从“公共池”到“鱼池”:挪威和加拿大传统水域财产制度的变迁

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Ocean Development and International Law Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218
Apostolos Tsiouvalas, J. Evans
{"title":"从“公共池”到“鱼池”:挪威和加拿大传统水域财产制度的变迁","authors":"Apostolos Tsiouvalas, J. Evans","doi":"10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although exclusive common pool resource management regimes have locally been applied since time immemorial in many coastal and fjord areas, in the legal conceptualization of space, the oceans and their living resources were traditionally treated as a “global commons.” The idea of restricting access to coastal oceanic resources and delegating their governance to state instruments has become increasingly popular since the middle of the previous century when political economy models predicted the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. While state jurisdictions overall continue to preserve the idea of common access to marine living resources for a state’s people, the rapid privatization of marine living resources and the subsequent development of aquaculture over the last few decades, often confront this understanding, leading to enclosure of a delineated maritime area that was initially intended to be accessible to the public. Enclosing the sea for the purpose of aquaculture development leads to a semantic change in property institutions that govern coastal areas and provides for a form of enclosure of the commons in key locations designated for marine aquaculture development. This article explores the concept of “ocean commons” and debates how the enclosure of common areas for the purposes of aquaculture development may collide with Indigenous and local conceptions of common pool resource management. The article applies this theoretical investigation on two examples from Canada and Norway, and suggests that rethinking aquaculture development in coastal waters through the lens of “ocean commons” may provide a guiding ethos for revisiting current approaches of access to the sea and ensuring the harmonious coexistence between aquaculture development and local/Indigenous traditional activities.","PeriodicalId":45771,"journal":{"name":"Ocean Development and International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From “Common Pools” to “Fish Pools”: Shifting Property Institutions in Traditional Waters of Norway and Canada\",\"authors\":\"Apostolos Tsiouvalas, J. Evans\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although exclusive common pool resource management regimes have locally been applied since time immemorial in many coastal and fjord areas, in the legal conceptualization of space, the oceans and their living resources were traditionally treated as a “global commons.” The idea of restricting access to coastal oceanic resources and delegating their governance to state instruments has become increasingly popular since the middle of the previous century when political economy models predicted the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. While state jurisdictions overall continue to preserve the idea of common access to marine living resources for a state’s people, the rapid privatization of marine living resources and the subsequent development of aquaculture over the last few decades, often confront this understanding, leading to enclosure of a delineated maritime area that was initially intended to be accessible to the public. Enclosing the sea for the purpose of aquaculture development leads to a semantic change in property institutions that govern coastal areas and provides for a form of enclosure of the commons in key locations designated for marine aquaculture development. This article explores the concept of “ocean commons” and debates how the enclosure of common areas for the purposes of aquaculture development may collide with Indigenous and local conceptions of common pool resource management. The article applies this theoretical investigation on two examples from Canada and Norway, and suggests that rethinking aquaculture development in coastal waters through the lens of “ocean commons” may provide a guiding ethos for revisiting current approaches of access to the sea and ensuring the harmonious coexistence between aquaculture development and local/Indigenous traditional activities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ocean Development and International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ocean Development and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ocean Development and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320.2023.2200218","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管自远古以来,许多沿海和峡湾地区就在当地应用了专属的公共池资源管理制度,但在空间的法律概念中,海洋及其生物资源传统上被视为“全球公地”。自上世纪中叶以来,限制对沿海海洋资源的获取并将其管理委托给国家机构的想法日益流行,当时政治经济模型预测,所有共同使用的资源最终会过度开发或退化。虽然各州的司法管辖区总体上继续保留着该州人民共同获取海洋生物资源的概念,但在过去几十年里,海洋生物资源的迅速私有化和随后的水产养殖发展,往往与这一理解相悖,导致最初打算向公众开放的划定的海洋区域被圈定。为水产养殖发展而围海导致管理沿海地区的财产制度发生语义变化,并在指定用于海洋水产养殖发展的关键地点提供了一种圈地形式。本文探讨了“海洋公地”的概念,并讨论了以水产养殖发展为目的的公共区域的圈闭如何与土著和地方公共池资源管理的概念发生冲突。本文将这一理论研究应用于加拿大和挪威的两个例子,并建议通过“海洋公地”的视角重新思考沿海水域的水产养殖发展,可以为重新审视当前的海洋获取方式和确保水产养殖发展与当地/土著传统活动之间的和谐共存提供指导精神。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From “Common Pools” to “Fish Pools”: Shifting Property Institutions in Traditional Waters of Norway and Canada
Abstract Although exclusive common pool resource management regimes have locally been applied since time immemorial in many coastal and fjord areas, in the legal conceptualization of space, the oceans and their living resources were traditionally treated as a “global commons.” The idea of restricting access to coastal oceanic resources and delegating their governance to state instruments has become increasingly popular since the middle of the previous century when political economy models predicted the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. While state jurisdictions overall continue to preserve the idea of common access to marine living resources for a state’s people, the rapid privatization of marine living resources and the subsequent development of aquaculture over the last few decades, often confront this understanding, leading to enclosure of a delineated maritime area that was initially intended to be accessible to the public. Enclosing the sea for the purpose of aquaculture development leads to a semantic change in property institutions that govern coastal areas and provides for a form of enclosure of the commons in key locations designated for marine aquaculture development. This article explores the concept of “ocean commons” and debates how the enclosure of common areas for the purposes of aquaculture development may collide with Indigenous and local conceptions of common pool resource management. The article applies this theoretical investigation on two examples from Canada and Norway, and suggests that rethinking aquaculture development in coastal waters through the lens of “ocean commons” may provide a guiding ethos for revisiting current approaches of access to the sea and ensuring the harmonious coexistence between aquaculture development and local/Indigenous traditional activities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Ocean Development and International Law is devoted to all aspects of international and comparative law and policy concerning the management of ocean use and activities. It focuses on the international aspects of ocean regulation, ocean affairs, and all forms of ocean utilization. The journal publishes high quality works of scholarship in such related disciplines as international law of the sea, comparative domestic ocean law, political science, marine economics, geography, shipping, the marine sciences, and ocean engineering and other sea-oriented technologies. Discussions of policy alternatives and factors relevant to policy are emphasized, as are contributions of a theoretical and methodological nature.
期刊最新文献
‘One Map to Rule Them All’? Revisiting Legalities Through Cartographic Representations of the Northwest Passage Challenging the Notion of a “Single Continental Shelf” The Polar Code Process and Sovereignty Bargains: Comparing the Approaches of Canada and Russia to POLARIS Can the International Regulatory Framework on Ships’ Routing, Ship Reporting, and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Accommodate Marine Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS)? From “Common Pools” to “Fish Pools”: Shifting Property Institutions in Traditional Waters of Norway and Canada
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1