The EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement that is up for vote on 10 December "still does not address the failure to conform with international law that was one of the reasons that the European Parliament rejected the Protocol in 2011." This is stated by a group of 21 jurists from Spain, Sweden, United States, Honkong, Luxembourg, Denmark, Canada, Finland, dated 2 December 2013.
The group states that the agreement "may make the EU and its member states liable for a violation of international law, namely recognition of and assistance to serious breaches of international law by Morocco, amounting to aggression and denial of the right of self-determination, including the right to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources."
The conclusion of the document reads the following: The conclusion is that the 2013 Protocol still does not address the failure to conform with international law that was one of the reasons that the European Parliament rejected the Protocol in 2011. In the 2013 legal opinion to the European Parliament, the Parliament’s legal service cited its own previous opinion of 2009. The legal service here found that "compliance with international law requires that economic activities related to the natural resources of a Non-Self-Governing Territory are carried out for the benefits of the people of such Territory, and in accordance with their wishes." Further, "[i]n the event that it could not be demonstrated that the FPA was implemented in conformity with the principles of international law concerning the rights of the Saharawi people over their natural resources, principles which the Community is bound to respect, the Community should refrain from allowing vessels to fish in the waters off Western Sahara by requesting fisheries licences only for fishing zones that are situated in the waters off Morocco”. Since there are no records of this having been the case, before or after 2009, Parliament should reject this Protocol and let it be known to the Commission that it expects the Commission to negotiate a new agreement which fully respects international law.
The opinion is signed by the following:
Oscar Abalde Cantero, Professor of Public International Law, Universidad del País Vasco
Lennart Aspegren, Former UN Judge
Nathaniel Berman, Rahel Varnhagen Professor of International Affairs, Law, and Modern Culture, Brown University
Maria Dolores Bollo Arocena, Professor of Public International Law, Universidad del País Vasco
Ove Bring, Professor Emeritus in International Law, Stockholm University & Swedish National Defence College
Candelaria Carrera Asturiano, Miembro de AIODH (Asociación Internacional para la Observación de los Derechos Humanos), Abogados de Badajoz Law School
Tony Carty, Sir Y K Pao Chair in Public Law, Hongkong University
Ola Engdahl, Associate Professor of International Law Swedish National Defence College
David Fisher, Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, Stockholm University
Andres Marin Garcia, Miembro de AIODH, Abogados de Badajoz Law School
Matthew Happold, Professor of Public International Law, Université du Luxembourg 4
Frederik Harhoff, Professor of International Law, Syddansk Universitet i Odense
Iñigo Iruretagoiena Agirrezabalaga, Professor of Public International Law, Universidad del País Vasco
Francisco Javier Quel Lopez, Professor of Public International Law, Universidad del País Vasco
Mark Klamberg, LL.D. and senior lecturer in Public International Law at Uppsala University
David Langlet, Associate Professor, Stockholm University, Stockholm Centre Oxford Fellow, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
Nicolás Alonso Moreda, Professor of Public International Law, Universidad del País Vasco
Frédéric Mégret PhD, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, McGill University, and the holder of the Canada Research Chair in the Law of Human Rights and Legal Pluralism.
Jarna Petman, Senior Lecturer/Professor a.i. in International Law, Helsinki University
Juan Soroeta Liceras, Professor of Public International Law, Universidad del País Vasco and President of AIODH
Pål Wrange, Professor of Public International Law at Stockholm University
Morocco occupies the major part of its neighbouring country, Western Sahara. Entering into business deals with Moroccan companies or authorities in the occupied territories gives an impression of political legitimacy to the occupation. It also gives job opportunities to Moroccan settlers and income to the Moroccan government. Western Sahara Resource Watch demands foreign companies leave Western Sahara until a solution to the conflict is found.
It's not easy keeping up with all the different legal proceedings relating to Western Sahara. For the sake of clarity, here's an overview of the three different cases at the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Leading activists from Western Sahara are condemned to sentences ranging from 20 years to life imprisonment in connection to a mass protest in 2010 denouncing the Saharawi people’s social and economic marginalization in their occupied land; the Gdeim Izik protest camp.
At COP22, beware of what you read about Morocco’s renewable energy efforts. An increasing part of the projects take place in the occupied territory of Western Sahara and is used for mineral plunder, new WSRW report documents.