 Thank you, sir. I'll be thank you for the Cambry Journal of International Law to organize this conference and thank you for all the participants. Today I will talk about the and domination of the flag state and the job, which is focused on either any laxies back a list of jurisdiction has been established in the field of fishing on the high sea. I focused on this question because we can see that now conservative conservation matters have been established through international multilateral and bilateral bilateral treaty. And I noticed that the panelists that mentioned about the international enforcement, but luckily the enforcement regime or the enforcement organ hasn't been established in any international organization. So that state individually exercising jurisdiction, I think it only way currently to enforce those conservation matters on the fisheries on high off the fisheries on high sea. So that's came to my question. And I give this question in the context that the since 1902 for disputes between ICG E plus WTO DSU and arbitration tribunal have been concerned with the question of the jurisdiction that the non flag states can exercise on high sea in terms of the fishing. But there is no clear directions on this has been given by any international judicial body. And on the other hand, the lack, the legs, like he can only established by the eaters in the North Star cases has again conform the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of flag states in the on high sea. So that cat to be taken into account at the background to test the question that's whether the lexibacolis of jurisdiction has been established in a certain aspect of fishing on the high sea. And according to the kid, the judgment, the interpretation of exclusive jurisdiction of high sea by the eaters in the North Star case. It means that any act which subject activities of a foreign ship on the high seas to jurisdiction or any actual exercise of jurisdiction or what the ship foreign ships on high sea. And, and that's the non flag states jurisdiction can be justified by the convention or our international treaties, those restrictions exercise by the non flag states is illegal. So the question of my research turns into a specific question of if there any custom recognizing the extension or exercise of restriction, because it can, for it can be established to add the exception exceptional applied in this can be in the highest applied in the high sea fishery, other than the condition conventional exceptions, given by the convention or the treaties, which is dominated by the flag states agreement or flexible Sam. And to exam the question of are there any custom. So automatically we come to different two elements one is the practice, a general practice and the other is opinion errors. And when it comes to the general practice concerning that point three specific questions have been need to be answered for is there any practice of exercising the jurisdiction on high sea by the non flag states. And if there is any what kind of the categories, they can classify in those jurisdiction. And the second is, is there any alleged application widespread enough. And the third question yet that those best practice jurisdiction that they're have do they have any consistencies between each other and to answer them respectively, is there any practice by examining the current state practice. I find out four categories of the jurisdiction that non flags they can exercise on high sea in terms of fishing. The first is that cost the state jurisdiction state apply the jurisdiction within certain area among high seas towards any foreign vessels fishing in that area. The example of this can be fired in the exercise of jurisdiction in regional fishery organization and also the exercise of jurisdiction in MPA marine protected area. I also call it a cost the territorial jurisdiction, because we cannot regard any jurisdiction exercise on high sea as territorial as legally territorial, but in fact, it has been accessed as applied within the area. So the area is the basis for the exercise of this jurisdiction. That's why I call it a cost the territorial and the second basis is the national jurisdiction towards the fishermen that state apply the jurisdiction towards the nationals fishing on the high sea. And the third is the post state jurisdiction, which means the state apply the jurisdiction towards the first foreign vessels. activities on high sea, which in tends to enter their ports. And in that, and the fourth one is the market states jurisdiction, which means the market states apply jurisdiction towards the foreign vessels, which is tends their products to be exported to the markets of those states. And for the post state and market states one point I need to clarify the difference between the application of port regulation towards activity of entry or toward activity of imparty. The difference of this kind of jurisdiction exercise of jurisdiction, then between and another kind of exercise of jurisdiction, which application of fishing regulation towards the activities on the fishing on the high sea, because on the surface of pre fish, we can see that the application this kind of restriction maybe regarded as just the application of the port regulation or the import regulation, which as territorial jurisdiction by the state, but on the other effect, since that the epic the port regulation or the importer regulation is not only enforced by themselves because that in this kind of the regulation, there is a presumption seeing that if the states of if the fishing vessel well late to the conservation matters in those states on high sea, then the port regulation or the import regulation will be enforced. So that the legality of the states of the fishing vessels act on the has the fishery works at the presumption of the impact of application of the territorial jurisdiction, so that the active the legality of the activities on fishing activities on high sea of other partnerships, in fact, has been passed by the national law. So that's why I presume the difference between those and I come up with the post state jurisdiction and marks each state jurisdiction toward the has the fishery. And so the second question, as long as we