Putting Conservation back into Convention for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

Ms Lyn(da) Goldsworthy1

1Imas, Utas, Batehaven, Australia

Article II of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) defines the CCAMLR’s objective as ‘the conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources’.  Rational use is permitted if it satisfies the principles of conservation as listed in Article II (3), including maintenance of ecosystems and ecological relationships and precaution.    In recent years, there has been a range of views expressed within CCAMLR about the original intent of the Objective, the need for a ‘balance’ between conservation and rational use, and the treatment of CCAMLR as essentially a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation.   This paper assesses decisions made by CCAMLR, in delivering its Objective to provide insights on the relative prioritisation currently given by Members to fisheries management measures versus conservation measures that extend beyond fisheries management.


Lyn has been actively engaged in Antarctic conservation policy, global fisheries management and area protection for more than  35 years. She has served on the Australian Antarctic Science Advisory Committee (ASAC) and has attended many meetings of the Antarctic Treaty and CCAMLR. Lyn has authored several papers relating to  Antarctic conservation and high seas fisheries management. She received the Order of Australia for services to conservation and environment in 1991 and the New Zealand Antarctic Conservation Trophy in 1990.  She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at IMAS, UTAS

The Integrated Responsibility Approach: A Recipe for Sustainable Policy Co-existence Between the Precautionary and Scientific Approaches in the Prevailing Context of Area Based Management Tools (ABMTs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)- The Case of the Arctic

Mr Godfred Sowah Khartey1

1South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

The concepts of the precautionary and scientific approaches have always been viewed antithetical and been treated as rivals in the problem-solving process.This paper looks at these ABMTs and MPAs in the Arctic region and tries to appraise the effects of the clash of these two approaches on the region’s marine biodiversity. In developing a consistent environmental regime and with the Arctic region’s marine biodiversity under threat from human activities, there is the need to appraise the functionality and use of these two approaches. ABMTs, including MPAs are generally viewed as an intrinsic mechanism for conserving and restoring biodiversity. While there have been talks of which approach should prevail,this paper tries to offer an objective analysis of both approaches and their impact on ABNJ in the Arctic. With the legalese surrounding the conservation of biodiversity and carefully analyzing the modus operandi of stakeholders inter alia the Arctic Council, RFMOs, International Seabed Authority (ISA),  International Maritime Organization (IMO) and others,this paper seeks to establish the emergence of a hybrid approach designated the Integrated Responsibility Approach (IRA).


Key Words: Precautionary Approach, Scientific Approach, Arctic Region, Integrated Responsibility Approach, Area-based Management Tools, Marine Protected Areas


Godfred Sowah Khartey obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science with Chinese from the University of Ghana (June 2014) and LL.M. in International Relations (June 2018) from Xiamen University.

He has served as Research Assistant, Office of Parliament, Ghana; Aide to H.E Mrs. Rebecca Akufo-Addo and Administrative Assistant, Embassy of the Republic of Ghana in Beijing.

Certificate holder, Regional Marine Observation and Quality Control (OceanTeacher Global Academy).

He is currently enrolled at South China Sea Institute, Xiamen University, pursuing a doctoral program in Law of the Sea.

He is an English Editor for the China Oceans Law Review (COLR).

Resilience of ATS in the Perspective of CCAMLR Development

Prof. Leilei Zou1

1Shanghai Ocean University, 999 Hucheng Huan Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, China

CCAMLR (Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) is the important component in ATS (Antarctic Treaty System), guiding and monitoring the marine living resources development and conservation at the Antarctic. With a review of the 4-decade history of CCAMLR development, a CCAMLR development projection is conducted to assess how resilient CCAMLR is and whether CCAMLR is resilient enough to encounter the future challenges. To explore how CCAMLR development interacts with the ATS resilience, two case studies are to be conducted. One is the regime-making process for Antarctic marine protected area (MPA) and how this process enhances the resilience of MPA regime. The other is the development of krill fishery at the Antarctic and how the fishery development interacts with the CCAMLR development.

Key words: CCAMLR; ATS; resilience; MPA; Krill fishery


Leilei Zou, professor at Shanghai Ocean University, China.

Research interests are marine policies and laws, with polar living resources conservation as the research priority. Recent published paper is  “Implications of Pollock Resources Management at Bering Sea to Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Management”. Her recent published book is “Arctic Fisheries, Arctic Fisheries Management and China’s Response”. Prof Zou worked as the fisheries policy analyst at OECD in 2012-2013. She also worked as the researcher at Law School at University of Virginia in 2014-2015. She was invited to be the visiting scholar at Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Norway in January 2017.

