text in Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 186, pp. 420–431Google Scholar.

59. See Jaworski, M., Miedzynarodowa (II), op.cit., supra note 55, p. 18Google Scholar.

60. Convention between Finland and the USSR of 20 September 1922. Text in Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 19, pp. 144–152.

61. The Convention concluded between the USSR and Finland of 22 October 1922 in Helsinki, text in Societe des Nations, op. cit., supra note 61, pp 184–189Google Scholar.

62. Convention concluded between Latvia and Estonia of 28 October 1925 in Riga, , op.cit., supra note 56, pp. 232–237Google Scholar.

63. Convention concluded between Sweden and Finland of 10 May 1927 in Helsinki, , text in Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 70, p. 202–238Google Scholar.

64. Convention between Germany and the Lithuanian Republic relating to fishing in the Hurische Haft, the Skivwieth Russ, and Memel Rivers and in the Wystit Lake, the Sepana, Schinwindt, and Schwesdruppe Rivers of 28 January 1928, Berlin, te'xt in Société des Nations, Réceuil des Traités, vol. 89, pp. 310–322Google Scholar.

65. English text in Rüster, B. and Simma, B., eds., International Protection of the Environment, Treaties, and Related Documents, vol. VII, (1976) p. 2636Google Scholar.

66. Zaorski, , loc.cit. supra note 9, pp. 40–44Google Scholar.

67. Jaworski, , Miedzynarodowa, loc.cit., supra note 55, p. 23Google Scholar.

68. Ibid., and ICES Bulletin of Maritime Statistics (1955) p. 2; (1965) p. 16; (1971) p. 14.

69. The London Convention signed on 5 April 1946, entered into force on 5 April 1953. Text in UNTS, vol. 231 no. 3221 p. 199. The area for the purposes of these conventions was defined as lying to the north and west of lines drawn from Hasenøre Head, Gilbjerg Point from Korshage to Spodsbjerg and from Gulbierg to Kullen, Johnson, , loc.cit., supra note 55, p. 210Google Scholar.

70. Zaorski, , Zagadnienia, , loc.cit., supra note 55, p. 17Google Scholar. See, e.g., Agreement between the Ministry of Shipping of the Polish People's Republic and the Ministry of Communications of the German Democratic Republic on the mutual cooperation for increasing security of shipping and fishing on the Baltic Sea, done in Warsaw on 12 January 1956, Zbiór umów miedzynarodowych PRL [Collection of International Agreements Concluded by the PPR] (Warszawa 1965), p. 11Google Scholar. Agreement between the Government of the PPR, the Government of the GDR and the Government of the USSR concerning co-operation in the field of safety of life and assistance to the sea vessels and to the aircraft requiring help or salvage on the Baltic Sea, done in Moscow on 12 December 1956, ibid., p. 216. Protocol between rescue services of the PPR, GDR and USSR, done in Moscow on 12 December 1956, ibid., p. 222; Agreement between the Governments of the PPR, GDR and USSR on co-operation in the field of sea fisheries, done in Warsaw on 28 July 1962, Zbiór umów miedzynarodowych PRL (Warszawa 1964) p. 281Google Scholar; Agreement between the Government of the PPR and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark concerning salvage operations and recovery of property from the sea on Polish and Danish internal waters and territorial seas, done in Warsaw on 28 February 1968, Dz. Urz. Ministerstwa Zeglugi [Official Gazette of the Ministry of Shipping] (1968) No. 8 item 47Google Scholar; Declaration of the GDR, PPR and USSR on the continental shelf of the Baltic Sea, done in Moscow on 28 October 1968. Agreement between the PPR and GDR on the delimitation of the continental shelf, done in Berlin on 29 October 1968 Dziennik Ustaw (Dz.U.) [Official Gazette] (1969) No. 16 item 106Google Scholar; Agreement between the PPR and the USSR on the course of the boundary of the continental shelf in the Bay of Gdansk and in the North-Eastern part of the Baltic Sea, done in Warsaw on 28 August 1969, Dz.U. (1970) No. 15 item 127. Zaorski, , loc.cit., supra note 9, p. 40Google Scholar. The agreement between Denmark and the FRG on the traditional German right of fishing of 30 November 1967, UNTS vol. 632, p. 153; Agreement between the GDR and the FRG on fisheries on the part of territorial waters of the GDR in Lubeck Bay, GDI, II (1974) No. 22; The Soviet-Finnish agreement of 13 June 1959 relating to fisheries and seals in the Baltic Sea Official Gazette of the Supreme Soviet (1970) No. 22 item 182, (or UNTS, vol. 739, No. 10606). The Polish-Danish agreement on fisheries in their exclusive fisheries zonesGoogle Scholar of 1 June 1971, Dz. U. (1972) No. 3 item 13, (or UNTS, vol. 814, No. 11593). Examples of the acts of municipal Law during this period include the Polish Law on sea fisheries of 21 May 1963, Dz.U. (1963) No. 22 item 52, with amendments of 12 February 1970, Dz.U. (1970) No. 3 item 14, and the Decree of the Soviet Council of Ministers of 15 September 1958, English text in ST/LEG/SER.B/15. Swedish law of 1 July 1966, Svensk Forfattningssamling (1966) No. 379Google Scholar.

71. Convention between Denmark, Norway, and Sweden concerning measures for the Protection of stocks of deep-sea prawns, European lobsters and crabs, of 4 March 1952. Text in UNTS vol. 175 p. 208. Convention between Norway and Sweden concerning the establishment of Joint Regulations for Salmon and Sea Trout, etc., signed at Oslo on 27 January 1949, text in op.cit., supra note 65.

72. See Jaworski, , Miedzynarodowa (II), loc.cit., supra note 55, p. 75Google Scholar.

73. All details from Zaorski, Problems, loc.cit., supra note 55, and Jaworski, Wspolpraca (I), loc. cit., supra note 55.

74. UN Report of the Technical Conference on the Conservation of the Living Reourcesof the Sea, Rome 18 April – 10 May 1955, Doc./A/CONF. 10/6 para. 73. Some recommendations on the conservation of some species of fish in the Baltic Sea had been adopted at the International Technical Conference on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea in Rome in 1955. It was pointed out that the Baltic Sea was one of the areas calling for attention and made particular reference to plaice, flounder, salmon, and cod fisheries.

75. ICES Rapports et Proces Verbaux des Réunions, vol. 147, pp. 6–12Google Scholar.

76. Jaworski, , Miedzynarodowa, (II), loc.cit., supra note 55, p. 113Google Scholar.

77. Agreement on Protection of the Salmon Population in the Baltic Sea signed on 20 December 1962 in Stockholm, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/15, p. 859 et seq., and Protocol amending this Convention of 21 January 1972, Dz.U. [Official Gazette] (1977) No. 4 item18. English text in International Protection …, op.cit., supra note 65 p. 2987.

