Regional Ocean Governance Research Articles

Evolution of the South China Sea geo-pattern based on the “geo-potential-strategic triangle” framework

The South China Sea region is one of the most important international geopolitical problem regions. Against the background of international power transfer and China's peaceful rise, the changes in the South China Sea geo-pattern based on the power game not only concern China's national territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, but also profoundly affect the security order of the Asia-Pacific region and even the world. In order to better study the evolution of the South China Sea geo-pattern and to judge the overall security situation, this study constructs a “geo-potential-strategic triangle” analytical framework to explore the evolution of the South China Sea geo-pattern from 2000 to 2018. The study shows that: (1) the geo-potential of each geo-actor shows a generally increasing trend. Based on the evolution curve of the South China Sea geo-pattern obtained from the geo-potential comparison, the South China Sea geo-pattern during the study period can be divided into the overall stabilization stage (2000–2010) and the tense phase(2010–2018). (2) through the mutual corroboration analysis of the evolution curve of the South China Sea geo-pattern and the interaction facts of related geo-actors, the assessment results coincide with the development of the security situation in the South China Sea region. This validates the applicability of the analytical framework in the geo-strategic intersection areas. The study aims to provide a new way of thinking for the quantitative assessment and analysis of the geo-pattern in the South China Sea region and other geo-strategic intersection areas. The study can help to objectively depict the evolution of the South China Sea geo-pattern, grasp the security situation in the South China Sea, and provide decision-making aids for sustainable peace and security, and differences management among the nations in the South China Sea region. This will further promote the construction of the regional ocean governance system and the construction of a closer “maritime community with a shared future”.

The Control of Microplastic Pollution in Semi-Closed Seas: Good-Faith Cooperation and Regional Practice

The impacts of microplastic (MP) pollution in the marine environment have already been illustrated by natural science. The issues resulting from MPs have revealed the problem of the current international governance arrangement, and international agreements are found to be inadequate to curb the growing MP pollution. This article explores reasons for the failure of governance cooperation from legal normativism and positivism. By analyzing the semi-closed sea system in the UNCLOS, this article concludes that the principle of good faith makes it possible to moderate geographic political tensions during cooperation and help reach an agreement on matters of mutual concern. Then, from the perspective of regional ocean governance, propose strategies for states bordering semi-enclosed seas and others to gradually control MP pollution in the marine environment through legal and policy measures.

Analysis of ocean ontologies in three frameworks: A study of law of the sea discourse

Legal frameworks have historically used a colonial territorialist approach to governing ocean space. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) represents a theoretical departure from colonial territorialism. Instead, UNCLOS employs a functionalist logic approach that is based on principles of sovereignty and consent and uses administrative reasoning as a basis for decision-making. This paper investigates what ontological principles are employed in the development of UNCLOS and asks how these are reproduced in other frameworks. I consider whether ontologies can be extrapolated and studied as latent but agential positions in ocean law and governance frameworks and examine how they might be obstructive to the development of effective regional ocean governance. Lastly, I ask whether ontological principles can be reformed, and through what type of interventions this might be achieved. Results show that tenets of colonial territorialism persist in UNCLOS as terrestrialising practices that are reappropriated towards marine communities. Further, that there are fundamental ways in which ontological principles are obstructive to conservation goals in ocean governance frameworks. Lastly, while the structural reproduction of ontological principles between frameworks resists intervention, evidence suggests that interventionist legal mechanisms that displace anthropocentrisms may offer distinct opportunities for reform.

Examining Institutional Arrangements toward Coordinated Regional Ocean Governance and Blue Economy Policy Development in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

Members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) exhibit strong economic, social and cultural connection with and dependence on the marine and coastal environment. Efforts to encourage the sustainable use and protection of the ocean and its resources should therefore be an area of interest and competence for the regional group which seeks to engender cooperation in matters of economic and social development. This paper examines the regionally relevant institutional arrangements that frame and execute ocean development and governance within CARICOM. It finds that while some important sectors, such as fisheries and tourism, have specific organizations established geared toward regional coordination in management of those activities, others, including offshore oil and gas, marine scientific research, and port and shipping development, lack similar arrangements. Additionally, the CARICOM group lags in adopting a holistic, ecosystem approach to ocean management with siloed approaches dominating and few formal mechanisms for intersectoral coordination existing. This paper advocates for and proposes means toward increased integration at a regional level for the management and continued governance of the marine space, its associated resources and activities. It also seeks to encourage the participatory development of a regional blue economy policy framework and strategy which would outline, among other things, CARICOM’s ocean vision and development priorities.

