Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
rights principles contained in the Constitution and promotes a style of governance that
does justice to fisher interests, building from the bottom up.
9.8 CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter has investigated contemporary fisheries conflicts against the backdrop of
the ideal-typical, historical shift from legal monism to pluralism; the latter, we argued,
is the result of a substantial redefinition of the fisheries field due to industrialisation and
globalisation. In the pre-industrial era, many of the world's coastal fisheries, including
those of South Asia and South Africa, were marginal to the economy and to state affairs.
Laws that regulated the allocation and use of resources emerged largely fromwithin the
fishing population itself, as the consequence of collective action and the development
of customary law. Conflicts that took place could generally be dealt with within the
framework of a commonly accepted legal system - in the terminology of Rapoport
(1974), such conflicts were and are endogenous rather than exogenous in nature.
Moreover, these conflicts were of a relatively symmetrical kind, as the conflicting
parties occupied a more-or-less equivalent status and power position.
Industrialisation and globalisation fundamentally changed the nature of the fishing
game, increasing production and linking formerly isolated regions to commonmarkets.
Although all fishers have in some way or other taken part in these processes, some
actors have clearly benefitted more than others. The division between small- and large-
scale fisheries sub-sectors is a conspicuous feature of change in most parts of the world.
The conflicts between these fisher categories are partly due to their negative interactions
on the fishing grounds, but also to the power differentials that have come about. The
fact that large-scale fishers no longer subscribe to existing fisher law but to other
legal frameworks, is a substantial source of friction. Having changed in nature from
endogenous to exogenous, fishing conflicts are nowmore explosive, of longer duration,
and more difficult to resolve than they were before.
This is one reason why governments have been drawn into the field of fisheries
regulation - as fishers themselves proved unable to solve many of the new problems
that had come about, state agencies have stepped in, drafting law specifically for this
purpose. Behind the background of their involvement, however, lies another factor:
the wish to participate in the riches that the fisheries sector has now come to repre-
sent. According to this line of reasoning, legal pluralism in fisheries is thus intimately
connected to processes of industrialisation and globalisation, which have taken place
at various historical intervals across the globe.
Our argument has been that legal pluralism has complicated the fisheries picture,
as the various parties refer to different bodies of law. Fishing conflicts, which had
previously been endogenous, have now become exogenous, with no consensus about
norms, rules and dispute resolution processes. The Palk Bay case illustrates this state
of affairs. The fact that state law in this region is fundamentally divided - with gov-
ernments of India as well as Sri Lanka claiming jurisdiction over marine territory -
complicates the situation even further. In the case of South Africa, decades of institu-
tionalised racism and oppression of the black majority have also played a major role
in shaping the fisheries sector.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search