Rethinking the oceans and their management

Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

This article argues that the vision of the oceans that underlies the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is fundamentally outdated. The new conceptual framework for ocean management must be centered on the role the world’s oceans play in global supporting and regulating services, of which marine biota are critical components. These must be in turn be designated as an updated version of the Common Heritage of Mankind (CMH). Understanding marine ecosystem services well enough to manage oceans sustainably will require a large-scale, concerted international scientific effort in a time in which both science and the sense of global community are under direct assault. A new ocean regime must provide for an autonomous International Ocean Authority (IOA) that collects and integrates data, funds the necessary scientific work, builds epistemic communities, invests in or even provides scientific training, and offers, when necessary, safe haven to scientists and their work and to citizen activists.

Keywords

United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea Common Heritage of Mankind Marine ecological goods and services Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Oceans management 

References

  1. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (2012) Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United National Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982: Overview. Accessed January 30, 2018. https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_part_xi.htm
  2. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (2016) Oceans & Law of the Sea. September 2. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish_stocks.htm
  3. Group of Experts of the Regular Process (2016) The first global integrated marine assessment: World Ocean Assessment I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108186148 Google Scholar
  4. International Centre for Sustainable Development (2002) The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: origins and scope. Accessed January 30, 2018. http://cisdl.org/public/docs/news/brief_common.pdf
  5. International Seabed Authority (2018) International Seabed Authority. Accessed January 30, 2018. https://www.isa.org.jm/authority
  6. Lodge MW (2012) The common heritage of mankind. Int J Mar Coastal Law 27:733–742.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC: Island PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Moore S, Squires D (2016) Governing the depths: conceptualizing the politics of deep sea resources. Global Environ Polit 16(2):101–109.  https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Noyes JE (2012) The common heritage of mankind: past, present, and future. Denver J Int Law Policy 40(1–3):447–471 https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://r.duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1019&context=fs Google Scholar
  10. Pitcher TJ, Kalikoski D, Short K, Varkey D, Pramod G (2009) An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries. Marine Policy 33:223–232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.06.002
  11. Ranganathan S (2016) Global commons. Eur J Int Law 27(3):693–717.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chw037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rhein M, Rintoul SR, Aoki S, Campos E, Chambers D, Feely RA, Gulev S, Johnson GC, Josey SA, Kostianoy A, Mauritzen C, Roemmich D, Talley LD and Wang F (2013) Observations: oceans. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds), 255–316. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Rhodes C (2016) Potential international approaches to ownership/control of human genetic resources. Health Care Anal 24:260–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0300-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber H, Nykvist B, De Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falke M (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:Art. 32 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2018) Paris agreement—status of ratification. Accessed January 31, 2018. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php

Copyright information

© AESS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Political ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations