This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 05:53Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ocean Development & International LawPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uodl20

A Bilateral Network of Marine ProtectedAreas Between Vietnam and China: AnAlternative to the Chinese UnilateralFishing Ban in the South China Sea?Hai Dang Vu a ba Schulich Law School Dalhousie University , Halifax , Nova Scotia ,Canadab Centre for South China Sea Studies, Diplomatic Academy ofVietnam , Hanoi , VietnamPublished online: 03 May 2013.

To cite this article: Hai Dang Vu (2013) A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas BetweenVietnam and China: An Alternative to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in the South China Sea?,Ocean Development & International Law, 44:2, 145-169, DOI: 10.1080/00908320.2013.750984

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2013.750984

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Ocean Development & International Law, 44:145–169, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0090-8320 print / 1521-0642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00908320.2013.750984

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected AreasBetween Vietnam and China: An Alternative

to the Chinese Unilateral Fishing Banin the South China Sea?

HAI DANG VUSchulich Law SchoolDalhousie UniversityHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada andCentre for South China Sea StudiesDiplomatic Academy of VietnamHanoi, Vietnam

The Chinese annual fishing ban in the northwestern area of the South China Sea has beena cause for tension between Vietnam and China in recent years. This article advocatesfor the replacement of this unilateral fishing ban with a bilateral network of marineprotected areas between China and Vietnam. Such a network, if properly implemented,could not only help to preserve the living resources of the South China Sea, but alsocontribute toward decreasing the tension between the two countries.

Keywords China, marine protected areas network, South China Sea, Vietnam

Introduction

The idea of establishing transboundary marine protected areas (MPAs) and a network ofMPAs in the South China Sea (SCS) is not new. It has been suggested by various authorssuch as John MacManus, Noel Ludwig, and Aldo Chircop.1 A recent suggestion has comefrom the secretary of foreign affairs of the Philippines, Albert F. Del Rosario who, in astatement in July 2011, called for the transformation of the SCS from an area of dispute to azone of peace, freedom, friendship, and cooperation.2 He further suggested that the disputedareas could be turned into a joint cooperation area for resource development coupled withthe establishment of an MPA for biodiversity conservation.

The most concrete proposals so far, those from MacManus and Ludwig, involvedestablishment of a transboundary MPA in the Spratlys. This is not surprising as this area

Received 19 June 2012; accepted 12 August 2012.A draft of this article was presented at the third international workshop, “The South China

Sea: Cooperation Regional Security and Development,” Hanoi, Vietnam, November 3–5, 2011. Theauthor would like to acknowledge David VanderZwaag, Aldo Chircop, Nguyen Hong Thao, NguyenDang Thang, and Tran Van Thuy for providing helpful comments on this article and the DiplomacyAcademy of Vietnam for providing him with support to participate in the workshop. Special thanksalso go to Jennifer Strang, Raymobng Jahncke, and Maxime Lapierre of the Dalhousie GIS Centerfor help in making all of the maps in this article.

Address correspondence to Hai Dang Vu, JSD Candidate, Schulich Law School, DalhousieUniversity, 6061 University Avenue, Halifax, NS B3H 4H9, Canada. E-mail: vhaidang@yahoo.fr

145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

146 H. D. Vu

is considered as the “resources saving bank” of the SCS.3 However, there is another areain the SCS where the establishment of MPAs may also be beneficial for both conservationand political reasons; namely, the northwestern part of the SCS.

In this article, the “northwestern part of the SCS” refers to the marine area locatednortheast of Vietnam and southwest of China, which covers both the Gulf of Tonkin and theParacel Islands. This portion of the SCS is, at the same time, an important fishing ground forthe region and the location of sensitive territorial and maritime disputes between Vietnamand China.

The Gulf of Tonkin is an important fishing area for Vietnam and China with over 500species of fish, 230 types of squililadaes, and 20 types of cephalopodas, of which many haveimportant commercial value.4 In addition, the gulf hosts other marine creatures and plantsthat are important for academic research. As for the Paracels, the islands and surroundingwaters have 40 species of birds and more than 400 species of coral and oceanic fishes.Other important marine species, such as marine turtles, sea cucumbers, and pearl oysters,are also present.5

There are two areas with overlapping claims between Vietnam and China in the north-western part of the SCS. One area could be called the “agreed” disputed area, which meansthe ocean area where both countries have agreed to consider as disputed. This area is partof the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin currently subject to delimitation negotiations betweenthe two countries.6 The second area of overlapping claims is where the disputed status iscontested by at least one claimant. Two subareas currently fall under this qualification inthe northwestern part of the SCS—(1) the Paracels where the disputed status is contestedby China7 and (2) the northeastern portion of the Vietnamese 200-nautical-mile exclusiveeconomic zone (EEZ) claim where the disputed status is contested by Vietnam and othercountries.8

Since 1999, China has enacted an annual fishing ban for 2 or 3 months in the summerin the northwestern part of the SCS. Usually, the ban takes place from May to Augustbetween the latitude 12◦ north to the north and longitude 113◦ east to the west.9 During thistime, China seeks to forbid almost all forms of fishing within these waters. In 2012, Chinaexpanded the territorial scope of the fishing ban to include also the Scarborough Shoal area,which is subject to overlapping claims between China and the Philippines, most probably asa political move after the Scarborough incident in May 2012.10 Any fishing vessel that doesnot comply with the Chinese ban is subjected to fines and to confiscation of catches andgear.11 According to reports in the Chinese news and scholars, the fishing ban is necessaryto protect the sustainability of marine life in this area and to prevent overfishing12 and hasproduced positive results.13 However, critics, including from within China, question theeffectiveness of the measure. Many commercially important fish are not breeding at thetime of the fishing ban. Furthermore, after a long pause due to the ban, fishing activitiesincrease multifold, which may cause more risk of depletion of the stocks.14

A more serious problem is that the Chinese regulation is enforced against Vietnamesefishermen who fish in areas also claimed by Vietnam. In response to the fishing ban, relevantVietnamese administrations, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Vietnam Fish-eries Society, have raised protests.15 In particular, the spokesperson of Vietnam’s Ministryof Foreign Affairs said in January 2012 that:

China’s unilateral implementation of such fishing ban in the East Sea16 is aviolation of the Vietnamese sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracels) archipelago,sovereign rights and jurisdiction for Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone andcontinental shelf, violating the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in theSouth China Sea (DOC), further complicating the situation in the East Sea.17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 147

Figure 1. Territorial scope of the Chinese fishing ban in 2011. Created by the author in 2011 usingArcGIS software. All maps used in this article are for the purpose of illustration only (color figureavailable online).

The ban has also been challenged by Vietnamese fishermen who have continued theirfishing activities offshore during the period of the ban.18 This has resulted in their arrest,detention, beating, seizure of catch, and confiscation of fishing equipment by Chinesemarine enforcement authorities.19 (For the territorial scope of the Chinese fishing ban inthe SCS in 2011, see Figure 1.)

This article advocates for the establishment of a bilateral network of MPAs betweenVietnam and China in the northwestern part of the SCS as an alternative to the Chinesefishing ban for the conservation of marine living resources in the SCS. Such a network notonly is consistent with international law, but also is an effective measure to protect marinespecies and habitat. Furthermore, if properly implemented, it could contribute to easing thetension between the two countries over the living resources in this area.

This article first reviews the duty to cooperate for the conservation and managementof shared resources as the legal framework for cooperation in the northwestern part of theSCS and its practice between Vietnam and China. Then, it provides a background relatingto MPAs and MPA networks and the arguments for a bilateral MPA network betweenVietnam and China. Finally, the process of establishing a bilateral network of MPAs isdescribed, followed by concrete suggestions for the implementation of such a network inthe northwestern part of the SCS.

The Duty to Cooperate for the Conservation and Management of SharedResources and Its Practice Between Vietnam and China

Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(LOS Convention), which establishes a duty of states to make efforts to reach a provisionalarrangement in a disputed sea area, is a useful legal framework for the cooperation in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

148 H. D. Vu

conservation of marine living resources in the SCS.20 However, the application of thesearticles to the northwestern part of the SCS could be difficult as most of the area is eitheralready a delimited area (the Gulf of Tonkin)21 or an area where the disputed status iscontested by one claimant (the Paracels and the northern part of Vietnam’s 200-nautical-mile EEZ). The only “agreed disputed area” where these articles could apply withoutpotential objection from one party is the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin, which itself has notbeen clearly defined by the two states.

