In recent years, many nations have made claims of extended maritime jurisdiction or exclusive control for various purposes, and sometimes have claimed sovereignty over areas of sea far beyond the three-mile territorial sea traditionally claimed by many nations. A primary objective of many of these claims has been control over fishing in coastal waters, with the purpose of reserving for the exclusive use of fishermen of the coastal state the fish resources in the waters claimed, or of controlling the activities of foreign fishermen and possibly exacting fees for the privilege of continued fishing. The nature of most claims of authority to regulate the taking of fish in coastal waters is such as to exclude foreign fishermen, such claims having as their basic purpose unconditional right of exclusion. What rights exist for displaced fishermen exist as a matter of comity, i.e., friendship between friendly nations, and as such form no basis for claims of legal right to recompense (although the governments of fishermen who are expelled without a phase-out period may justifiably respond in like unfriendly manner, enacting restrictive tariffs or similar economic handicaps).

The visit of a Goodwill Mission of Indian fishermen to Sri Lanka to discuss the problems related to trans-border fishing by Indian boats in the Palk Bay and Palk Straits, was a memorable event for all those who were involved. That such a mission was being organised entirely outside the Government system created doubts about its feasibility in the minds of the fishermen as well as the organisers. When a series of events conspired to delay the mission, not once but twice, there was anxiety that a good idea was not going to be really tested. However, once the mission was finally ready for departure, the fortunes changed. Providence seemed to step in to help us every time we faced a problem. Instead of the usual “If anything can go wrong, it will”, it became a case of “If everything can go wrong, it won’t”. The mission almost did not take off on the 30th May when the fishermen leaders had assembled trustingly at Trichy, unaware that a drama was being staged in Trivandrum, where immigration clearance was being denied due to lack of sufficient documentation.

Palk Bay region, which separates the coastal regions of Tamil Nadu from northern parts of Sri Lanka.

Under a Memorandum of Understanding between Indonesia and Australia, traditional Indonesian fishermen are permitted access to fish in a designated area inside the 200 nautical mile Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ). However, crew and vessels are regularly apprehended for illegal fishing activity outside the permitted areas and, after prosecution in Australian courts, their boats and equipment are destroyed and the fishermen repatriated to Indonesia. This is an ethnographic study of one group of Indonesian maritime people who operate in the AFZ. It concerns Bajo people who originate from villages in the Tukang Besi Islands, Southeast Sulawesi. It explores the social, cultural, economic and historic conditions which underpin Bajo sailing and fishing voyages in the AFZ. It also examines issues concerning Australian maritime expansion and Australian government policies, treatment and understanding of Bajo fishing. The study considers the concept of “traditional” fishing regulating access to the MOU area based on use of unchanging technology, and consequences arising from adherence to such a view of “traditional”; the effect of Australian maritime expansion on Bajo fishing activity; the effectiveness of policy in providing for fishing rights and stopping illegal activity, and why Bajo continue to fish in the AFZ despite a range of ongoing restrictions on their activity.

The 1974 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Australia and Indonesia was a goodwill attempt to recognise the long-standing interests of Indonesian fishermen in the northern Australian region. Bajo originating from the villages of Mola and Mantigola in the Tukang Besi Islands, Southeast Sulawesi, are one group of fishermen who have a historic interest in the region and currently operate in and around the MOU area. This paper examines the effectiveness of the MOU in providing for recognition of indigenous Bajo fishing rights, sustainable marine resource conservation and management, and in curbing illegal Bajo fishing activity in the Australian Fishing Zone.

This thesis addresses one of the contemporary problems facing the sustainability of world's fisheries---illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. As a result of IUU fishing, it is estimated that Indonesia loses revenue in excess of US$4 billion annually. The Indonesian Government has identified IUU fishing as a priority policy issue to be addressed. A number laws, regulations and measures have been adopted by the Indonesian Government to address IUU fishing concerns. The thesis examines how Indonesia addresses the problem of IUU fishing and how it implements international fisheries instruments. The discussion commences by providing a brief overview of the key binding and non-binding international instruments and an examination of the national legal framework to address IUU fishing. Despite the enactment of fisheries laws and regulations, there is still a gap between international fisheries instruments and Indonesia's domestic implementation of such instruments.

In the United States, state courts have long been aware that well-reasoned decisions evaluating the state interests that must be taken into account in determining the scope of federally protected rights can help to elicit deference to state law from the U.S. Supreme Court. Municipal courts in Europe are also learning that well-reasoned decisions are more likely to elicit deference from regional international tribunals, be it in the context of the principle of subsidiarity in the European Community or in the context of the margin of appreciation under the European Convention on Human Rights. If nothing else, this case may help nurture a similar attitude in municipal courts generally, at least with respect to treaty obligations that may well be invoked before an international tribunal with compulsory jurisdiction. 54 Notwithstanding the delay in instituting proceedings in the present case, the need for urgency in prompt-release cases makes it likely that only the decision of a municipal trial court, and not that of an appellate court, will ordinarily be available at the time the Tribunal is seized. Although trial courts are accustomed to the idea that their decisions will be reviewed, they are also accustomed to the considerable freedom afforded them by appellate courts on certain matters. It is likely that appellate courts, once they articulate the relevant considerations and standards, only episodically manifest an interest in fact-sensitive "trial management" matters such as bond. The underlying point of this case is that the Tribunal is not a municipal appellate court applying municipal law.

Systematically integrating the efforts of various working groups, using informal governance regimes, can result in ecosystem based management, industry stability and an overall increase in both environmental and economic well being for those involved. An informal yet transparent governance regime featuring effective working groups, open communication, rigorous science, and collaboration amongst scientists, resource managers and industry representative from both Canada and USA has been key to the success of this highly effective relationship. The paper analyzes the challenges faced by resource managers and outlines recent advancements.

This Essay will focus on how Canada and the United States have both succeeded and failed in adopting cooperative approaches to managing ocean fishery resources. A critical factor that has influenced these efforts is the introduction of an international legal construct dictating that States have exclusive sovereign rights respecting all marine living resources within 200 nautical miles of their shores. Cooperative approaches to managing transboundary marine living resources between Canada and the United States are necessary for two reasons. First, in the case of marine living resources, the resource pays scant attention to human-constructed national boundaries. Put another way, marine living resources challenge the entire idea of territory and boundaries. Therefore, for proper management of these transboundary resources that benefits both States, cooperation is necessary. Second, unlike respecting land, on salt water, as a result of each State having 200-nautical-mile zones, Canada and the United States have areas where both States claim exclusive national authority. These are areas where there are disputed maritime boundaries, and they exist between Canada and the United States on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts. Both for proper resource management purposes and for pragmatic "lets-not-fight" purposes, bilateral cooperation is required.

THE INDIAN Ocean and its adjacent seas have the largest number of active fishermen in the world. And nowhere else have so many fishermen been killed...