In contrast to the position of the head of INIDEP, Dr. César Lerena —Argentina's leading expert on the subject and former Secretary of State—is categorical: calling this "unregulated fishing" is a legal error that favors the plunderer. According to Lerena, the activity at Mile 201 is illegal fishing for three fundamental reasons that the Argentine State cannot ignore.

1. The resource is Argentine by origin

Lerena argues that UNCLOS , the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (ratified by Argentina in Law 24.543) is clear: the coastal State has "priority interest" in the conservation of the populations found both in its EEZ and in the adjacent area .

"Argentina cannot consider the capture of migratory resources born in our territorial sea to be legal. By fishing without an agreement with the Argentine State, these vessels violate Articles 63 and 64 of the International Convention ," the expert explains.

2. The farce of "Freedom of Fishing"

The argument that "anything goes" on the high seas is false. Lerena clarifies that the freedom of fishing in Article 87 of UNCLOS has strict limits:

3. Piracy on the Continental Shelf

One often overlooked fact: Argentina has sovereign rights over the seabed and subsoil of its extended continental shelf (beyond 200 nautical miles). When any Chinese trawler deploys its heavy bottom nets, it is operating in Argentine territory without authorization.

According to Lerena, this can even be classified as "Piracy" (Art. 101 of UNCLOS), since these are acts of predation committed against assets (the resource and the seabed) in a place that, although outside the EEZ, is subject to the protection of the coastal State due to its biological continuity.

4. The lack of political will

The evidence from INIDEP regarding the "plastic graveyard" and the destruction of ancient coral reefs is tangible proof of the crime. The problem, concludes Dr. Lerena, is not a lack of laws, but rather that the Argentine authorities have been unwilling to implement the necessary measures to end this scourge.

Fishing beyond Mile 201 is not a "gray" activity. It is organized plunder that disrupts the biological cycle of our sea and leaves us with a polluted ocean. While the bureaucracy debates technical terms, 500 vessels continue to steal our future. Argentina must stop asking for permission and begin exercising its role as a Protecting State , punishing biological piracy with the same firmness with which it defends its mainland.

César Lerena's opinion

Fishing on the high seas is illegal.

In statements to Revista Puerto (May 26, 2026), INIDEP Research Director Otto Wöhler indicated that "Another central focus of the campaign (carried out by INIDEP) was to evaluate the impact of so-called unregulated fishing on the high seas," and stated that "the concept of 'illegal fishing' is often misused to describe the activity of foreign fleets beyond the 200-mile limit." According to this biologist, "It is not illegal fishing as long as they operate outside the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone. The problem is that it is unregulated fishing, and that can be just as harmful as illegal fishing." This statement contradicts Argentine legislation and the regulations already established in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and, most notably, his assertions refer to "unregulated fishing whose effects are as harmful as illegal fishing."

The capture on the high seas by foreign vessels under the conditions in which it is carried out is Illegal Fishing, regardless of whether the current national and international regulations can be improved and applied, and this is not only a biological issue, but fundamentally a political, legal and economic one.

This is supported by Law 24,543, by which Argentina ratified UNCLOS, which highlights in Article 2, paragraph c) that "The Argentine Republic accepts the provisions on the management and conservation of living resources on the high seas but considers them insufficient, particularly those relating to straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, and that it is necessary to complement them with an effective and binding multilateral regime that, among other things, facilitates cooperation to prevent and avoid overfishing, and allows for the control of fishing vessel activities on the high seas as well as the use of fishing methods and gear," and the Argentine government bears in mind "its priority interest in the conservation of resources found in its exclusive economic zone and in the high seas area adjacent to it, and considers that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, when the same stock or stocks of associated species are found in the EEZ and in the high seas area adjacent to it, the Argentine Republic, as a coastal State, and the States that fish those stocks in the area adjacent to their EEZ must agree on the necessary measures for the conservation of those stocks or associated species on the high seas" and that for this purpose "...is empowered to adopt, in accordance with international law, all measures it considers necessary for this purpose" which UNCLOS then sets out in its articles and, "the freedom of fishing" referred to in article 87° e) does not imply that this freedom can be predatory and unsustainable, a matter that occurs: first, when ships are not controlled by their flag States or countries of origin (articles 87, 92, 94 of UNCLOS); Second, when research studies are not carried out to determine the “Maximum Sustainable Catch” (articles 117 and 119 of UNCLOS) and, third, if migratory species originating from the EEZ are caught on the high seas without agreement with the coastal State affecting its interests (articles 63, 64, 116 to 119 of UNCLOS).

Argentina could not consider the capture on the high seas of its migratory resources originating from its territorial sea and EEZ, and associated species involved in the food chain, as legal and “unregulated,” in principle, because it would disregard the rights it claims as its own in all its current legislation: Article 5 of Law 23,968; Article 2, section c) cited above of Law 24,543; and Articles 4, 5d, 21e, 22, and 23b of the Fisheries Law 24,922. Furthermore, there are more than 40 reasons to consider this capture on the high seas as “Illegal Fishing.” Of course, this also includes bottom trawling when fishing on the Argentine extended continental shelf beyond 200 miles without national authorization, and even classifying as "piracy" the illegal fishing that breaks the biological cycle of species on the high seas, according to Article 101 a) ii) of UNCLOS: "Against a ship or aircraft, persons or property which are in a place not subject to the jurisdiction of any State."

The problem is not that there are no regulations; the problem with illegal fishing is that the Argentine authorities have not taken the necessary measures to end this scourge.

Dr. César Augusto Lerena, Expert on the South Atlantic and Fisheries – Former Secretary of State, President of the Center for Latin American Fisheries Studies