Introduction
The high seas, constituting nearly two-thirds of the world’s oceans, represent a critical frontier for global biodiversity and economic resources. These areas, lying beyond national jurisdiction, have historically been vulnerable to overexploitation due to the absence of robust governance mechanisms. Fisheries, in particular, face severe challenges from overfishing, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and the degradation of marine ecosystems. In response to these threats, regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) have emerged as pivotal actors in the sustainable management of high seas resources. Among these, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) stands out as a critical institution dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of non-highly migratory fishery resources in the South Pacific Ocean.
Established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, the SPRFMO aims to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources while safeguarding marine ecosystems. This article explores the impact of the SPRFMO on high seas conservation, delving into its legal framework, operational mechanisms, and conservation outcomes. It also examines the legal processes by which states can enter into treaties under the Convention, focusing on the constitutional provisions that enable such engagements. Furthermore, the article addresses whether the Convention is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969 and the implications of this status for international cooperation. Finally, it considers the monist or dualist approaches to treaty implementation in national legal systems and their relevance to the SPRFMO framework.
The Legal Framework of the SPRFMO and the Convention
The SPRFMO was established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, adopted on November 14, 2009, in Auckland, New Zealand, and entered into force on August 24, 2012. The Convention reflects a collective commitment by states to address the challenges of high seas fisheries management through a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach. Its primary objective, as outlined in Article 2, is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources while protecting marine ecosystems in the South Pacific Ocean.
The Convention applies to the high seas areas of the South Pacific Ocean, specifically targeting non-highly migratory species such as jack mackerel, squid, and other fishery resources. It establishes the SPRFMO as an intergovernmental organization comprising a Commission, a Scientific Committee, and other subsidiary bodies responsible for decision-making, scientific advice, and compliance monitoring. Key provisions of the Convention, such as Article 8 (functions of the Commission) and Article 20 (conservation and management measures), empower the SPRFMO to adopt binding measures, allocate fishing opportunities, and enforce compliance to prevent overfishing and ecosystem degradation.
The legal framework of the SPRFMO aligns with broader international law principles, including those enshrined in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS mandates that states cooperate through RFMOs to manage high seas fisheries sustainably (Article 118), providing the foundational legal basis for the SPRFMO’s operations. By integrating these principles, the SPRFMO contributes to a coherent global regime for ocean governance while addressing region-specific challenges in the South Pacific.
Impact of SPRFMO on High Seas Conservation
Since its inception, the SPRFMO has made significant strides in promoting high seas conservation in the South Pacific. One of its flagship achievements has been the management of jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi), a species that faced severe depletion due to overfishing in the early 2000s. Through the adoption of science-based total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas under Article 20 of the Convention, the SPRFMO has facilitated the recovery of jack mackerel stocks. According to scientific assessments by the SPRFMO’s Scientific Committee, the stock has shown signs of recovery, with biomass levels improving due to stringent conservation measures (SPRFMO, 2023).
Beyond specific species management, the SPRFMO has pioneered ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management, as mandated by Article 3 of the Convention, which emphasizes the application of the precautionary approach and the protection of marine ecosystems. For instance, the organization has implemented measures to minimize bycatch of non-target species and reduce the impact of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), such as deep-sea corals and sponges. Under Article 20(1)(d), the Commission is empowered to adopt measures to protect VMEs, including area closures and gear restrictions, demonstrating a holistic approach to conservation.
The SPRFMO has also tackled IUU fishing through robust compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Article 25 of the Convention establishes a framework for monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS), including vessel monitoring systems (VMS), observer programs, and port state measures. These initiatives have deterred IUU activities by increasing transparency and accountability among member states and cooperating non-contracting parties (CNCPs). A notable example is the adoption of a comprehensive IUU vessel list, which restricts access to markets and ports for vessels engaged in illegal fishing (SPRFMO, 2022).
Despite these successes, the SPRFMO faces challenges in achieving comprehensive conservation outcomes. Limited resources, varying levels of compliance among members, and the vastness of the South Pacific high seas pose ongoing obstacles. Additionally, the impact of climate change on fish stocks and marine ecosystems remains a critical concern, as rising ocean temperatures and acidification threaten the efficacy of current management measures (FAO, 2021). Nevertheless, the SPRFMO’s adaptive management framework, underpinned by regular stock assessments and scientific advice, positions it as a dynamic institution capable of responding to emerging threats.
Legal Mechanisms for States to Enter into Treaties under the Convention
The ability of states to enter into treaties, such as the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, is governed by international law and domestic legal systems. Under international law, the capacity to conclude treaties is a fundamental attribute of state sovereignty, recognized in Article 6 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969, which states that every state possesses the capacity to conclude treaties unless restricted by international law.
Within the context of the SPRFMO Convention, Article 37 governs the participation of states and fishing entities in the organization. It specifies that the Convention is open for signature by states with a real interest in the fishery resources of the South Pacific Ocean, particularly coastal states bordering the Convention Area and states whose vessels are engaged in fishing in the area. States can become parties to the Convention through signature followed by ratification, acceptance, or approval (Article 38), or through accession after the Convention’s entry into force (Article 39). These provisions ensure that states with a legitimate interest can legally commit to the conservation objectives of the SPRFMO.
As the focus of this analysis is on how a specific country can legally enter into such treaties, it must be noted that the process is also contingent on the country’s constitutional framework. For illustrative purposes, let us consider a generic state, referred to as “Country X.” In many jurisdictions, the executive branch, often through the head of state or government, has the authority to negotiate and sign treaties. However, the binding effect of such treaties domestically often requires legislative approval or ratification, depending on whether the country adheres to a monist or dualist approach to international law. These approaches will be explored in detail in the subsequent section.
Under the SPRFMO Convention, once a state like Country X ratifies or accedes to the treaty as per Articles 38 or 39, it becomes a contracting party and is legally bound to implement the Convention’s provisions. This includes adopting national legislation to align with SPRFMO conservation and management measures, as required by Article 17, which mandates that members ensure their nationals and vessels comply with adopted measures. Therefore, the legal entry into the Convention is a two-tier process: international commitment through signature or accession, and domestic implementation through legislative or administrative action.
Monist vs. Dualist Approaches to Treaties in National Law
The manner in which treaties are translated into national law varies depending on whether a state adopts a monist or dualist approach to international law. In a monist system, international law and domestic law form a unified legal order, meaning that treaties automatically become part of national law upon ratification or accession, without the need for additional legislative enactment. In contrast, a dualist system treats international and domestic law as separate spheres, requiring treaties to be explicitly incorporated into national law through domestic legislation before they can have legal effect within the state.
If Country X operates under a monist system, the SPRFMO Convention would automatically form part of its national legal framework upon ratification, as per Article 38 of the Convention. Courts and administrative bodies in monist states can directly apply treaty provisions in domestic disputes, provided the treaty is self-executing (i.e., its provisions are precise and do not require further legislative clarification). For instance, conservation measures adopted under Article 20 of the Convention could be directly enforceable in monist states without additional legislation, assuming the provisions are detailed enough to be applied as domestic law.
Conversely, in a dualist system, Country X would need to enact specific legislation to incorporate the Convention into national law. This process typically involves the parliament or legislature passing a bill that translates the treaty obligations into domestic statutes. For example, obligations under Article 17 of the Convention, such as ensuring compliance by nationals, would require Country X to enact laws prohibiting certain fishing practices or establishing penalties for non-compliance. Until such legislation is passed, the treaty remains binding only at the international level and cannot be directly enforced in domestic courts.
The choice between monist and dualist approaches often reflects a state’s constitutional traditions and priorities regarding the interplay between international commitments and domestic sovereignty. For instance, many civil law countries, such as France and Germany, adopt a monist approach with certain qualifications, while common law countries like the United Kingdom and Canada traditionally follow a dualist model (Cassese, 2005). For Country X, the approach it adopts will significantly influence the speed and manner in which SPRFMO measures are implemented domestically, affecting its overall contribution to high seas conservation.
Given that the specific country is not named, it is worth noting that most states engaging with the SPRFMO, such as Australia and New Zealand, follow dualist systems to some extent, requiring legislative action to implement treaty obligations (Australian Government, 2024). This ensures that democratic oversight is maintained over international commitments but may delay the domestic application of conservation measures, highlighting a potential challenge for the SPRFMO in achieving uniform compliance across its membership.
Relationship with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969 is a cornerstone of international law, codifying the rules governing the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. A key question is whether the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean is a party to the VCLT, and if not, how this status affects other states’ ability to enter into treaties with the SPRFMO framework.
It must first be clarified that the VCLT applies to treaties between states, as defined in Article 1, and does not directly apply to international organizations or conventions as entities. The SPRFMO Convention itself is not a “party” to the VCLT because it is a treaty, not a state or international organization with legal personality capable of independently acceding to treaties like the VCLT. However, the states that are parties to the SPRFMO Convention are generally bound by the VCLT if they have ratified it or if its provisions are considered customary international law. The VCLT’s principles, such as pacta sunt servanda (Article 26, treaties must be performed in good faith) and the rules on treaty interpretation (Articles 31-33), guide the interpretation and implementation of the SPRFMO Convention among its member states.
The relevance of the VCLT to the SPRFMO framework lies in its provision of a standardized legal framework for treaty-making. For states considering joining the SPRFMO, adherence to VCLT principles ensures that their entry into the Convention is conducted in a manner consistent with international law. For instance, Article 11 of the VCLT outlines various means by which states express consent to be bound by a treaty (e.g., signature, ratification, accession), mirroring the processes outlined in Articles 38 and 39 of the SPRFMO Convention. Similarly, the VCLT’s provisions on reservations (Articles 19-23) inform how states can tailor their commitments to the SPRFMO Convention, subject to the treaty’s specific rules on reservations under Article 41.