New Russian legislative approaches and the applicable navigational rights and freedoms within the Northern Sea Route

Dr Jan Solski1

1K. G. Jebsen Centre For The Law Of The Sea, Tromso, Norway

The regulation of foreign navigation in the Northern Sea Route (NSR) has been dominated by the rules of international law applicable to merchant ships only. Neither the domestic set of rules of navigation on the NSR, based on Article 234 of the UNCLOS nor the Polar Code applies to State-owned vessels. While the application of Article 234 has so far let Russia evade discussion on the navigational rights, one can expect increasing spotlight on this issue.

In response to the recent crossing of the NSR by a French warship, as well as the voices from the United States indicating similar plans, Russia has signaled the intention to adopt more stringent rules for passage of warships, potentially including the requirement of prior notification and pilotage.

The aim of the paper is twofold. First, examine the navigational rights as applicable in the NSR. As such, the paper will discuss historical State practice and relevant international law to demonstrate among other things that the enclosure with straight baselines preserved innocent passage in all Russian Arctic straits. Second, examine the international legality of prior notification and pilotage in the context of the applicable navigational rights on the NSR.


Jan Solski is a Postdoc Fellow at the K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea, UiT – the Arctic University of Norway. In April 2019, Jan defended Ph.D. thesis entitled “Russian Coastal State Jurisdiction over Commercial Vessels Navigating through the Northern Sea Route”. Jan holds academic degrees from Poland and Norway. He spent time as a visiting fellow at the Norwegian University Centre in St. Petersburg, as well as the Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore. He presented research in Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway, Poland, Russia, Singapore, and published in academic and popular journals.

The legal regime of submarine cables and UNCLOS as a “living instrument” for sustainable development in the Arctic

Mrs Daria Shvets1

1Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

The main purpose of the “ArCS” research project is the sustainable development of the Arctic. Among the directions of this development, one is the increase of submarine cables network considered as sustainable use of deep seabed environment. Cables ensure connectivity in the Arctic without causing a negative effect on it. The legal regulation of submarine cables by international law might be considered as the future agenda for post-ArCS legal research in the following sense.


The development of the “living instrument” theory in relation to the UNCLOS, the main international law instrument of submarine cables regulation, means flexibility in interpretation and adaptability to the circumstances which did not exist when the convention was adopted. Since the UNCLOS does not address several issues appearing in practice and especially does not give any specific regulation to such a unique area as the Arctic, the applicability of the theory of the “living instrument” to it may be considered as one of the directions of legal research in international law.


The present article aims to analyze and evaluate whether the UNCLOS as a living instrument in relation to submarine cables would facilitate the sustainable development of the Arctic.


Daria Shvets is a Ph.D. student in international law at Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain). Her areas of interest are the law of the sea, environmental law, and Arctic issues with the focus on the legal regime of submarine cables. Before coming to Universitat Pompeu Fabra, she completed her undergraduate studies at Lomonosov Moscow State University. Also, Daria was a visiting researcher at Stockholm University, Faculty of Law and the University of Trier, Institute for Environmental and Technology Law. Currently, she also works as a scientific adviser of the university team at Philip Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition.

Goal-based regulation and the Polar Code

Ms Julia Gaunce1

1KG Jebsen Centre For The Law Of The Sea, Uit Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

This presentation sets out research on goal-based regulation as employed in the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters. The objectives of the Polar Code are maritime safety, vessel-source pollution prevention, and harmonization in the global regulation of ships.

Goal-based regulation is perceived to be a relatively new regulatory form, at least in terms of the legal instruments adopted by the International Maritime Organization. The Polar Code, a recent IMO instrument, is not the first to incorporate a goal-based approach; however, it is innovative in the extent to which it does.

The virtues of a goal-based regulatory approach are conventionally identified as: freedom (the regulated subject is “free” to determine how to comply), adaptability in the face of variable conditions, and allowance for innovation. The issues associated with a goal-based regulatory approach conventionally include lack of clarity with respect to achieving and verifying compliance, and the question of harmonized implementation.

This research aims toward an analysis of the Polar Code in respect of the virtues and issues associated with goal-based regulatory form, to date a topic little discussed by legal commentators.


Julia Gaunce is a Phd Research Fellow, KG Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea, Faculty of Law, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, writing on international law and the regulation of ships in polar waters.

Does it matter if there is a Southern Ocean?

