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).