Accordingly, the most appropriate legal framework for cooperation between Vietnamand China in the establishment of a bilateral network of MPAs in the northwestern part ofthe SCS is the principle of cooperation for the conservation and management of resourcesshared by two or more countries. With regard to marine resources, this principle has beentranslated into the duty to cooperate for the conservation and management of shared fishstocks, the protection of migratory marine species, and the protection of the living resourcesand marine environment of an enclosed or semienclosed sea. This section reviews theemerging legal principle of cooperation for the conservation and management of sharedresources as well as its application in the marine context through an examination of the 1982LOS Convention and the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals of 1979.22 Italso ascertains the experience of China and Vietnam in fulfilling this duty with regard totheir shared fish stocks through the analysis of the 2000 Vietnam-China Gulf of TonkinFisheries Agreement.23

Cooperation for the Conservation and Management of Shared Resources

Originating from the law relating to the management of international rivers, cooperationfor conservation and management of shared resources in general has been discussed sincebeing placed on the agenda of the United Nations in the 1970s.24 The first global instrumentrecognizing this principle was the Charter of Economic Rights, adopted as a resolution ofthe UN General Assembly in 1974.25 Article 3 of the charter stated:

in the exploitation of natural resources shared by two or more countries, eachState must co-operate on the basis of a system of information and prior con-sultation in order to achieve optimum use of such resources without causingdamage to the legitimate interest of others.

During the same period, at the request of the General Assembly,26 the UN EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) developed the Principles of Conduct in the Field of the Environment forthe Guidance of States in the Conservation and Harmonious Utilization of Natural ResourcesShared by Two or More States, which were adopted in 1978.27 A total of fifteen principlesproviding guidance for the management and conservation of shared natural resources wererecognized.28 Principle 1 proclaims a general duty on states to cooperate concerning theconservation and harmonious utilization of shared natural resources. Principle 2 asks statessharing such resources to endeavor to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements toapply the principles in a legally binding manner. At its thirty-fourth session, the GeneralAssembly requested all states to use the principles as guidelines and recommendations inthe formulation of bilateral or multilateral conventions regarding shared natural resources.29

In 1983, the World Commission on Environment and Development was establishedby the General Assembly to propose long-term environmental strategies and recommendways and means to deal with environmental concerns.30 The report of the commission,entitled “Our Common Future” and submitted to the General Assembly in 1987, lists the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 149

common concerns relating to environmental protection and sustainable development of theworld, the challenges in dealing with these concerns, and recommendations of the necessaryactions to be taken.31 The report also sets out a number of legal principles for environmentalprotection and sustainable development in Annex 1. One of these principles is the generalobligation to cooperate on transboundary environmental problems, which requires statesto cooperate in good faith to achieve optimal use of transboundary resources and effectiveprevention or abatement of transboundary environmental interferences.32

There is, however, no agreed or precise definition of “shared” or “transboundary”resources. During the drafting of the 1978 UNEP Principles for Conservation of SharedNatural Resources, it was not possible to arrive at a definition of shared resources apparentlydue to the sensitivity of the topic of management of shared resources.33 A 1985 discussionpaper of the World Commission on Environment and Development indicated that theterm “transboundary” was preferred partly because it seems to also include areas beyondnational jurisdiction.34 In a paper in 1995, the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD) suggested a definition of shared or transboundary resources asbeing “resources that do not fall wholly within the territorial jurisdiction of one country, butstraddle common political borders or migrate from one territory to another.”35 Examplesof resources that may be shared or are transboundary include river basins, enclosed, andsemienclosed seas, watershed areas, marine living resources, and migratory wildlife.

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

The LOS Convention imposes on states a duty to cooperate for the management and con-servation of transboundary fish stocks36 and to protect the living resources and marineenvironment of a common enclosed or semienclosed sea.37 Article 63(1) asks states to seekto agree on the measures necessary to coordinate and ensure the conservation and devel-opment of stocks occurring within the EEZs of two or more coastal states.38 This shouldbe undertaken “without prejudice to other provisions” of Part V. That means that whileadopting measures states need to consider, inter alia, Article 61 of the LOS Convention,which provides the conditions for the conservation of marine living resources and indicatesthat conservation measures must be based on the best available scientific evidence andtake into consideration the effects on dependent species and the economic needs of thefishing communities.39 Finally, Article 123 of the LOS Convention asks states borderingan enclosed or semienclosed sea to endeavor to coordinate, inter alia, the management,conservation, exploration, and exploitation of the living resources of the sea and the imple-mentation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of themarine environment.40

Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals

The Convention on Migratory Species was adopted to conserve terrestrial, marine, and avianmigratory species throughout their range.41 For the purpose of conservation, the conventiondivides migratory species into two categories: those that are threatened with extinction,listed in its Appendix I of the convention; and those that need or would significantly benefitfrom international cooperation for their conservation and management, listed in AppendixII of the convention.42 The same species can be listed in both Appendices I and II. Amongthe listed species, many are marine animals such as different types of whales, dolphins,sharks, and turtles.43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

150 H. D. Vu

The convention asks so-called range states44 to endeavor to conclude agreements thatcould benefit species listed under Appendix II and give priority to those in an unfavorableconservation status. States are encouraged to

take action with a view to concluding agreements for any population or anygeographically separate part of the population of any species or lower taxonanimals, members of which periodically cross one or more national jurisdictionboundaries.45

The convention also provides guidelines for the agreements. For instance, the agreementsshould have the objective of restoring the migratory species concerned or of maintainingthem in a favorable conservation status and should deal with all aspects of their conservationand management to achieve this objective. Each agreement should also provide for, interalia, the maintenance of a network of suitable habitats appropriately disposed in relationto the migration routes conservation and, where required and feasible, the restoration ofthe habitats of importance in maintaining a favorable conservation status and protection ofsuch habitats from disturbances.46

To date, 26 agreements have been adopted under the Convention on Migratory Species,two of which are relevant to the SCS: the 2001 Indian Ocean–South East Asian MarineTurtle Memorandum of Understanding47 and the 2003 Memorandum of Understandingon the Conservation and Management of Dugongs and Their Habitats Throughout TheirRange.48 Vietnam is party to both agreements while China is party to the latter.

The duty to cooperate for the conservation and management of shared marine speciesand environment is essentially a duty to negotiate in good faith. The LOS Conventiondirects states to seek to agree on the management and conservation of transboundaryfish stocks and to endeavor to coordinate in an enclosed and semienclosed sea.49 TheConvention on Migratory Species requires range states to endeavor to conclude agreementsto protect migratory species.50 The 1978 UNEP Principles for Conservation of SharedNatural Resources also encourage states to endeavor to conclude bilateral or multilateralagreements.51 These instruments do not impose an obligation on states to achieve anagreement on the adoption of a conservation and management measure to protect sharedresources, even less to establish a network of MPAs. A network of MPAs is only one ofthe measures that states could consider for conserving and managing the shared resources.However, as detailed below, a bilateral network of MPAs is a suitable and effective tool forthe conservation of the shared resources in general and in the northwestern part of the SCSin particular.

The 2000 Gulf of Tonkin Fisheries Agreement

Although not the first agreement between the two countries relating to fisheries in theGulf of Tonkin,52 the Gulf of Tonkin Fisheries Agreement between Vietnam and China in200053 is the most sophisticated one thus far. The agreement was negotiated to remain inplace for 15 years.54 It was negotiated and signed at the same time as the Gulf of TonkinMaritime Delimitation Agreement,55 which means that its territorial scope of applicationis the delimited waters. The most important objective of the Fisheries Agreement is theestablishment of a common fishing zone in the middle of the Gulf of Tonkin.56

In the agreement, the two countries agreed jointly to take measures in relation topreservation, management and sustainable utilization of the living resources in the commonfishing zone.57 A licensing system for fishing activities applies in which fishing vessels have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 151

to obtain fishing permits from their national authorities to fish in the common area.58 Thequantity of fishing vessels allowed to fish in the common zone from each state is tobe determined jointly annually and be based on the allowable catch determined by jointsurveys, the impact on the respective fishing activities of both parties, and the need ofsustainable development.59 The enforcement of relevant regulations is implemented by thecompetent authorities of each state in their respective maritime jurisdiction with regard tofishing vessels of both nations.60

A Sino-Vietnamese Joint Committee for Fisheries in the Tonkin Gulf was establishedto adopt regulations relating to the preservation and management of fisheries resources inthe common fishing zone. It consists of representatives from both governments and holdsone or two regular meetings per year. The decisions of the committee are to be unanimous.61

The Gulf of Tonkin Fisheries Agreement between Vietnam and China has been ac-claimed by scholars from both countries.62 Guifang Xue wrote:

As a bilateral fisheries agreement, the Sino-Vietnamese Fisheries Agreementis not the first one for China, nor is it for Vietnam, but it is the first one thatsets up a fisheries co-operation mechanism within demarcated maritime zonesin East Asia. Its framework provides a model for fisheries co-operation.63

Nguyen Hong Thao stated:

The coming into force of two Agreements [including in the Tonkin Gulf De-limitation Agreement] turns a new page not only in the history of the Sino-Vietnamese relationship, but also in the history of defining sea boundaries andestablishing fisheries cooperation in the Bien Dong (South China Sea).64

It has been reported that both countries are satisfied with the outcomes of the agreementand its implementation has met with no major obstacles.65

MPAs and MPA Networks

This section provides a brief background on MPAs and MPA networks as well as thearguments for the establishment of a bilateral network between China and Vietnam in thenorthwestern part of the SCS.

