Disclose facts of maritime dispute
The Editor: RE: The Necessity for evidence of good faith between the Governments of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago to resolve their current fishing dispute: The current dispute between the Governments of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago surrounds three serious issues, in which both Governments are inviting emotional reaction because they are not disclosing the essential facts to their population for resolution of this dispute. Central to this dispute and to obtain an Agreement between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago is the necessity to act in utmost good faith.
However, the territorial integrity of a country is absolute and extends in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention of the Law of the Sea agreed by both Governments that are signatories to this Convention since 1982. Article 3 states that “every State has the right to the breath of the Territorial Sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 miles measured from base line determined in accordance with The Convention.” Any country which is party to this Convention can permit any other party to use its Territorial Water by way of a licence. With respect to fisheries, this licence fee has not yet been concluded. It is probative to ask and for the public to be informed: Why have these negotiations not yet been concluded? Moreover, the necessity for an Agreement between the Governments of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago is premised upon Article 60 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas 2001.
By this Treaty the Caribbean Community in collaboration with national, regional and international agencies and organisations shall promote the Development, Management and Conservation of the Fisheries resources in and among the Member States on a sustainable basis. In furtherance of the objective, The Caribbean Secretariat should provide assistance in:
“(i) The development, management and conservation of the fisheries resources
(ii) The discharge of obligations relating to fisheries resources arising under Articles 62, 63 and 64 of the United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea (1982)”
With respect to the obligations under Articles 62, 63 and 64 of the United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea (1982), the following four points relating to The Law of the Sea are for consideration since they are in The Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas that creates the Caribbean Single Market Economy:
1. Did the Government of Trinidad and Tobago exercise its sovereign rights, so as to provide optimum utilisation to facilitate and secure cooperation between the fishermen of Barbados and of Tobago. Throughout the rhetorical statements that persisted from the triggering off of the dispute between the respective Governments, there are no statements supported by fact for the optimum utilisation of the fisheries resources. The public in both jurisdictions and the Caribbean Community need to know.
2. By extending the use of the living resources, that is, beyond the Territorial Sea in accordance with Article 63 of the United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea (1982), there is another reason for securing utmost good faith cooperation between the fishermen of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago. It is the extent of the fisheries utilisation occurring in the contiguous zone that can extend up to 24 nautical miles from the Base Lines from which the breadth of the Territorial Sea is measured.
3. Furthermore, there is the Exclusive Economic Zone which is an area “beyond and adjacent to the Territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this pact, under which The Rights and Jurisdiction of the coastal State and The Rights and Freedom of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.
4. The following three questions arise for consideration:
(a) Whatever the manifest reason for the cancellation of the last meeting on February 20, 2004, the public needs to be informed of the reason for the refusal of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Government of Venezuela and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago. An MOU is a non-registrable document with the United Nations.
It does not have any legal sanctity and in the spirit of comity among Nations it ought to be disclosed. Through disclosure, both Governments would have known whether there is any other manifest reason of the Government of Barbados. All that can be said and done now will be speculation until the Government of Trinidad and Tobago receives a Copy of the Notice of Complaint allegedly filed by the Government of Barbados.
(b) Moreover, with the unfortunate death of Mr Ballah the remaining high officials are Mr Patrick Manning, Minister of Energy 1981 to 1986 and Mr John Donaldson, Minister of National Security 1981 to 1986, at the time of the ratification of the United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea (1982). The former is now the Chairman of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago’s appointed Team to negotiate a settlement of this dispute. The question that arises is whether the Government of Barbados would perceive the Government of Trinidad and Tobago capable of resolving this dispute.
(c) The Government of Barbados has presumptively invoked Article 36 of The Law of the International Court of Justice, upon which the Principles of International Law will be interpreted and either the Court or the Tribunal will apply such Law upon the facts that will be established. Disclosure by both Parties will constitute the evidence of good faith with the expected result to guarantee the enjoyment and the utilisation of the resources, fisheries and/or otherwise, between the Governments of Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago.
Dr Shastri Moonan, BSc, MS, MALD, PhD, Attorney-at-Law
Brian Garner, Engineer/Accountant, Woodbrook
Comments
"Disclose facts of maritime dispute"