On the legal status of marine fishery resources: From the perspectives of international fishery law

Abstract

The legal status of marine fishery resources is analyzed from a spatial perspective: States have the right for their nationals to engage in fishing activities in the corresponding maritime areas based on the sovereignty, sovereign rights, the principle of freedom of the high seas as well as the principle of the common heritage of mankind of the Area under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Meanwhile, the legal status of marine fishery resources is analyzed from two aspects in terms of contents: the legal regime of exploitation and utilization of marine fishery resources and the legal regime of conservation and management of marine fishery resources. The transformation of marine fishery resources from natural resources to individual catches involves the regime of ownership. There is no specific regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources under UNCLOS or other international legal instruments, which should be stipulated by domestic laws.

1. Introduction

Marine fishery resources are closely related to human life. They become the property of mankind after being caught and transformed into individual catches. A legal consideration for the common occurrence is what is the legal basis for the transformation of marine fishery resources. In practice, marine fishing activities occur not only in internal waters, the territorial sea of coastal States, the archipelagic waters of archipelagic States, and the exclusive economic zones of coastal States but also in the areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), that is, the high sea and the Area. So, the legal regulations regarding fishing activities of marine fishery resources include not only domestic law, but also international law [1]. It is necessary to study the legal status of marine fishery resources in these rules of international fishery law. In addition, the provisions related to the conservation and management of marine fishery resources are also a major part of international fishery law [2]. It is also necessary to study the legal status of marine fishery resources in these rules of international fishery law.

There are various legal regulations concerning marine fishery resources [3]. Given the length and emphasis of the discussion, this article focuses on the legal framework established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and examines mainly the treaties regarding marine fishery resources and some customary international law. These legal regimes can be broadly divided into three categories from a spatial perspective: the legal regime for the maritime areas under the sovereign jurisdiction of States, the legal regime for the maritime areas covered by the sovereign rights of coastal States, and the legal regime for ABNJ. These legal regimes can also be divided into three categories in terms of contents: the legal regime of exploitation and utilization of marine fishery resources, the legal regime of conservation and management of marine fishery resources, and the legal regime of scientific research on marine fishery resources. This article will review the above legal regimes to analyze the legal status of marine fishery resources in the context of international fishery law. In the past, the research on the legal regulation of marine fishery resources were mainly focused on the international fishery law of some marine areas. In addition, the legal regimes are not divided into categories in terms of contents by international law scholars. Based on the above classification, starting from the phenomenon of marine fishery resources transforming into catches, this paper systematically analyzes the basis of the international law of this phenomenon. This paper also analyzes the legal status of marine fishery resources in the provisions related to the conservation and management of marine fishery resources.

The issue that whether a specific regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources exists in international law is overlooked by international law scholars. The transformation of marine fishery resources from natural resources to individual catches involves the regime of ownership. To study the legal status of marine fishery resources, another problem, that is, whether a specific regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources exists in international law, needs to be solved. Before solving this problem, the following questions should be clarified while analyzing the above issues: Firstly, there are differences and connections between national sovereignty over natural resources and national ownership of natural resources. National sovereignty over natural resources in international law is the right to self-determination for the economic and social development of a State, while national ownership of natural resources is the property right to institutional arrangements for the exercise of national sovereignty over natural resources through the disposal of its natural resources [4]. Secondly, the distinction between marine fishery resources and marine catches is often overlooked, which often results in the wrong understanding of the legal attributes of natural resources beyond national sovereign jurisdiction. These resources do not directly manifest themselves as property in terms of human ownership, and there is a need to define their ownership only when they are transformed into objects capable of being possessed and controlled.

2. The sovereignty of a state extends to the marine fishery resources in its territorial waters

2.1. The sovereignty of a coastal state extends to the fishery resources in its territorial waters

The territorial waters of a coastal State include both internal waters and territorial sea [5]. The internal waters of a coastal State are an integral part of its territory, over which the coastal State naturally enjoys sovereignty. A coastal State also enjoys territorial sovereignty over its territorial sea.1 The territorial sovereignty of a State extends to all the natural resources of the territory itself [6], and the sovereignty of a coastal State extends to the natural resources, including fishery resources, in its internal waters and territorial sea.

