Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bilateral and Joint Venture Fisheries Agreements

  • Chapter
The Legal Regime of Fisheries in the Caribbean Region

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies ((COASTAL,volume 7))

  • 39 Accesses

Abstract

Where a coastal State does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch of the living resources of the exclusive economic zone, Article 62 of the Montego Bay Convention requires that State to allow access to foreign States to the surplus.1 This could be achieved by agreement or through other arrangements pursuant to the terms, conditions and regulations referred to in Article 62(4), Although bilateral and multilateral fisheries agreements as well as joint venture fisheries agreements in the past have been utilised on many occasions to regulate access to fisheries, the move toward increased coastal State jurisdiction, combined with the need to regulate access of foreign fishing vessels, has enhanced the role of these types of fisheries agreements as a means of achieving this object.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See discussion, above p.26.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See generally “Bilateral Fisheries Agreements” by J.E. Carroz and M.J. Savmi — FAO Fisheries Circular No. 709, 1978, and “Joint Ventures in Fisheries” by J.A. Crutchfield, R. Hamlish, G. Moore, C. Walker, and “Recent Trends in Fisheries Joint Ventures in the CECAF Area” by R. Hamlish in Report on CIDA/FAO/CECAF Seminar on the Changing Law of the Sea and the Fisheries of West Africa, p.36. FAO/TF/Int. 180a (Can).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Discussed further below p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barbados: Marine Boundaries and Jurisdiction Act, 1978, Section 11(1); Grenada: Marine Boundaries Act, 1978, Section 11(1).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Decreto No. 1877 1979, Article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Decreto No. 68, 459 1971, Article 20.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Section 7a.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Section 8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Section 9.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dated 26 July 1976. For an English translation, see U.N. Legislative Series: National Legislation and Treaties Relating to the Law of the Sea St./Leg/Ser/B 19 p.425.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Statement by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tlatelolco December 29 1980. See also: New York Times 29 December 1980; Uno Mas Uno, December 30 1980; M.A. Procida, “International Agreements: Termination of US-Mexico Agreements”, (1982) 23 Harv. Int’l. L.J. p.143.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See Articles 2 and 3.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Article 15. The two Agreements between United States and Mexico also contained reciprocity clauses.

    Google Scholar 

  14. For a map, see K. G. Nweihed, EZ (Uneasy) Delimitation in the Semi-Enclosed Caribbean See: Recent Agreements Between Venezuela and her Neighbours (1979) 8 Ocean Dev. & Int. L. 1 at 8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. No. 3023/79. Though the latest, No. 848/81 does not make such a reference.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Articles 9 and 10.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Article 13.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Article 12.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Likewise the Agreements between Mexico and United States: see the Annex to the 1976 Agreement, and Article 11 and Annex II to the 1977 Agreement.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Article 7 in both Agreements.

    Google Scholar 

  21. European Communities Council Regulation No. 848/81, Article 4.2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Article 4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Annex 2.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Annex I.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Article 12(3).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Article 3(3).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Article 4.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Annex III(b).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Article 3(3). See to similar effect the Mexico/ United States Agreement of 1977 Article 3(3).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Venezuela/Trinidad and Tobago Agreement, Article 12(3).

    Google Scholar 

  34. European Communities Council Regulation 3023/79, Article 2.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Suriname/Guyana Article 7; Barbados/Guyana, Article 4; United States/United Kingdom Fisheries Agreement regarding the Virgin Islands (Annex); Cuba/United States Article 3. Mexico/United States 1977, Article 6. The 1976 Agreement required that “fishing vessels of the United States were to obtain permits from the Mexican authorities” though in the Annex to the Agreement, the United States Government is to direct a “formal request” on behalf of its nationals wishing to fish in the zone.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Article 11.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Article 7.2.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Brazil/Barbados Article 4; Brazil/Trinidad and Tobago Article 4.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. These are set out in Annex 1 to the Agreement and, briefly, they are: 59 class “A” artisanal fishing vessels (i.e., “overmghters” with a maximum hold capacity not exceeding one ton); 30 class “B” artisanal fishing vessels with a maximum hold capacity not exceeding six tons (though no more than 25 of these may fish at any one time). These vessels are permitted to harvest a total allowable catch of 1250 tons.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Article 9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Article 1.