Definitions

The most well-known definition of “MPAs” is that from the International Union forthe Conservation of Nature, which defines a protected area as “a clearly defined ge-ographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effec-tive means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystemservices and cultural values.”66 This definition is applicable to MPAs.67 According tothis definition, only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can beconsidered protected areas. It means that temporary or permanent fishing closures es-tablished to help build up and maintain reserve stocks for fishing with no wider con-servation aims are not considered MPAs. However, seasonal closures of fish spawningaggregation areas or pelagic migratory routes, at specific and predictable times of yearfor certain species when they are extremely vulnerable, may be important components

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

152 H. D. Vu

of the management of an MPA.68 This can be criticized since sustainable fishing ac-tivity also contributes to the protection of the marine resources, in particular of com-mercially important species. Besides, there is not much difference between a no-takeMPA in which fishing is banned and a fishery reserve or fish sanctuary.69 For the pur-pose here, a fishery reserve established for sustainable fishing is considered to be anMPA.

A “network or system of MPAs” is defined as “a collection of individual marineprotected areas operating cooperatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales, andwith a range of protection levels, in order to fulfill ecological aims more effectively andcomprehensively than individual sites could alone.”70 Not just any collection of MPAsconstitutes a network as they must be located in critical habitats, contain componentsof a particular habitat type or portions of different kinds of important habitats, and beinterconnected by the movement of species.71

A “transboundary protected area” is

an area of land and/or sea that straddles one or more boundaries72 betweenstates, sub-national units such as provinces and regions, autonomous areasand/or areas beyond limits of national sovereignty or jurisdiction, whose con-stituent parts are, especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance ofbiological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, managedco-operatively through legal or other effective means.73

When a transboundary protected area is used not only for the purpose of protecting theenvironment but also seeks to promote peace, it may also be called a “park for peace” or a“peace park.”74

There often is confusion between a network of protected areas, a transboundary net-work of protected areas, and a transboundary protected area. For instance, sometimes atransboundary protected area can be used to designate a network or a group of protectedareas that is established in a border region and straddles across the boundary or frontier.75

A transboundary network of protected areas can be used to designate a large network ofprotected areas covering more than one country, which is not only limited to their boundaryor frontier. To avoid confusion, this article uses the term “transboundary network of MPAs”to refer to a network of protected areas established in a border region that straddles bothsides of the boundary or frontier and the terms “regional” or “bilateral network of protectedareas” to refer to a network that covers the territories of more than one country but is notlimited to the border region.

Functions of MPAs and MPA Networks

MPAs are considered to have two major functions. The first is to provide for the protectionof a marine ecosystem by preserving critical habitats and the water quality, safeguardinglife support processes of the sea, and preserving sites from human impacts to help themrecover from stresses.76 The second function is to maintain viable fisheries and rebuilddamaged fish stocks.77 Experience has shown that species within MPAs have much higherdensities, biomass, larger individual mean sizes, and greater taxonomic diversity than thoseoutside of MPAs. Fisheries in areas outside the MPAs can also benefit from those speciesmoving from the MPAs by spillover effects; however, this is not yet well understood byresearchers.78 MPAs can play many other important roles such as contributing to andenhancing tourism and recreation; serving as reference sites for education and scientific

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 153

research; and protecting important cultural, historical, spiritual, and aesthetic values.79

Marine peace parks can be developed as a mechanism to help solve border disputes, tosecure or maintain peace during and after an armed conflict, and to promote a stable andcooperative relationship between neighboring countries.80

Networks of protected areas have many benefits. They can help ensure the protection ofall types of biodiversity; maintain the natural range of species; protect unique, endemic, rare,and endangered species spread over a fragmented habitat; and protect ecological processesessential for ecosystem functioning and large-scale processes. From a management pointof view, networks help ensure social and economic connections between protected areas,bring sectoral agencies and different stakeholders together, facilitate information sharing,and allow for more efficient resources use. They also provide greater flexibility to situate andconfigure protected areas in ways that maximize positive and avoid negative socioeconomiceffects. At the regional level, networks can help protect an ecosystem along with speciesthat cannot be adequately protected in one country and promote cooperation betweenneighboring countries to address common issues.81

The practice of networking MPAs is even more critical because of the characteristicsof the marine ecosystem. Compared to the terrestrial environment, the sea is relatively openwith more organisms dispersing and migrating at various life stages. Changes in the marineecosystem also occur in a shorter timescale as they are subject to the surrounding mediumand respond to forces such as tides or circulation patterns. Marine ecosystems and speciesare more closely connected in a number of ways such as wave, wind, freshwater inflow,and tidal currents. Boundaries in the marine environment are nebulous both in terms ofouter bounds of ecosystems and definable limits of ecological communities and populationstructure.82 Further, marine mobile species such as fish, marine mammals, and turtlescan move in three dimensions and over much greater distances than common terrestrialspecies.83 Last but not least, marine ecosystems are relatively poorly understood by humans(who are terrestrial by nature) with a much shorter history of study and more costly expensesfor research.84

The Support of MPA Networks in International Instruments

The establishment of MPA networks, in particular at the regional level, is supported by anumber of international and regional instruments relevant to the protection of the marineenvironment to which both China and Vietnam are parties.

Provisions relating to MPAs and MPA networks exist in the 1992 Convention of Bio-logical Diversity,85 the 2002 Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment,86 and various General Assembly resolutions.

The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted to ensure the conservation ofbiodiversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefitsarising from the utilization of genetic resources.87 Article 8 of the convention asks statesto implement a series of tasks to ensure in-situ conservation. These tasks include, interalia: establishing a system of protected areas; developing guidelines for the selection,establishment, and management of protected areas; regulating or managing biologicalresources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether within or outsideof protected areas; and promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development inareas adjacent to protected areas.

The Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the governingbody of the convention, has adopted many decisions relating to MPA networks. The mostimportant one, adopted in 2004, established a program of work on protected areas.88 The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

154 H. D. Vu

objective of this program was “the establishment and maintenance by 2010 for terrestrialand by 2012 for marine areas of comprehensive, effectively managed, and ecologicallyrepresentative national and regional systems of protected areas.”89 The 2004 programof work also stated that the establishment and management of protected areas should beconsidered in ecosystem and bioregional terms when the relevant ecosystem extends beyondnational boundaries.90 In 2010, the program of work was reviewed with a new objective ofestablishing networks of MPAs that will cover at least 10% of the coastal and marine areasof the world by 2020.91

At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the Planof Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development was adopted.92 Itcontains commitments by states to undertake concrete actions and measures to achieve theoverarching objectives and essential requirements of sustainable development. Relating tothe protection of the marine environment, the plan requires effective coordination, coop-eration, and actions at all levels for, inter alia, the establishment of MPAs consistent withinternational law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by2012.93

The support for the establishment of MPA networks is also expressed in the resolutionsof the General Assembly. For instance, in the 2011 Ocean and Law of the Sea Resolution,the General Assembly affirmed the need for states to continue and intensify their efforts todevelop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools for conserving and managingvulnerable marine ecosystems, including the possible establishment of MPAs and thedevelopment of representative MPA networks by 2012.94

The establishment of networks of MPAs is also provided for in a number of regionalinstruments for the protection of the marine environment relevant to the SCS that bothVietnam and China are taking part in. These texts include the 1994 UNEP Action Plan forthe Protection and Sustainable Development of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the EastAsian Region95 and the 2003 Sustainable Development Strategy for the East Asian Seas.96

The Action Plan for the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Marine andCoastal Areas of the East Asian Region is one of UNEP’s 13 Regional Seas Programmes,initiated in 1983 and reviewed in 1994. Its members are Australia, Brunei, Cambodia,China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand,and Vietnam. The principal objective of the action plan is to provide a comprehensivestrategy to protect the environment and to promote sustainable development in the EastAsian Seas region.97 Relating to MPA networks, the action plan states that a network ofproperly managed MPAs, including strictly protected areas, should be established. Criticalhabitats forming parts of the network are to be selected on the basis of their productivity,uniqueness, and vulnerability. Such measures should have the twin goals of conservingbiodiversity, to the degree possible, and maintaining useful levels of productivity withrespect to human needs.98

The 2003 Sustainable Development Strategy of the Marine and Coastal Areas wasadopted in the Putrajaya Declaration99 by states participating in the Partnership in Envi-ronmental Management for the Seas of East Asia Programme (PEMSEA).100 The strategycontains a package of principles, relevant existing regional and international programs,agreements, instruments, objectives, and implementation approaches for achieving sustain-able development of the seas of East Asia. One of the objectives stated by the strategy isto develop a common management system for MPAs of transboundary importance. Theactions to achieve this objective are selecting and prioritizing coastal and marine protectedareas of transboundary importance and establishing appropriate management regimes forMPAs, particularly sensitive sea areas of transboundary significance.101

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 155

A Network of MPAs Between Vietnam and China

As stated earlier, a bilateral network of MPAs is just one cooperative measure that Vietnamand China could consider for the conservation of shared marine living resources. The twocountries could adopt a wide range of conservative measures such as closed fishing areasand seasons, restrictions on the type of gear to be used and the number of operating vessels,and limitations on the amounts and types of fish allowed to be caught. Compared to thesemeasures, a network of MPAs presents a number of comparative advantages in the SCScontext.