A coastal State enjoys territorial sovereignty over its internal waters. As an exception, Article 5 (2) of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone and Article 8 (2) of UNCLOS provide the right of innocent passage in internal waters. A coastal state enjoys territorial sovereignty over its territorial sea. As an exception, the right of innocent passage of foreign ships is granted by Part I, Section 3 of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, and Part II, Section 3 of UNCLOS. Under Article 19 (2) (i) of UNCLOS, the right of innocent passage does not include the right to fish for foreign vessels. Unless governed by regulations of international law, a coastal State may, based on its sovereignty, undertake various forms of activities for various purposes concerning fishery resources in its internal waters and territorial sea.

2.2. The sovereignty of an archipelagic state extends to the fishery resources in its archipelagic waters but subjects to rights of other states

UNCLOS creates a new regime of archipelagic waters for archipelagic States.2 Despite their special legal status, archipelagic waters are still considered as territorial waters [4]. Although Articles 52 and 53 of UNCLOS establish the right of innocent passage and the right of passage in archipelagic sea lanes for vessels of other States in archipelagic waters, the sovereignty of archipelagic States extends to the fishery resources in their archipelagic waters according to Article 49 (2) of UNCLOS. It is worth noting that the exercise of such sovereignty by an archipelagic State is subject to the rights of other States. Article 51 (1) of UNCLOS provides that archipelagic States shall respect existing agreements with other States and shall recognize the traditional fishing rights of directly adjacent States within archipelagic waters. Article 47 (6) of UNCLOS provides that: If a part of the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State lies between two parts of an immediately adjacent neighboring State, existing rights and all other legitimate interests which the latter State has traditionally exercised in such waters and all rights stipulated by agreement between those States shall continue and be respected.

As the main part of marine fishery resources, fishes are swimming and many of them can swim quite a long distance in their whole life. When they stray from the territorial waters of a State, they are no longer the object of the territorial sovereignty of the State. If they swim into the territorial waters of another State, it becomes the object of the territorial sovereignty of that other State. If they swim into the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a State or another State, the international legal regime concerning the EEZ shall be applied. If they swim into the high seas, the legal regime of the high seas shall be applied, then no State can make claim based on the sovereignty it once had.3

As far as the internal waters, territorial sea, and archipelagic waters are concerned, UNCLOS does not impose obligatory provisions for coastal and archipelagic States on the conservation and management of fishery resources. However, based on the need for the conservation and sustainable use of marine fishery resources, coastal and archipelagic States shall take measures for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources, which is exactly what happens in practice [7]. Furthermore, because of the interdependence of marine fishery resources and the migratory nature of some fish stocks, international fishery law should take into account the conservation and management obligations of coastal and archipelagic States concerning fishery resources within their territorial waters, otherwise, the effectiveness of UNCLOS and other norms of international law on conservation of fishery resources in EEZs and high seas will be diminished.

3. Sovereign rights of a coastal state extend to the fishery resources in its exclusive economic zone and over its continental shelf

3.1. A coastal state enjoys sovereign rights for fishing, conserving, and managing the fishery resources in its exclusive economic zone

Article 56 (1) (a) of UNCLOS provides that: In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has sovereign rights for exploring and exploiting, conserving, and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil. Consequently, the coastal State enjoys sovereign rights for fishing, conserving, and managing fishery resources in its EEZ. At the same time, these sovereign rights of the coastal State entail a series of obligations: The coastal State shall determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its EEZ and ensure through proper conservation and management measures that the maintenance of the living resources in its EEZ is not endangered by over-exploitation. The coastal State shall also take measures to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield, subject to various relevant environmental and economic constraints. Some measures shall be designed to avoid threatening species associated with or dependent on the species being harvested.4 The coastal State shall promote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources in its EEZ.5 In practice, coastal States are given broad discretion, particularly in determining the allowable catch of the living resources [1]. Due to the management levels for maximum sustainable yield being difficult to describe, coastal States can designate any allowable catch level that is within the statutory range, as long as it does not lead to overfishing that would trigger stock risks [1].

