A mar presencial (Spanish for "sea where we are present" or "zone of maritime presence") or heritage marine reserve is a zone of influence demarcated by a maritime country in the high seas adjacent to its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The objective of this oceanopolitical concept or doctrine, is to signal to third parties where the coastal country's interests are, or could be directly involved.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2021)
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Spanish. (April 2021) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
View a machine-translated version of the Spanish article.
Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 5,024 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Spanish Wikipedia article at [[:es:Mar presencial]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated|es|Mar presencial}} to the talk page.
Under this principle, a coastal nation (or several coastal nations, collectively) will demarcate areas of high seas contiguous or adjacent to their EEZ. Without claiming sovereignty over the international water in these areas, this demarcation serves as an announcement of a national interest in preserving the whole demarcated area from abusive uses or from certain activities whose proximity could impact marine resources inhabiting the nation's EEZ. A common stated intent is protecting highly migratorytransboundaryfish stocks from overfishing and ocean dumping.
Definition
A mar presencial occurs when a state declares an interest in a maritime space, while still recognizing the liberties of any international waters it encompasses, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The objective of the policy is to ensure rational exploitation of resources, avoiding the overexploitation and subsequent collapse of delicate marine ecosystem equilibria. Part of the idea is that every coastal nation has a sovereign right to subsistence. If marine resources are intercepted and exhausted before they enter the EEZ and territorial waters of coastal states, these states will be deprived of oceanic resources which they would otherwise harvest in their jurisdictional waters. Accordingly, a state can prevent ships that are overexploiting its mar presencial from calling its ports. The legal basis of this theory was partially weakened as a results of the 1995 Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement, which dealt with the management of transboundary species and highly migratory fish that freely travel between high seas and EEZs. A concrete application of the theory of mar presencial occurred during the 1995 Turbot War, a conflict caused by the capture of a Spanish fishing vessel by the Canadian military.[1]
Origin of the concept
The "Theory of the Mar Presencial" was developed by a Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Navy, AdmiralJorge Martínez Busch. First presented in a master's class on May 4, 1990, it was expanded in another master's class on May 2, 1991. The definition was later broadened into a more general concept of greater utility, and applicable to coastal states worldwide.
US Naval JAG officer Jane Dalton defined a mar presencial as
"[...] the Mar Presencial is a type of contiguous zone to the EEZ in which the state will prevent (and perhaps punish?) infringements of its fishing, research, and resource exploitation interests in the EEZ."
—Jane Gilliland Dalton, The Chilean Mar Presencial: A Harmless Concept or a Dangerous Precedent?, [2]
Countries that have expressed mar presencial interests
Most of the countries that have expressed mar presencial interests have been neighbors of Chile, or on the Pacific coast of the Americas, especially South America. Besides Chile, Argentina,[3] Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia have all proposed maritime areas that match the concept of mar presencial.[4][5] While Canada has not explicitly proposed a mar presencial, it acted in a manner consistent with the concept during the Turbot War.[1]
Chile
Chile created this theory, and was the first to implement one in 1991, with the passage of law N°19080.[6] Article 1, final paragraph, defines the concept of a "mar presencial" for the southeastern quadrant of the Pacific Ocean:
Es aquel espacio oceánico comprendido entre el límite de la Zonas Económicas Exclusivas que generan las islas chilenas al interior de dicho espacio marítimo. transl.That oceanic space which encompasses the outermost borders of the Exclusive Economic Zones generated by the Chilean islands to the interior of that maritime space.
As a result of this Chile had an international dispute with the European Union over swordfish. The preliminary treaty gave international backing to the mar presencial theory.
The mar presencial concept has been legally enshrined by Chilean legislation in the General Law of Fishing, the Basic General Law of the Environment, and in the law of Nuclear Security.
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Chile
Under the 1997 “Acuerdo Marco para la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos en la Alta Mar del Pacífico Sudeste” (transl.Framework Agreement for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources in the High Seas of the Southwest Pacific) or the "Galapagos Agreement" , Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile proposed a "Regional Mar Presencial of the CPPS» (Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur (transl.Permanent Commission of the South Pacific)). This agreement attempts to protect certain species of migratory fish, including in international waters.[4] Additional steps have been taken to establish a Southeast Pacific Marine Protected Area.[9]
Argentina
In Argentina Senator Mariano Utrera led a legislative project to mark out a mar presencial space called "Fixein the borders of the "Argentinian National Heritage Sea Reserve." The law was presented to the Senate and Chamber of Deputies November 27, 1987.[3]
On April 30, 1989, the proposed legislation expired without being passed. However the concept can still be observed in what is referred to as "La Milla 201" (transl.Mile 201, referring to the first mile outside of the EEZ), where Argentina carries out regular patrols against illegal fishing.[10][11][12]
Canada
The Turbot War between Canada and Spain generated a concrete application of the theory. Canada fired shots across the bow and seized the Spanish fishing trawler Estai in waters adjacent to its EEZ, which caused the European Union to get involved. The case went to the Hague, was judged in Canada's favor, and Spain was forced to pay a substantial fine.[1]
Further reading
Zackrison, James L.; Meason, James L. (1997). "Chile, "Mar Presencial", and the Law of the Sea". Naval War College Review. 50 (3): 65–85. ISSN0028-1484. JSTOR44638751.
Kibel, Paul Stanton (2000). "Alone at sea: Chile's presencial ocean policy". Journal of Environmental Law. 12 (1). Oxford University Press: 43–63. doi:10.1093/jel/12.1.43. ISSN0952-8873. JSTOR44248256.
Joyner, Christopher C.; De Cola, Peter N. (1993). "Chile's Presential Sea Proposal: Implications for Straddling Stocks and the International Law of Fisheries". Ocean Development and International Law. 24: 99–121. doi:10.1080/00908329309546000.
Vicuña, Francisco Orrego (1993). "Toward an effective management of high seas fisheries and the settlement of the pending issues of the law of the sea". Ocean Development & International Law. 24 (1) (published 2009-11-16): 81–92. doi:10.1080/00908329309545998. ISSN0090-8320.
Clingan, Thomas A. (January 1993). "Mar Presencial (the Presential sea): Deja Vu all over again?—a response to Francisco Orrego Vicuña". Ocean Development & International Law. 24 (1): 93–97. doi:10.1080/00908329309545999. ISSN0090-8320.
ECO HOUSE (2021-01-27). Bonacifa, María José (ed.). "Milla 201: el punto más caliente de la pesca ilegal en el país"[Mile 201: the Hottest Point for Illegal Fishing in the Country]. Perfil (in Spanish). Editorial Perfil S.A. Archived from the original on 2021-02-04. Retrieved 2021-05-15.
Figueroa, Javier (2020-04-09). "La milla 201. Un desafío geopolítico"[Mile 201: A Geopolitical Challenge]. NODAL (Noticias de América Latina y el Caribe) (in European Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-04-02. Retrieved 2021-05-15.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Mar_presencial, and is written by contributors.
Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.