49
4 Social Justice in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
the common good. A “what’s in it for me” attitude does not bode well for interactive
governance processes, but sets the stage for cumbersome negotiations. Not all
con fl icts are con fl icts of interests, however. They may well be about the values,
norms and principles that should underpin governance, including how to de fi ne
and address issues pertaining to social justice. This problem is associated with the
term “legal pluralism,” which points to the fact that several normative orders may
be applied to the same situation (Bavinck 2001 ; Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . State and
community law may ascribe to different norms in relation to resource management and distribution. If so, governability is not necessarily enhanced through the
redistribution of resources, but instead through the reconciliation of legal principles
that may or may not be possible in particular situations. Again, the issue of due
process is important.
In order to resolve such con fl icts a deeper understanding of the foundational idea
behind these principles is required. Based on such an understanding, governance
should, for the sake of governability, facilitate a process where reconciling con fl icting
ideas about justice is possible. This is also what Rawls ( 1973 ) aspires to capture
with his concepts, the “original position” and “justice as fairness”. These are referring to what people would consider to be fair if they were to decide on a justice
principle “behind a veil of ignorance”, that is without cognizance of their own and
other people’s interests in the case. This further suggests that the way in which
justice impacts on governability must be studied empirically in concrete situations
as the principles that are applied in, for instance, a particular fi shery or community
might be different from those applied in other fi sheries or communities. These justice principles may not be explicitly expressed when the governing system was
originally designed, but they are implicit in the way it actually works. They may not
always be of fi cially declared either, and when they are, they are not necessarily
implemented. Uncovering the reasons for this is an important governability research
issue, where “meta-order” (see below) values, norms, principles and rules cannot be
taken at face value, but must be scrutinized in depth in empirical settings.
Justice at Different Governance Orders
Interactive governance theory stresses the need to address social justice principles
at each of the three governance “orders” (Kooiman 2003 ). Justice at the “metaorder” is about the constitutive governance principles, principles that govern governance. Human rights principles belong here. Justice at the “second order” is about
the design, mandates and procedures of institutions. One example is the so called
“subsidiarity principle,” which states that governing functions should be vested in
the lowest possible organization. The “ fi rst order” is about day-to-day problem solving and opportunity creation. Here one should emphasize justice principles for the
process of governing, such as transparency and cohesiveness. A normative principle
for interactive governance is that governing at the three levels must be consistent
with each other, because, as Kooiman ( 2003 , 182) argues, governance orders cannot
4 Social Justice in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
the common good. A “what’s in it for me” attitude does not bode well for interactive
governance processes, but sets the stage for cumbersome negotiations. Not all
con fl icts are con fl icts of interests, however. They may well be about the values,
norms and principles that should underpin governance, including how to de fi ne
and address issues pertaining to social justice. This problem is associated with the
term “legal pluralism,” which points to the fact that several normative orders may
be applied to the same situation (Bavinck 2001 ; Jentoft et al. 2009 ) . State and
community law may ascribe to different norms in relation to resource management and distribution. If so, governability is not necessarily enhanced through the
redistribution of resources, but instead through the reconciliation of legal principles
that may or may not be possible in particular situations. Again, the issue of due
process is important.
In order to resolve such con fl icts a deeper understanding of the foundational idea
behind these principles is required. Based on such an understanding, governance
should, for the sake of governability, facilitate a process where reconciling con fl icting
ideas about justice is possible. This is also what Rawls ( 1973 ) aspires to capture
with his concepts, the “original position” and “justice as fairness”. These are referring to what people would consider to be fair if they were to decide on a justice
principle “behind a veil of ignorance”, that is without cognizance of their own and
other people’s interests in the case. This further suggests that the way in which
justice impacts on governability must be studied empirically in concrete situations
as the principles that are applied in, for instance, a particular fi shery or community
might be different from those applied in other fi sheries or communities. These justice principles may not be explicitly expressed when the governing system was
originally designed, but they are implicit in the way it actually works. They may not
always be of fi cially declared either, and when they are, they are not necessarily
implemented. Uncovering the reasons for this is an important governability research
issue, where “meta-order” (see below) values, norms, principles and rules cannot be
taken at face value, but must be scrutinized in depth in empirical settings.
Justice at Different Governance Orders
Interactive governance theory stresses the need to address social justice principles
at each of the three governance “orders” (Kooiman 2003 ). Justice at the “metaorder” is about the constitutive governance principles, principles that govern governance. Human rights principles belong here. Justice at the “second order” is about
the design, mandates and procedures of institutions. One example is the so called
“subsidiarity principle,” which states that governing functions should be vested in
the lowest possible organization. The “ fi rst order” is about day-to-day problem solving and opportunity creation. Here one should emphasize justice principles for the
process of governing, such as transparency and cohesiveness. A normative principle
for interactive governance is that governing at the three levels must be consistent
with each other, because, as Kooiman ( 2003 , 182) argues, governance orders cannot