First, an MPA, by definition, can be used not only for the maintenance and rebuildingof fish stocks, but also for the protection of fragile, rare, and critical habitats of the marineenvironment and other endangered species. The SCS is well known for its many valuablemarine habitats such as mangrove, coral reefs, and sea grasses that are under seriousthreat.102 The marine region also hosts a number of endangered species such as marineturtles, whales, and dugongs that are highly migratory.103

Second, an MPA is a comprehensive tool for conservation since it can provide for theprotection of the marine environment not only against unwanted fishing activities, but alsoagainst other activities such as shipping and oil and gas drilling. The SCS is one of thebusiest sea routes in the world for military and commercial vessels104 and an area withintensive oil and gas activities.105 These activities can have negative impacts to the marineenvironment of the region.

Finally, an MPA is not necessarily a no-take area where all fishing activity is banned. Inmany MPAs, some exploitation, in particular fishing using traditional methods, is permitted.In both Vietnam and China, the fishing industry is important;106 thus, the livelihood offishermen in the two countries require an MPA that does not involve a complete fishingban. A network of MPAs is not an exclusive conservation measure. It can be developedin addition to other measures for the protection of the marine environment and livingresources.

One question that can be asked is what might be the relationship between a bilateralnetwork of MPAs and a bilateral fisheries agreement. In other words, if Vietnam and Chinacould agree on a fisheries agreement for the northwestern part of the SCS that containedmeasures relating to the conservation and management of shared fish stocks as in the Gulfof Tonkin, would a bilateral network of MPAs still be useful? The answer is yes. As statedearlier, the establishment of a bilateral network of MPAs is not an exclusive conservationand management measure, so it can be developed in addition to other measures to ensure anoptimum protection of the marine environment and living resources. A fisheries agreement,for example, can provide the legal and political framework for the development of a bilateralnetwork of MPAs between Vietnam and China by stating in its provisions, whether directlyor indirectly, that the two countries will endeavor to cooperate in such an initiative.

The Process of Establishing a Network of MPAs

According to the different sets of guidelines,107 the process for establishing a network ofMPAs can be divided into six steps.

Identification of the Ecological Unit for Management

The first step is to determine the geographical scale on which to build a network of MPAs or,in other words, to define the boundaries of the network. MPA networks can be established

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

156 H. D. Vu

at different scales ranging from a local network of few MPAs within a single large one toa national network within a country and a regional network involving several countries.108

In practice, the choice of a geographical scale depends on geophysical, biogeographical,ecological, political, jurisdictional, and socioeconomic characteristics of the area.

Evaluation of the Current Situation

In order to determine appropriate goals and objectives of a network of MPAs, it is necessaryto assemble and evaluate all relevant information about the natural, political, regulatory,socioeconomic, and cultural situations relating to the region to be protected. With regard tothe ecological situation of the region, information about two subjects should be gathered:the current distribution and the status and trend of its biodiversity.109 An evaluation of thecurrent protection measures, in particular existing MPAs in the region, should be conductedto help identify gaps in the current system.

Determination of Goals and Objectives

Goals and objectives110 must be set for a network as a whole and each individual componentwithin it.111 Three broad categories of goals and objectives should be considered: ecologi-cal, economic, and sociocultural. Ecological objectives are to protect, manage, and restoremarine ecosystems and their components, including the processes, structure, function, andintegrity as well as the wildlife and geographic features.112 Economic objectives includeproviding for the continued welfare of people affected by the creation of MPAs,113 deter-mining short- and long-term views of the costs and benefits, and deciding how to distributethose costs and benefits.114 Sociocultural objectives refer to the contribution of protectedareas to the quality of life in the local community.

Designation of New MPAs

Once the gaps have been analyzed and the objectives identified, new MPAs can be desig-nated. A number of methodological approaches for MPA selection have been developedsuch as scoring methods and complementary methods.115 The former consist of assigningscores to each site based on a set of criteria and ranking them in order of their priorityaccording the received scores. The site with highest score is added to the existing systemand the process stops when the size of the area deemed desirable for protection and thecost of implementation have been reached. Complementary approaches take into accountthe extent to which a site or set of sites contribute toward meeting the desired objectives ofthe overall framework. A complementary approach tries to find the most efficient solutionto the problem of designing a network of MPAs that meets a specified conservation goalwhile engendering the minimal cost.

Implementation of the Network

Implementing a network of MPAs includes the deployment of management measures atthe network and site-specific levels.116 The purpose of management is to ensure that theobjectives set for a particular MPA or for a network of MPAs are met. To be effective, MPAsneed to be established and managed in integration with other management frameworks(e.g., marine spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management) and in synergy with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 157

other marine environment conservation and management tools (e.g., traditional fisheriesmanagement measures and the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources).117

On a large scale, the establishment of multiple-use MPAs can be a practical solution.According to the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas Center, “multiple-use areas allowfor integrated management of complete marine ecosystems, usually through a zoningprocess.”118 Multiple-use protected areas generally have two types of subareas: a core zonethat is strictly controlled and another zone in which some extractive uses may be allowed.119

This zoning practice can minimize the conflict between expanding coverage of conservationand urgent economic pressures.120

Monitoring

To evaluate the effectiveness of a network of MPAs, regular monitoring and periodicassessments should be conducted. This will allow the managers to measure whether thegoals and objectives have been achieved and to make any adjustments in management thatmay be necessary. Two types of monitoring have been recommended for conservation anddevelopment projects: biodiversity monitoring and impact monitoring. The former measureschanges in biological diversity and the latter involves assessment of human activities onspecies under management.121 Monitoring and assessment should be done at three levels:at the individual MPA level, the biogeographic level, and at the level of the network as awhole.122 Finally, monitoring systems should be appropriate, cost effective, and achievableand should involve a transparent and consultative process.123

Establishment of Transboundary Marine Protected Areas

When an MPA network is established at the bilateral or regional level, the relevant countriesmight need to designate transboundary MPAs to protect sites or habitats that lie across theboundary or in the border region. There is no single model for establishing transboundaryprotected areas. Neighboring countries can establish protected areas that are adjacent toeach other or protected areas that are close to the boundary but not adjacent to each other.They can also establish a protected area on one side of the boundary and implement othermeasures for natural resource management or conservation on the other side.124

Relating to transboundary adjacent protected areas, there are six levels of cooperation,which range from no cooperation to full cooperation with joint planning and managementof activities. For more details see Table 1.125

A Network of MPAs Between Vietnam and China

This section suggests how a bilateral network of MPAs between Vietnam and China couldbe established and managed.

The Geographical Scope of the Network

To help achieve the conservation of marine living resources and the preservation of goodrelations between Vietnam and China, both ecological and political criteria are important inthe determination of the geographical scope of the bilateral network of MPAs. As a result,the network should not be established solely by considering the existing biogeographicalunits in the area; it also needs to include areas where there are overlapping claims between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

158 H. D. Vu

Table 1Levels of cooperation between transboundary adjacent marine protected areas

Levels of cooperation Characteristics

No cooperation No sharing or cooperation in any specific issueCommunication Some two-way communication between protected areasConsultation Notification of actions affecting the adjacent protected areasCollaboration Coordinated planning and consultation of the other protected

area before taking actionCoordination of

planningTreating the whole area as a single ecological unit

Full cooperation Joint planning and management

Sources: Adapted from Trevor Sandwith, Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation, Based on the Proceedings of Workshops Held in Bormio (1998) and Gland (2000) (Gland:International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2001), Box 3.9, 34.

the two countries. Thus, a bilateral network of MPAs between Vietnam and China shouldcover a number of areas.

• The Gulf of Tonkin Marine Ecoregion. According to the World Wildlife Federation(WWF), a large part of the Gulf of Tonkin belongs to the Gulf of Tonkin MarineEcoregion, one of 232 ecoregions in the world.126 An “ecoregion” is defined by theWWF as “areas of relative homogeneous species composition, clearly distinct fromadjacent systems” and is the smallest unit in the WWF’s biogeographical classifi-cation used for conservation.127 The Gulf of Tonkin Marine Ecoregion includes thecoastal waters adjacent to northern Vietnam and southern China, the waters delim-ited by Gulf of Tonkin Maritime Delimitation Agreement, and the mouth of the gulfstill under negotiation for delimitation between the two countries. For the locationof the Gulf of Tonkin Marine Ecoregion, see Figure 2.