For states that are not parties to the VCLT, many of its provisions are considered customary international law, meaning they are binding regardless of formal accession (ICJ, 1970, Barcelona Traction Case). This universality ensures that the legal processes for entering into the SPRFMO Convention are broadly consistent, even for non-VCLT states. Other countries looking to join the SPRFMO can draw lessons from the VCLT’s emphasis on transparency, good faith, and procedural clarity in treaty-making, ensuring that their participation aligns with both international norms and the specific requirements of the SPRFMO Convention.
Implications for International Cooperation and High Seas Conservation
The legal and operational framework of the SPRFMO, supported by principles from broader international law, underscores its role as a model for high seas conservation. By facilitating state participation through clear accession and ratification processes (Articles 38 and 39), the Convention ensures that a diverse range of states can contribute to conservation efforts in the South Pacific. However, the variation in monist and dualist approaches among member states highlights the need for capacity-building and harmonization to ensure uniform implementation of SPRFMO measures.
The indirect relationship with the VCLT further emphasizes the importance of standardized treaty-making practices. States entering into the SPRFMO Convention can rely on customary international law and VCLT principles to navigate legal commitments, fostering trust and cooperation among contracting parties. This is particularly crucial in the context of high seas governance, where collective action is necessary to address transboundary challenges like overfishing and climate change.
Moreover, the SPRFMO’s conservation impact extends beyond the South Pacific, serving as a blueprint for other RFMOs. Its success in managing jack mackerel and protecting VMEs demonstrates the efficacy of science-based, precautionary approaches, which can be replicated in other high seas regions. The organization’s commitment to combating IUU fishing also contributes to global efforts to enhance maritime security and sustainable resource use, aligning with initiatives like the FAO’s Port State Measures Agreement (FAO, 2016).
Challenges and Future Directions
Despite its achievements, the SPRFMO faces several challenges that could impede its long-term impact on high seas conservation. One significant issue is the uneven capacity among member states to implement conservation measures, particularly for developing countries with limited resources for monitoring and enforcement. Under Article 19 of the Convention, the SPRFMO is tasked with providing technical assistance and capacity-building, but funding constraints often limit the scope of such support (SPRFMO, 2023).
Climate change poses another existential threat, as shifting fish distributions and ocean conditions undermine the predictability of current management measures. The SPRFMO must enhance its adaptive management strategies, incorporating climate resilience into conservation planning as mandated by Article 3’s ecosystem approach. This may involve expanding scientific research and fostering partnerships with other international bodies to address cross-cutting issues like ocean acidification and warming.
Finally, the legal intricacies of treaty implementation in monist and dualist systems underscore the need for tailored guidance to member states. The SPRFMO could establish a legal advisory mechanism to assist countries in translating Convention obligations into national law, ensuring that conservation measures are uniformly applied across jurisdictions. Such initiatives would strengthen the organization’s effectiveness and reinforce its role as a leader in high seas governance.
Conclusion
The South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation represents a vital mechanism for safeguarding oceanic wealth in one of the world’s most expansive high seas regions. Through its science-based conservation measures, ecosystem approaches, and robust enforcement mechanisms, the SPRFMO has demonstrably improved the sustainability of fishery resources like jack mackerel while protecting marine biodiversity. Its legal framework, rooted in the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, provides clear pathways for states to join and contribute to these efforts, guided by principles of international law.
The interplay between monist and dualist approaches to treaty implementation highlights the diverse legal contexts in which SPRFMO measures operate, underscoring the importance of domestic alignment with international obligations. While the Convention itself is not a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, its member states benefit from the VCLT’s principles as customary law, ensuring consistent and good-faith participation. As the SPRFMO navigates future challenges like climate change and compliance disparities, its commitment to adaptive governance and international cooperation will remain essential for sustaining the health of the South Pacific high seas. Ultimately, the SPRFMO stands as a testament to the potential of collective action in preserving the world’s shared oceanic heritage for generations to come.
References
- Australian Government. (2024). South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation – High Seas Fisheries Resources. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Available at: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/fisheries/international/south-pacific-rfmo
- Cassese, A. (2005). International Law. Oxford University Press.
- Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean. (2009). Adopted in Auckland, New Zealand, November 14, 2009. Entered into force August 24, 2012.
- FAO. (2016). Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
- FAO. (2021). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
- International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1970). Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain). Judgment of 5 February 1970.
- SPRFMO. (2022). Annual Report of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. Available at: https://www.sprfmo.int
- SPRFMO. (2023). Scientific Committee Report on Jack Mackerel Stock Assessment. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation.
- United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted May 23, 1969. Entered into force January 27, 1980.
- United Nations. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Adopted December 10, 1982. Entered into force November 16, 1994.