conclude that there are four categories of practice, whether those practice practice has been best right now. I think the answer should be yes, because there's no absolute standard can be for like any practice to be regarded as widespread in all the cases, but at the at the international law commissions report has involved that there should should be attached for each cases in terms of its contacts. So in this case, the contacts is the fishery jurisdictions exercised by state, and by looking into all the great judgment on this because judgment or word on this we can find that I can find three cases. One is 1974 veteran cases by ICG 1998 fishery jurisdiction cases by ICG and 2006 arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of training that and tobacco. So in this case, we can conclude the cost or the court and arbitra arbitra tribunal standard of judging whether there is widespread practice in terms of fishing fishery jurisdictions. We can see that they give the combination of the provisions in widely accepted treaty, and also the practice reflected in bilateral and the mutual actual treaties and the state practice by the state from different continents. The combination of those three practice has been regarded as evidence by the court and by the arbitra tribunal to prove that widespread this of those practice. And they do not only choose like one of this can they usually combine two or three of this can to task. So by establish such kind of standard we can test about all those jurisdictions and unfortunately the coastal states jurisdiction failed to pass this test, because although there is article 21 in the fishery United Nations, fishery states, United Nations fish stock agreement on the exercise of jurisdiction of the non flag states within the fishery, regional fishery organizations, but there is no bilateral or mutual actual treaty give state the power to exercise the jurisdiction within the regional fishery organization towards non parties. And for the state practice till now I can only see that one state Canada will have exercised this, but for other state practice I say no. And there is no consensus toward this specific article has been reflected in the United Nations conference on the fisheries stocks. I see the consensus on the entire treaty but there is no evidence to prove the exact concert consensus or consent to reach in this specific article. And for the national market and also the postage restriction, the test can be passed. So, because there are not only that the international a widespread widely accepted treaty has been conformed have been established in terms of that restriction. And also we can find like bilateral and multilateral practice reflected in the regional fishery organizations, and also we can find like some states practice, and which includes not only like so to see that the continent of Europe which also include like Asia and also America. In even in Africa. So that we can see that the practice of those three jurisdiction effect has been vast pride. But the vast pride practice, although it says that the first test of the custom is the only test. And we have to find there if there is any common domain, dominator among those practice, so that we can see that the practice is consistent enough as a settled practice. Or which can constitute custom. And in this case we can find that we can find like several cases of the objection but it's very rare and in according to the judgment of IC interpretation of ICG those kind of the uniform cannot be that's not need to be like a waterly uniform. So that, yeah, I will wrap up quickly. And so that I think the common dominator can be found to about the three jurisdiction basis. And then we come to the most difficult question which I haven't finished the research but it's the most important it's the opinion you risk. Because although the practice can be which are now generally a pair, but opinion you risk that the reason why the states conduct those practice as you highly to be fine. And the existence of that opinion you risk need to be proved rather than the priest rather than be presumed. So that the opinion you risk that the action or reason to exercise it as the right of state. Shall be expressed one rather than you fought one. So that's kind of standard established by CG several cases has given the difficulties to find opinion you risk of those three jurisdictions, especially the opposing evidence that the state object of this kind of jurisdiction as the right has been given that by the international court of justice in the Lotus case and in the military and paramilitary active activity case. So that the national jurisdictions give exercise by the doubt like state has encountered problems because there is one judgment of European court of justice in 1992, which denied application of the conservation matters towards the nationals. And the acceptance and the the last difficulty of the to prove this kind of acceptance and that the acceptance of a right in a treaty does not itself leads to a interference as to the right the recognition of a right and their customer international law. So that the separate agreement to need to be proved that need to be proved by the expressed evidence. And that rather this is very hard to find, although I find some clue in the post state agreement, but it still need to be proved. So my conclusion that the custom of exercising the now flag state jurisdiction, even just for a single basis. It's hardly to be claimed as established. So that the flag state still became the dominance in the exercise of jurisdiction over taxi fishery. And the but we can witness that since the first trend of the access in 1990s till now, the practice has been widespread and this should be noticed and should be as it be appreciated by us. But and so till now to the future. I think the important point is that the state should be clear that what on whether on the reason of it's exercising this restriction and the researcher, maybe the judges need to look into the detailed reasons of states doing that practice to see that how the restriction exercised by the now flag states towards fishing towards has a fishery can established or be developed. Thank you very much and sorry for the delay.