78. Signature on 10 May 1971, Dz.U. [Official Gazette] (1971) No. 20 item 190.

79. Straburzynski, A.. “Exclusive Fishery Zone, International and Polish Practice”, Polish Yearbook of International Law (PYIL) (1970) p. 257Google Scholar.

80. Among the Baltic states at this time only the USSR had territorial sea of the breadth of 12 nautical miles. The breadth of territorial sea of the other coastal states varied from 3 to 4 miles, viz.:

Denmark – 3 miles territorial sea, Finland – 4 miles territorial sea, the GDR – 3 miles territorial sea, Poland – 3 miles territorial sea, Sweden – 4 miles territorial sea.

81. Becker, L.K., “The Breadth of the Territorial Sea and Fisheries Jurisdiction”, The Department of State Bulletin (16 03 1959) pp. 363–374Google Scholar. Thus the concept of fisheries zones was seen as a kind of compromise between the solutions in order not to extend the territorial limits over 12 miles.

82. At the First Geneva Conference, there were three main proposals: Canadian (Official Documents, A/Conf. 13/L. 28/Ref. 1); American (Official Documents, A/Conf. 13/L. 29); and that worked out by Saudi Arabia, Burma, Colombia, Indonesia, Morocco, Venezuela, and the United Arab Republic (Official Documents, A/Conf. 13/L. 34). The Canadian and American proposals were very similar. They recognized the 12 mile exclusive fisheries zone, limited by the “historic rights” of the fishing vessels of states which were engaged in fishing in a regular way in the zone between six and twelve miles during the five years preceding the signing of the Convention. The third proposal also recognized the right to establish a twelve mile limit to the territorial sea. If the territorial sea of a state was less than 12 miles, the state was allowed to establish an exclusive fishing zone up to the 12 mile limit.

At the Second Geneva Conference, there were two proposals, the first put forward principally by the less developed countries (see Official Documents A/Conf. 19/8 p. 99) and the second by the USA and Canada (see Official Documents A/Conf. 19/G. 1/L 10). These proposals were substantially similar to those put forward at the First Conference which are referred to above in this note.

83. Official Documents A/Conf. 13/38, p. 46; A/Conf. 19/8, p. 161; A/Conf. 19/8, p. 32. By 1968, amongst others, the following states had established 12 mile limits to their territorial sea: Cyprus, Ghana, India, Kuwait, Malagasy Republic, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, and Togo – See ILM (March 1965) p. 26 and (May 1968) pp. 574–576; and 3 RGDIP Documents (1968) pp. 914–915; Whiteman, M.M., Digest of International Law, vol. IV (Washington 1965) pp. 34–35Google Scholar. Amongst others the following states had established exclusive fisheries zones up to the 12 mile limit: the United Kingdom on 30 September 1964, issued Fishery Limits Act, RGDIP (1965) pp. 166–167; Denmark on 31 January 1965, RGDIP (1965) p. 466; Canada on 15 May 1964, RGDIP (1963) pp. 884–887; and the USA on 14 October 1966. Among the Baltic States exclusive fisheries zones were established by Poland, Dziennik Ustaw [Official Gazette] (1970) No. 3 item 14Google Scholar, Denmark on 26 May 1966 (Law No. 165), English text in UN Legislative SeriesST/LEG/SER.B/15; Sweden on 5 September 1968, English text in UN Legislative Series ST/LEG/SER.B/16.

84. E.g., the treaties between the United Kingdon and Denmark regarding the Fisheries Zone around the Faroe Islands, 1959, text in RGDIP Documents (1963) p. 621; the United Kingdom and Norway 1960, UNTS NO. 5723, vol. 398, pp. 189–228Google Scholar; Japan and South Korea 1965, The Japanese Annual of International Law (1966) Documents, pp. 264–283.

85. Signed 9 March 1964; entered into force 15 March 1966, signed by Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Eire, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Great Britain, Italy. Poland acceded on 7 June 1966. For text see RGDIP Documents (1964) pp. 1043–1053. Due to the further extensionin the breadth of exclusive fisheries zones, by all parties, the Convention has lost factual significance though it has not been legally renounced.

86. On the legal character of the exclusive fisheries zone see in particular: Zaorski, R., “Polski pas wylacznego rybolostwa na tie praktyki miedzynarodowej” [Polish Exclusive Fisheries Zone and the International Practice] 4 Sprawy Miedzynarodowe [international Affairs] (1973) p. 67 et seqGoogle Scholar. Straburzynski, A., “Strefy reybolowcze” [Fisheries Zones], 2 Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny, i Sociologiczny [Legal, Economic and Sociological Movements] (1967) p. 99 et seq.Google Scholar; idem, “Przestrzenny zakres praw panstw do wylacznosci korzystanie z obszarow morskich” [The Territorial Scope of the States' Rights for the Exclusive Utilization of Sea Areas], 36 Studia Prawnicze [Legal Studies] (1973).

87. Zaorski, , loc.cit., supra note 86, p. 67Google Scholar.

88. E.g., the Agreement between the Government of the Polish People's Republic and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark concerning the granting of Mutual Rights on Fishing in Respective Fisheries Zones, Copenhagen, 1 June 1971, Dz.U. [Official Gazette] (1972) No. 3 item 13. The agreement was denounced by the Memorandum of the Polish Government of 28 February 1978, Dz.U. [Official Gazette] (1978) No. 6 item 19. See for the second group: Firstly the Agreement concerning the granting of rights to fishing vessels of the FRG to fish in the marine fisheries zone of the Polish People's Republic, Warsaw, 13 December 1973; Note also, the letter of the FRG Ambassador in Warsaw saying that: “… in the event of the establishment of a marine fisheries zone, to enter forthwith into negotiations with the Government of the Polish People's Republic with a view to granting to fishermen of the Polish People's Republic, on the basis of reciprocity, the same rights, as those granted to fishermen from the FRG in the marine fisheries zone of the Polish People's Republic” – text of the Agreement and letter in National Legistlation and Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea, ST/LEG/SER.B/18, p. 583 et seq. This Agreement was denounced by the Memorandum of the Polish Government of 28 February 1978, Dz.U. No. 6 item 18. And secondly, the Agreement between the Polish People's Republic and the Government of the GDR concerning the granting of rights to fishing vessels of the GDR to fish in the Polish fisheries zone of 19 December 1971 in Szczecin, Dz.U. (1974) No. 35 item 202. This Agreement was denounced on 28 December 1977 by virtue of the Decree of the Council of State of the Polish People's Republic.

