Now consider the possibility of bringing into existence one of these possible worlds. Importantly from behind the ‘veil of ignorance’ the choice of which possible world to bring into existence is made without the person (or persons) making the decision knowing which state they exist within. Which possible world should they rationally choose? The logic driving the method of the veil of ignorance is that the person making a decision about which possible world to bring into existence should rationally choose W2, because they do not know which state they will exist within. The detail of each possible world can be increased indefinitely and can change across a number of dimensions, for example the method can be applied in terms of the person or persons choosing between some set of possible worlds may not know which generation of humans they will exist within in any of the possible worlds. But the simple example described here is sufficient for present purposes.
The relevance of this Rawlsian method being applied in this paper is as follows. When different actual and/or possible ocean governance systems are considered, the following question will be asked: Would a person or state behind the veil of ignorance choose the particular governance system under consideration (or some other system)? If some other system would be chosen from behind the veil of ignorance this is evidence that the system under consideration is lacking in distributive justice. This is important, in that it is acknowledged that differing interests at different levels of decision-making will have more power and ability to make a difference to policy and its successful implementation. Thus, a procedural justice framework will be needed for fairness evaluation that covers all roles and all contexts of power.
A global network of MPAs
The Aichi Target 11 and the SDG 14.5 have not been met on a global scale. In 2020, 7.9% of the world’s ocean was covered by protected areas, just shy of the 10% goal of Aichi Target 11. However, this coverage is unequally dispersed around the globe, with areas of ocean under national jurisdiction (i.e. within EEZs) having significantly more protection (18.4%) than high seas areas (>200nm from the coast), which cover only 1.2% of the ocean (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020).