Towards a Blue Revolution in the Bay of Bengal: Tackling Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Through Effective Regional Cooperation

Abstract This article argues that the Bay of Bengal coastal States have largely failed to comply with their ‘duty to cooperate’ with other States in managing and conserving fisheries resources in the Bay. The obligation to cooperate is found in applicable international and national instruments and is also regarded as a rule of customary international law. This failure of rim States to effectively engage with other States within the region in regulating marine fisheries has exacerbated the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Bay. This article recommends a major overhaul of the regional ocean governance arrangement in the region, which would help tackle IUU fishing and, in turn, facilitate the achievement of blue growth through ensuring sustainable exploitation and conservation of marine living resources in the Bay. The article finally moots for developing a regional agenda towards forming a dedicated scheme to deal with IUU fishing.

Unity or Fragmentation in the Deep Blue: Choices in Institutional Design for Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

Delegations are in the final stages of negotiating the proposedAgreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction(BBNJAgreementorAgreement). TheAgreementwill have tremendous scope. Geographically it covers all ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction, meaning approximately 60 percent of the earth’s surface. Substantively it deals with a range of complex topics necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, including marine genetic resources, sharing of benefits, measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. Existing scholarship primarily explores the substantive choices for theAgreement; little examines its proposed institutional structure. This article critically assesses the competing positions advanced during negotiations for theAgreement’sinstitutional structure – the ‘global’ and ‘regional’ positions – and reviews the middle, or ‘compromise’ position adopted by the draft text. It suggests that both global and regional actors will be necessary to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and that some form of coordinating mechanism is required to allocate responsibility for particular tasks. Two principles are proposed for use in combination to provide a mechanism to help coordinateAgreementorgans (global) and regional or sectoral bodies, namely, the principles of subsidiarity and cooperation. These principles are found in existing international and regional structures but are advanced here in dynamic forms, allowing for temporary or quasi-permanent allocation of competences, which can change or evolve over time. This position is also grounded in the international law of treaties and furthers dynamic views of regional and global ocean governance by offering practical coordinating principles that work with the existingAgreementtext.

Polycentricity and Regional Ocean Governance: Implications for the Emerging UN Agreement on Marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction

The governance of the two-thirds of the world’s ocean in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the high seas and deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction or ABNJ) is currently fragmented into diverse institutions addressing specific activities, issues or regions. This has hampered the international community’s ability to redress critical issues including biodiversity loss, pollution, climate change, ecosystem degradation and declining fisheries in an integrated and ecosystem-based manner. Our analysis of polycentricity theory and associated enabling conditions shows that the current polycentric approach to marine biodiversity in ABNJ is not yet fully functional: it is missing the two key attributes of: (1) generally applicable rules and norms structuring actions and behaviors, and (2) processes to enhance cooperation, coordination, and conflict resolution. Based on the enabling conditions conducive for achieving “a functional polycentric governance system” identified in Carlisle and Gruby (2019), combined with a prior analysis applying resilience principles for socio-ecological systems to ABNJ (Yadav and Gjerde, 2020), this article suggests seven ways the emerging United Nations agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of ABNJ (BBNJ Agreement) could stimulate coordinated and integrated action at both global and regional levels in ABNJ. These include: (1) overarching rules, goals and objectives; (2) formal and informal conflict resolution mechanisms; (3) robust global institutional arrangements; (4) strengthened global, regional and sectoral bodies with shared and overlapping responsibility for biodiversity conservation; (5) strengthened cooperation through integrated ecosystem assessments and strategic action programmes at ecologically meaningful scales that could include areas within and beyond national jurisdiction; (6) learning exchange mechanisms within and across regions; and (7) strengthened regional and national capacities for ecosystem-based management in ABNJ. Taken together, these tools could enhance the resilience of ocean institutions, ecosystems and biodiversity to cope with growing pressures, uncertainty and rapid change in ABNJ.