89. Off. Doc. A/CONF. 13/8, p. 32.

90. English text in National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea, ST/LEG/SER/18, p. 565 et seq. The Convention was ratified by Poland on 25 October 1973, by the USSR on 20 February 1974, by the GDR on 20 March 1974, by Sweden on 29 April 1974, by Denmark on 6 May 1974, by Finland on 1 July 1974, by the FRG on 6 October 1977 (note the apparent delay in ratification by the FRG is accounted for by the fact that the procedures for ratification by that state are particularly complicated and time consuming).

91. All details as to the conclusion of the Gdansk Convention and the setting up of the IBSFC and its first sessions from Carroz, , loc. cit., supra note 51 p. 213 et seqGoogle Scholar.

92. See Doc. BS-DOC/C1/WP/24, p. 2; also ibid., p. 218.

93. See Carroz, , loc.cit., supra note 51, p. 218Google Scholar.

94. See Carroz, , loc.cit., supra note 51, p. 210Google Scholar.

95. Convention on Fisheries of the North-West Atlantic of 1949 excludes the territorial sea from its convention area. On the other hand, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 1959 includes the territorial sea in its scope – Article 1, as does the Convention on the Conservation of Biological Resources of the South-East Atlantic and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention adopted the same solutions in the new conventions as under the previous ones.

96. Although Art. II explicitly excludes internal waters, the Commission agreed thatTAC's for the whole Baltic and for each fisheries zone are based on the stocks of the entire sea including internal maritime waters, with the understanding that this is without prejudice to Art. II of the Convention as to the limits of the Convention area. IBSFC, Proceedings of the Fifth Session, op.cit., supra note 46.

97. Point 11(2) of the Final Act.

98. Caiioz, , loc.cit, supra note 51, p. 222Google Scholar.

99. It may be noted that in September 1977 the EEC was represented for the first timeat a conference related to the Gdansk Convention in a Ministerial Meeting in Warsaw convened by the Polish Government in its capacity as a Depository in order to discuss the consequences of Sweden's decision to extend its fisheries zone.

100. The IBSFC structure and powers are based on the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF).

The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) was established by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 24 January 1959 in London, which entered into force on 27 June 1963 – members of the NEAFC were: Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the USSR; see: Koers, , op.cit., supra note 3, p. 91Google Scholar (Text in UNTS, vol. 486, p. 157).

The International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) was established by the International Convention for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries, signed on 8 February 1949, entered into force on 3 July 1950, text in UNTS No. 2053, vol. 331, p. 38 et seq. The Member States were: Canada, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, the United States and the USSR.

101. Serial No. 5 Doc. I/S/74/3. Art. VII (3,2) reads as follows:

“a) to convene the regular and extraordinary sessions of the Commission;

b) to declare the opening and closing of each session of the Commission;

c) to preside at all sessions of the Commission;

d) to decide all questions of order raised at sessions of the Commission, subject to the right of any representatives to request that any ruling by the Chairman be submitted to the Commission for decision by vote;

e) to call for votes and to announce the result of the vote to the commission;

f) to settle after consultations with the representatives and the Secretary the provisional agenda for the session;

g) to sign, on behalf of the Commission, a report of the proceedings of each session of the Commission for transmission to Contracting States, representatives, and others concerned, as an authoritative record of what took place.”

102. Proceedings of the Third Session, Warsaw, 13–20 September 1977.

103. ICES also served as an advisory body to NAFO and the NEAFC. Carioz, , loc.cit, supra note 51, p. 224Google Scholar, and also letter of 14 October 1974 from the General Secretary of ICES to the Chairman of the Commission in IBSFC, Proceedings of the First Session (1974) pp. 37–39.

104. E.g., for 1980 ICES recommended 374 million tonnes of TAC for herring, and actually recommended by the IBSFC for its Member States were 420 million tonnes. IBSFC, Fifth Session, op.cit., supra note 46.

105. Carroz, , loc.cit, supra note 51, pp. 224–225Google Scholar; the author says that “… the matter is normally settled through hard negotiations and it is often difficult and rather hazardous to try to identify the various principles and motives that may have influenced member countries in reaching agreement.” The same author gives an exhaustive account of the allocation of fisheries up until 1978.

106. IBSFC, Proceedings of the Second Session, Warsaw 27 September – 1 October 1976. Memorandum containing the Swedish view on the Establishment of National Quotas in the Baltic, Doc. 2/5/7611.

107. IBSFC, Fifth Session, op.cit., supra note 46, p. 2Google Scholar.

108. On the subject of acquired customary law see, Ko-Swan-Sik, , “The Concept of Acquired Rights in International Law”, Survey, Essays on International Law and Relations, In Honour of A.J.P. Tammes, NILR vol. XXIII, special issue 1/2 (1977) p. 131Google Scholar.

109. E.g., IBSFC, Fifth Session, op. cit, supra note 46.

110. Skubiszewski, K., Uchwaly prawotworcze organizacji miedzynarodowych, Przeglad zagadnien i analiza wstepna [The Law Making Resolutions of the International Organizations, A Survey of Problems and Preliminary Analyses] (Poznan 1965) pp. 34–35Google Scholar; cf. Morawiecki, W., Funckje Organizacji Miedzynarodowej [The functions of an International Organization] (Warszawa 1971) p. 429Google Scholar.

111. Morawiecki, , op.cit, supra note 110, p. 172Google Scholar.

112. On the internal law of the organization see in particular; e.g., Bastid, S., “Quelques problèmes juridiques posés par le dveloppement des organisaton internationales”, in Grundprobleme des internationalen Rechts, Festschrift für Jean Spiropoulos (Bonn 1957) pp. 37–42Google Scholar; Foscaneanu, L., “Le droit interne de l'Organisation des Nations Unies”, 39 AFDI (1957) p. 315Google Scholar; Reuter, P., “Organisations Internationales et évolution du droit”, in L'évolution du droit public, Etudes offertes à Achilles Mestre (Paris 1956) p. 449Google Scholar; Virally, M., “Le Valeur Juridique des Récommendations des Organisations Internationales”, 2 AFDI (1956) p. 66 et seq.Google Scholar; Morawiecki, W., “Prawo wesnetrzne organizacji miedzynarodowych” [The Internal Law of International Organizations] 1 Panstwo i Prawo [State and Law] (1959) p. 36Google Scholar.

113. On this subject, see, e.g., Royer-Hameray, S., Les Competences Implicites des Organisations Internationales (Paris 1962) pp. 80–81Google Scholar; also Bowett, D.W., The Law of International Institutions (London 1963) p. 275Google Scholar; McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties (Oxford 1961) p. 436Google Scholar.

114. Skubiszewski, , loc. cit., supra note 110, p. 26Google Scholar.

115. Nahlik, S., Wstep do nauki prawa miedzynarodowego [Introduction to the Study of International Law] (Warszawa 1967) p. 417 et seqGoogle Scholar.