Unlike the absolute sovereignty of coastal States over fishery resources in their territorial waters, there is an issue of surplus fishery resources in EEZs. According to UNCLOS, coastal States shall give other States access to the surplus of the allowable catch if they do not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch in their EEZs,6 having particular regard for landlocked and geographically disadvantaged States to exploit the surplus fishery resources.7 However, coastal States have broader discretion for surplus fishery resources, and they have the right to establish rules to regulate foreign vessels fishing in their EEZs,8 to ensure their enforcement through measures including boarding, inspection, arrest, and judicial proceedings,9 and even to establish penalties for foreign vessels that violate their fishery regulations.10 In most cases, States do not refer to the surplus of the allowable catch, and the provisions of the above-mentioned articles of UNCLOS are divergent in practice, pending further practices to remedy the current deficiencies in treaty law [1].

Fish are swimming organisms, and many fish stocks often move among several EEZs or between EEZs and other sea areas, so the conservation of fishery resources requires cooperation among several coastal States. In order to strengthen the pertinence of the conservation and management of marine fishery resources, UNCLOS has made a series of special provisions by distinguishing different fish stocks. Article 63 (1) of UNCLOS provides that where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur within the EEZs of two or more coastal States, these States shall seek, either directly or through appropriate subregional or regional organizations, to agree upon the measure necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and development of the shared fishery resources. Article 63 (2) of UNCLOS emphasizes cooperation among States with respect to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks, and Article 64 and Annex I of UNCLOS emphasize cooperation among States for the conservation and management of highly migratory species. Since these two species migrate between EEZs and the high seas, the issue of their conservation and management is inseparable within EEZs of the coastal State as well as on the high seas. Article 66 of UNCLOS addresses the biological characteristics of anadromous stocks, recognizing that States of origin of anadromous stocks have the primary interest in and responsibility for such stocks, and also emphasizes cooperation between the State of origin and the State fishing for the stocks. Article 67 of UNCLOS provides that a coastal State in whose waters catadromous species spend the greater part of their life cycle shall have responsibility for the management of these species and shall ensure the ingress of migrating fish. Harvesting of catadromous species shall be conducted only in waters landward of the outer limits of EEZs and the management of catadromous species shall be provided for by agreement between that coastal State and the other State concerned. Article 68 of UNCLOS specifies that provisions on EEZs do not apply to sedentary species.

As for marine mammals, Article 65 of UNCLOS gives coastal States or international organizations the right to enforce stricter prohibitions, restrictions, or regulations on the exploitation of marine mammals. The article also stipulates that States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management, and study. This provision is a special law for the conservation of fishery resources in EEZs and should be applied as a matter of priority. The purpose of the jurisdiction of coastal States is not to own the resources or to promote the most appropriate catch or establish a maximum catch, but rather to focus on the conservation of marine mammals. Under the provision, many States and international organizations have established stricter regulations for the catching, conservation, and management of marine mammals, and are cooperating in the conservation of marine mammals. The existing global international organization for the conservation, management, and research of cetaceans is the International Whaling Commission (IWC), established under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) of 1946 [8]. IWC approved a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, except for the survival needs of aboriginal peoples and necessary scientific research [8].

3.2. A coastal state enjoys exclusive sovereign rights for harvesting sedentary fishery resources over its continental shelf

Article 77 (1) of UNCLOS provides a coastal State with exclusive sovereign rights over its continental shelf for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its natural resources. UNCLOS defines the scope of living resources in Article 77 (4), which includes living organisms belonging to sedentary species. Consequently, a coastal State has the sovereign right to harvest sedentary species over its continental shelf. Moreover, Article 77 (2), (3) of UNCLOS makes it clear that such sovereign rights of a coastal State are exclusive and do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or any express proclamation.

According to Article 68 of UNCLOS, the provisions of the EEZs shall not be applied to sedentary species, so coastal States are not obliged to establish optimum yields of sedentary species over their continental shelves, nor are they required to share the surplus fishery species on their continental shelves with other States. In addition, UNCLOS does not impose obligations on coastal States regarding the conservation and management of sedentary species on their continental shelves, but sedentary species on the continental shelves are part of the same ecosystem as fishery resources in the overlying waters, and the conservation and management of them also require attention from international fishery law. The coastal States also have a need to adopt conservation measures because of the long-term nature of the benefits derived from this portion of the fishery resource for them.