Polycentric Regional Ocean Governance Opportunity in the Benguela Current Convention

The Benguela Current Convention (BCC) has been operational for a decade and has emerged from the precursor natural and fisheries science large marine ecosystem programs. This regional ocean governance institution emerged indigenously as an intergovernmental working arrangement across the Republics of Angola, Namibia, and South Africa. The Convention has been described as a Centralized Authority mode of regional ocean governance. This paper explores this description with reference to the ecosystem-based approach to marine management. The study is focused on the level of working arrangements within the Convention and its Commission across the national and regional scales. It finds that the BCC does meet the theoretical criteria of a polycentric governance mechanism at the resolution of its operations. Polycentric ocean governance mechanisms are valued in regional ocean governance as they potentially offer greater impact through higher levels of coordination, codesign, and integration. Polycentric governance systems incorporate multiple centers of authority that operate at different scales. Existing instances and further opportunities for polycentric governance mechanisms within the working arrangements of the Convention are identified for the Southeast Atlantic.

Exploring the Nexus and Utilities Between Regional and Global Ocean Governance Architecture

Regional and global ocean governance share complex, co-evolutionary histories in which both regimes – among others – interacted with and used the ocean and resources therein to consolidate, expand, and express power. Simultaneously, regional and global ocean governance relations have changed continuously, particularly when we are trying to understand their differences within the logic of regionalisation, regionalism, and globalisation. The paper is generally based on deductive reasoning and reflects scholarship in security studies, political science, international law, international relation, development studies, and African studies. It delves into the critical aspect of understanding the nexus/relationship between regional and global ocean governance in critical traditional and contemporary ocean policy domains, specifically from an African regional ocean governance standpoint. Ocean governance processes that are historically confronted by globalisation, multilateralism, and post-colonisation are confronted by the rise of regionalism, especially the need for nation-states and regions to respond to and manage traditional and emerging ocean challenges. Responses to these challenges by various actors, including states, economic blocks, private sector, financial institutions, and non-governmental organisations, development partners, etc., result in different forms of relationships that refocus regions’ activities toward globally defined ocean agendas. A review of different policy domains (including maritime security, environmental, economic, and socio-political governance) critical for regional ocean governance sets a robust background for understanding the contextual factors and concerns inherent in the regional-global ocean governance nexus. These outcomes, therefore, help us to arrive at a five-fold taxonomy of different types/degrees of linkages developed around the regional-global ocean governance relationship spectrum described as (1) discrete, (2) conflictual, (3) cooperative, (4) symmetric, and (5) ambiguous. Comparatively, experience and perspective from Africa are utilised to support raised arguments about these linkages. Furthermore, this spectrum allows for the diagnosis of the utilities and most prevalent arguments that regional governance’s effectiveness is directly related to the nature of the interaction between regional governance schemes and global governance; and vice-versa. This paper’s outcomes reveal how government, institutions, actors, and researchers address the relationship between regional and global ocean governance and generate a valuable way to think about current and future global and regional ocean governance direction while outlining some logical possibilities for an effective form of ocean governance.

Scoping Science-Policy Arenas for Regional Ocean Governance in the Wider Caribbean Region

This paper explores the diversity of relationships that exist between science and policy and which underpin the uptake of science in oceans policy-making in the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR). We refer to these complex relationships, influenced by organizational culture and environments, as science-policy arenas. The paper examines the types of decisions that require science input, where the decision-making responsibility lies, who the science providers are, and how science gets translated into advice for a suite of 20 regional Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs). The picture that emerges is one of a diverse suite of well-structured and active science-policy processes, albeit with several deficiencies. These processes appear to be somewhat separated from a broad diversity of potential science inputs. The gap appears largely due to lack of accessibility and interest in both directions (providers <-> consumers), with IGOs apparently preferring to use a relatively small subset of available expertise. At the same time, there is a small number of boundary-spanners, many of which are newly emerging, that carry out a diversity of functions in seeking to address the gap. Based on our scoping assessment, there is an urgent need for actors to understand the networks of interactions and actively develop them for science-policy interfaces to be effective and efficient. This presents a major challenge for the region where most countries are small and have little if any science capacity. Innovative mechanisms that focus more on processes for accessing science than on assembling inventories of available information are needed. A managed information hub that can be used to build teams of scientists and advisors to address policy questions may be effective for the WCR given its institutional complexity. More broadly, recognition of the potential value of boundary spanning activities in getting science into policy is needed. Capacity for these should be built and boundary spanning organizations encouraged, formalized and mainstreamed.

The Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR): The Emergence of a Voluntary Regional Cooperation Mechanism for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity Within a Fragmented Regional Ocean Governance Landscape

The San Jose Declaration formally established the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor (CMAR) in 2004, a voluntary regional cooperation mechanism created by the coastal States of Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama in response to anthropogenic pressures in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, one of the most productive and biodiverse oceans in the world. This article will explain how, in the absence of a coherent, overarching regional ocean governance framework, these four coastal States came together to create a regional cooperation mechanism for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. The key normative features of CMAR will be examined, as well as legal and governance challenges, such as its non-binding nature, large scale, limited sectoral engagement, and insufficient resources. The analysis will be couched within a discussion of the wider regional ocean governance framework, which remains fragmented, with gaps and overlaps in terms of membership, mandates and geographic coverage. Possibilities for integration, and the potential impact of a new treaty protecting biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ), will also be considered.

Advancing Ocean Governance in Marine Regions Through Stakeholder Dialogue Processes

The poor state of the ocean and the transboundary nature of the marine environment require bold action by States coordinated across sectors and territorial boundaries in order to deal with the manifold challenges the ocean is facing—and with it humankind. Cooperation and coordination among States and stakeholders in marine regions have proven to be important levers for policy implementation and to strengthen ocean governance, yet remain challenging. Transparent and engaging stakeholder dialogue processes have the potential to provide guidance for the necessary transformation toward ocean sustainability and support the attainment of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for the ocean, SDG 14 and other interlinked ocean-related targets. The aim of this study is to review the challenges and opportunities of current collaborative efforts, namely multi-stakeholder dialogue and exchange processes, within and between marine regions to accelerate transformative action, contributing to these global goals. This paper builds on knowledge co-production and collaborative governance literature, and reviews experiences by stakeholders with ocean-related science-policy interfaces in an effort to strengthen regional ocean governance. As an exemplary case of such interfaces, this study assesses the Marine Regions Forum, a newly established inclusive dialogue and exchange platform for diverse actors from marine regions that aims to provide an informal space for joint learning and support regional action and international governance processes alike. Employing latent content analysis of interviews with experts, critical common barriers that hamper current collaborative efforts amongst stakeholders in marine regions are identified, such as fragmented governance frameworks, power and resource imbalances, and lack of meaningful stakeholder engagement. Pathways to address these challenges, such as through common goal orientation, contextualisation, inclusivity, trust building and meaningful continuous interactions are also identified. This paper concludes by discussing the value added of transparent and inclusive collaborative processes in the transformation of ocean governance toward achieving sustainability.

Navigating the Complexity of Regional Ocean Governance Through the Large Marine Ecosystems Approach

Governance is a multifaceted and complex process, involving a wide range of stakeholders from numerous institutions and individuals with different interests, agendas and sets of skills. A number of barriers exist for states to work together on securing their shared coastal and marine ecosystems, with discussions often becoming clouded when disputes arise over Exclusive Economic Zones, borders, oil and gas resources, continental shelves, maritime transport, and fisheries. Over the last twenty-six years, the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF) International Waters focal area has utilized the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) approach to navigate the complex problems related to transboundary issues affecting the world’s marine ecosystems, of which forty-one out of sixty-six are shared (62%) by one or more countries. To overcome the disputes and assumptions about the intentions of neighboring states, the GEF developed the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis-Strategic Action Programme (TDA-SAP) assessment and strategic planning processes to help countries learn how to work together and build trust. This formal and inclusive process analyses all pertinent factual and scientific information to set priorities for action. This practical method for integrating science into management has provided an effective approach to inform and advance sustainable LME management and governance regimes; however, there is not a one size fits all approach. This review presents six examples from the GEF International Waters portfolio that demonstrate how the LME Approach and TDA-SAP process have helped countries find the best way to mainstream ecosystem-based management approaches into existing contexts and politics. While these examples span a wide range of different settings (geographic, political, socio-economic, temporal), they have all applied the LME Approach and TDA-SAP process to tackle complex regional ocean governance issues. Each example provides a historical perspective, the key results achieved, and their unique lessons learned/best practices. Furthermore, the review identifies some of the overall shortcomings of the process and the common lessons learned, underscoring the complex and daunting challenge of achieving effective governance for multi-country LMEs. The experience provided by these examples shows that practical ecosystem-based management of the ocean and its coasts not only requires flexibility and adaptability, but also time, associated long-term vision and commitment.

Challenges to Implementing Regional Ocean Governance in the Wider Caribbean Region

For over two decades, the countries, subregional and regional level intergovernmental organizations in the Wider Caribbean Region (WCR) have been engaged in an initiative to implement a regional governance approach for managing the shared living marine resources of the Caribbean Sea and adjacent regions. Given the inherent socio-economic and geopolitical complexity of the region, this approach has been recognized as essential to address the challenges associated with the interconnected nature of shared ecosystem goods and services upon which countries in the region depend. This paper uses a retrospective lens to shed light on the challenges confronting the region and its efforts to overcome them. It is based on the Large Marine Ecosystem Governance Framework developed specifically for the WCR in 2006 and characterized as “learning by doing.” Data were obtained for this study through desktop review of published literature documenting progress over the period 2001–2021 and insights requested from 15 key individual and institutional contributors involved in the initiative. While the lack of financial resources was an underpinning and cross-cutting issue, key constraints identified were categorized as institutional, capacity building, awareness raising, leadership, legal, political, social capital, or socio-cultural. They include national capacity to engage with regional level processes due to a variety of factors including funding, political, and institutional challenges of developing a regional coordination mechanism, engaging the broader ocean community to create the critical mass needed, the difficulty of mainstreaming ocean affairs into high level political and decision-making fora and the scarcity of local, national and regional technical and political champions. This paper advances understanding of the barriers to be overcome in highly complex socio-politically developing regions if regional ocean governance initiatives are to play the essential role identified in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, reaping the sustainable benefits of a blue economy.

The role of ASEAN and its members in promoting the norm of responsible governance of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction

AbstractThis article analyses the potential of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its members to promote the norm of responsible governance of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Based on the literature on international norms, this article suggests that the norm of responsible governance of ABNJ biodiversity will soon reach the point of a norm cascade, after which it will gradually move towards the stage of norm internalization. As such, the norm can have the potential to standardize appropriate behaviour of States. This article examines ASEAN’s norm‐promotion activities within and outside the region that support an improved governance system for ABNJ. Notably, some ASEAN States play an important role both individually and collectively in the development of a new global legal instrument on marine biodiversity of ABNJ. The findings suggest that although the conservation of biodiversity of ABNJ has been the subject of debate for more than a decade, ASEAN’s initiatives to protect marine biodiversity of ABNJ are limited. This is not surprising considering the lack of jurisdiction in ABNJ. Nevertheless, ASEAN’s overall initiatives for conservation of the marine environment are highly relevant for its future role in ABNJ governance because some regional ocean governance norms are transferable in the ABNJ context.

Ocean Governance in the Asia-Pacific and the Arctic

Abstract This article summarizes and analyzes the main issues addressed at the 7th Asia-Pacific/Arctic Maritime Security Forum held in Halifax, Canada in Fall 2019. Experts attending this forum discussed issues such as a regional maritime security overview of the South China Sea, East China Sea, Indian Ocean and the Arctic, best practices of regional ocean governance models, maritime dispute settlement practices, maritime law enforcement, and marine environmental issues. A proposal was put forward on international cooperation with regard to maritime security, ocean governance and ocean capacity building.