116. The view that such acts are international legislation is also held by Guggenheim, P., “They are an expression of a new technique of creating norms of international law which approximate the legislative and regulatory procedure of municipal law”, Guggenheim, P., Traite de Droit International Public, vol. I (1967) p. 284Google Scholar; also a similar view from Detter, T., “Regulations are more acts of an organization than agreements between Member States”, Detter, T., Law-Making by International Organizations (Stockhom 1965) pp. 321–322Google Scholar; idem, Law-Making by International Organizations Cooperation and Conflict, Nordic Studies in International Politics (Stockhom 1967).

117. For instance, in the European Coal and Steel Community, recommendations were binding on the Member States as to their purposes, leaving the members free choice as to the means to be employed in carrying out that purpose.

118. Wasilkowski, A., Zalecenia Rady Wzajemnej Pomocy Gospodarczej [Recommendations of the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance] (Warszawa 1969) p. 39Google Scholar; Morawiecki, , wewnetrzne, Prawo, locxit., supra note 112, p. 36Google Scholar.

119. IBSFC, First Session, op.cit., supra note 103.

120. Generally, by the term “resolution” are understood acts of the international organizations in general. This term is purely formal and does not contain any indication as to legal force of those acts. Cf. Resolutions of the Security Council. See, e.g., Virrally, , loc.cit., supra note 112, pp. 2,3Google Scholar.

121. Exactly the same system was adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Con-vention in Articles 7 and 8.

122. English text in Peaslee, A., International Governmental Organizations Constitutional Documents, revised 2nd ed., (The Hague 1961) pp. 922Google Scholar, 1904. Arts. 37, 54(1), 58, and 90 of the Convention on Civil Aviation; Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of WHO; and Arts. 7, 10(6), 14 of the WMO Constitution; Art. 8(4) of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention.

123. The detailed survey of the system of decision-making in the above-mentioned organizations exceeds the scope of this study, see, e.g., Mankiewicz, R.H., “L'Adaption des Annexes à la Convention de Chicago par le Conseil d'organization de 1'aviation Civil Internationale”, -in Beitrdge zum internationalen Luftrecht, Festschrift zu Eheren von Prof Dr jurMayer, Alex (Düsseldorf 1954) p. 88Google Scholar; Jones, H. Hart, “Amending the Chicago Convention and its Technical Standards, Can Consent of all Member States be Eliminated?”, 16 Journal of International Law and Commerce (1949) p. 190Google Scholar; Jacobini, H.B., “The New International Sanitary Regulations”, 46 AJIL (1952) p. 121Google Scholar.

124. Zaorski, , loc.cit., supra note 9, p. 205Google Scholar.

125. On the subject, see in particular, Skubiszewski, , op.cit, supra note 110, p. 63 et seq.Google Scholar, idem, “A New Source of the Law of Nations. Resolutions of International Organizations” in Récueil détudes de droit international en hommage á Paul Guggenheim (Geneve 1968) p. 502; Wasilkowski, , op.cit, supra note 118, p. 33Google Scholar.

126. Ago, R., “;Die internationalen Organisationen und ihre Funktionen im inneren Tätigkeitsgebiet der Staten”, Rechtsfragen der Internationalen Organisation, Festschrift für Hans Wehberg zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Frankfurt am Mein 1956) p. 25Google Scholar; Blix, M., Treaty-Making Power (London 1960) pp. 293–296Google Scholar; M. Kelsen attributes the character of a treaty of unanimous acts of an international organization; Kelsen, H., The Principles of International Law (New York 1952) p. 366Google Scholar; also Wasilkowski, , op.cit., supra note 118, p. 74Google Scholar.

127. Skubiszewski, , op. cit, supra note 110, p. 69Google Scholar.

128. Ibid., p. 140.

129. Tunkin, op.cit., supra, note 2.

130. The organization was established in 1964 by international agreement. Member States are Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the GDR, Poland, Hungary and the USSR. The agreement came into effect on 13 November 1964.

131. Wasilkowski, , op.cit., supra note 118, p. 39Google Scholar.

132. See, e.g., Triepel, H., Völkenrecht und Landsrecht (Leipzig 1893)Google Scholar, or Skubiszewski, , “Prawo Miedzynarodowe w porzadku panstwa” [international Law in the Legal System of the State] in Prawo Miedzynarodowe a prawo wewnetrzne w swietle doswiadczen panstw socjalistycznych [International Law and Municipal Law sin the Practice of the Socialist States] (Warszawa 1980) p. 13 et seq.Google Scholar; Fitzmaurice, G., “The General Principles of International Law, Considered from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law”, 92 RC (1952) No. 2, p. 70 et seqGoogle Scholar.

133. Skubiszewski, K., “Legal Nature and Domestic Effects of Acts of International Organizations”, Rapport Polonais au Vlllieme Congres International du Droit Compare (Warsaw 1970) p. 127 et seq.Google Scholar; also idem, “Resolutions of International Organizations and Municipal Law”, PYIL (1968–1969) p. 80 et seq.

134. F. Münch, “Federal Republic of Germany”, in R. Churchill et al eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea, vol. III loc.cit., supra note 19.

135. On the legal nature of the EEC resolutions see in particular: Pescatore, P., “Les Aspects Fonctionelles de la Communauté Economique Européene, Notamment les Sources du Droit”, Les Aspects Juridiques du Marché Commun (Liége 1958) pp. 64–73Google Scholar; Wohlfahrt, E., “Europäisches Recht von der Befungis der Organe der Europäischen Wirtschaftgemeinschaft zur Rechtsetzung”, 9 Jahrbuch fur Internationales Recht (1959) p. 24Google Scholar.

136. Carroz, , loc.cit., supra note 50, p. 228Google Scholar.

137. Ibid., The Convention was signed by the United States and Canada, entered into force on 28 October 1953, text in UNTS vol. 222 p. 78.

138. IBSFC, Second Session, op.cit., supra note 106. Ad Hoc Group on Joint Enforcement Scheme and Annexes.

139. Carroz, , loc.cit., supra note 50, p. 221Google Scholar.

140. See, Protocol on Amendment of the Agreement of 20 December 1962 Concerning the Protection of the Salmon Population in the Baltic Sea, Stockholm, 21 January 1972, for text see op.cit., supra note 77.

141. IBSFC, Second Session, op.cit., supra note 106, Recommendation No. 7. The technical requirements for salmon fisheries are exactly the same, see, e.g., “the gap width of fishhooks or trawl lines and fixed lines used for catching salmon shall be at least 19 millimetres” (Art. 5 of the Convention). The same is stipulated by Recommendation 8 (Fishery Rule 14.2) of the IBSFC. The Parties to the Salmon Convention observe its strict provisions very closely. For Finland, the GDR and the USSR (not Parties to the Salmon Convention) the IBSFC made a special recommendation allowing them to use slightly different (less strict) fishing gear provided it was already in use and until it would wear out.

142. Text in United Nations Legislative Series in National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea, Doc. ST/LEG/SR.B/18, pp. 520–522. See also: G. Reintanz, “The Baltic Sea – Special Pollution Problems”, in R. Churchill et al. eds., New Directions in the Law of the Sea, vol. III, loc.cit. supra note 19.

143. Text in International Protection, vol. I, op.cit., supra note 63, p. 332.

144. Ibid., p. 366.

145. Ibid., p. 378. Also see: de Yturriage, , loc.cit., supra note 36, p. 399Google Scholar.

146. International Protection, vol. II, op.cit., supra note 63, pp. 537 – 552.

147. In practice, the African States were the main sponsors of development of the concept of exclusive economic zones. Their claims in this respect were set forth at a regional seminar on the law of the sea of African states, held in Yaounde in June 1972 while draft provisions concerning the exclusive economic zone were submitted by Kenya at a session of the sub-committee of the Second Committee on Peaceful Uses of the Seabed and Ocean Floor on 7 August 1972. An essential part was also played by a declaration of the Organization of African Unity of 24 May 1973 concerning the question of the law of the sea. The concept of the zone was taken up by other members of the Committee – not only by developing, but also by developed countries and particularly Canada, Australia, and Norway. Doc. A/AC. 138/79; Doc. A/AC. 138/89.

148. It is widely considered that the process towards extension of the territorial limits of states' jurisdiction over the seas, largely for economic purposes, started with the Truman Declaration, Proclamation No. 2669, 19 Federal Register 12304, followed almost simultaneously by the declarations through acts of municipal law, by a number of Latin American states, claiming certain rights over areas of the sea up to limits of 200 miles from their coasts. E.g., Panama, , by Decree of 12 December 1946, United Nations Legislative Series, Laws and Regulations on the Regime of the High Seas, 1951 vol. 1, p. 6Google Scholar; Chile, by Decree of 23 June 1947 (200 mile zone), ibid., vol. II, p. 6; Peru by Decree of 1 August 1947, ibid., vol. II, p. 16 et seq.; Elsalvador, 14 September 1950, ibid., vol. Ill, p. 14. The zones thus established, and the rights claimed within them by the states who established them varied. The zones were called, variously “zona maritima”, “Epicontinental sea”, or (quite inaccurately) “continental shelf”. The rights of states claimed within them were described, variously, as “sovereign rights”, “rights of national sovereignty”, or “rights of jurisdiction and control”.

149. Góralczyk, W., “Nowe prawo morza” [The New Law of the Sea], 8 – 9 Panstwo i Prawo [State and Law] (1978)Google Scholar.

150. On the legal character of the exclusive economic zone, see in particular: Scerni, M., “Le zone économique exclusive – son importance, sa nature juridique et les problémes principeaux et relatifs”, in The Law of the Sea vol. VIII, fourth session September 1976 (Thessaloniki 1977) p. 157 et seq.Google Scholar; Mirvahabi, F., “Conservation and Management of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone”, 9 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce (1978) No. 2Google Scholar; Brown, E.D., “The Exclusive Economic Zone”, 4 Maritime Policy and Management (1977)Google Scholar; Clington, Th.A., “Emerging Law of the Sea, the Economic Zone Dilemma”, 3 San Diego Law Review (1977)Google Scholar; Extravour, W., “The Exclusive Economic Zone, New Rights and Duties of the Coastal State in its Adjacent Waters”, Carribean Yearbook of International Relations (1976) p. 171 et seq.Google Scholar; Philips, J.C., “The Exclusive Economic Zone as a Concept of International Law”, 26 ICLQ (1977) p. 43 et seq.Google Scholar: J. Symonides, loc.cit., supra note 57; idem, “Morska strefa ekonomiczna” [Maritime Economic Zone] 12 Sprawy Miedzynarodowe [International Affairs] (1976), idem. ”Maritime Economic Zone”, 4 Polish Perspectives(1978) p. 55 et seq. The rights and duties of the coastal states in the exclusive economic zones have been laid down, above all, in article 56 of the ”Draft Convention”.

151. E.g., Norway, Act No. 91 of 17 December 1976 establishing the economic zone (ST/LEG/SER.B/19, 13 June 1978, p. 254), the FRG, Proclamation of the Federal Republic of Germany in the North Sea of 21 December 1976; ibid. p. 219. See, The Evolving Limit of Coastal Jurisdiction, published by the Government of Iceland, Reykjavik, June 1974. See, for the states' practice Cf. National Legislation and Treaties relating to the Territorial Sea, the Contiguous Zone, the Continental Shelf, the High Seas and to Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea (ST/LEG/SER.B/15); National Legislation and Treaties relating to the. Law of the Sea (ST/LEG/SER.B/16;E/F.74.V.2); National Legislation and Treaties relating to the Law of the Sea (ST/LEG/SER.B/18); also National Legislation and Treaties relating to the Law of the Sea (ST/LEG/SER.B/19 preliminary).

152. W. Góralczyk, loc.cit., supra note 149, see also, e.g., The Third UNCLOS Official Records, vol. II (New York 1975) p. 195Google Scholar.

153. E.g., The Third UNCLOS, op.cit, supra note 152, p. 173Google Scholar.

154. The norm of customary law which legalized the 200 mile exclusive economic zone has been created very quickly. The question may arise, whether the norm of customary law has binding effect on states if created in such a way. There is common agreement as to the role of a time element in the process of forming a customary norm of international law, namely, that, as proof of the custom, it is not decisive. Legally, the element of time has in itself, no significance. Depending on the circumstances, a norm of customary law may be formed over a long period; or it may (as in the case of the establishment of the 200 mile exclusive zones) be formed quickly. Tunkin, G.J., op. cit., supra note 2, p. 115Google Scholar.

155 Art. 2 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, adopted on 29 April 1958, which came into force on 10 June 1964.

156. Decree of 11 August 1977, published on 30 August 1977 Svensk Forfdttningssamling (1977) item 642 as amended by the Decree 156 of 29 December 1977, published on 11 January 1978 (1977: 642) on Swedish fisheries zone (Svensk Forfdttningssamling 1977 item 1182).

