Implementation of IPOA/IUU - International MCS Network

15IUU fishing on the high seas. 27 Taking action against such vessels should be ahigh priority, because their very statelessness frustrates the primary means tocontrol fishing activity on the high seas – through flag State jurisdiction. Avessel without nationality operates outside of this form of control.At least some States take the view that a vessel without nationality onthe high seas is subject to the jurisdiction of any State. 28 Under this view, anyState may impose penalties on a vessel without nationality for engaging in IUUfishing on the high seas. The Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, forexample, makes it an offence for vessels without nationality to fish in areasdesignated as managed by a RFMO. Canadian fisheries protection officers mayexercise any power conferred upon them by that Act (e.g. boarding, inspection,seizure, arrest) against vessels without nationality found in such areas. Legalproceedings would follow, as appropriate, on the exercise of those powers. 29 In2001, Norway amended its legislation to adopt a comparable approach. 30Similarly, the United States of America has taken law enforcement action(seizure, prosecution, imposition of fines) against vessels without nationality thatwere engaged in fishing for salmon on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean.Fishing by vessels without nationality also threatens the integrity ofmeasures adopted by RFMOs. Some RFMOs have responded to these threats bycalling on their members to take action against vessels without nationality.ICCAT, for example, adopted a binding measure that became effective in 1998that provides in pertinent part:Any sightings of vessels that appear to be without nationality(stateless) that may be fishing for ICCAT species shall be reportedimmediately by the appropriate authorities of the Contracting Partywhose vessel or aircraft made the sighting. Where there arereasonable grounds for suspecting that a fishing vessel targetingICCAT species on the high seas is stateless, a Contracting Partymay board and inspect the vessel. Where evidence so warrants, theContracting Party may take such action as may be appropriate in27 The IPOA-IUU does not explicitly refer to IUU fishing in areas under nationaljurisdiction by vessels without nationality. In any event, the coastal State in questionwould have jurisdiction to penalize such fishing.28 Oppenheim states that, in the interest of order on the open sea, a vessel not sailingunder the flag of a State enjoys no protection whatsoever. Only vessels having thenationality of a State – i.e. vessels properly registered in a State and entitled to fly the flagof that State – enjoy the freedoms of the high seas. See Lauterpacht, H. (ed.),Oppenheim’s International Law, 7 th ed., Vol. I, §261, p. 546.29 The Coastal Fisheries Protection Act may be found at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-33/index.html30 On 21 June 2001, Norway amended its Sea Fisheries Act to enable Norwegianauthorities to prosecute stateless vessels for high seas fishing violations.