4. Legal status of marine fishery resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction

4.1. Freedom of fishing on the high seas and the conservation and management of fisheries resources of high seas

The legal regime of the high seas is characterized by the principle of free use and the principle of flag State jurisdiction [4], which is in sharp contrast to the jurisdiction of coastal States over their coastal waters. The legal attribute of fishery resources of the high seas is “common property”, which is a typically natural resource in ABNJ. Article 86 of UNCLOS uses the exclusionary approach to define the scope of the high seas as “all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State.” The principle of freedom of the high seas, as an international custom, is supported by extensive international practice [9]. The 1958 Convention on the High Seas is the result of a codification of the international custom [10], with four items listed in Article 2 of the Convention, including freedom of fishing on the high seas. Article 1 of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas specifically provides for “freedom of fishing on the high seas”, and Articles 87 and 116 of UNCLOS also reaffirm “freedom of fishing on the high seas”.

Based on the conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources of the high seas, the principle of freedom of fishing has been restricted and limited since the beginning of the twentieth century [7], which is reflected in a series of treaties and international customary law, together with freedom of fishing on the high seas, constituting the legal regime for fishing activities on the high seas. Reviewing the relevant international conventions, Article 1 (2) of the 1958 Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas establishes the obligation to conserve the living resources of the high seas and for States to cooperate. UNCLOS limits the freedom of fishing on the high seas in Part VII, Section II, and makes provisions for the conservation and management of living resources on the high seas,11 including Article 117, which reaffirms the obligation to conserve living resources on the high seas and for States to cooperate. Article 118 of UNCLOS emphasizes this duty to cooperate and proposes the establishment of subregional or regional fishery organizations. Article 119 of UNCLOS is a replication of Article 61, which was analyzed earlier in this study. Article 120 of UNCLOS applies the provisions of Article 65 on the protection of marine mammals in the EEZs to the high seas. In addition, there is an issue of enclosed or semi-enclosed seas that fall within the scope of the high seas, and UNCLOS emphasizes that coastal States should cooperate with each other to coordinate the management, conservation, exploration, and exploitation of living marine resources, either directly or through regional organizations.12

UNCLOS has more principled provisions for the conservation and management of fishery resources on the high seas. To address the inadequacy of institutional provisions, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) adopted the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas and the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which provides relatively specific provisions for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the high seas. FAO also adopted a series of international plans of action for fishery resources (IPOAs) between 1999 and 2002, of which the 2001 International plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IPOA-IUU) was the most influential, which effectively curbs “illegal, unreported and unregulated” (IUU) fishing by detailing a series of organizing principles and management measures, providing some institutional safeguards for the sustainable development of marine fishery resources [11]. Concerning restrictions on fishing activities on the high seas, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 44/225 on December 22, 1989, resolution 45/197 on December 21, 1990, and resolution 46/215 on December 20, 1991, calling on States to implement a global ban on driftnet fishing by December 31, 1992. The 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 10, 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks provides detailed provisions for the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory stocks beyond national jurisdiction, setting out the objective of sustainable use of marine fishery resources and emphasizing international cooperation and long-term conservation of fishery resources.

In practice, to avoid the increasing number of fishing vessels entering the high seas for fishing, which may lead to unfavorable economic benefits, many States have reached a consensus that fishing activities on the high seas should be restricted, mainly restricting access rights [1]. Article 3 (1) of the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, adopted by FAO in 1993, states that “each Contracting Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to ensure that fishing vessels entitled to fly its flag do not engage in any activity which undermines the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures.” Since then, fishing vessels have not been allowed to engage in fishing activities on the high seas except with the permission of the flag State, effectively establishing the practice of flag States granting high seas access rights to fishing vessels under their jurisdiction. In addition, regional fishery management organizations (RFMOs) have taken a leading role in the conservation and management of fishery resources on the high seas [11], and the concept of freedom of fishing on the high seas has become less complete.

4.2. The controversy over the legal status of sedentary species in the area

In the 1970s, the existence of living resources in the Area was discovered [12]. At this stage, the known sedentary species in the Area have not yet reached the quantity that can be fished on a large scale, but as research progresses and technology allows, their future exploitation value cannot be denied. The regulation of the development and utilization of marine genetic resources in ABNJ is also the focus of discussion in marine political and legal circles [13]. So, it is necessary to discuss their legal status.