157. IBSFC, Second Session, op. cit., supra note 106.

158. USSR: Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 10 December 1976 on Provisional Measures to Conserve Living Resources and Regulate Fishing in the Sea Areas Adjacent to the Coast of the USSR, English text in UN Legislative Series ST/LEG/ SER.B/18 p. 264; extension of the zone on the Baltic Sea on 24 March 1978, Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 20,1978, text unpublished; The Regulations for the Conservation of the Biological Treasures of the Baltic Sea and the Regulation of Fishing in the Baltic Sea Area adjacent to the USSR, entered into force on 1 April 1978. Denmark: Law No. 598 and 629, 21 and 22 December 1976, English text in UN Leg. Series ST/LEG/SER. B.I 8; extension of its zone on the Baltic Sea on 1 March 1978, Notice no. 43 of 1 February 1978 on the Fishing Territory of Denmark, Lovtidende PT.A (1978) p. 161. Finland: Law No. 839 of 15 November 1976; Extension of the zone on the Baltic Sea on 7 June 1978 (Law No. 433) amended on 1 April 1981. Poland: Polish Law of 17 December 1977, text in Dz.U.[Official Gazette] 22 December 1978 No. 37 item 163, entered into force on 1 January 1978, English text in New Directions in the Law of the Sea vol VII (London 1980) p. 168Google Scholar. FRG: Proclamation on 18 May 1978, entered into force on 15 June 1978, text in Bundesgesetzblatt, PT.II, 13 June 1978, p. 867. GDR: extension of its zone on 22 December 1978, text in Gesetz-Watt 1977, Teil I, no. 38, p. 429Google Scholar. On the Baltic fisheries zones see, Jaworski, Miedzynarodowa (II), op. cit., supra note 55; Kwiatkowska-Czechowska, B., “Baltic Economic Zones”, 2 Polish Perspectives (1980) p. 22 et seq.Google Scholar.

159. E.g., the GDR, USSR, the FRG “… with the reservations relating to the results of the UNCLOS HI – decides as follows”. Article I of the GDR Law, op.cit. supra see note 158.

160. Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the delimitation of fisheries zone in the Baltic Sea of 1978, op. cit., supra note 158. FRG, Art. 1 of the Proclamation establishing exclusive fishing zone on the Baltic Sea. Denmark, Art. 1 of Act. No. 598 (1976). Sweden, para. 2 of the Decree of 1977. Poland, Arts. 3 and 4 of Polish law. Dz. U [Official Gazette ](1978). All these acts op. cit. supra, note 158. On the Folish fishing zone, see: Goralczyk, W., “Les Nouvelles Lois Polonaises sur la Mer Territoriale et la Zone de la P6che Maritime et la Plateau Continentale”, 4 Droit Polonais Contemporain (1978) p. 5 et seqGoogle Scholar.

The general principle of the delimination of the exclusive economic zone between states with opposite or adjacent coasts as laid down in the “Draft Convention” is effected by agreement on the basis of international law as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution (Article 74/1).

161. E.g. Decree of the Council of Ministers of Poland of 26 May 1978 on the delimitation of the outer limits of the Polish exclusive fisheries zone. Dz. U. [Official Gazette] 1978 no. 13, item 57.

161a. The delimitation of the exclusive fisheries zones on the Baltic Sea is exceptionally difficult due to its geographical conditions, e.g., Polish exclusive fisheries zone in the area of Bornholm Island is the bone of contention between Poland and Denmark. The limit of the zone was established by virtue of the Decree of the Council of Ministers of 27 February 1978. Dz. U. [Official Gazette] 1978 no. 3 on Establishing the Boundary of the Polish Fishing Zone between the Polish People's Republic and the Kingdom of Denmark around the island of Bornholm.

162. Gelberg, , op. cit., supra note 84, p. 103Google Scholar.

163. Para. 1 of the Finnish Law of 15 November 1974 as amended on a April 1981.

164. E.g., see Polish law of 17 December 1977 and a Decree of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Marine Economy of 22 December 1977, Article 3 of the Decree of Supreme Soviet op. cit, supra note 158 confirmed by the Decision no. 163 of 24 February 1977 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the Introduction of Provisional Measures to Protect the Living Resources and Regulate Fishing in the Areas of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans Adjacent to the Coastline of the USSR. English tezt in ST/LEG/SER.B/19 p. 226, also para. 2 of the GDR Law of 13 October 1978 on fishing in the GDR Fisheries zone, Gesetzblatt, 1978, Teil I, no. 35 p. 380Google Scholar. The Swedish Law of 8 December 1977 published on 29 December 1977 on the rights of foreigners to conduct fishing activities in Swedish Fisheries Zone (Svensk Forfattningssamling, 1977, item 1138). This matter is also regulated by the acts of the administrative organs. E.g., in Poland, the Decree of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Marine Economy, regulates the principles and conditions of fishing by foreign vessels in the Polish fishery zone of 22 December 1977 Dz. U. [Official Gazette] (29 December 1977) No. 38 item 175, changed by Decree of 14 April 1979; Dz. U. [Official Gazette] (8 May 1979) No. 9 item 58; FRG Art. 2 of the Proclamation of 18 May 1978.

165. E.g., between Poland and Sweden, Agreement between the Government and the PolishPeople's Republic and the Government of Sweden on Fisheries of 1 February 1978, Dz. U. [Official Gazette] 30 September 1978 item 102 or Soviet-Swedish Agreement on Fishing, Sveriges Överenskommlser med främmanda makter No. 80 so 1978–80, (Stockholm, 22 12 1977) Rikadagsbehandling (1977/78) 143 104 (1977/78) 30 Rkr (1977/78)324Google Scholar; also the Agreement between the USSR and Finland of 25 February 1980 on the boundary between the areas of the Baltic Sea under Finnish and under Soviet jurisdiction for the purposes of fisheries, entered into force on 9.7.1980, Finnish Law No. 592 of 18.7.1980, Firdands Forfattningssamling 1980 p. 1496.

166. See Carroz, J.E. and Savini, M.H., “The New Fisheries Policy Emerging from Bilateral Agreements”, 3 Marine Policy (1979) p; 38CrossRef Google Scholar;

167. Law of 7 June on the rights of foreigners to fish in Swedish exclusive fisheries zone, published on 25 June 1979, Svensk Forfattningssamling (1979) item 183 amending Law 1977: 1138 op. cit. supra note 164.

168. E.g., the Decree of the Minister of Foreign Trade and Marine Economy of 28 December 1978 on delimitation of total allowable catch of some species of fish in the Polish exclusive fisheries zone in 1979. (Official Gazette of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Marine Economy No. 10, item 53). Also see Danish Decrees No. 654 of 27 December 1977 on TAC in the Danish Fisheries Zone, No. 106 of 23 March 1977, No. 156 of 22 April 1977 and No. 28 of 26 January of 1978 on changes in limitation of TAC in the Baltic and the Belts.

169. The notion of “functional rights” and “functional sovereignty” give rise to some dispute in a doctrine of international law. Especially, the theory of functional sovereigntygenerates differing views. See Straburzynski, A., “Funkcjonalny podzia uprawnien panstw nadbrzeznych na obszarach morskich” [The Functional Division of the States' Rights on Marine Areas], Polska i Swiat [Poland and the World] (1978)Google Scholar; idem, Uprawnienia panstw nadbrzeznych w dziedzinie ekspoatacji morza [The Rights of the Coastal States in the Field of Exploitation of the Sea] (Gdansk 1980); Riphagen, W., “Some Reflections on ‘Functional Sovereignty’”, NYJL (1975) p. 121 et seqGoogle Scholar.

170. Straburzynski, , “Funkcjonalny ”, loc. cit., supra note 168, p. 523Google Scholar.

171. E.g., the Decree of the Presidium of the Soviet of the USSR of 10 December 1976 op. cit. supra note 158 stipulates that in the zone up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline, the USSR exercises “sovereign rights over fish and other living resources for the purposes of their exploration, exploitation, and conservation. The FRG Law of 1978 on the Establishment of the Exclusive Fisheries Zone in the Baltic Sea op. cit, supra note 158 describes these rights as “sovereign rights for the purpose of conservation and utilization offish stock” (Article 1). The GDR in its Decree of 1978 on the Establishment of the Exclusive Fisheries Zone in the Baltic Sea states that the rights exercised are “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration, conservation, utilization of fish stock and other living resources and their utilization” (Article 4). The only Polish law establishing the exclusive fisheries zone does not describe the kinds of rights, exercised by the state in its area, and indicates in the Preamble the purpose of the law as being “the intensification of the conservation of living resources in waters adjacent to the coast of the Polish People's Republic and to ensure their rational utilization”, Law on the Establishment of the Polish Exclusive Fisheries Zone of 1977 op. cit. supra, note 158.

172. E.g., Swedish law of 8 December 1974, op.cit., supra note 164, “each person is guilty” who violates Swedish fisheries law. According to Polish law of 17 December 1977, op.cit., supra note 158 “the master of the foreign fishing vessel is guilty”, the GDR Law provices that a person “who violates the law on fisheries is guilty”, Law of 13 October 1977, op. cit., supra note 164. See also Soviet Decree of 10 December 1976, op. cit., supra note 158 and the Decision No. 163 of the Council of Ministers of 25 March 1977, op. cit., supra note 164.

173. E.g., in accordance with para. 10 of the Law of 13 October 1978 on Fishing in the Exclusive Fisheries Zone of the GDR, op.cit., supra note 164.

174. E.g., Soviet Decree of 10 December 1976, op.cit., supra note 158; Swedish law of 8 December 1977 op.cit., supra note 164.

175. E.g. the Danish Law No. 210 of 19 May 1971 on international regulations on fisheries provides only the sanction of fines. Cf. para. 11 of the Law of 13 October 1978 on Fishing in the Exclusive Fisheries Zone of the GDR, op.cit., supra, note 164, which provides for Disciplinary penalties and reprimands.

176. See, e.g., Soviet Decree of 10 December 1976, op.cit., supra, note 158 the Decision of the Supreme Soviet of 22 March 1977 of the USSR on the system for the Applicaion of Article 7 of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the Provisional Measures to Protect the Living Resources and Regulate Fishing in the Coastal Waters of the USSR, English text in ST/LEG/SER.B/19 p. 270 and the Decision No. 174 of 25 February 1977 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, ST/LEG/SER.B/19, p. 266. Forfeiture of fishing vessel and of catch of fish (even in cases where some doubt exists as to whether the catch was illegally caught) is provided by the Danish law of 1971, op.cit., supra note 175.

177. E.g., Article 7 of the Decision of the Supreme Soviet of 22 March 1977, op.cit.,supra note 176.

178. Ibid., and Polish law of 17 December 1977, Art. 9, op. cit., supra note 158.

178a. Member States of ICNAF established a 200 mile exclusive fisheries zone and denounced the Convention. The same procedure was adopted by the EEC Member States in order to enter as the EEC. A new Convention for the North-West Atlantic was negotiated in Ottawa in 1977 and it opened for signing on 24 October 1978 and entered into force on 1 January 1979. The Member States of the EEC acceded to the Convention as the EEC. The new Convention established a new international body: North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO).

It has four main organs:

(a) the General Council,

(b) the Scientific Council,

(d) the Secretariat.

All the Member States are members of the General Council. It is responsible for administrative and financial matters. The same rule applied to the Scientific Council. The Commission recommends the conservation measures relating to the area beyond the 200 mile limit outside the jurisdiction of the Member States (convention area). The Commission while making recommendations takes into account the regulations applied by the Member States within their national jurisdiction due to interdependence of stocks. Text of the Convention in: Official Journal of the European Communities, 15 November 1979.

The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) was also adjusted to the new conditions (extension of the fisheries zones and the membership of the EEC). The EEC Member States applied to be replaced by the EEC. The Eastern European Members objected. As a way of protest against this decision, the EEC Member States denounced the Convention. It was a purely political act, not a legal one. The NEAFC went on acting without the EEC Member States (Sweden and Norway also denounced their membership) but since the EEC Member States are engaged in fishing in the Convention area to a great extent, the NEAFC's activities have come to a standstill.

Diplomatic Conferences were organized, in order to agree these views, e.g., in London on 3 March 1978. This Diplomatic Conference in particular adopted some new provisions relating to the functions of the NEAFC. These were provisions concerning the power to take recommendations relating to fisheries within the 200 mile exclusive fisheries zone, viz. under national jurisdiction. The condition of adopting such a recommendation is a unanimous vote of the states concerned. Eventually the Convention was signed in September 1980, but has not yet entered into force. See also: J.E. Carroz, ”Les Problemes de la Peche a la Conference sur le Droit de la Mer et dans les Practiques des Etats”, 3 RGDIP (1980) pp. 738 et seq.

Thus these two Commissions are of special interest in that they recently managed to adjust their structure and competence to the new trends in the law of the sea. In particular they dealt successfully with the legal problems arising in connection with the extension of fisheries zones by their member states up to 200 mile limits, and with those arising from the membership of trie EEC as an entity in itself in replacement of the EEC member states individually due to the transfer of powers in their field by member states to the EEC in the field of fisheries.

179. IBSFC, Third Session, op.cit., supra note 102.

180. Meeting of the Representatives of the States party to the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the Baltic Sea and the Belts, Warsaw, 22–26 June 1981.

181. Draft Amendments would replace Article VIII(3) of the Gdansk Convention, which reads: ”Each Contracting State shall have one vote in the Commission. Decisions and recommendations of the Commission shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of votes of Contracting States present and voting at the meeting” with the following wording:

“Each Contracting State shall have one vote in the Commission. Decisions and recommendations of the Commission shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of votes of the Contracting States, present and voting at the meeting, provided however, that recommendations relating specifically to areas under the fisheries jurisdiction of one or more Contracting States require an affirmative vote by the State or States concerned.”

