UNCLOS does not have anything constructive to offer to address problem of overfishing

Moreover, if I were looking for other sections of the Convention to help support U.S. accession efforts, I certainly would not rely on the fisheries provisions of UNCLOS. As the authors know, UNLCOS Article 56 grants coastal states sovereign rights over the living and nonliving resources of the EEZ, where most fish stocks are located. Under Article 61, the coastal state has absolute authority to “determine the allowable catch of the living resources in its . . . [EEZ].” If the coastal state does not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, Article 62 provides that other states shall be granted access to the surplus. However, neither the decision to determine the allowable catch nor the allocation of the surplus is subject to compulso- ry dispute settlement.38 Then, of course, there is the problem of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species that occur within the EEZs of more than one country, as well as anadromous stocks and catadromous species that migrate through more than one EEZ, that are not adequately regulated by UNCLOS Articles 63, 64, 66 and 67.