There are two different views on the legal status of sedentary species in the Area. Firstly, the commons theory. This view is mostly advocated by developed States that have the financial and technological advantages in developing biological resources in the Area [14]. They hold that the definition of the resources of the Area by Article 133 of UNCLOS refers only to mineral resources, explicitly excluding marine living resources and that the regime of the high seas shall be applied to activities relating to the high seas and the living resources attached to the Area. In other words, sedentary species in the Area are common property, and the exploitation, conservation, and management of them are subject to the regime of the high seas. Secondly, the common heritage of mankind theory. This view is mostly advocated by developing States. They argue that UNCLOS defines the Area as the seabed, ocean floor, and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, which are to be understood differently from the waters overlying them [15]. The existence of sedentary species in the Area was not recognized at the time of the establishment of UNCLOS. If analogized to the mineral resources of the Area, the activities of the sedentary species concerned could be effectively and equitably regulated through the more mature regime of the Area. That is, sedentary species in the Area are the common heritage of mankind and the regime of the Area shall be applied to the exploitation, conservation and management of them. The intersection of these two views is that a State cannot assert sovereignty or sovereign rights over sedentary species of the Area, while the difference is that the former advocates free development and individual benefits, while the latter advocates joint development and mutual benefits [15]. As for the choice of which system or newly created system, further summaries of ocean governance experience are needed.

With respect to the protection and conservation of the sedentary species in the Area, UNCLOS provides rules in principle. The International Seabed Authority is empowered to adopt rules, regulations, and procedures for the prevention, reduction, and control of pollution and other hazards to the marine environment arising from activities in the Area and for the prevention of interference with the ecological balance of the marine environment. UNCLOS also emphasizes the protection and conservation of the natural resources in the Area, preventing damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environment.13

5. There is no specific regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources under international law

The territorial sovereignty of coastal States or archipelagic States extends to the natural resources in their territory, including the fishery resources in the internal waters, the territorial sea of a coastal State, or the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State [9]. However, the content of territorial sovereignty does not include the ownership of natural resources. Sovereignty in international law is different from property ownership in domestic law [6]. International law stipulates and guarantees national sovereignty over natural resources, but it cannot be confused with national ownership of natural resources [16]. National sovereignty over natural resources in international law is the right to self-determination for the economic and social development of a State, while national ownership of natural resources is a property right for the exercise of national sovereignty over natural resources and the institutional arrangement through domestic law for the domination of natural resources in the State, which is related but different [17]. State ownership of natural resources is a concrete expression of the principle of national sovereignty over resources universally recognized by international society. A State can regulate its marine fishery resources as objects of ownership in their domestic law,14 but ownership in this context refers to property ownership under domestic law rather than international law.

According to the provisions of UNCLOS, coastal States enjoy sovereign rights for fishing, conservation, and management of fishery resources in their EEZs,15 enjoy the exclusive sovereign right to fish sedentary species on their continental shelves.16 These two forms of sovereign rights also do not include an element of ownership for the following reasons: Firstly, unlike territorial sovereignty, the sovereign rights of a coastal State exist outside the territorial limits of the State, and their forms and contents are subject to the explicit enumeration and specific provisions of UNCLOS. By combing through the provisions of UNCLOS on the sovereign rights of EEZs and continental shelves, no provisions on the ownership of fishery resources are found. Secondly, the sovereign rights of a coastal State in its EEZ are for the purpose of the exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of natural resources,17 while the sovereign rights on its continental shelf are only for the purpose of the exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of natural resources.

As mentioned above, fishery resources of the high seas have the legal attribute of common property and are not owned by any State or individual [18]. Based on the principle of freedom of the high seas, fishery resources of the high seas are free and open to all States, and the need to define ownership only arises when the fishery resources are harvested and are in the possession and control of the harvesters [19]. People can take catches from fishery resources of the high seas, but they cannot own fishery resources of the high seas, which cannot be owned by subjects of international law. According to this view, fishery resources of the high seas are also not ownerless property, because the concept of ownerless property is in line with the concept of ownership. If a set of laws creates the concept of ownership, it must consider the legal attribute of things that are not owned by subjects of ownership rights, that is, ownerless property. If international law does not set up the concept of ownership for subjects of international law, it is unnecessary to set up the concept of ownerless property.