182. Article XI 5 of the Draft Amendments.

183. Article XI 4(a) of the Draft Amendments.

184. Article XI 4(b) of the Draft Amendments.

185. Thus, the existing Article IX reads:

“1) It shall be the duty of the Commission:

a) to keep under review the living resources of the fisheries in the Convention area by collecting, aggregating, analysing and disseminating statistical data, for example concerning catch, fishing effort, and other information.

b) to work out proposals with regard to coordination of scientific research and concerning measures referred to in Article X for consideration of the Contracting States.”

Under the proposed amendments, these sub-paragraphs would read:

“a) to coordinate the management of the living resources in the Convention area by collecting, aggregating, analysing and disseminating statistical data, for example concerning catch, fishing effort and other information.

b) to promote coordination, as appropriate, of scientific research and, when desirable, of joint programmes of such research in the Convention area.”

186. Thus the proposed amendments would delete Article X(9) of the Gdansk Convention (see above section 7.2).

187. Article X(f) of Draft Amendments.

188. Article XIII of Draft Amendments.

189. Among the EEC Member States, the Common Fisheries policy originated in Regulations2141/70 and 2142/70, now codified as EEC No. 100/76 and 101/76 OJEC 19, L 20 (January 28, 1976) which came into force at the beginning of 1971. These Regulations had no practical consequence for the Baltic Sea Fisheries. The external effect of the Common Fisheries Policy (transfer of competence vis-a-vis third states in fisheries matters by the EEC Member States to the EEC) became effective in 1977. This question in general exceeds the framework of this study, on this subject see in particular: Koers, A., “The External Authority of the EEC in Regard to Marine Fisheries”, 14 Common Market Law Review (1977) No. 3, p. 269Google Scholar; Churchill, R., “Revision of the EEC's Common Fisheries Policy”, Part I and Part II, European Law Review, vol. 5, Nos. 1 and 2, 1980Google Scholar. Hardy, M., “The Fisheries Policy of the European Communities”, in Miles, E. and Gamble, J.K., eds., Law of the Sea Conference Outcomes and Problems of Implementation (Rhode Island 1977) p. 3 et seqGoogle Scholar. idem, “External Aspects of the Fisheries Policy of the European Community”, and Koers, A. “Internal Aspects of the Fisheries Policy of the European Community”, both in Johnston, D.M., ed., Regionalization of the Law of the Sea (Hawaii 1978) p. 81 et seqGoogle Scholar.

190. Cases 3, 4 and 6/76. Furthermore on 14 July 1976, the European Court of Justice gave a decision to the effect that the Community has competence to adopt conservation measures., including quotas, and to negotiate and conclude international agreements with respect to fishing on the high seas. In 1977 the Council adopted several Regulations relating to conservation measures, see in Internal Aspects of the Fisheries Policy of the European Community “ in D.M. Johnston, ed., Regionalization p. 81 et seq., loc.cit. supra note 189.

191. This Resolution has not been published in the (EC) OJ, but was as published in Bull. E.C. 10–1976, points 1503–1505; It was also agreed that, through concerted action, member states would establish a 200 mile exclusive fisheries Limit in the North Sea and the Atlantic as from 1 January 1977. The Baltic Sea was not included in this agreement. These zones are under Community management. The actual extension of fishing limits is a matter for the member states and is outside the powers of the Community. Thus, the exclusive fisheries zones of Denmark and the FRG, without actually losing their national character, are under the common Community management. Denmark and the FRG first extended their fisheries zones in the North Sea and the North Atlantic in accordance with the EEC agreement. Of its own accord, Denmark extended its limits off its Baltic, Kattegat, and Skagerrak coast, as did the FRG off its Baltic Coast. (With regard to Denmark's extensions in the North Sea and North Atlantic, see law no. 597 of 17 December 1976 on the Fishing Territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, Order No. 598 of 21 December 1976 on the Fishing Territory of the Faroes, and Notice No. 629 of 22 December 1976 on the Fishing Territory of Greenland, Lovtidende PT. A (1976) pp. 1631,1632, 1694, and 1695. With regard to extension of the Danish zone off Kattegat and Skagerrak on 1 January 1978, see Notice 639 of 22 December 1977 on the Fishing Territory of Denmark, Lovtidende PT.A (1977) p. 1768 and off its Baltic coasts, see, op. cit. supra note 158. With regard to the FRG's extension of its zone in the North Sea, see Proclamation of the FRG on the Establishment of a Fisheries Zone of the Federal Republic of Gennany in the North Sea of 21 December 1976, Bundesgesetsblatt Pt. II 29 December 1976, p. 1999, and the extension of the FRG fisheries zone in the Baltic Sea, see op. cit., supra note 158.) On the basis of this resolution, the EEC concluded two agreements with Sweden. The first general framework agreement grants mutual fishing rights. Article I states that each Party shall grant access to fishing vessels of the other party to fish within its area of fisheries jurisdiction. The second relates to the reproduction of salmon in the Baltic Sea. The EEC fish for salmon in the Swedish fisheries zone on the legal basis, of the framework agreement on fishing. The Agreement on salmon refers only to financial contribution on the part of the EEC to Sweden in relation to the promotion of young salmon. Sweden expends considerable sums in that respect and since the EEC participates in salmon fishing in the Swedish Zone, the parties agreed to take joint financial responsibility. EEC Regulation No. 2209/80 of the Council relating to the Conclusion of the Agreement on Fisheries and the Government of Sweden (EC) OJ No. L. 226 of 29 August 1980. Information on the entry into force (EC) OJ NO. L. 226 of 29 August 1980. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2210/80 of 27 June 1980 on the conclusion of the agreement between the Community and the Government of Sweden on certain measures on Promotion of the Reproduction of Salmon in the Baltic Sea (EC) OJ No. L. 226 of 29 August 1980. For information on the entry into force of this Agreement, see (EC) OJ No, L lll, of 23 April 1981.

192. IBSFC, Fifth Session, op.cit., supra note 14.

193. According to Art. XFV, the Contracting Party cannot withdraw from the Convention until five years from the date of its entry into force, i.e., 25 July 1979, since this date a Contracting Party may rotify its intention to withdraw with effect from 31 December of the year following the year during which the notification of withdrawal was given.

194. Whilst at present the Eastern European Baltic States are withholding recognition of the EEC as a separate entity in the context of its application for membership of the Gdansk Convention, they indicated at the meeting of the representatives of the member states in June, 1981 op. cit. supra note 180, in Warsaw that they would be prepared to reconsider their position in this respect.

Article contents

The Legal Regime of the Baltic Sea Fisheries

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests