• Ocean and Polar Research
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.143-154
• /
• 2024

The BBNJ Agreement, adopted on June 19, 2023, is considered to be the third implementation agreement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea after the 1994 Part XI Implementation Agreement and the 1995 High Seas Fisheries Agreement. Of the four themes of the BBNJ Agreement, namely marine genetic resources, area-based management measures, environmental impact assessment, and capacity building and technology transfer, only the part relating to marine genetic resources is explicitly excluded from the scope of the BBNJ Agreement. There are no explicit exclusions in relation to area-based management measures and environmental impact assessments. Therefore, the sections on area-based management instruments and environmental impact assessments may conflict with fisheries issues in other international fisheries instruments during the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement. Although the BBNJ Agreement has a so-called "not-undermine" provision to ensure that it does not conflict with international fisheries instrument represented by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the 1995 High Seas Fisheries Agreement, and regional fisheries management organizations, it cannot be ruled out that the BBNJ Agreement may conflict with regional fisheries organizations' area-based management measures and environmental impact assessments. However, the potential for conflicts also implies the potential for developmental outcomes if they are harmoniously interpreted and implemented. First of all, the emergence of the BBNJ Agreement as a comprehensive treaty covering the high seas and the Area provides an opportunity to build an integrated mechanism for international fisheries insturments that were previously fragmented by regions and species. In addition, the BBNJ Agreement can establish a cooperation system with existing regional fisheries management organizations in the process of establishing area-based management measures and environmental impact assessment of cumulative fishing activities. In line with this, regional fisheries organizations may evolve in the future to proactively adopt legal framework changes and environmental protection measures that emerge from the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.99-120
• /
• 1997

The official talks on the amendment of the Korean - Japanese Fisheries Agreement which was concluded in 1965 are under way since 1996. The convention area of the existing fisheries agreement is the high sea, but it should be changed to the exclusive economic zone(EEZ) for the newly amended fisheries agreement. Accordingly, the fundamental policies to be embodied within the amended fisheries agreement are summarized as follows : 1. One of the basic doctrine of the new agreement should be the formulation of a device of international cooperation for the fishery development as well as the conservation and management of the fishery resources. 2. The preparation of the future-oriented international relationship which reflects the specific character of the fishery relationship between both countries. 3. The existing fishery results of both parties should be protected on the ground of the reciprocity principle. 4. Both parties should reach an agreement upon the joint conservation and management measures for the transboundary fishery resources. 5. In consideration of the difficulty of EEZ delimitation between both countries, a provisional fisheries agreement can be an alternative measure.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.150-183
• /
• 1999

Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement concluded in 1965 made a contribution to the stable development of fisheries relationship for both countries until the year of 1980. From the time on thereafter a series of respectable fishery disputes occurred throughout the period of fisheries self-regulation in accordance with alteration of home and abroad conditions. And both countries marched into a cooperation era by enforcement of the new fisheries agreement from the 23 January 1999, because the Fisheries Agreement system of 1965 had many limitations to settle the fundamental fisheries problems. In this paper, the author carried out the legal interpretation, arrangement of historical facts and evaluation of actual results of the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1965. The key contents of the Fisheries Agreement were the establishment of 12-nautical mile exclusive fishery zone and the joint-control fishery zone under the principles of maintenance of MSY for fishery resources, freedom of high seas and mutual cooperation. The legal foundation of the conclusion of the Fisheries Agreement were the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 and the four International Conventions on the Law of the Sea of 1958. During the 33 years, the fisheries power of Korea made a rapid stride, on the other hand that of Japan was almost stagnated. And in the meantime, there were very important development on the international law of the sea, for instant, the settlement of 12-nautical mile territorial sea regime and the establishment of 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone regime. Annual meetings of the Joint Fisheries Committee were not successful to fill the role for conservation of fishery resources. The Fisheries Self-Regulation Agreement concluded in 1980 was also insufficient to accept the new international regime on the law of the sea, for that reason it was terminated on 23 January 1999. But it is true that the Fisheries Agreement of 1965 made a contribution to normalization of fisheries relationship between both countries and fisheries development of Korea.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.67-91
• /
• 2000

Fisheries Agreements among Korea, China, and Japan, for the effective management of fisheries resources and protection of fisheries disputes, have been processed in a manner to conclude interim arrangements those are effective prior to the final demarcation of the maritime delimitation which often requires much time to settle among the relevant states, Based on this understanding, Korea, China, and Japan, had proceeded their mutual fisheries agreement ; and, two fisheries agreements, between Korea-Japan and China-Japan, have already entered into force on 22 January 1999 and on 1 June 2000, respectively. Lastly fisheries negotiation between Korea and China has been concluded in order to make it effective on 30 June 2001. As Korean fisheries have already experienced the impacts after the entry into force of Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement, it is inevitable that the likewise will also be true for the Korea-china Fisheries Agreement. The results of fisheries negotiation should minimize the loss by ensuring Korean flagged vessels' fishing rights to the maximum level in the counterpart's waters, and to maximize our counterpart's loss by restricting its vessels' fishing rights to the minimum level in our waters. However, such goals are almost unreachable in an intergovernmental negotiation. On this ground, regardless of the results, the negotiation is highly criticized from all the interested realms of the society. First, this study reviews the negotiation process ana subject matters of the fisheries agreement, and then evaluates the disputed items issued by academic, political, and industry areas in an international law and fisheries perspective. After the entry into farce of fisheries agreement, various activities should be accommodated as future tasks, such as the adjustments of the domestic fisheries structure, the reorganization of the resource management based fisheries structure, the construction of EEz large surveillance system, and the construction of the multilateral fisheries cooperation system Through an earlier implementation of those tasks, the Korean fisheries will be better prepared in minimizing the predicted impacts once the Korea-China Fisheries Agreement becomes effective.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.31-45
• /
• 2016

This study aims to evaluate the status of implementation of bilateral-fishery order since the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement came into effect in 1999 in order to improve fisheries relationships between two countries. The agreement regulates bilateral-fishery order by the principle of the EEZ regime and mutual benefits among countries. (e.g. the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ and cooperation for resource management). However, the Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement has some limitations such as reducing quotas of the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ, strengthening Japanese fisheries regulation, insufficient cooperation for fisheries management and joint countermeasures. In order to improve fisheries relationships between the two countries, it is imperative to rebalance quotas for the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ, to establish effective resource management systems in the Intermediate zone, to invigorate fisheries cooperation in the private sector, and to introduce new management systems by species over the all waters around East Asia. To accomplish such measures, it is necessary for Korean and Japanese governments to improve fisheries relationships based on trust and cooperation, achieving a win-win situation. Additionally, it is required to incorporate fisheries management among Korea, China, and Japan.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.596-606
• /
• 2011

This article analyzed the process of concluding the Korea-Russia IUU Fishing Prevention Agreement as a model case for distant water fisheries governance. The research studied co-operations for fisheries between Korea and Russia, the current status of live crabs landed in Korea through IUU fishing and Russia's political position on the IUU issue. Also this article reviewed a series of processes executed to achieve the bilateral agreement to prevent IUU fishing, including researches, intergovernmental negotiations, institutional improvements, public hearings and presentations. There were many things closely linked together such as international FAO-IUU prevention efforts, Russia's IUU fishing issue, Korean importers of Russian live crabs, their local governments and Korean snow-crab gill-net fishermen. These issues were resolved through reasonable reconciliations. This article wants to contribute to be used as a reference for other similar IUU fisheries cases.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.38 no.1 s.73
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2007

This study is aimed to investigate how the structure of Korean and Chinese fisheries has been changed since the Fisheries Agreement between Korea and China came into effect. This investigation was accomplished from a comparative point of view by using statistic data in the literatures published by both Korea and China. Results of this study are summarized as follows; First, it was revealed that the decreasing rate of fish production of marine capture fisheries in Korea was lowered more by 5.1%, while it was decreased by only 0.1% in China. Second, comparative results on changes in production of offshore fisheries showed that the production of Korean offshore fisheries in 2003 was reduced by 26% compared to that in 1999, while the production of China offshore fisheries was decreased by 22%. In addition, although the production of marine capture fisheries in the East region of China was reduced by 10%, on the contrary, the production of marine capture fisheries in Liaoning, Hebei, Tianjin, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Fujian that have mostly impacted by the Korea-China Fisheries Agreement was increased by 7%. Third, results on fishing capacity of marine fisheries indicated that the number of vessels and total horse power in Korea were increased by 1.2% and 44.9%, respectively, while total tonnage was reduced by 23.9%, For China, the number of vessels and total horse power were increased by 0.5% and 12.6%, respectively. Total tonnage was also increased by 11.7%. Finally, the production per Korean vessel was decreased by 17.8% in 2003 compared to that in 1999. On the contrary, the production per Chinese vessel was increased by 8.1% in 2003. The production per tonnage was increased by 3.2% in Korea, while it was reduced by 2.7% in China. In conclusion, it could be said that the Korea-China Fisheries Agreement has had a positive impact on the fisheries production of China, while it has had a negative impacts on that of Korea, relatively.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.1053-1062
• /
• 2015

