You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Spec mapping (AQA 7037): Paper 2, §3.2.1 — the global commons; the concept and challenge of governing areas beyond national jurisdiction (with Antarctica as the AQA-specified detailed example); the role of international law, treaties and norms; the tension between sovereignty and collective responsibility. Strong synoptic links to §3.2.4 (Resource Security — oceans as a food/mineral resource; the atmosphere and climate) and to the water and carbon cycles. AOs: AO1 (the four commons, Hardin, Ostrom, the Antarctic Treaty, UNCLOS, the Paris Agreement), AO2 (explaining why some commons are governed more effectively than others) and AO3 (interpreting fish-stock, emissions, sea-level and treaty-ratification data).
The global commons are areas and resources lying beyond the jurisdiction of any single state, shared by all humanity. Governing them is one of the hardest problems in global governance: how do you manage a shared resource when no single authority owns it and no global sovereign can enforce the rules?
Key Definition: The global commons are areas and resources not owned by any nation-state and available for use by all. The four recognised commons are: the high seas (oceans beyond national jurisdiction), the atmosphere, Antarctica and outer space.
The concept of the "tragedy of the commons" was popularised by ecologist Garrett Hardin (1968) in Science. Hardin argued that shared resources are inevitably overexploited because each user gains the full benefit of their own extra use but bears only a fraction of the cost of degradation, which is spread across everyone.
graph TD
A[Shared resource open to all] --> B[Each user maximises individual use]
B --> C[Total use exceeds sustainable capacity]
C --> D[Resource degraded or destroyed]
D --> E[All users worse off]
B --> F[No individual has incentive to restrain use]
F --> C
Hardin's analogy is a shared grazing pasture: each herder gains the full value of an extra cow, while the cost of overgrazing is shared by all — so each rationally adds cattle until the pasture collapses. Individually rational decisions produce collective ruin. Hardin concluded that the only solutions were privatisation (enclose the commons) or coercive state regulation ("mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon").
The political scientist Elinor Ostrom (1990), who won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics, fundamentally challenged Hardin. In Governing the Commons, she showed empirically that communities can and do manage shared resources sustainably without either privatisation or top-down state control — through collective self-governance. From hundreds of cases (Alpine pastures, Japanese forests, Spanish irrigation, fisheries) she distilled eight design principles for durable commons institutions, including: clearly defined boundaries; rules matched to local conditions; collective-choice arrangements (users help make the rules); monitoring; graduated sanctions for rule-breakers; and accessible conflict-resolution mechanisms.
| Hardin (1968) | Ostrom (1990) |
|---|---|
| Commons are inevitably degraded | Communities can manage commons sustainably |
| Solution requires privatisation or state control | Solution can emerge from collective self-governance |
| Individuals are purely self-interested | People cooperate when institutions enable it |
| Assumes no communication between users | Communication, monitoring and trust enable cooperation |
Exam Tip: The Hardin–Ostrom debate is the theoretical spine of this lesson. Hardin explains why governance is needed; Ostrom explains how it can succeed and what design features make it work. The crucial nuance for global commons is that Ostrom's principles were derived from small, bounded communities — scaling them to the planetary atmosphere, with billions of users and no overarching enforcer, is far harder, which is exactly why atmospheric governance (Paris) is weak while a bounded, low-stakes commons (Antarctica) is strong.
Antarctica is the most successful example of global-commons governance and the example AQA specifies in detail. The continent has no indigenous population, no enforced sovereignty claims, and is managed through an international treaty system.
The Antarctic Treaty was signed on 1 December 1959 by 12 nations (including the UK, USA, USSR and Australia) and entered into force in 1961. It now has 50+ signatory nations (with around 29 "consultative parties" holding decision-making rights through active research).
| Key provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Peaceful purposes only | Military activity, weapons testing and nuclear explosions are prohibited (Antarctica is the first nuclear-free continent) |
| Freedom of scientific research | All nations may conduct research; data must be shared |
| Sovereignty claims frozen | Seven nations (including the UK, Argentina, Chile) hold overlapping territorial claims, neither recognised nor renounced — "agreeing to disagree" |
| No mining | The Protocol on Environmental Protection (Madrid Protocol, 1991) designates Antarctica a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science" and prohibits all mineral extraction; the ban can be reviewed from 2048 |
| Environmental protection | Strict rules on waste, wildlife disturbance and non-native species |
This is the key analytical question — and the answer, read through Hardin/Ostrom, explains why other commons fail:
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No indigenous population | No competing sovereignty claims based on habitation |
| Harsh environment / low economic stakes | Limited immediate economic temptation reduces the Hardin incentive to over-extract |
| Cold War context | Both superpowers preferred neither to militarise Antarctica — a rare alignment of great-power interest |
| Scientific cooperation | Shared scientific purpose built Ostrom-style trust and repeated interaction |
| Consensus decision-making | All consultative parties must agree — slow, but durable |
The decisive variable is that the cost of restraint is low: agreeing not to exploit Antarctica asks little of states because there is (so far) little immediately profitable to give up. Compare this with the atmosphere, where restraint means foregoing fossil-fuel growth — a vast economic cost — and the contrast in governance success becomes explicable.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (adopted 1982, in force 1994) is the "constitution for the oceans" — the legal framework for the seas.