• All areas that are agreed on by China and Vietnam as disputed areas. As alreadynoted, only one fits this category–the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin, which is underdelimitation negotiations between the two countries. It is already included in theabove-mentioned Gulf of Tonkin Marine Ecoregion.

• All areas where there are overlapping claims between two countries, but the status ofdisputed area is protested by at least one claimant. Two such areas have been pointedout: the Paracels Islands and waters adjacent thereto and the part of Vietnam’s EEZclaimed by China. For the overlapping claims in the Northwestern area of the SCS,see Figure 3.

The bilateral network must not cover any area claimed by other countries in the SCS.If it does, the initiative will certainly provoke protest from the relevant countries. For theprotection of those areas, a bilateral cooperation is not the solution; instead, a trilateral ormultilateral framework should be considered.

The Governing Mechanism of the Network

A joint mechanism should be established to govern the network of MPAs, comprisingan equal number of representatives from relevant agencies of both Vietnam and China.Its main functions would include: determining the objectives of the network; identifyingimportant marine areas in the region that would need to be protected to achieve those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 159

Figure 2. The Gulf of Tonkin Marine Ecoregion. Created by the author in 2011 based on Mark D.Spalding et al., “Marine Ecoregions of the World: A Bioregionalization of Coastal and Shelf Areas,”BioScience 57 (2007): 573. All maps used in this article are for the purpose of illustration only (colorfigure available online).

objectives; suggesting to both governments which conservation measures to be adopted;and monitoring the achievements of the network. It could also suggest the implementationof cooperative activities between two countries to enhance the effectiveness of the networkand resolve disputes relating to it. A model for the joint mechanism for the implementationof the bilateral network of MPAs between Vietnam and China could be the Sino-VietnameseJoint Committee for Fisheries in the Tonkin Gulf, established by the 2000 Gulf of TonkinFisheries Agreement.128

Implementation of Joint Marine Scientific Research

For a network of MPAs to be successful, one of the important conditions is that its designneeds to be based on the best available data and information relating to the geological,oceanographical, ecological, biological, biodiversity, and socioeconomic situations of theregion.129 Research not only is important at the beginning for identifying important areasthat need protection, but also afterward for monitoring the effectiveness of the network. Forthis reason, the two countries need to engage in conducting joint marine scientific researchin the agreed area.

The joint statements issued during visits of senior leaders in 2011 stated that the twosides had agreed to boost cooperation in the fields of, inter alia, oceanography research andenvironmental protection.130 Moreover, Vietnam and China have agreed to conduct surveys

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

160 H. D. Vu

Figure 3. Geographical scope of the network. Created by author in 2011. All maps used in thisarticle are for the purpose of illustration only (color figure available online).

in the mouth of the Gulf of Tonkin under the framework of the China-Vietnam negotiationsrelating to the delimitation and joint development in this area.131 These commitments havebeen reaffirmed in the recent Vietnam-China agreement on basic principles guiding thesettlement of sea-related issues that was signed in October 2011.132

Lessons for cooperation in marine scientific research between Vietnam and Chinacould be learned from the Philippines-Vietnam Joint Oceanographic Marine ScientificResearch Expedition in the South China Sea program agreed on in 1994 and conductedfrom 1996 to 2007. Four expeditions were organized. The data that were collected andanalyzed have contributed to further understanding of the oceanographic, biological, andgeological characteristics of the SCS and its biodiversity.133

Management of Specific MPAs

The bilateral network of MPAs in the northwestern part of the South China Sea can compriseboth MPAs and transboundary MPAs. Each MPA could have a different arrangement forits establishment and management as follows.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 161

Areas without overlapping claims should be the easiest to manage. The two countriescould establish MPAs under their respective national laws. The regulations relating tofisheries, shipping, and oil and gas exploitation adopted for these MPAs could be enforcedby the relevant authorities of each state in areas under their jurisdiction. MPAs locatedadjacent to the agreed maritime boundary in the Gulf of Tonkin could be designated as asingle transboundary MPA and managed cooperatively.

For the agreed disputed area between Vietnam and China in the outer Gulf of Tonkin, thetwo countries could consider jointly establishing a transboundary MPA through a bilateralagreement. Vietnam and China could agree on which measures to be adopted for the areaand the enforcement of these measures could be ensured by joint patrols. If necessary, MPAscould also be created in areas under national jurisdiction of the two countries adjacent to thetransboundary MPA in the disputed areas to facilitate coordinated management measures.

The areas where the disputed status is contested are the most challenging ones as theadoption of any bilateral measure could be considered as indirect recognition of the other’sclaim. This challenge can be overcome if the two countries harmonize their conservationrules relating to the MPA (which could be accomplished based on the recommendationsof the above-mentioned joint governing mechanism of the network) and accept flag statejurisdiction to enforce them. For instance, if it happens that an MPA is needed for theprotection of the water area adjacent to the Paracels, Vietnam and China could respectivelydesignate an MPA under their national laws for the same location.134 If their relevant lawswere harmonized, the same conservation measures would be applied to this MPA. Relatingto the enforcement of these measures, the two countries would refrain from enforcing theirnational laws on each other’s vessels, but each would have jurisdiction with respect tovessels from third parties.

Experience with respect to this type of arrangement can be drawn from fisheriesagreements involving so-called grey zones or light grey zones. In these agreements, eachparticipating state agrees to refrain from enforcing its fisheries laws or regulations againstvessels flying the flag or licensed by the other one and both states have jurisdiction overthird-party vessels.135 The difference between the two types of areas is that the former has awell-defined area of application136 while the latter does not have a clearly determined areafor application.137 In areas with overlapping claims between Vietnam and China where thestatus of disputed area is contested by at least one claimant due to the unclear extent of theclaims of the parties, a light grey zone agreement might be more suitable.

Conclusion

A bilateral network of MPAs between Vietnam and China in the northwestern part of the SCScould bring benefits, not only for the two countries but also for the SCS region in general. Itcould be an effective tool for preserving the marine living resources in the SCS with respectto the commercial fisheries resources as well as important marine habitats and endangeredspecies. It would offer opportunities for the two countries to cooperate to implement theirdifferent international and regional commitments regarding marine conservation withoutputting at risk their territorial and sovereignty claims. From this perspective, a network ofMPAs could contribute toward improving the relationship between Vietnam and China anddecreasing tension in the SCS.

Such a network would not solve the maritime boundary disputes between the twocountries. However, the neutrality of a network of MPAs can play in its favor as suchan endeavor could provide a framework for Vietnam and China to cooperate toward ahealthy, productive, and sustainable SCS without jeopardizing their positions relating to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

162 H. D. Vu

their claims. Such a network is in accord with the spirit of the Vietnam’s joint developmentpolicy and China’s “set aside disputes and pursue joint development” suggestion.138

Finally, a bilateral network of MPAs could be a first step toward and a component ofa regional network of MPAs covering the entire SCS region. This broader network couldprovide for comprehensive protection of the SCS and allow for the cooperation of all of itscoastal countries.

Notes

1. See J. W. McManus, “The Spratly Islands: A Marine Park Alternative,” Naga: The ICLARMQuarterly 17, no. 3 (1992): 4; Noel Ludwig, “Sword into Timeshares: An International Marine Parkin the Spratly Islands?” Ocean Yearbook 15 (2001): 7; and Aldo Chircop, “Regional Cooperation inMarine Environmental Protection in the South China Sea: A Reflection on New Directions for MarineConservation” Ocean Development and International Law 41 (2010): 334, at 346.

2. Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Philippines, “A Rules-Based Regimein the South China Sea,” statement by Albert F. Del Rosario, Filipino secretary of foreign af-fairs, June 7, 2011, available at www.dfa.gov.ph/main/index.php/about-the-dfa/office-location/3141-a-rules-based-regime-in-the-south-china-sea-by-albert-f-del-rosario-secretary-of-foreign-affairs (ac-cessed October 26, 2011).

3. MacManus, supra note 1, at 182.4. Nguyen Hong Thao, “Maritime Delimitation and Fishery Cooperation in the Gulf of

Tonkin,” Ocean Development and International Law 36 (2005): 25, at 26; Guifang Xue, “ImprovedFisheries Co-operation: Sino-Vietnamese Fisheries Agreement for the Gulf of Tonkin,” InternationalJournal of Marine and Coastal Law 26 (2006): 217, at 218.

5. Vu Phi Hoang, Paracels and Spratlys: Territories of Vietnam (Hanoi: People’s Army,1988), 8 [in Vietnamese]; Hainan Government, Paracels Islands, available at en.hainan.gov.cn/englishgov/Travel/SightSeeing/Attractions/201001/t20100119 40838.html (accessed October 31,2011).

6. Xuan Linh, “Vietnam-China Will Jointly Survey the South China Sea,” Dan Trı, January 7,2009, available at dantri.com.vn/c36/s20–301933/viet-trung-se-cung-khao-sat-cua-vinh-bac-bo.htm(accessed September 18, 2011) [in Vietnamese].

7. For instance, China considers that “there is nothing to negotiate” with regard to the ParacelIslands. See Greg Torrode and Minnie Chan, “China Stands Firm on Paracels in Negotiations withVietnam,” South China Morning Post, December 12, 2010. For details about the Paracels disputebetween China and Vietnam, see Stein Tønnesson, “The Paracels: The ‘Other’ South China SeaDispute,” Asian Perspectives 26 (2002): 145; and Monique Chemillier-Gendreau, Sovereignty overthe Paracels and Spratly Islands (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000).

8. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, “Press Conference on Chinese Maritime Surveil-lance Vessel’s Cutting Exploration Cable of PetroViet Nam Seismic Vessel,” June 9, 2011, avail-able at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt baochi/pbnfn/ns110610100618#T4dVoWFIwqCg (accessed August2, 2011). See also Philippines, Note Verbale No. 000228, April 5, 2011, at the Commission on theLimits of the Continental Shelf Web site, www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs new/clcs home.htm.

9. Center for the South China Sea Studies, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, “China: theFishing Ban in 2012,” February 4, 2012, available at nghiencuubiendong.vn/tin-ncbd/2351-trung-quoc-lenh-cam-danh-bat-ca (accessed May 18, 2012) [in Vietnamese].

10. “Fishing Ban Starts in the South China Sea,” Xinhua News, May 17, 2012, availableat news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012–05/17/c 131592412.htm (accessed May 22, 2012). TheScarborough incident was a standoff between the Chinese Marine Surveillance and Philippine Navyand Coast Guard due to the apprehension by the latter of Chinese fishing vessels for catching protectedspecies. See Christine O. Avendano and Tina G. Santos, “Philippine-China Standoff at Scarborough,”Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 12, 2012, available at www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=29560 (accessed April 29, 2012). In response to the Chinese fishing ban in the Scarborough shoal,the Philippines imposed its own moratorium in the same area and for almost the same length of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 163

time. See “BFAR Issued Closed Season in Fishing at Scarborough Shoal,” press release, available atwww.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/AboutUs/news/BFARclosedseason 22May2012.html (accessed June 14,2012).

11. “South China Fishing Ban,” CNC World, May 17, 2011, available at www.cncworld.tv/news/v show/15019 South China fishing ban.shtml (accessed July 26, 2011).

12. Sun Wei, “South China Sea Fishing Ban Indisputable,” Global Times, June 16, 2009,available at china.globaltimes.cn/editor-picks/2011–04/435503.html (accessed July 26, 2011).

13. Zhen Sun, “South China Sea: Reducing the China-Vietnam Tension,” RSIS CommentariesNo.117/2011 (Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, August 8, 2011).

14. Nguyen Dang Thang, “Fishing Ban in the South China Sea: In Quest for an AlternativeSolution,” State and Law Review 8, no. 280 (2011): 76 [in Vietnamese]; Guifang Xue, China andInternational Fisheries Law and Policy (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005), 114.

15. Vietnam foreign spokesperson, “Remark by Vietnamese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson onMay 15th 2012,” available at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt baochi/pbnfn/ns120516165508 (accessed May18, 2012); “Vietnam Fisheries Society Protests Against the Fishing Ban in the East Sea,” Vietnamnet,May 17, 2012, available at vietnamnet.vn/vn/chinh-tri/72544/hoi-nghe-ca-phan-doi-cam-danh-ca-o-bien-dong.html (accessed May 18, 2012) [in Vietnamese].

16. The name for the South China Sea as it is translated from Vietnamese to English.17. Vietnam foreign spokesperson, “Viet Nam Protests Chinese Unilateral Fishing Ban in

the East Sea,” January 24, 2012, available at www.mofa.gov.vn/en/tt baochi/pbnfn/ns120123233459(accessed 24 January 2012).

18. “Vietnam Defiant on First Day of Chinese Fishing Ban,” May 16, 2011, M&C News,available at www.monstersandcritics.com/news/ (accessed 26 July 2011). See also “Fishermen fromCentral Region Keep Going to the Sea,” VTC News, May 30, 2011, available at vtc.vn/2-286819/xa-hoi/mac-trung-quoc-cam-ngu-dan-mien-trung-van-bam-bien.htm (accessed July 26, 2011) [in Viet-namese].

19. “Chinese Sailors Beat Up Vietnam Ship Captains,” Manila Times, July 16, 2011,available at www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/top-stories/1931-chinese-sailors-beat-up-vietnam-ship-captain (accessed July 26, 2011); “China Releases 25 Vietnamese Fishermen; 12Held,” Jakarta Post, June 26, 2009, available at www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/26/china-releases-25-vietnamese-fishermen-12-held.html (accessed July 26, 2011).

20. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention), December 10, 1982,1833 U.N.T.S. 3. For details relating to the application of these articles to the cooperation in themanagement and conservation of marine living resources in the SCS, see Thang Nguyen-Dang,“Fisheries Cooperation in the South China Sea and the (Ir)Relevance of the Sovereignty Question,”Asian Journal of International Law 2, no. 1 (2012): 59, at 66.

21. Agreement Between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of ChinaRelating to the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea, Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelfin the Tonkin Gulf, December 15, 2000, available at biengioilanhtho.gov.vn/ eng/maritimeboundary-nc-a84f2f41.aspx (accessed September 18, 2011).

22. Convention on the Conservation of the Migratory Species and Wild Animals, June 23,1979, 1651 U.N.T.S. 333.

23. Agreement Between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic ofChina on Cooperation in Fisheries in the Gulf of Tonkin, December 25, 2000, available atbiengioilanhtho.gov.vn/vie/hiepdinhhoptacngheca-nd-e6a9f6ac.aspx (accessed April 6, 2010). Foran English version of the agreement, see Nguyen Hong, supra note 4, Annex A.

24. See Nico Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 130.

25. UN General Assembly, “Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States,” UNGAOR,twenty-ninth session, 2315th plenary meeting, UN Doc. A/RES/3281(XXIX) (1974).

26. UN General Assembly, “Cooperation in the Field of the Environment Concerning NaturalResources Shared by Two or More States,” Res. 3129 (XXVIII), UN General Assembly OfficialRecord, twenty-eighth session (1973).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

164 H. D. Vu

27. UN Environment Programme (UNEP), “Report of the Governing Council on the Work ofIts Sixth Session,” UNGAOR, thirty-third session, Supplement No. 25, UN Doc. A/33/25 (1978),Decision 6/14, 154.

28. For details of the principles, see UNEP, “Principles of Conduct in the Field of the Environ-ment for the Guidance of States in the Conservation and Harmonious Utilization of Natural ResourcesShared by Two or More States,” Governing Council Decision 6/14, May 19, 1978, in Food and Agricul-ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sources of International Law, FAO Legislative StudyNo. 65 (Rome: FAO, 2001), available at www.fao.org/docrep/005/w9549e/w9549e00.htm#Contents(accessed May 14, 2012).

29. UN General Assembly, “Cooperation in the Field of the Environment Concerning NaturalResources Shared by Two or More States,” Res. 34/186, UNGAOR, thirty-fourth session (1979),para. 3.

30. UN General Assembly, “Process of Preparation of the Environmental Perspectives tothe Year 2000 and Beyond,” UNGAOR, thirty-eighth session, 102nd plenary meeting, UN Doc.A/RES/38/161(1983).

31. World Commission on Environment and Development, “Report of the World Commissionon Environment and Development: Our Common Future,” in UN Secretary-General, “Developmentand International Co-operation: Environment, Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment,” Note by the Secretary-General, UNGAOR, forty-second session, Supplement No. 25,UN Doc. A/42/427 (1987).

32. Ibid., Annex 1(14). The term “environmental interferences” embraces activities contribut-ing to transboundary pollution problems and other environmental modifications with significant trans-boundary effects such as major changes in streamflows, overfishing in territorial waters, and changesaffecting regional or global climate. See World Commission on Environment and Development,Discussion Paper on Legal Principles for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development(Geneva: World Commission on Environment and Development, 1985).

33. See UNEP, “Report of the 6th UNEP Governing Council,” supra note 27, chap. VII, at100, n. 27; and Schrijver, supra note 24, at 132.

34. World Commission, supra note 32, at 8.35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Environmental Prin-

ciples and Concept,” Doc. No. OCDE/GD(95)124 (Paris: OECD, 1995), para. 19.36. LOS Convention, supra note 20, art. 63. FAO distinguishes between four types of shared

fish stocks: “transboundary stocks,” which cross the EEZs of more than one coastal state; “highlymigratory species” as set forth in the Annex 1 of the LOS Convention, found both within thecoastal state’s EEZ and the adjacent high sea; “straddling stocks,” which are all other fish stocksfound within a coastal state’s EEZ and the adjacent high seas; and “discrete high seas fish stocks”found exclusively in the high seas. For details, see Gordon Munro, Annick Van Houtte, and RolfWillmann, The Conservation and Management of Shared Fish Stocks: Legal and Economic Aspects,FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 465 (Rome: FAO Legal Office, 2002), 3.

