This argues that the only alternative is privatization.
I don’t think that’s true.
The issue here is that land that no one has authority over means that there is also no enforcement and that it’s a race to the bottom as to who will manage to exploit it to the point where it is destroyed and useless to anyone anymore. And why wouldn’t you, morals aside? It’s basically free resources for the exploiter with externalities shared by everyone. It doesn’t mean the solution is private ownership. Look at national parks, they’re publicly owned but they’re not a no man’s land so a government has authority to enforce conservation rules there and punish those who pollute/damage the park.
That’s what parent comment was perfectly illustrating: “not EU waters, not EU trawlers, why even lift a finger if Africa is too corrupt or financially unable to protect these ecosystems and the Chinese too cynical to refrain themselves?”
I don’t think that’s true.
The issue here is that land that no one has authority over means that there is also no enforcement and that it’s a race to the bottom as to who will manage to exploit it to the point where it is destroyed and useless to anyone anymore. And why wouldn’t you, morals aside? It’s basically free resources for the exploiter with externalities shared by everyone. It doesn’t mean the solution is private ownership. Look at national parks, they’re publicly owned but they’re not a no man’s land so a government has authority to enforce conservation rules there and punish those who pollute/damage the park.
That’s what parent comment was perfectly illustrating: “not EU waters, not EU trawlers, why even lift a finger if Africa is too corrupt or financially unable to protect these ecosystems and the Chinese too cynical to refrain themselves?”