The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union is legally, politically and environmentally of great importance. However, the effectiveness of old regimes to respond to contemporary developments poses several potential challenges to the CFP. This article aims to identify some of these external challenges by highlighting the differing interpretations of the Svalbard Treaty, as well as the introduction of the highly profitable snow crab to the Svalbard Archipelago. In doing so, the invasive nature of snow crabs – whose full impact in the Barents Sea is not yet understood – and their possibly negative effect on other commercial fish stocks will be examined. Additionally, the spatial scope of the Svalbard Treaty, the international rules applicable to the exploitation of snow crabs, and the designation of snow crabs as a sedentary and therefore continental shelf resource, will also be discussed as challenges to the CFP.

Climate change arguably constitutes one of the greatest risks to the long-term health of the world’s environment. In 2015, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted that the Earth’s climate system has consistently been warming since the 1950s and that a “large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period”. Initial responses to climate change revolved around States attempting to reduce, rather than remove, greenhouse gas emissions. However, as the global economy expands, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise and cooperative arrangements aimed at reducing emissions have had limited, if any, impact. If recent predictions are to be believed, the remaining “carbon budget” needed to prevent average global temperatures from increasing by more than 1.5 °C may be exhausted by 2030. Climate Analytics estimates that the current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) made by States under the Paris Agreement indicate that average global temperatures will rise by 2.8 °C by 2100—almost double the stipulated efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels mentioned in Article 2(1)(a) of the Paris Agreement. The recent IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C Global Warming concludes that without “increased and urgent mitigation ambition in the coming years, leading to a sharp decline in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, global warming will [cause] irreversible loss of the most fragile ecosystems and crisis after crisis for the most vulnerable people and societies”.

On 26 December 2018, Japan announced that it would withdraw from the International Whaling Commission (iwc) and indicated its intention to begin commercial whaling for the first time in 30 years. Despite the ethical and political outcry from several States, the legal ramifications of Japan’s withdrawal requires further analysis. This article examines the relationship between Japan and the iwc ex ante and ex post Japan’s withdrawal. Such an examination highlights the influence that Japan’s international duty to cooperate in the conservation and management of cetaceans might have across various international instruments. Japan is no longer bound by the recommendations and resolutions of the iwc; however, Japan remains a member of both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. With this in mind, the article examines the interaction between these three international instruments as well as the influence that such interaction might have on Japan’s international obligation to cooperate in the conservation of cetaceans.

No abstract

No abstract