139 6. Obligations of flag states in the exclusive economic zone Aldo Chircop 1. INTRODUCTION On 2 April 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a seminal Advisory Opinion on the Request submitted to the Tribunal by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (ITLOS Advisory Opinion). 1 The member states of the SRFC – Cape Verde, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal, Sierra Leone and the Gambia – had long been concerned about illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing by foreign fleets in their exclusive economic zones (EEZs). 2 The flagging of elements of those fleets under open registers, also known as flags of convenience or non-compliance, further exacerbated the problem, highlighting institutional and political failings. 3 In the application they sought, among other things, 1 Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, 4. 2 Approximately 7 million people in West Africa depend on fishing as a source of income; possibly 300 000 jobs have been lost as a result of foreign fishing, con- tributing to increases in poverty. Illegal fishing is worth $2.3 billion in the waters of Mauritania, Senegal, the Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea and Sierra Leone. This is esti- mated to account for 20 per cent of the global loss from illegal fishing. See D. Belhabib, ‘The Black Hole in the Seas’ in 77 Samudra Report Articles (International Collective in Support of Fishworkers 2017) 20, www.icsf.net/en/samudra/detail/EN/4319.html ?detpag=mapart, last accessed 10 December 2019. 3 ‘The characteristics of a “flag of non-compliance” generally include: lack of laws and regulations applying to fishing on the high seas; failure to ratify relevant international agreements (Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 2167 UNTS 3; Straddling Stocks Agreement) and join RFMOs; identi- cal registration requirements for fishing vessels and other vessels; and consequently no appropriate licensing, monitoring or reporting requirements for fishing vessels.’ See C. Goodman, ‘The Regime for Flag State Responsibility in International Fisheries Law – Aldo Chircop - 9781839104268 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 08/28/2020 11:39:42AM by emma.penton@e-elgar.co.uk via AUTHOR COPY - NOT TO BE POSTED IN AN OPEN ONLINE REPOSITORY