special commission's membership, any State party to the dispute may request that the Secretary General 

 of the United Nations name the members.^'' 



Criteria are set forth to guide the special Commission in reaching its decisions. If the dispute concerns 

 the validity of the conservation measures adopted unilaterally by a coastal State, the special Commission 

 shall apply the same criteria that guide the coastal State initially.^ ^ If the dispute concerns a request by 

 a non-coastal, non-fishing State that conservation measures be adopted, the special commission shall 

 determine whether "scientific findings demonstrate the necessity for conservation measures, or that the 

 conservation program is adequate, as the case may be."^* 



In all other cases, tlie special Commission shall determine whether (1) scientific findings demonstrate 

 the necessity of conservation measures; (2) the specific measures are based on scientific findings, and are 

 practicable; and (3) the measures do not discriminate, in form or in fact, against fishermen of other 

 States.^ ' 



A lesser burden is imposed upon the Commission in the case of a dispute initiated by a non-coastal, 

 non-fishing State because of the more limited interest of that State. 



The special Commission is authorized to suspend the effectiveness of the conservation measures in 

 dispute pending its decision but, in the case of unilateral conservation measures taken by a coastal State, 

 only if it decides "on the basis of prima facie evidence that the need for the urgent application of such 

 measures does not exist. "^* 



4. Enforcement 



Decisions of the special Commission upholding or rejecting the necessity for conservation or the 

 specific measures adopted are binding on the States concerned; they are also obligated to give the 

 greatest possible consideration to any recommendations that may accompany the Commission's 

 decisions.^ ' 



5. Activities 



Even though 10 years have elapsed since its initial adoption, the Convention has not been ratified by 

 all the important fishing States. The combined catches, in 1965, of the countries which ratified the 

 Convention accounted for about 14 percent of the world's total catch. The United States, United 

 Kingdom, and South Africa-the only major fishing countries in the ratifying group-accounted for more 

 than two-thiids of this 14 percent; the next four, for about one-fifth; and the remaining 17, for about 

 one-eighth.^ ° Japan, the Soviet Union and Peru did not sign the Convention. 



Nevertheless, the Convention's recognition of the coastal State's "special interest" in conservation 

 may have promoted the development of conservation measures and facilitated some of the recent 

 bilateral agreements between the United States and other countries which are outlined later in this 

 Appendix. Even so, it is very doubtful whether the Convention has become part of international law. 



Id., Art. 9 (2). The Secretary General is required to consult the States in dispute, the President of the International 

 Court of Justice and the Director-General of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. The members must not be 

 nationals of the States involved in the dispute and they must be specialists "in legal, administrative or scientific 

 questions relating to fisheries, depending upon the nature of the dispute to be settled." Ibid. 



^^Id, Art. 10 (1). 



^^Ibid 



^'Ibid 



^^Id, Art. 10 (2). 



^V., Art. 11. 



^°Herrington, William C, The Future of the Geneva Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living 

 Resources of the Sea, in The Future of the Sea's Resources, Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the Law 

 of the Sea Institute 62 (Alexander ed., 1968). 



VIII- 107 