37. LOS Convention, supra note 20, art. 123.38. Ibid., art. 63(1).39. Ibid., art. 61.40. Ibid., art. 123. An enclosed or semienclosed sea is defined in ibid., art. 122, as “a gulf,

basin or sea surrounded by two or more States and connected to another sea or the ocean by a narrowoutlet or consisting entirely or primarily of the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of twoor more coastal States with regards to an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea.” Pursuant to this definition,both the SCS and its subregion bordered by Vietnam and China, the Gulf of Tonkin, can be consideredas a semienclosed sea.

41. Convention on Migratory Species, “Introduction to the Convention on Migratory Species,”available at www.cms.int/about/intro.htm (accessed April 28, 2011).

42. Convention on Migratory Species, supra note 22, arts. III and IV(1).43. Convention on Migratory Species, “List of Common Names, CMS Appendices I and

II—March 2009,” available at www.cms.int/species/index.htm (accessed March 21, 2011).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 165

44. Convention on Migratory Species, supra note 22, art. I(f) defines “range” as all the areasof land or water that a migratory species inhabits, stays in temporarily, crosses, or overflies at anytime on its normal migration route.

45. Ibid., art. IV(3) and (4).46. Ibid., art. V.47. The Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine

Turtles and Their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia, June 23, 2001, available atwww.ioseaturtles.org/ (accessed April 21, 2010).

48. The Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Dugongsand Their Habitats Throughout Their Range, October 31, 2007, adopted at the Third Meet-ing on Dugong Conservation and Management, Abu Dhabi, October 28–31, 2007, available atwww.cms.int/species/dugong/pdf/Annex 08 Dugong MoU.pdf (accessed April 22, 2010).

49. LOS Convention, supra note 20, arts. 63 and 123. For details, see Satya N. Nadan andShabtai Rosenne, eds., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol.2 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993), at 646; and Satya N. Nadan and Shabtai Rosenne, eds., UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Vol. 3 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff,1995), 367. See also Nguyen Dang, supra note 20, at 69.

50. Convention on Migratory Species, supra note 22, art. IV.51. UNEP Principles, supra note 28, Principle 2.52. Vietnam and China concluded agreements establishing time-limited joint fishing zones in

the Gulf of Tonkin in 1957, 1961, and 1963. See National Boundary Committee, Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Vietnam, Introducing Some Basic Issues Relating to the Law of the Sea in Vietnam (Hanoi:National Politics, 2004), 100.

53. Gulf of Tonkin Fisheries Agreement, supra note 23.54. Ibid., art. 22(2). The agreement entered into force in 2004 and will expire in 2019.55. Gulf of Tonkin Maritime Boundary Agreement, supra note 21.56. Gulf of Tonkin Fisheries Agreement, supra note 23, art. 3.57. Ibid., art. 5.58. Ibid., art. 7.59. Ibid., art. 6.60. Ibid., art. 9(1).61. Ibid., art. 13.62. See, for example, Guifang Xue, supra note 4; Zou Keyuan, Law of the Sea in East Asia:

Issues and Prospects (Oxon, England: Routledge, 2005), 118; Nguyen Ba Dien, “About ConcludingAgreement on Fishery Cooperation in Tonkin Gulf Between Vietnam and China,” Review of Science,Law of the National University in Hanoi 25 (2009): 74 [in Vietnamese]; and Nguyen Hong, supranote 4.

63. Guifang Xue, supra note 4, at 230.64. Nguyen Hong, supra note 4, at 32.65. Guifang Xue, supra note 4, at 232; Nguyen Ba, supra note 62, at 80.66. N. Dudley, Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Gland: In-

ternational Union for the Conservation of Nature [IUCN], 2008), at 8.67. It is noted that, before 2008, the IUCN had distinct definitions for protected areas and

marine protected areas.68. Day J. Dudley et al., Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management

Categories to Marine Protected Areas, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 19 (Gland:IUCN, 2012), 15.

69. From a terminological point of view, many names such as parks, reserves, sanctuaries,closed areas or refugia have been used to refer to those areas with some spatially explicit restrictions.However, “protected area” has emerged as the most commonly used term implying protection ofspecies and communities. See Gary W. Allison, Jane Lubchenko, and Mark H. Carr, “Marine ReservesAre Necessary but Not Sufficient for Marine Conservation” Ecological Conservations 8, no. 1 (1998):S79, at S80.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

166 H. D. Vu

70. IUCN, Establishing Resilient Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Happen (Wash-ington, DC: IUCN-WCPA, 2008), 12.

71. Ibid.72. The term “boundaries” used in the definition seems to also include frontier and border. For

the distinction between boundary, frontier, and border, see note 75.73. Trevor Sandwith, Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation, Based on

the Proceedings of Workshops Held in Bormio (1998) and Gland (2000) (Gland: IUCN, 2001), 3.74. Ibid.75. It should be noted that, although both “boundary” and “frontier” mean an area separating

the territories of two countries, a “boundary” refers to a line while “frontier” is used to designate a zonewithout a delimitation line. And “border” designates the outermost parts of a country bounded on oneside by the national boundary. For the meaning of different terminology such as boundary, border, andfrontier, see Nguyen-Dang, supra note 21, at 136; Victor Prescott and Gilian D. Triggs, InternationalFrontiers and Boundaries: Law, Politics and Geography (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008), 11–12;Douglas M. Johnston, The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making (Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988), 3; and A. O. Cukwurah, The Settlement of Boundary Disputes inInternational Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 11–12.

76. IUCN, supra note 70, at 3; R. Rioja-Nieto and C. Sheppard, “Effects of ManagementStrategies on the Landscape Ecology of a Marine Protected Area,” Ocean and Coastal Management51 (2008): 397; Graeme Kelleher and Adrian Phillips, eds., Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas,Best Practices Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 3 (Gland: IUCN, 1999), xvi.

77. IUCN, supra note 70, at 3.78. See FAO/Japanese Government Cooperative Programme, Report and Documentation of

the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues andConsiderations, Rome, 12–14 June 2006 (Rome: FAO, 2007), 109; and National Research Council,Committee on the Evaluation, Design, and Monitoring Marine Reserves and Protected Areas inthe United States, Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems (Washington,DC: National Academy Press, 2001), 71.

79. C. Toropova et al. (eds.), Global Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities(Gland: IUCN, 2010), 17.

80. S. Stolton and N. Dudley, Arguments for Protected Areas: Multiple Benefits for Conser-vation and Use (Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2010), 228.

81. UNEP-WCMC, National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review ofProgress (Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC, 2008), 24; Government of Canada, National Framework forCanada’s Network of Marine Protected Areas (Ottawa, ON: Fisheries and Ocean Canada, 2011), 11.

82. See Tundi Spring Agardy, Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation (Austin,TX: R. G. Landes, 1997), 15.

83. Committee on Marine Reserves and Protected Areas in the United States, supra note 78,at 17.

84. Agardy, supra note 82, at 15.85. Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 760 U.N.T.S. 79.86. “Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” in Report of

the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, August 26–September4, 2002, Doc. A/CONF.199/20 (New York: United Nations, 2002), 6.

87. Convention on Biological Diversity, supra note 85, art. 1.88. Convention on Biological Diversity, “Protected Areas (Articles 8 (a) to (e)),” Decision

VII/28, Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, February 9–20,2004.

89. Ibid., para. 6.90. Ibid., para. 8.91. Convention on Biological Diversity, “Protected Areas,” Decision X/31, Tenth Meeting of

the Conference of the Parties, Nagoya, Japan, October 18–29, 2010.92. “Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” supra note

86.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 167

93. Ibid., para. 32(c).94. UN General Assembly, “Ocean and the Law of the Sea,” Res. 66/231, UNGAOR, sixty-

sixth session, Agenda Item 76(a), A/RES/66/231 (2011), para. 176.95. UNEP Regional Seas, “Action Plan for the Protection and Sustainable Development of the

Marine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Region,” Annex IV, Doc. COBSEA (OCA)/EAS IG5/6(1994).

96. Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), “Putra-jaya Declaration of Regional Cooperation for the Sustainable Development of the Seas of EastAsia,” East Asian Seas Congress 2003, Putrajaya, Malaysia, December 12, 2003, available atwww.peamsea.org (accessed April 9, 2010).

97. UNEP Regional Seas, “Action Plan for the Protection and Sustainable Development of theMarine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Region,” UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No.24 (Bangkok: UNEP, 1983).

98. Ibid., para. 24.99. Putrajaya Declaration, supra note 96.

100. Original states parties were Brunei, Cambodia, China, Democratic Republic of Korea,Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.Later, Laos and Timor-Leste joined while Brunei and Malaysia left. For more information about thePartnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia Programme, see PEMSEA atwww.peamsea.org (accessed July 30, 2011).

