MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W56359271

Hacia un nuevo marco jurídico internacional de la pesca en alta mar: la NAFO en esta encrucijada

2010· article· es· W56359271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adela Rey Aneiros

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Española de Derecho Internacional · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

espanolA pesar de lo que pudiera parecer, a la vista de la escasa evidencia de conflictos abiertos en los ultimos anos, la historia de las relaciones pesqueras entre los sujetos internacionales de una y otra orilla del Atlantico no ha sido facil desde que se dio por concluida la Guerra del Fletan. Por el contrario, resulta sorprendente en este ambito la intensa evolucion y actividad juridico-diplomatica desde fines de los anos noventa hasta la actualidad. Ello, abrio la puerta a la esperanza, tanto para Canada como para Espana y la UE, de haber encontrado un punto de equilibrio entre sus intereses y, por fin, concebir una NAFO operativa en el Atlantico Noroeste. Sin embargo, la decada siguiente comenzo con graves diferencias en la aplicacion de la normativa NAFO entre algunos de sus miembros (con Canada y Espana junto con la UE en polos opuestos). Se detectaron graves incumplimientos en el area de regulacion NAFO que no siempre conllevaron las correspondientes sanciones por parte del Estado del pabellon. La diferencia de posturas volvio a hacerse patente. Por un lado, el Gobierno de Canada se planteo las posibles posturas a adoptar como reaccion al fracaso de la NAFO: extension de jurisdiccion sobre la Zona economica exclusiva mas alla del limite de las 200 millas, aplicacion del reforma o, incluso, sustitucion de la NAFO... Por otro lado, Espana y la UE se han decantado, desde los primeros indicios de conflicto, por la busqueda de una solucion multilateral a las deficiencias de gestion y control detectadas en la organizacion de la pesca en el Atlantico Noroeste. Ha defendido, desde su participacion en los foros internacionales, un mayor reforzamiento de las Organizaciones internacionales de pesquerias, promoviendo la creacion de nuevas OIP donde fuera necesario y fomentando la reforma de aquellas como la NAFO, siendo evidente que lo necesitaban. La actuacion de Espana y la UE se ha visto presionada tambien por las regiones y sectores mas implicados en la pesca en esa zona. Es curioso observar como la solucion alcanzada en 2007 para la reforma y creacion de una nueva Convencion NAFO no satisface plenamente ni a las provincias canadienses nororientales ni a las regiones espanolas y portuguesas, pero es la solucion de equilibrio (aunque inestable mientras no demuestre su eficacia) defendida por ambos ejecutivos CAN-UE/ESP. Pero es la solucion de equilibrio (aunque inestable hasta que se demuestra su eficacia), defendido por las administraciones de Canada, Espana y la UE. Estas son, de una forma muy somera, las cuestiones tratadas en este articulo, con el que pretendemos arrojar luz al posible laboratorio donde testar un nuevo Derecho internacional de la pesca en alta mar. EnglishDespite the lack of evidence of disputes open in recent years, the fishing relations between the international actors on the two sides of the Atlantic have been far from cosy since the end of the Halibut War. In fact, surprisingly intense legal-diplomatic activity has been underway since the late 1990s. All this activity raised hopes in both Canada and the EU that a balance had been struck between their respective interests and that an effective role could finally be set out for NAFO (the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization) in the Northwest Atlantic. The twenty-first century, however, began with substantial differences between certain NAFO members (principally Canada and Spain) over the application of the organization's rules. Serious infringements were detected in the NAFO area that were not always duly penalized by flag States, and differences re-emerged. On the one hand, the Canadian government debated the possibility of adopting positions to remedy the failure of the NAFO project: the extension of Canada's Exclusive Economic Zone, jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit, application of custodial management, and the reform or even replacement of NAFO. Spain and the EU, in turn, from the time the earliest signs of dispute began to appear, actively sought a multilateral solution to the problems detected in the management of NAFO. Via their participation in international forums they have advocated strengthening international fisheries organizations, furthered the creation of new IFOs in response to new requirements, and encouraged reform wherever needed, as in the case of NAFO. The action of Spain and the EU has also been the result of pressure brought to bear by the regions and industries most deeply involved in fishing in the area. Oddly (or not), the solution adopted in 2007 to reform and create a new NAFO Convention has not fully satisfied either the Northeastern Canadian provinces or the Spanish and Portuguese regions, but it is the equilibrium solution (admittedly unstable until it proves its effectiveness) defended by the Canadian and EU administrations. These, briefly, are the issues addressed in this article, which aims to shed light on possible laboratory tests for a new international law of high seas fisheries. francaisMalgre ce qui sembler paraitre vu l'absence evidente de conflits entames au cours de ces dernieres annees, l�histoire des relations de peche entre les sujets internationaux des deux cotes de l'Atlantique, depuis la fin de la guerre du Fletan, n'a pas ete facile. Il est surprenant dans ce domaine, par contre, de voir l'intense evolution et l'activite juridico-diplomatique de la fin des annees 90 a nos jours. Ceci a permis d'ouvrir les portes de l'espoir aussi bien pour le Canada que pour l'Espagne et l'UE d'avoir retrouve un point d'equilibre en ce qui concerne leurs interets et, finalement, de concevoir une NAFO operationnelle dans le Nord-ouest de l'Atlantique. La decennie a cependant commence avec de graves differences dans l'application de la norme NAFO chez certains membres (notamment le Canada et l'Espagne au sein de l'UE). On a detecte de graves manques d'accomplissement dans l'espace de reglementation NAFO, n'entrainant pas toujours les sanctions correspondantes de la part de l'Etat du pavillon. Les divergences sont alors redevenues evidentes. D'une part, le gouvernement du Canada s'est questionne sur les differentes actions a adopter pour reagir a l'echec de la NAFO: elargissement de la juridiction sur la zone economique exclusive au-dela des 200 milles, application du custodial management, reforme ou, meme, remplacement de la NAFO... '�autre part, l'Espagne et l'UE ont decide, des le debut du conflit, de chercher une solution multilaterale face aux divergences dans la gestion et le controle retrouves dans l'organisation de la peche dans le Nord-ouest de l�Atlantique. Elles ont defendu, au sein des forums internationaux, un plus grand renforcement des organisations internationales des peche, en promouvant la creation de nouvelles OIP la ou cela serait necessaire, et en encourageant la reforme de celles qui en auraient besoin d'une maniere evidente, comme la NAFO. L'action de l'Espagne et de l'UE s'est egalement vue pressionnee par les regions et les secteurs les plus impliques dans la peche de cette zone. Il est curieux d�observer comment la solution atteinte en 2007 pour la reforme et la creation d'une nouvelle Convention NAFO ne satisfait totalement ni les provinces nord-orientales du Canada ni les regions espagnoles et portugaises, alors qu'il s'agit de la solution d'equilibre (quoiqu'instable tant que son efficacite ne sera pas prouvee) defendue par les deux executifs CAN-UE/ESP. Voici, d'une maniere succincte, les sujets traites dans cet article, avec lequel nous voulons faire la lumiere sur le possible laboratoire ou tester un nouveau Droit international de la peche en haute mer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Española de Derecho InternacionalSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207