This research assesses the implementation of the bilateral fisheries order of the China-Japan fisheries agreement. After establishment of UNCLOS, the China-Japanese fisheries agreement has played as a basis for the fisheries order in the East China Sea. The China-Japanese fisheries agreement intends that the fisheries industries in China and Japan can utilize the renewable natural resources in the East China Sea. As the EEZ of China overlaps with that of Japanese in the East China Sea, the two countries established the China-Japan Provisional Measure Zone and Middle Zone in the Sea. Even though the three coastal States (e.g. Korea, China, and Japan) in the East China Sea are involved in managing these zones, there has been little effort to coordinate each county's management. Additionally, the Taiwan-Japan fisheries agreement, which is for the area of N $27^{\circ}$, has made costal States to establish and implement united measures to conduct effective fisheries management. Regarding access to the joint fishing zone in EEZ, Chinese fisheries regulations have been enforced in the zone because the fishing capacity of China exceeds all of other countries, reducing the number of fishing licenses and catch quotas. It turned out that a nation that has authority over fisheries resources tends to establish specific conditions of fishing operations to maximize its national interest. In the China-Japan Provisional Measure Zone, Chinese and Japanese authorities have introduced united measures to manage fisheries resources. However, in the Middle Zone between China and Japan, there is no regulation on fishing; both countries' fishing vessels can have free access to the zone. Thus, it is recommended that one should introduce an international fisheries management regime for the Middle Zone. In this regard, Korea should play a leading role in establishing the international management regime because Korea has middle position in terms of geographical standpoint, the degree of dependence on commercial fishing, and its fishing capacity.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.19-37
• /
• 2014

This study is to focus on the status of implementation of bilateral-fishery order based on the Korea-China fisheries agreement and aims to improve fisheries relationship between two countries. Korea-China Fisheries Agreement entered into force in 2001, and serves as a basic framework of the bilateral fisheries order. However, the fishing order between Korea and China has the following limitations. First, it is standstill of joint response for a practical resource management. Second, there are still gaps between the quotas of mutual accord fishing and fishing operation work performance. Third, China's illegal fishing is taking place consistently. Fourth, the effective cooperation between two countries in fisheries is not carried out. Finally, the Korea has faced difficult situations to adhere to a balanced position in the fishery negotiations due to conflicting positions on China and Japan. In order to solve these problems, the fishing order between Korea and China will be able to maintain the competitiveness of Korean fishery sector by reinforcing Korea's fishing sovereignty, Korea and China, based on trust and cooperation, will make efforts to improve bilateral fisheries relations to maximize mutual benefit in fishery sector. Specifically, first, the two countries should strengthen the resources management based on the scientific research and the improvement of imbalance of the mutual agreed fishing in EEZ. Second, Korea has to achieve our targeted performance of fishing operation and establish a joint resources management system between two countries in the provisional measure zone. Third, Korea should implement to collect fisheries information about China fishing vessels which are operating in the EEZ of Korea. Finally, Korea and China should be building up effective governance framework for the establishment of fishing order.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 1999

In the Northeast Asian region fisheries agreements of the past regarding high seas as an agreement area were transformed or new agreements were introduced in order to conform to the EEZ regime. However, the existing joint regulatory zone which “open” status is somewhat similar to the high sea not only disappear, but also two new systems were established. To begin with, parties of the agreement claimed their EEZs to be from the territorial sea baselines to the extent set forth, problem of the fishery access of the other party under the agreement is to be solved on the principle of reciprocity and on recognizing of the catch results achieved in the past. In regards to the overlapping zones like neutral zone of the East Sea of Korea(Sea of Japan) and neutral zone to the south of the Cheju Island, provisional measures zones in the Yellow Sea and in the East China Sea, and transitional zone of the Yellow Sea special fisheries management systems reflecting the legal character of the zone involved are applied. Moreover, as fisheries agreements defining open sea as an agreement zone are not able to conform to the EEZ regime, so new fisheries agreements must be taken out from old systems and conceptions, and must be understood and enforced from the new point view. Therefore, countermeasures needed to do so should be developed, and their basic structure is as follows. Firstly, the basic concept of the EEZ regime requires that the coastal states have sovereign rights on their sea zones' natural resources and bear responsibilities appropriate to their allowed jurisdiction. Each Northeast Asian state should adjust the structure of fishing industries and employ advanced fisheries management system, and should make efforts toward such issues of the state policy as increasing fishery resources and preserving ocean environment. Secondly, measures should be developed to solve the international fisheries disputes which are to occur under enforcement of the new fisheries agreements system. In regards to the acts of violation the fisheries laws in the foreign EEZ the principle of jail sentence prohibition is established by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and every fisheries agreement reflects this principle. Therefore, the present question is to consider concrete measures to enable the easy release of the seamen, who violated fisheries laws slightly and well-intently, through establishment and management of the guarantee fund needed to make collateral reasonable. Thirdly, Korean-Russian and Russian-Japanese fisheries relations were formed on the basis of the EEZ regime, since 1992 and 1977 respectively, and are expected to maintain mutually beneficial cooperative character. As for Korean-Chinese-Japanese fisheries relations, the operational problems of overlapping zones, and problem of the permits for EEZ mutual access should be solved on the basis of the principle of reciprocity and equity rather than unilaterally from any side.