Instead, we will regain control of fishing access to our waters and be fully responsible for fisheries management to ensure a fair, sustainable and profitable industry for all our fishermen. In a 2016 legal opinion commissioned by the Scottish Fishermen`s Federation, Robin Churchill estimates that the CFL is effectively no longer in force (points 7 to 13). Its arguments are based on Article 30, paragraphs 3 and 59, of the 1969 Vienna Convention on treaty law (VCLT) and generally address the incompatibility of UNCLOS as a subsequent contract with the LFC, which deals with the same subject (see also Article 311, paragraph 2, of UNCLOS). These are interesting legal issues that deserve attention (and I am not sure I fully agree with the outcome), but I will refrain from discussing them here. In any event, the question of whether the CFL is a dormant or dead „dinosaur” that announced its resignation from the CFL on July 3, 2017, pursuant to section 15, is under discussion. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is also retained the LFC, I could not help noticing that it carefully recorded the UK termination notification in the status file on the same day. In particular, the denunciation is subject to conditions. It comes into effect after the two-year period under section 15 of the CFL expires. However, if the UK`s withdrawal from the EU were to be completed at a later date, in accordance with Article 50 of the TUE, the denunciation would take effect at a later date. For now, Brexit is expected to come into force on 29 March 2019 if no agreement is reached by then. The two-year section 15 period of the CFL expires in July 2019. Thus, the conditional text of the communication on dismissal seems to take into account the possibility of a deferred Brexit. Because the historical rights under the CFL are contractual, they do not exist independently of the CFL.
As such, they will perish when the UNITED Kingdom`s denunciation takes effect, as will all fishing rights under the CFP. Ministers said the measure would help control fishing access to UK waters, as it would no longer be bound by existing access agreements and would allow the country to take full responsibility for fisheries management. With respect to your first question, I agree that the best way to achieve effective cooperation with respect to common stocks is within a comprehensive mutual access regime. This is not necessarily a continuous application of the CFP as a whole, but could be a little closer to the EU agreements on access to the north. Within such a system, there is some flexibility for political changes that repair the weaknesses of the CFP. If the UK decides to close access completely, it is likely that the loss of efficiency will have to be offset by an increased cooperative effort to ensure sustainable management of common stocks. I don`t want to speculate on what exactly it would look like. The UK and Norway signed a framework agreement on fisheries on Wednesday morning.
This contribution argued that with Brexit and the simultaneous denunciation of the LFC by the UNITED Kingdom, all the fishing rights of the EU Member States contained in these instruments will come to an end. Even without the denunciation of the United Kingdom, it would have been unrealistic and barely practical to reintegrate the CFL on a small territorial maritime belt with a width of 6 nm. Moreover, the EU, which is the sole jurisdiction for the external dimension of the CFP, is not a party to this treaty. It is also doubtful whether EU Member States would prefer a strong case of historic fishing rights based on general international law in British territorial waters, let alone in its EEZ. From a legal point of view, these states can only ask the United Kingdom to take into account its historical fishing activity in its EEZ in deciding on access to fishing for third countries.