Trust, Geopolitics, and the Limits of Legalism in Global Ocean Governance: Regional Practices and Practical Challenges

Abstract

Global ocean governance is frequently framed as a legal and institutional success, anchored in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and reinforced by a growing architecture of specialized agreements. Yet persistent challenges in fisheries, marine environmental protection, maritime safety, and scientific research reveal a disconnect between legal norms and governance outcomes. This issue brief argues that the principal obstacles to effective ocean governance stem less from legal ambiguity, substantial though it can be, than from geopolitical mistrust, uneven implementation capacity, and the operational limits of legalism in contested or strategically sensitive maritime spaces. Drawing on concrete examples from regional practice, this brief demonstrates how trust‑based mechanisms, informal coordination, and regional governance arrangements function as indispensable complements to global legal frameworks. It concludes that sustainable and stable ocean governance requires a rebalancing of emphasis, shifting from international law as an endpoint to law as an enabling framework embedded within political, social, and regional realities.

Ocean Governance Beyond Legal Architecture

The world’s oceans are governed by a highly sophisticated legal framework, yet these laws remain among the most contested in global politics.  Under the framework of UNCLOS, maritime jurisdiction has been codified, navigation rights delineated, and obligations established for environmental protection, resource management, and dispute settlement.[ii] Subsequent agreements, such as those governing fisheries, marine pollution, and biodiversity, have further strengthened the normative architecture of international ocean governance. From a legal perspective, the oceans appear, at first glance, well governed, even if certain aspects remain directly disputed.

Maritime realities tell a different, and much more fragmented, story. Overfishing continues at alarming rates, marine ecosystems are under severe stress in most areas of the world, incidents and provocations at sea frequently escalate into diplomatic tensions and military confrontations, and scientific cooperation is often constrained by suspicion and geopolitical interests. These outcomes persist despite the presence of legal rules that, in principle, should address each of these challenges impartially.  This discrepancy points to a structural problem, namely, that the assumption that better legislation necessarily leads to better governance does not hold true in practice.

This issue brief challenges the assumption that international law alone can improve the maritime environment and resolve maritime tensions. It contends that global ocean governance is constrained not primarily by deficiencies in legal design, but by the limits of international law in a domain shaped by geopolitics, strategic mistrust, and operational complexity. Law is essential, but it does not enforce itself, nor can it overcome political motivations and mistrust. Effective governance, particularly in sensitive maritime regions, depends on trust, confidence‑building, and regionally embedded practices that enable cooperation even when political disagreements persist. However, international law has frequently struggled to provide the mechanisms necessary to institutionalize this level of cooperation.

The analysis proceeds through a series of regional cases selected to span the principal functional domains of ocean governance—maritime security, fisheries, environmental protection, and navigational safety—and to vary deliberately in the degree of political trust between the actors involved. Drawing on both high-trust settings, such as the Nordic and Baltic seas, and contested or low-trust regions, such as the South China Sea and the eastern Atlantic, allows the role of trust, as distinct from legal density, to be isolated as a determinant of governance outcomes. The cases are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive, chosen to highlight recurring mechanisms rather than to provide a comprehensive survey. The analysis moves from the geopolitical character of the maritime domain, through the limits of legalism and the practical record of fisheries and environmental governance, to the roles of trust, informal mechanisms, and regional platforms, before drawing out the implications for global reform.