Our research addresses knowledge integration for the good governance of the environment and the oceans: (a) through a comprehensive legal, political science, and anthropological analysis; and (b) by providing an examination of crucial research foci and research gaps in the fields of environmental and marine governance, along the North–South divide. Our subsequent critical synopsis reveals how existing research within each discipline offers complementary insights for future research. We concludes with a call for further testing of tools, approaches, and methods to enable comprehensive research on the conceptualization of knowledge integration.

The article describes some common features of Indigenous sea cosmovisions (through examples from Oceania and the Arctic region), from which an understanding of ocean governance rooted in the interconnectedness of all life and the importance of protecting water and people emerges. Hence, the model of ocean (or water) connectivity is characterized by the understanding of ocean-human relationships as a continuum of connections between human and non-human elements. In line with the normative recognition of the sacredness of water, the interconnectedness of all life, and the importance of protecting the sea, Indigenous peoples’ law provides insights and implementation solutions for the restoration of marine ecosystems. This study aims to identify blind spots of the current law-of-the-sea regime, where marine ecological connectivity is not fully recognized as a foundational pillar of effective ocean protection. It also suggests approaches towards knowledge integration mechanisms that could minimize critical issues in ocean governance by enabling the enshrinement of Indigenous nature-oriented approaches within the law of the sea regulatory framework (especially focusing on the high seas’ regime). The work is structured into three main parts: a comprehensive overview of connectivity conceptualizations drawn from Indigenous cosmovisions; reflections on the model’s capability to address law-of-the-sea’s systemic challenges; and concluding reflections on possible future trajectories in law-of-the-sea that could encompass elements of the analyzed model.

Although the concept of the blue economy was created by the Small Island Developing States, its relevance extends to any coastal region around the globe, making the engagement of both state and corporate actors imperative. At the core of the blue economy framework stands the incorporation of ocean values and services into economic modeling and governance. Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture are thus significant in this endeavor, particularly for Arctic nations, the economies of which are predominantly based on seafood production. Yet, while focus is increasingly placed on sustainability and blue economy models among Arctic states, the need for structured transnational collaboration is not always acknowledged. In that respect, this article aims to articulate a comparative study of the status quo, challenges, and opportunities of fisheries and aquaculture in Alaska and northern Norway and seeks to explore potentials for cross-sectoral synergies between the two regions in the context of the blue economy.

While legal progress on Indigenous land claims has recently been fostered around the globe, sea claims still lag behind. Since the beginning of colonization, the doctrine of mare nullius declared seas vacant of Indigenous tenure or authority and led to the establishment of sovereign State jurisdiction over offshore areas, and more recently to the characterization of the living resources in these waters as accessible for each State’s citizens. In Norway, colonialism was not characterized by transoceanic settlement. The concept of establishing sovereignty in offshore areas attached to the land, however, had the same basis as the European colonies in America or Oceania. In this context, the acknowledgement of the marine living resources in the waters attached to the land as common goods for all Norwegian citizens adversely affected the Coastal Sámi Indigenous peoples, who exclusively and since time immemorial managed the wild marine living resources based on customary systems of marine tenure. Additionally, due to increased regulations over the past few decades, it has become difficult for the Coastal Sámi to continue their traditional way of living. Still, legislation and recommendations on Indigenous participation in marine resource management exist and derive from both Norwegian and international law. However, despite the established legal framework, Coastal Sami participation in marine resource management is often questioned. It has been argued that the most appropriate way to ensure Indigenous inclusion in marine resource management is to look at the reverse side of the coin, exploring Indigenous tenure, legal traditions and knowledge, and accommodate them within State law. This project aims, through ethnographic fieldwork and literature analysis, to discuss the current status of Coastal Sámi fisheries in the communities of Troms County, and illustrate local conceptions of marine resource management among the project participants.

Although exclusive common pool resource management regimes have locally been applied since time immemorial in many coastal and fjord areas, in the legal conceptualization of space, the oceans and their living resources were traditionally treated as a “global commons.” The idea of restricting access to coastal oceanic resources and delegating their governance to state instruments has become increasingly popular since the middle of the previous century when political economy models predicted the eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common. While state jurisdictions overall continue to preserve the idea of common access to marine living resources for a state’s people, the rapid privatization of marine living resources and the subsequent development of aquaculture over the last few decades, often confront this understanding, leading to enclosure of a delineated maritime area that was initially intended to be accessible to the public. Enclosing the sea for the purpose of aquaculture development leads to a semantic change in property institutions that govern coastal areas and provides for a form of enclosure of the commons in key locations designated for marine aquaculture development. This article explores the concept of “ocean commons” and debates how the enclosure of common areas for the purposes of aquaculture development may collide with Indigenous and local conceptions of common pool resource management. The article applies this theoretical investigation on two examples from Canada and Norway, and suggests that rethinking aquaculture development in coastal waters through the lens of “ocean commons” may provide a guiding ethos for revisiting current approaches of access to the sea and ensuring the harmonious coexistence between aquaculture development and local/Indigenous traditional activities.

Environmental and climate science communication often results in the production of appealing but, at times, inaccurate statements, i.e. "bold statements". Such statements are common in the media, however, in-cases, are used by scientists alike. We discuss the concept of such statements seeking to identify their origin and purpose, as well as the benefits and threats of such communication methods. By bringing bold statements in context to the paradigm of climate science communication we argue that their use is enforced by the urgent nature of climate change and that bold statements have been proven useful in raising public awareness and mobilizing the public toward positive climate action, as well as in accelerating law-/policy-making processes that follow scientific conclusions. On the other hand, we demonstrate three example cases of bold narratives in climate and environmental science communication, i.e. 1) An upcoming cooling of Europe due to the gulf stream collapsing, 2) a new island made out of garbage in the Pacific Ocean, and 3) an upcoming "apocalypse'' due to bee extinction. Through those cases, we bring up concerns that using bold statements and sacrificing scientific accuracy in the shrine of public mobilization may backfire, as the use of bold statements encompasses risks by spreading misinformation, and can lead the public to confusion and inappropriate action.