It's been said that Canada's authority to manage fisheries inside its 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) stems from Canada's inherent sovereignty - and that therefore, Canada can choose to surrender its sovereignty to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) - if it so chooses.

Canada, however, has been a signatory to the "constitution of the oceans" - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), since 1997.

Laws conflict

Notwithstanding Canada's obligations under this international treaty, Canada is about to ratify another treaty (the proposed new NAFO convention) which provides a door through which Canada can pass its international UNCLOS obligations to manage its fishery inside 200 miles - over to NAFO.

UNCLOS, Article 61 states clearly that it is the coastal state itself that has the duty to determine Total Allowable Catches (TACs) inside 200 miles - "1. The coastal state shall (mandatory) determine the allowable catch (TACs) of the living resources in its exclusive economic zone."

The determination of TACs is not the only thing that is the sole responsibility of the coastal state. Under UNCLOS, the responsibility for conservation, management and the restoration of fish stocks inside 200 miles is also the coastal state's responsibility (Article 61, sections 2 and 3).

While coastal states are not exempted from their conservation and management responsibilities inside 200 miles, they are nevertheless, permitted under Article 61, sections 2 and 3, to "co-operate" with other coastal states or organizations such as NAFO.

Other UNCLOS articles (63 and 64), which do allow for coastal states and international organizations to joint-manage fisheries inside 200 miles, only apply to straddling stocks and highly migratory species. As well, other UNCLOS articles that do permit other coastal states inside 200 miles, apply only with respect to the conduct of "scientific" and other such studies (which is already permitted under the old NAFO convention).

So, where is the international law (UNCLOS) provision that specifically exempts a coastal state such as Canada (that is a signatory to UNCLOS - a signatory to international law) from its "mandatory" duty, pursuant to Article 61, to determine TACs and to conserve and manage its fisheries INSIDE 200 miles?

On becoming, in 1997, a signatory to UNCLOS, Canada did not only receive international legal "rights," but Canada, in so doing, also signed on to international legal duties and obligations - one of which is (pursuant to Article 61) that the "coastal state" itself (not someone else) shall set the TACs, etc. - within its own 200 mile-zone.

There appears to be no out that allows Canada (once it signs on to UNCLOS) to cherry-pick those parts that it will comply with, and those parts that it won't.

How can Canada just, willy-nilly, choose to not comply with an UNCLOS mandatory obligation (unless there were an express provision in UNCLOS itself that would allow it)?

Pursuant to UNCLOS, the coastal state has special conservation and management rights - and special conservation and management obligations inside its own 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, and these differ from what exists beyond 200 miles, and they differ from the rights of other States and Regional Organizations (such as NAFO) to conduct, for example, "scientific" work inside 200 miles.

Now has duties

Once Canada signed on to UNCLOS, which it did in 1997, it surrendered part of its sovereignty in favour of its rights, duties and obligations pursuant to international law (UNCLOS).

Canada's authority and the duty to manage inside 200 miles now comes, at least in part, from UNCLOS - and cannot now, willy-nilly, be signed away by way of a new NAFO convention.

The ratification of this proposed new NAFO convention, which would allow Canada to shift certain international duties and obligations under UNCLOS over to NAFO, would therefore be in violation of international law (UNCLOS).

If not, why would Canada's Oceans Act, also passed in 1997 (whose express purpose is, among other things, to enshrine in domestic law matters related to our 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone) specifically require that there be no inconsistency between that Act and Canada's international obligations?

Surely the same must apply to any new NAFO convention - that is, there must be no inconsistency between the proposed new NAFO convention - and Canada's obligations pursuant to international law - the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

On a matter so critical and so important to the coastal fishing communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to Canada as a whole, why is this not so?

Maurice E. Adams writes from Paradise.