Mô tả
This analysis compares two of these broad solutions for the management of maritime CPRs: privatization in the form of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and institutionalization via the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). By referring to Ostrom’s (1990) design principles as well as critiques of privatization (c.f. Wijkman, 1982), we conceptualize UNCLOS, an agreement once described as the “strongest comprehensive global environmental treaty negotiated to date” (Oxman, 1994: 169), as a double edged sword – its distributional shortcomings may hinder cooperation, but its conflict resolution mechanisms help to prevent conflict. We compare the effects of UNCLOS and EEZs on peaceful and militarized attempts to manage contentious maritime issues (e.g. disagreement over the ownership or usage of maritime resources) in the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe (1900-2001). We also examine the success of peaceful attempts to settle maritime issues, focusing on whether agreements are reached in given negotiation attempts and whether the resulting agreements are equitable with respect to concessions made by each side.