Persistent Pollution in the Bay of Bengal: An Emerging Issue for Regional Ocean Governance

The Bay of Bengal is an area of 2.2 million square kilometres of the northern eastern part of Indian Ocean and underneath a part of the great Indo-Australian Plate. It is one of the world's 64 largest marine ecosystems with varied biological diversity consisting of inter alia – coral reefs, estuaries, fish spawning and nursery areas. It produces 6 million tons of fish corresponding to nearly 4% of the total global catch. More than 20% of the world’s population live in South Asia and it is the most densely populated region in the world. Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are five coastal states which are dependent on the Bay of Bengal for their livelihood. The Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna River system is one of the most dynamic river systems in the world, which carries lots of sediments and pollutants from the upper catchments. These are ultimately deposited in the Bay of Bengal and mixed with water and soil. Due to climate change, salinity intrusion, rapid population growth and urbanisation in recent decades, there has been a dramatic change in water pollution levels in the runoff of river systems leading to the Bay of Bengal. Accusing economic development, South Asian nations are inert to implement national and international legal instruments to prevent, reduce and control of marine pollution. According to SDG 14.1, countries must prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, including marine debris and litter by 2025. Therefore, national capacity building and regional binding and non-binding legal framework are essential to reduce trans-boundary marine pollution of the Bay of Bengal.

Regional ocean governance: Integrating and coordinating mechanisms for polycentric systems

Regional ocean governance has been flagged as critical for successful achievement on SDG14 and other ocean related SDGs. The 20 ocean regions of the world are characterized by clusters of multilevel intergovernmental arrangements relating to EBM. Among the many needs for strengthening ocean governance in these regions is the development of effective regional integrating and coordinating mechanisms. These have been emerging somewhat organically. This study explores the clusters of regional agreements in the 20 regions to determine the extent to which integration mechanisms are in place or planned. It also looks at the extent to which the concept of governance polycentricity can be applied in these regions. Only four regions have established regional integration mechanisms thought to be needed for ecosystem-based management; while such mechanisms are planned in five others. Seven regions do have some level of intersectoral coordination such as within fisheries or environment or at a subregional level in a Large Marine Ecosystem (LME). Four regions show no sign of regional coordination. The study also the extent to which regional clusters of arrangements actually meet criteria for polycentricity based on governance theory. Regions have taken different approaches to regional integration mechanisms, but mostly based on working with a polycentric multilevel system of governance, rather than trying to tame it. There is both the need, and an untapped potential, for increased learning among regions regarding integration mechanisms and the polycentric structure and function of the regional clusters that they are seeking to integrate.

Regional ocean governance: Polycentric arrangements and their role in global ocean governance

The importance of regional and subregional levels in global ocean governance is being increasingly recognised. Regional approaches are prominent in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. The UN Environment Regional Seas Programme bodies focusing on pollution and biodiversity and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) regional fisheries bodies focusing on fisheries are the best known regional arrangements. However, there are other regional and subregional multilateral agreements that should be considered in building comprehensive regional ocean governance; in particular ‘indigenous’ agreements developed by the countries of the regions. This study examined 165 regional arrangements related to ecosystem-based management of oceans and allocated them into 20 regional clusters covering most of the world's oceans. The study explores the characteristics of these regional clusters which exhibit characteristics of polycentric systems. The suite of 20 regional clusters as well as global level oceans arrangements raises the question of whether there is an overall governance structure that should be pursued to strengthen ocean governance as envisaged in the Sustainable Development Goals and provide a holistic context for improving regional ocean governance. This study poses the question as to whether polycentric regional clusters can provide the ‘missing link’ for achieving global ocean governance objectives and whether these clusters are more than just the sum of their arrangements.

Beyond “not undermining”: possibilities for global cooperation to improve environmental protection in areas beyond national jurisdiction

Abstract States have committed to “not undermine” relevant existing legal instruments, bodies, and frameworks in their negotiations over a new, legally binding instrument concerning biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). An agreed interpretation of “not undermine” will most likely be expressed through the institutional model adopted by this new instrument. Potential models should be evaluated in light of limitations on existing regional and sectoral ocean governance organizations, which may suggest governance gaps that the new instrument may fill. This article revisits the textual analysis of “not undermine” undertaken by Scanlon (2018) to explore its implications for the institutional models available to the new instrument. It reviews the practice of regional fishery management organizations as presented by Scanlon to identify areas where the new instrument might address persistent challenges. Finally, it suggests several potential models for the new instrument that might avoid “undermining” whereas improving governance outcomes in ABNJ. It concludes that a global institution with consultative links to existing organizations may provide the most logical means of implementation.