    Google Scholar 

  46. European Communities Council Regulation 848/81 Preamble

    Google Scholar 

  47. Article l(c).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Article 7(2).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Article 9. Article 12 of the 1976 Agreement between United States and Mexico made a brief reference to this kind of fishing, by requiring the two governments to “promote and encourage continued sport and recreational fishing for living resources off their coasts”, and that the two governments were to consult as needed to this end.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Article 2.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Article 3.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Article 3.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Article 13.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Fisheries Resources (Jurisdiction and Conservation) Act 1977, section 10(4)(c).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Section 18(1)(e) and (f).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Article 11.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Article 9.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Article 10, Annex 3.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Annex 2. See also Annex I to the United States/Mexico Agreement, 1976, and Annex II to the United States/ Mexico Agreement, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Annex 2 paragraph 4.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Article 73 is discussed in more detail above p.33. For a discussion of principles of enforcement in the region, see C. Fuss “Fisheries Enforcement and Surveillance under Extended Jurisdiction with Emphasis on the WECAF Region”, a paper delivered at the FAO regional seminar on the Law of the Sea, Havana Cuba, November 1980, FAO Report of the Seminar on the Changing Law of the Sea and its Implications for the Fisheries of the Western Central Atlantic; p.150 Report No: FL/WECAF/81/4.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Article 16.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Article 4.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Article 12(1).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Likewise Barbados/Guyana Article 10; Cuba/ United States Article 10(2); United States/Mexico, 1976, Article 7(3); United States/Mexico 1977 Article 10(4).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Article 6.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See to similar effect Articles 5 and 8 of the Mexico/United States Agreement, 1977, Article 7 of the 1976 Mexico/United States Agreement.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Annex 3. Note also paragraph 13 Barbados/Guyana Agreement, Annex II European Communities Council Regulation. The Cuba/ United States Agreement refers to “Appropriate position fixing and identification equipment” Article 9, likewise Article 8 of Mexico/United States Agreement, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Article 11(3) and to similar affect, Article 10(3) of the United States/Mexico Agreement, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Article 111 of the Montego Bay Convention. Note also the Taijo Maru, (1975) 395 F. Supp. 413; (1976) 70 A.J.I.L. p. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Article 7.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Article 6.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Article 15.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Article 16.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Article 6.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Article 13.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Guyana/Suriname Agreement Article 1. United States /United Kingdom Agreement concerning the Virgin Islands, preamble Guyana/Barbados Agreement, Article 9.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Guyana/Suriname Agreement Article 17.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Barbados/Guyana Article 7; Guyana/Suriname Article 13; Venezuela/Trinidad and Tobago Article 15.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Venezuela/Trinidad and Tobago Article 14, and to similar effect Cuba/United States Article 16.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Information regarding the terms of joint ventures is often very difficult to obtain, partly because they are sometimes between two private companies, and therefore not readily accessible in public documents, but also because the terms of the venture might be regarded as confidential even where a Government is participating through a parastatal organisation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, PO Box 4, Canberra, Australia

    William R. Edeson (Faculty of Law)

  2. Apartado 4104, Carmelitas 1010a, Caracas, Venezuela

    Jean-François Pulvenis

Authors
  1. William R. Edeson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-François Pulvenis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Edeson, W.R., Pulvenis, JF. (1983). Bilateral and Joint Venture Fisheries Agreements. In: The Legal Regime of Fisheries in the Caribbean Region. Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, vol 7. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50969-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50969-8_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-12698-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-50969-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation