Page 180 - Economia Azul - versão: inglês

Taking Young’s four priority agendas tic,and Antarctica, while the rest of the international relations theory. Some models al., 2009), fractal (RAYE, 2014), conflictive
(2021) - climate, pandemic, cyberspace, and world remains partially excluded. Research for governance lead to different research (ANSELMI, 2018) and transformative (ERI-
biotechnology -, the continuous and rele- agencies of those “tech powerhouses” are agendas: polycentric (CARLISLE and GRU- NOSHO, 2021). But the list is not exhaust-
vant participation of private sector actors in bringing together space and hadal tech- BY, 2019); multi-stakeholders (GLECK- ive. In summary, perhaps the best question
international decision-making processes be- nology. NASA, for example, is using lessons MAN, 2018); multi-level (HOOGHE and governance has to answer is: what game
comes clearer. Because they understand that from the Perseverance spacecraft on Mars MARKS, 2001); fragmented (BIERMANN et are the great powers playing?
States do not deliver the expected results to put Orpheus to the bottom of the sea.
alone, private actors invest in environmental, The other structure concerns the partic- Part 2 - Ocean Governance
social and governance practices (ESG) too. ipation of entrepreneurs in the funding of
However, it cannot be said that companies scientific research and in the exploitation History has shaped global governance jurisdiction, including the Artic and the Ant-
contribute to justice and resource allocation of resources beyond national jurisdiction. as well as ocean governance. The para- arctic polar regions. On the other hand, ma-
on a global scale. On the contrary, because There are other important actors and ar- digms of geopolitical competition and in- rine biological and mineral resources are also
they aim at profit and the conquest of new rangements, such as commercial agree- stitutional scope of spaces beyond national dealt with in the economic and commercial
consumers and markets, companies were ments between major players, including jurisdiction are central to the apprehension agendas, due to their enormous value for
not created to reinforce aspects of justice giant companies, called “big techs” in cur- of ocean governance. The great navigations the near future, given that technological
and allocation of governance (DAUVERGNE, rent literature. There are also public financial since the 15th century correspond to the progress tends to make their exploitation in-
2021). The geopolitics of the vaccine (RI- aid to entrepreneurs exploring outer space, race of the European powers of the time for creasingly viable. These two dimensions of
BEIRO, 2020), and their strategic conse- such as Richard Branson, Elon Musk and the appropriation of natural resources and the same complex problem – the environ-
quences (QUEIROZ and CUNHA, 2021), in Jeffrey Bezos, and the seabed, such as Vic- commerce. Synthesized as wars of coloniza- mental/scientific/technological and econom-
which giant companies are directly involved, tor Vescovo. The result of their interaction tion and decolonization, their main legacy ic/commercial dimensions – are often poorly
are just the most recent illustration of this has a direct impact on the space and ocean was the structural dependence on the me- connected (CUNHA et al., 2021), which al-
point. The current result is clear: the weak- race, as well as on the progress of science. tropolises. Likewise, the history of the Arctic lows for the creation of incoherent or, at the
ened UN system and the WTO, growing po- Therefore, global governance is a theoreti- and Antarctica was marked by the geopo- very least, inconsistent priorities, as will be
litical radicalism within democratic states, cal concept that changes with structural and litical, technological, and economic/com- discussed throughout the text. The concept
unprecedented concentration of income on conjunctural changes. Consolidated with mercial competition of the great powers. of “conflictive governance” refers to this
a global scale and the growing exclusion of the supposed “new order”, it is not limit- From the beginning of the 20th century to tension between sustainability and commer-
the most vulnerable states and peoples. ed to Public International Law and is not an the present day, the main change was the cial priorities in different multilateral arenas
From the point of view of science, tech- action agenda for sustainable development. emergence of other powers, such as the (ANSELMI, 2018).
nology, and innovation (STI), there are rea- The contemporary international order can United States and China, with the recent Under the lens of “justice and alloca-
sons for “techno-optimism” (MILLS, 2021), be defined as a complex adaptive system, acceleration of the global economy. tion”, the great challenge for the global
but without forgetting the two structures marked by non-linearity, interconnections, Obviously, the Blue Economy theme is governance of the ocean is the “blue ac-
that make up the global architecture. One and emergence (PRANTL, 2020, p. 9). not limited to environmental governance. celeration” (JOUFFRAY et al., 2021), that
is the superiority of a few Northern coun- Challenged by the failures and crises However, our academic experience leads us is, the vertiginous growth of the extent, di-
tries, which promote and uphold intellectu- of the Millennium, global governance to two conclusions. On the one hand, al- versity, and intensity in which the resources
al property rights, in line with the interests corresponds to power relations (rapports though the law of the sea and maritime law of the sea are exploited, inside and outside
of private sector actors. The strong inter- de force) within multilateral and regional do not fully fit this conclusion, the environ- the law. One of the main challenges is the
connection between diplomacy, army and structures, as well as in the axes of pow- mental and sustainability dimension prevails claims for the extension of sovereignty
science in powerful countries allows them er from Washington, Moscow or Beijing. in international debates on the management over the continental shelves, in accordance
to compete for the exploration of space, Furthermore, governance does not have of living and non-living marine resources, as with article 76 of the United Nations Con-
the high seas, the deep seabed, the Arc- a simple or even consensual definition in well as the ocean as a space beyond national vention on the Law of the Sea, known as

178 BLUE ECONOMY Ocean Governance: the Beacons of History 179