101. Putrajaya Declaration, supra note 96, at 57.102. It is estimated that the SCS supports about 12% of the world’s mangrove forests, 34% of

the world’s coral reefs, and many species of sea grass. See UNEP, Mangroves in the South ChinaSea, UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No.1 (Bangkok: UNEP, 2004); UNEP, Coral Reefs inthe South China Sea, UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 2 (Bangkok: UNEP, 2004); andUNEP, Seagrasses in the South China Sea, UNEP/GEF/SCS Technical Publication No. 3 (Bangkok:UNEP, 2004). See also Liana Talaue-McManus, Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the SouthChina Sea, EAS/RCU Technical Report Series No. 14 (Bangkok: UNEP, 2000); and C. Wilkinson,et al., South China Sea, GIWA Regional Assessment 54 (Kalmar, Sweden: University of Kalmar,2005).

103. Wilkinson, supra note 102, at 153.104. It is estimated that a quarter of the world’s merchandise and half of the world’s oil have

been transported through the SCS. See ibid., at 20; and Zhang Xuegang, “Southeast Asia and Energy:Gateway to Stability,” China Security 3, no. 2 (2007): 18, at 19.

105. Many coastal states in the SCS, in particular Vietnam and China, have active oil and gasactivities.

106. The SCS ranks second in fishery productivity among the three bodies of water border-ing China with an output of 3.6 million tons in 2004 (equivalent to 25% of the total marine fishcapture of China). See FAO, “Fisheries and Aquaculture Country Profiles—China,” available atwww.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP CN/en (accessed February 3, 2012). Vietnam’s averagetotal annual catch of marine fishes has been 1.9 million tons. The country’s fishery sector employsabout 4.5 million people, of which more than 1 million work as capture fisheries laborers, all depend-ing on the SCS for their living. See Nguyen Minh Duc, “Value Chain Analysis: Vietnam,” April 2011,available at www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/VNM/profile.htm (accessed March 13, 2012), table 1, 3; VietnamDirectorate of Fisheries, “Some Thoughts About the Planning of Fishery Development in the FutureYears,” February 14, 2012, Directorate of Fisheries, available at www.fistenet.gov.vn/b-tin-tuc-su-kien/a-tin-van/vai-suy-nghi-ve-quy-hoach-phat-trien-thuy-san-nhung-nam-toi/ (accessed March 13,2012) [in Vietnamese]; and SEAFDEC, Profile of Fisheries in Southeast Asia (Bangkok: SoutheastAsian Fisheries Development Center, 2009), 42. See also FAO, “Country Profile: The Socialist Repub-lic of Vietnam,” May 2005, available at www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/VNM/profile.htm (accessedMarch 13, 2012).

107. For example, IUCN, supra note 70; Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and CoastalProtected Areas. Technical Advice on the Establishment and Management of a National System ofMarine and Coastal Protected Areas, CBD Technical Series No. 13 (Montreal: Secretariat of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

168 H. D. Vu

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004); and C. R. Margules and R. L. Pressey, “SystematicConservation Planning,” Nature 405 (2000): 243.

108. UNEP-WCMC, supra note 81, at 21.109. Nigel Dudley and Jeffrey Parish, Closing the Gap: Creating Ecologically Representative

Protected Area Systems. A Guide to Conducting the Gap Assessments of Protected Area Systemsfor the Convention on Biological Diversity, Technical Series No. 24 (Montreal: Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, 2006), 29.

110. While the terms are often used interchangeably, “goals” and “objectives” have differentmeanings. “Goals” are general directions, usually difficult to be measured. On the other hand,“objectives” are specific and measurable. One goal can involve a number of objectives. For anexample about the differences between goals and objectives, see Convention on Biological Diversity,“Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity,” Decision VII/5, Seventh Conference of the Parties, KualaLumpur, Malaysia, February 9–20, 2004.

111. UNEP-WCMC, supra note 81, at 31.112. IUCN, supra note 70, at 31.113. Graeme Kelleher and Richard Kenchington, Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected

Areas (Gland: IUCN, 1992), at 9.114. IUCN, supra note 70, at 31.115. See S. M. J. Evans, et al., Evaluation of Site Selection Methodologies for Use in Marine

Protected Area Network Design (Ottawa, ON: Fisheries and Ocean Canada, 2004), 8, available atwww.dfo-mpo.gc.ca (accessed June 28, 2010).

116. UNEP-WCMC, supra note 81, at 32.117. Biliana Cicin-Sain and Stefano Belfiore, “Linking Marine Protected Areas into Integrated

Coastal and Ocean Management: A Review of Theory,” Ocean and Coastal Management 48 (2005):847; Toropova, supra note 79, at 21.

118. National Marine Protected Areas Center—U.S. Department of Commerce, “Glossary,”available at www.mpa.gov/glossary.html (accessed January 6, 2011).

119. Nigel Dudley, et al., Towards Effective Protected Area Systems: An Action Guide toImplement the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on Protected Areas, TechnicalSeries No. 18 (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005), 32.

120. James Sanderson, Biodiversity Conservation Corridors: Planning, Implementing, andMonitoring Sustainable Landscapes (Washington, DC: Conservation International, 2003), 30.

121. Ibid., at 34.122. Australia and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council Task Force on Marine

Protected Areas, “Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of Marine Pro-tected Areas: A Guide for Action by Australian Governments” (Canberra: Environment Australia,1999), 36.

123. AHTEG/MCPA, supra note 107, at 32.124. Sandwith, supra note 73, at 15.125. Ibid., at 34.126. See Mark D. Spalding, et al., “Marine Ecoregions of the World: A Bioregionalization of

Coastal and Shelf Areas,” BioScience 57 (2007): 573.127. Ibid., at 575.128. Gulf of Tonkin Fisheries Agreement, supra note 23; and see text accompanying notes

57–61.129. IUCN, supra note 70, at 35; Adrian G. Davey, National System Planning for Protected

Areas (Gland: IUCN, 1998), 23.130. “Press Interviews Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Ho Xuan Son on Meet-

ing with Chinese State Councillor,” Vietnam News Agency, June 18, 2011, available atwww.mofa.gov.vn/en/nr040807104143/nr040807105001/ns110628095717/newsitem print preview(accessed September 19, 2011).

131. Xuan Linh, supra note 6.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

A Bilateral Network of Marine Protected Areas 169

132. For details, see “Vietnam, China Established Principles of Settling Sea Issues,” VietnamNews Agency, October 12, 2011; and “China-Vietnam Sign Accord on Resolving Maritime Issues,”Xinhua, October 12, 2011.

133. See Henry S. Bensurto, Jr., “Cooperation in the South China Sea: Views on the Philippines -Vietnam Cooperation on Maritime and Ocean Concerns,” paper presented at the second internationalworkshop, “South China Sea: Cooperation for Regional Security and Development,” November11–12, 2010, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

134. It is interesting to note that this maneuver was used at the Scarborough Reef whereboth a Chinese and Philippine fishing ban is now in place. It is not publicly known whether it isa coordinated move but these bans have a de facto effect of decreasing the tension between thetwo countries. For more details, see Terry Wing, “China, Philippines Fishing Ban Defuses Tensions,”VOA News, May 15, 2012, available at www.voanews.com/content/china philippines not fishing insouth china sea/666640.html (accessed May 22, 2012). However, after the bans were issued, all of theFilipino fishing vessels stopped going into the area but a number of Chinese ones were still operatingthere. According to the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, these boats wereoperating in compliance with the Chinese fishing ban. See Tina G. Santos, “92 China Ships Now inPanatag Shoal; Tensions Up,” May 24, 2012, available at globalnation.inquirer.net/37711/92-china-ships-now-in-panatag-shoal-tensions-up (accessed June 3, 2012). This could be explained by thedifference in the level of prohibition imposed by the two bans: while Philippines ban all forms offishing activities, China allows some exceptions, namely, for single-net and rod fishing.

135. For more details about the different types of fisheries agreements, including grey zone andlight grey zone ones, see Sun Pyo Kim, Maritime Delimitation and Interim Arrangements in NorthEast Asia (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), 107; and Nguyen-Dang, supra note 20.

136. See, for example, the Agreement of 11 January 1978 Between Norway and the SovietUnion on a Temporary Practical Arrangement for Fishing in an Adjacent Area in the Barents Sea,with Attached Protocol on a Temporary Arrangement for Fishing in an Adjacent Area in the BarentsSea, Norway and Soviet Union, Overenskomster med Fremmede Stater [Norwegian Treaty Series](1978), 436.

137. See, for example, Convention Between Canada and the United Nations for Preservation ofthe Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, March 2, 1953, 222 U.N.T.S. 77,modified by Protocol Amending the Convention Between Canada and the United States of Americafor the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, Canadaand the United States, March 29, 1979, Canada Treaty Series 1980 No. 44.

138. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People Republic of China, “Set Aside Disputeand Pursue Joint Development,” November 17, 2000, available at www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ziliao/3602/3604/t18023.htm (accessed June 13, 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

53 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014