| Zone | Extent from coast | Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Territorial Sea | 0–12 nautical miles | Full sovereignty; foreign vessels have "innocent passage" |
| Contiguous Zone | 12–24 nm | State enforces customs, immigration, pollution law |
| Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) | 0–200 nm | Sovereign rights over resources (fish, oil, minerals); others retain navigation |
| Continental Shelf | up to 350 nm (if shelf extends) | Rights over seabed resources |
| High Seas | beyond 200 nm | Freedom of navigation, fishing, research; no state sovereignty |
| "The Area" (deep seabed) | beyond national jurisdiction | Common heritage of mankind; managed by the International Seabed Authority |
graph LR
A[Coastline] --> B["Territorial Sea<br>0-12nm"]
B --> C["Contiguous Zone<br>12-24nm"]
C --> D["EEZ<br>0-200nm"]
D --> E["High Seas<br>Beyond 200nm"]
UNCLOS enshrined the principle that the deep seabed and its minerals are the "common heritage of mankind" — claimable by no state and to be managed for the benefit of all. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), based in Jamaica, governs deep-sea mineral exploration. A major recent advance is the 2023 High Seas Treaty (BBNJ Agreement), the first treaty to enable marine protected areas in the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction — a direct attempt to fill the high-seas governance gap.
| Challenge | Detail |
|---|---|
| Overfishing | Around 35% of global fish stocks are overfished (FAO); IUU fishing is worth an estimated US$10–23 billion a year |
| Pollution | Roughly 11 million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans annually; agricultural runoff creates "dead zones" |
| Climate change | Ocean acidification, warming, sea-level rise; the Great Barrier Reef suffered mass bleaching in 2016, 2017, 2020, 2022 and 2024 |
| Deep-sea mining | Rising interest in polymetallic nodules and cobalt crusts (for batteries) raises grave environmental-risk concerns |
| Disputes | The South China Sea (below) shows EEZ overlaps becoming flashpoints |
| Non-ratification | The USA has signed but not ratified UNCLOS, weakening its universality and US standing to invoke it |
Case Study: The South China Sea. China claims sovereignty over roughly 90% of the South China Sea within its "nine-dash line", overlapping the EEZs of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. In 2016 a Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal under UNCLOS ruled China's historic claims had no legal basis — yet China rejected the ruling and continued building and militarising artificial islands. This is the textbook illustration of international law's fundamental limit: it depends on the consent and compliance of sovereign states, and there is no global police force to compel a great power. It is the ocean equivalent of the Security Council veto problem (Lesson 7).
The atmosphere is the global commons that most transcends borders — and the hardest to govern, because restraint imposes the highest economic cost. The central challenge is climate change, the enhanced greenhouse effect from human emissions of CO2 and other gases (global CO2 emissions reached around 37 billion tonnes in 2023).
| Agreement | Year | Key features |
|---|---|---|
| Montreal Protocol | 1987 | Phased out ozone-depleting CFCs; the most successful environmental treaty ever — the ozone hole is healing |
| UNFCCC | 1992 | Established the framework for climate negotiation; principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" |
| Kyoto Protocol | 1997 | Binding targets for developed countries only; USA never ratified; limited effect |
| Paris Agreement | 2015 | Voluntary national pledges (NDCs) to hold warming "well below 2°C", pursuing 1.5°C; ~196 parties |
A vital comparison: why did Montreal succeed where Kyoto/Paris struggle? Montreal worked because the costs of restraint were low and concentrated (a handful of chemical firms could switch to CFC substitutes cheaply) and the benefit (avoiding skin cancer) was clear and universal. Climate change is the opposite — restraint means transforming the entire fossil-fuel-based economy, the costs are enormous and borne up-front, and the benefits are diffuse and deferred. This is Hardin's logic at planetary scale, and Montreal vs Kyoto is the single most instructive natural experiment in commons governance.
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Near-universal (~196 parties) — unlike Kyoto | Pledges are voluntary — no enforcement |
| Bottom-up — countries set their own NDCs (so they buy in) | Current pledges put the world on track for roughly 2.5–2.8°C, not 1.5°C |
| Ratchet mechanism — pledges reviewed and (meant to be) raised every 5 years | No penalties for missing pledges |
| Climate-finance pledge (the US$100 billion/year goal for developing countries) | The US$100 billion target was missed for years; a new "loss and damage" fund agreed at COP27 (2022) is only beginning |
| Recognises differentiated responsibilities (rich vs poor emitters) | The USA withdrew under Trump (2017), rejoined under Biden (2021), illustrating fragility |
Outer space — the fourth commons — is governed chiefly by the Outer Space Treaty (1967):
| Key provision | Detail |
|---|---|
| Free for exploration and use by all states | No state may claim sovereignty over celestial bodies |
| Peaceful purposes | No nuclear weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies |
| Astronauts are "envoys of mankind" | States must assist astronauts in distress regardless of nationality |
| Launching states are liable | The launching state bears responsibility for damage |
Because the atmosphere is the most consequential and most contested commons, it repays deeper analysis — and it is the area where equity (Lesson 9) and commons governance most directly intersect.
The central principle of climate governance, enshrined in the 1992 UNFCCC, is "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" (CBDR-RC). This recognises a profound injustice at the heart of the climate commons: the countries that have emitted the most historically (the industrialised North) are not the countries that suffer the worst consequences (the low-emitting South — Pacific island states facing inundation, the Sahel facing drought, Bangladesh facing flooding). The atmosphere thus dramatises the core–periphery relationship of the whole course: the periphery bears costs created largely by the core.
| Group | Share of historic cumulative emissions | Exposure to climate harm |
|---|---|---|
| Industrialised North (USA, EU) | Large majority of cumulative CO2 | Lower relative vulnerability; greater adaptive capacity |
| Emerging economies (China, India) | Rising rapidly; China now the largest annual emitter | Mixed — large populations exposed |
| Least Developed Countries / small islands | Negligible | Highest vulnerability, lowest capacity to adapt |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.