There are sedentary species living in the Area. However, the known sedentary species in the Area have not yet reached a sizeable number for fishing activities [12]. Actually, some developed States have been developing and utilizing marine genetic resources in Area [20], so it requires the rules of international law to regulate these activities. Actually, the International Legally Binding Instrument under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction is negotiated [14]. The legal status of sedentary species living in the Area needs to be defined. UNCLOS defines the resources of the Area as referring only to mineral resources in all their forms, excluding living marine resources.18 There are two main views as to which regime applies to sedentary species in the Area: Firstly, the regime of the high seas shall be applied to fish for sedentary species in the Area [21], which is analogous to laying cables and pipelines on the seabed of the high seas. According to this view, as in the analysis above, the legal attribute of sedentary species in the Area is common property and not owned by any State. Secondly, sedentary species in the Area are compared to mineral resources of the Area, and the regime of the Area is applied [15]. According to this view, the legal attribute of sedentary species of the Area is a common heritage of mankind.19 But it cannot be concluded from international law that sedentary species in the Area is the object of ownership [18]. Theoretically speaking, certain natural resources stipulated in the relevant international conventions are a common heritage of mankind, which is only an oath of interests, indicating that such natural resources embody the interests of all mankind and provide the necessary conditions and basis for the sustainable development of mankind and that mankind can only obtain wealth from them, but cannot exclusively occupy and own these natural resources [15]. The material derived from these natural resources is a kind of property that can be the object of ownership, but the interests represented by such property and rights must be equitably shared among mankind and should be managed and protected cooperatively by sovereign States [22].

The assertion that there is specific no regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources in international law is also reflected in the provisions of UNCLOS, which only establishes a system of utilization and management of marine fishery resources from the perspective of maritime jurisdiction areas, other than addresses the regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources. From a practical point of view, marine fishery resources rightfully become the property of the catcher after being legally caught. It is a need to make a distinction between marine fishery resources and marine catches as individual objects. Strictly speaking, natural resources as sources of property are not directly embodied as individual property, but only when they are transformed into individual assets can they be embodied as objects of ownership [1]. The specific regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources is not covered by international law as analyzed above, but the regime of ownership regarding marine catches as an individual thing belongs to the domestic law of each State. Of course, some human rights conventions or international documents may also provide that individuals should have ownership rights. Such provisions do not directly create ownership rights for individuals, but merely indicate that State parties should create ownership rights for their individuals in domestic law and respect such ownership rights created by domestic law [23].

6. Conclusions

Marine fishery activities are carried out every day. Marine fishery resources become the property of mankind after being caught, but there is no specific regime of ownership regarding marine fishery resources in international law. The legal basis of international law for States to conduct marine fishing activities is as follows: According to UNCLOS, the sovereignty of coastal States extends to the marine fishery resources within their internal waters and territorial sea, and the sovereignty of archipelagic States extends to the marine fishery resources within their archipelagic waters. Coastal states enjoy sovereign rights within their EEZs for fishing, conservation, and management of fishery resources and exclusive sovereign rights on their continental shelves for fishing for sedentary fishery resources. Based on the principle of freedom of the high seas, States enjoy the freedom of fishing on the high seas. The economic and environmental potential of sedentary species of the Area is becoming increasingly recognized, but its exploitation is currently limited and the understanding of its legal status is still controversial. With the emphasis on marine ecological protection and preservation as well as conservation of marine fishery resources in modern times, UNCLOS has provided detailed regulations on the conservation and management of fishery resources of EEZs and the high seas, and the development of international fishery law in the post-convention era has mainly focused on the conservation and management issues of marine fishery resources. Therefore, the regulation of marine fishery resources by these legal regimes should be studied in the future. In addition, the legal regime of scientific research on marine fishery resources is also an important part of international fisheries law, which needs to be studied in the future research.

APC waived - waiver code: Heliyon - Contractual payment discounts.

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Data availability statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Social Science Planning Research Project of Shandong Province, China (21CXSXJ14).