Ms Zsofia Korosy1

1University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, Australia

Does the Southern Ocean exist, and does the question matter? According to the 1953 3rd edition of the International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO)’s report, ‘Limits of Oceans and Seas’, there is no Southern Ocean: Antarctica is the southern border of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The 2002 draft 4th edition of the report proposes a Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica and extending north to the 60°S parallel, but for reasons unconnected to the Southern Ocean this draft has not been adopted. Previous drafts of the IHO’s reports have also recognised a Southern Ocean.


The IHO’s publication catalogue notes that these reports are used for ‘uniformity when compiling various nautical documents’. It declares explicitly that ‘the limits contained in this publication have no political significance’. And yet, clearly they matter to nations: 60 years after the 1953 document, and despite considerable efforts since 1977, it has proven impossible to finalise a new edition of the report.


This presentation explores whether, and why, it might matter whether the Southern Ocean exists. It considers the political and geographical significance of drawing lines in oceans, and the effects that these kinds of line-drawing have on the elaboration of legal regimes of ocean conservation.


Zsofia’s teaching has included International Environmental Law and Federal Constitutional Law. She is Joint Editor of AUSPUBLAW – the Australian Public Law blog.

Governance of the Central Arctic Ocean: Cooperative Currents, Foggy Future

Dr David VanderZwaag1

1Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

Out of sight, out of mind. Those words describe the level of political and public attention paid until recently to the central Arctic Ocean (CAO), the large “donut hole” of high seas lying beyond the adjacent 200 mile national zones of the five coastal States. The area has not been subject to fishing or substantial harvesting of other living marine resources. The region has been navigated by relatively few ships.

Over the past decade, the attitude of neglect has begun to change. The need to address future governance of the CAO has garnered considerable academic and public attention in light of retreating and thinning sea ice and projections that the Arctic might be free of summer sea ice in the next ten years or much later.

This presentation will first highlight the global and regional cooperative agreements and initiatives relevant to governance of the CAO. Global cooperative currents include: the law of the sea as the overarching framework; various multilateral environmental agreements and the Polar Shipping Code with its new safety and pollution discharge standards. Regional cooperative eddies include: discussions within the Arctic Council to possibly establish one or more particularly sensitive sea areas in the CAO and adoption in October 2018 of an Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the CAO.

The presentation will then proceed to describe the “foggy future”. Four main uncertainties will be reviewed: questions surrounding implementation of the new legally binding agreement on CAO fisheries; determinations of extended continental shelf boundaries; unclear future steps to address shipping in the CAO; and the implications for the Arctic of a new international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement).


David VanderZwaag is Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Ocean Law and Governance at the Marine & Environmental Law Institute, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University. He is a member of the International Council of Environmental Law as well as the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL). From 2004-2018, he co-chaired the WCEL’s Specialist Group on Oceans, Coasts and Coral Reefs. Dr. VanderZwaag has authored over 150 papers in the marine and environmental law field. His co-edited book publications include: Polar Oceans Governance in an Era of Environmental Change (Edward Elgar, 2014).


Prof. Denzil Miller1, Ms Elise Murray2

1ANCORS/IMAS, Wollogong/Hobart, Australia, 2University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

This paper focuses on the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources’ (CCAMLR) efforts to improve Antarctic marine governance and conservation through enforcement of Conservation Measure (CM) compliance. CCAMLR’s recently-developed compliance evaluation procedure (CCEP) is evaluated over its first five years. The Procedure’s achievements and shortcomings are contrasted with global fisheries compliance enforcement initiatives in an uncertain and risky future. It is seen as a model for other polar and high seas areas, whilst also illustrating how CCAMLR’s management of a relatively small number of Antarctic marine living resources could enhance sustainable, and responsible, fishing practices globally.


Denzil Miller is a professorial fellow at the University of Wollongong and Senior Adjunct Researcher at the University of Tasmania. He has been involved in Antarctic, marine science and governance for forty years. Denzil has served as CCAMLR Executive Secretary and Chair of its Scientific Committee, being awarded the South African Antarctic Medal (1995) and Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal (2007) for this work. He was inaugurated as a Member of the Order of Australia (2011) for his Antarctic and marine conservation efforts.

About conferences.com.au

conferences.com.au provides delegate registration, website and app solutions, and financial management for conferences, conventions and scientific meetings.

Terms & Conditions

All registrations and bookings are subject to our standard term and conditions.

Contact Us

Please contact the team at conferences.com.au with any questions regarding the conference.
© 2017 - 2020 Conference Design Pty Ltd. conferences.com.au is a division of Conference Design Pty Ltd.