Embedded Files
Thousands of places around the world sell fish products to satiate the voracious appetite of consumers, requiring exorbitant quantities of fish. It is hard to imagine that there are so many fish in the sea to meet the demand of the seafood industry, but it is even harder to think that after catching so many of them, there are still some lefts in the wild. According to National Geographic the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported that "one-third of commercial fish stocks are fished at biologically unsustainable levels, and 90 percent are fully exploited". This are terrible news for fish lovers and Omega 3 evangelists.
Restaurants and grocery stores are indeed partly responsible for the reduction of fish populations in the sea. In the early 2000s, Chilean Sea Bass became a favorite dish in restaurants across the United States, triggering poaching that brought the species to the brink of extinction. Unfortunately, this is not the only fish that has fallen victim to the appetite of the market. The documentary The End of the Line tells how the Mitsubishi company dominates the Blue Fin Tuna market and stores the frozen tunas waiting for when there are very few tunas in the wild to sell them at a significantly higher price later. Examples like this happen daily worldwide, yet countries ignore the situation and subsidize these illegal activities.
But the restaurant industry is not the only one responsible for overfishing. Pet food, Omega 3 products, aphrodisiacs, and salmon farms are also part of the problem. In Sri Lanka and India, fishermen dive for sea cucumbers, an echinoderm prized for its supposed aphrodisiac qualities. Due to high demand, sea cucumber populations have declined by 60%. Other species affected by overfishing are dolphins. Although there is no market for dolphin meat, dolphins are killed, so they do not eat the fish that fishermen try to catch.
The impact of overfishing manifests itself in multiple spheres of the ocean system. The documentary Our Planet: Coastal Seas explains how eliminating certain fish species throws the marine system out of balance. For example, sea urchins will wipe out kelp forests if we eradicate the fish, and if we kill whales, jellyfish will take over beaches. These are examples of how overfishing can alter the marine ecosystem. But overfishing is not the only enemy of the ocean.
Ocean temperature, acidity, and fauna have been affected because the ocean absorbs part of the heat and carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels. This causes an increase in ocean temperature and acidification. These changes are responsible for coral bleaching and other living organisms’ deaths.
Marine organisms are at a disadvantage compared to other living creatures. For example, when a fishing vessel throws its nets into the sea, sharks cannot fly away like a bird or come out of the water to defend themselves like humans. These beings have been trapped in a giant fish tank, which has also become a landfill. The worst part of this situation is that the indivisible ocean condition allows harmful activity in a remote location to resonate hundreds of thousands of miles away. For example, a Colombian fisherman can be affected by fertilizer discharged by U.S. agricultural companies in the Gulf of Mexico. So, could the Colombian fisherman exercise his rights to file a claim against the U.S. agribusiness? Let's see what international law has to say.
So far, under international law, nations have few alternatives for one nation to require another nation to comply with any environmental conservation standards. This is not to say that nothing has been done to address the problem of marine pollution globally, as treaties have been developed to protect the sea. However, these mechanisms are not totally effective because they depend on nations voluntarily agreeing. Additionally, there is no supreme legal entity to force nations to comply with the treaties.
Another problem that marine conservation efforts face in the international forum is the classical view based on the theory of Jeremy Bentham, who, in 1789, defined international law as transactions between sovereign states, who are the only subjects of international law. This theory excludes individuals, preventing them from participating in international legal processes. Under this idea, sovereign States are the only ones that could intervene when international ocean conservation laws are violated. This concept is problematic because ocean pollution not only affects the economy and security of countries but also harms the individual inhabitants of those nations.
Fortunately, the development of human rights has allowed individuals to gain greater prominence in international law. Legal action has been taken for several decades, arguing that access to a clean environment is a human right. In September 2020, four children and two adults filed a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights against thirty-three countries to reduce emissions contributing to climate change. This is an example of how individuals can actively participate in environmental protection instead of waiting for countries to solve problems.
The list of threats to the ocean is gargantuan. Therefore, we must develop the legal knowledge and skills to take actions that will substantially impact ocean conservation.
References
https://blog.ipleaders.in/place-individuals-international-law/
https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/human-right-to-nature/
https://blog.surfandadventure.com/menhaden-dying-species-chesapeake-bay/
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse