Critical Perspectives on the New Situation of Global Ocean Governance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper that seeks to utilize a critical perspectives to understand what is and how to manage the new situation of global ocean governance. I enjoyed reading it and learned from the process. The main suggestion is to think about what and how critical perspectives on the New Situation of Global Ocean Governance is the appropriate one here. There are four interrelated issues I can see:

1、 The opening section begins rather simply with general review about global ocean governance，I am not entirely sure whether this coverage is all that necessary for readers of this journal who should be relatively familiar with these debates. I was expecting to hear more about the research questions and arguments (such as critical jurisprudence perspective) but these were almost non-existent in the introduction section. This makes it hard to understand the research direction and significance of the study.  

2、 The main problem about this paper, in my view, lies in its lack of conceptual novelty. Many studies have already touched upon the challenges and limits to discourses and policies of ‘global ocean governance’, some of which have been initiated by non-state actors/organization. Indeed, the author has already covered some of these writings in the paper which raises the wider question about its contributions to existing literatures. As I pointed out earlier, the readers should be relatively familiar with general view around global ocean governance . As such, I wonder whether the author can be more focused in his/her review of the extant literatures, by zooming in more specifically on scholarly writings that deal with the relationship between global ocean governance and critical jurisprudence perspective. This would in turn allow the author to position the study in more nuanced and critical ways.

3、 The paper is also conceptually weak. There is no conceptual framework that is being proposed to guide the analysis. Given that the paper is about understanding the new situations of global ocean governance, I think it can benefit conceptually from global ocean governance in the Anthropocene debates that facilitate governance transformations towards more sustainable and equitable oceans. Specifically, scholars such as Brodie Rudolph T, Ruckelshaus M,Campbell, Lisa M and Peters, Kimberley, and Philip Steinberg have all sought to theorise agency of ocean and ‘ocean-centric’ approaches and these expositions could conceptually enhance the new agenda that is being espoused in the paper.

4、 The last is that there is already so much work done on the ‘new situation of global ocean governance’ that your conclusions fall a bit flat. In this final section, some of the argument of e.g. the introduction of theoretical perspectives such as the Anthropocene, complex systems theory, and the community of a shared future for mankind seems thin.

5、 Overall the article is well written and easy to follow. However, in parts, the author drifts into language that is wordy and jargon-filled. I would encourage the author to be more concise and to simplify the language here.

Overall the article is well written and easy to follow. However, in parts, the author drifts into language that is wordy and jargon-filled. I would encourage the author to be more concise and to simplify the language here.

The spelling of this manuscript requires proofreading and I recommend English language editing by a native speaker.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer very much for the feedback and comments. Please see below the changes made in the revised manuscript to address the requested changes. 

1. I understand the reviewer's meaning. Here is a clarification. As a review article, the main aim of this study is to analyze some new situations that have made challenges to the evolution of global ocean governance. The non-state actors, including the NGOs, are playing a much more influential role in the global ocean governance that we are familiar with and not surprised by. But according to critical international law, the NGO does not have the general objective role we thought of before. So here, the critical jurisprudence perspective here is more like a solution to use this perspective to re-examine no state actors in the global ocean governance objectively. This study does not explain how much contribution critical jurisprudence has made to understand global ocean governance; instead, we are alerting people that paying more attention to this perspective would help us have a deep and evolved understanding of the current situation.

2. Actually, this comment is closely connected to the question 1. Please see my clarification above.  I think "how to fundamentally use critical jurisprudence to contribute to global ocean governance" is an important topic for further research and analysis. However, that would be my next research article instead of this review article to analyze this centrally. So far, I did not see much existing literature arguing the relationship between global ocean governance and critical jurisprudence. That's why I highlighted here this perspective at least could help us to reexamine the NGOs in global ocean governance from a very innovative angle already (please see 3.4 details. This point is definitely not the mainstream views on the role of NGOs in ocean governance, which stands for my novelty. Many thanks to the critical jurisprudence.  )

3. We appreciate this suggestion and have included some new material to follow this guidance. Please see references 24, 33, 37. 

4. We agree. To address this, we have made a number of edits and rewritten the conclusion part to emphasize the complexity theory and Anthropocene. Please also see references 109-111. 

5. We agree. To address this, we have rewritten the whole article and deleted phrases and sentences that are redundant, repetitive, and parenthetical. (reduce >12% words). 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue addressed by the Author is of outstanding importance and has an adequate scientific value. However, the piece needs major adjustments substance-wise, with special regard to Section 2.3.

First, in addressing "Ocean Governance", the UNCLOS regime should be tackled thoroughly both with regard to the text of the Convention and to  practice of ITLOS and Annex VII Tribunals. Mention should be made also to the Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law currently pending before the ITLOS.

Second, the role and works of the ISA and IMO in the field of protection of the marine enviroment should be further elaborated, too.

Third, the outcome of the BBNJ negotiation, hopefully concluded in March 2023, should be analysed, given its major impact in the protection of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Last but not least, a proper presentation of general international law should be given, with special regard to the role of States as the sole law-maker on the basis of the Westphalian principle (which is not codified at Article 38 ICJ Statute, contrary to the Author's opinion).

 

The English is readable. I would just suggest:

- minor editorial changes so as to conform to offical practice (eg the acronym for the UN Division for Oceans and the Law of the Sea is "DOALOS" rather than "DOAOS").

- Reduce the repetitions (eg: page one, reduce the iteration of the word "global".

Author Response

We thank the reviewer very much. Please see below the changes made in the revised manuscript to address the comments. We rewrite Section 2.3 and include such materials following the reviewer's guidance. 

The Advisory Opinion of 12 December 2022 is emphasized here, and the role of IMO & ISA, the BBNJ, and the States' central role are all included in this new rewritten Section. Please see references 24, 33-40, and 46; with their matching new content. 

For the Quality of the English Language, to address this, we have rewritten the whole article and deleted phrases and sentences that are redundant, repetitive, and parenthetical. (reduce >12% words).

Besides Section 2.3, we rewrite and include some content in other parts, and also the conclusion part. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the revised draft has reached the publishing standard of sustainability journals, and I suggest it be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is now publishable

The work is now publishable