Conference Agenda

1.Problem Statement and Purpose

Global ocean governance faces challenges such as overfishing, marine pollution, climate change, and weak international cooperation. Despite existing frameworks like UNCLOS, fragmented policies and competing interests hinder effective marine sustainability. The Blue Partnership concept promotes collaborative governance among states, NGOs, and industries to ensure ocean health and equitable resource use. However, its implementation lacks a unified approach, with disparities in priorities between developed and developing nations. This study examines how the Blue Partnership can strengthen global ocean governance by fostering multi-stakeholder collaboration. The purpose is to identify gaps in current governance mechanisms and propose strategies for inclusive, science-based partnerships. By analyzing case studies and policy frameworks, the research highlights the role of shared responsibility in addressing marine degradation. The findings aim to contribute to policy recommendations that enhance transnational cooperation, ensuring sustainable ocean economies while protecting marine biodiversity.

2.Methodology

This study employs qualitative analysis, reviewing international agreements, academic literature, and case studies on ocean governance. Comparative policy analysis identifies best practices in Blue Partnerships. Interviews with marine policy experts provide insights into governance challenges. Additionally, the study examines reports from the UN, OECD, and environmental NGOs to assess current collaborative frameworks. Thematic analysis is used to evaluate stakeholder engagement models, focusing on equity and effectiveness in decision-making.

3.Findings

The study reveals that effective Blue Partnerships in global ocean governance depend on multi-stakeholder collaboration, policy coherence, and equitable resource distribution. Key findings include: (1)Fragmented Governance: Current ocean governance is hindered by conflicting national interests and weak enforcement of international agreements like UNCLOS. (2)Inequitable Participation: Developing nations, particularly small island states, often lack influence in decision-making despite being disproportionately affected by marine degradation. (3)Public-Private Synergies: Successful initiatives (e.g., the EU’s Blue Growth Strategy) demonstrate that partnerships between governments, businesses, and NGOs enhance sustainable fisheries and pollution control. (4)Technology and Innovation: Digital tools (e.g., satellite monitoring, AI for illegal fishing detection) improve transparency but require broader accessibility.

These findings highlight the need for inclusive, binding frameworks to ensure effective Blue Partnerships.

4.Proposal

To strengthen the Blue Partnership framework, the following measures are proposed: (1)Enhanced Legal Frameworks: Establish binding agreements under UNCLOS to ensure compliance with sustainable fishing, plastic reduction, and marine protected areas (MPAs). (2)Inclusive Governance: Form regional ocean councils with equal representation from coastal states, NGOs, and indigenous communities to ensure fair policy making. (3)Public-Private Collaboration: Incentivize corporate investment in blue bonds and sustainable aquaculture through tax benefits and ESG regulations. (4)Science and Technology Integration: Expand open-access platforms for real-time ocean data sharing and deploy AI-driven monitoring systems to combat illegal fishing. (5)Capacity Building: Launch training programs for developing nations on maritime law enforcement and ecosystem-based management.

5.References

Ehlers, P. (2024).Cooperation-a key for successful ocean governance. WMU J Marit Affairs 23, 481–497.

Rasheed Ojewole Adeniyi et al.(2025) .Strategic Partnership In The Blue Economy: Collaborative Approaches For Regional Security And Economic Prosperity. Review of Public Administration and Management Journal (ROPAMJ) 22 (1): 128-44.

Internaional Central Legal District (CLD) represents a new clustered form of legal service industry agglomeration. The development of CLDs, with an emphasis on integrated growth alongside Central Business Districts (CBDs), reflects a common trend in the industrial structure evolution of global metropolises toward higher-tier advancement.

First, it is essential to grasp the key characteristics and practical experiences of world-class CLD models, with Manhattan in New York and London’s financial district serving as prime examples. Mature CLDs exhibit three defining features: (1) high industrial agglomeration, (2) functional synergy effects, and (3) talent attraction effects. For instance, Manhattan’s CBD and London’s financial district host top-tier law firms, tens of thousands of elite lawyers, and high-quality legal services.

Second, this study examines China’s exploration in establishing CLDs, analyzing their practical value and challenges. China’s CLD development primarily focuses on advancing public legal services to meet public demand. However, operational issues persist, such as (1) insufficient integration between CLDs and CBDs, (2) lagging progress in legal culture education, and (3) inadequate supporting services for public legal services, all of which require urgent resolution.

Third, this paper proposes pathways to promote the construction of international CLDs, with a case study on Tianfu Central Legal District (China). Three key recommendations are presented:1.Co-construction: CLDs and CBDs should interact effectively to establish a “legal-business resonance” model.2.Co-development: CLDs should be built alongside local rule-of-law demonstration zones to form an “optimal public legal service network”.3.Co-incubation: CLDs should cultivate high-end legal talent while advancing administrative civilization, thereby creating a new safeguard for legal practice.

Furthermore, it is believed that we should:Uphold new concepts: Build a pilot zone for the rule of law and strengthen the development of the Central Legal Services District.Explore new pathways: Establish the Central Legal Services District as a pioneering demonstration zone for the practice of the rule of law, using it as a catalyst for broader progress. This requires phased implementation and multiple concurrent measures, while ensuring synergistic interaction between the Legal Services District and the Business District. Thus, the Central Legal Services District will be powerfully advanced into a "Demonstration Pilot Zone for the Practice of the Rule of Law."

In the digital age, the protection of personal data is a permanent challenge for the State. Personal data are highly valued assets, but oftentimes it can be easily accessed through information and communication technologies. The main problem currently lies in the inappropriate use or processing of personal data, especially sensitive data, which translates into the violation of rights, even the most basic ones, such as access to public services, health, life, physical and mental integrity, among others. Although the challenges for public administration increased as technological developments increased, the COVID-19 pandemic added exponential complexities and forced governments to implement digital solutions to guarantee the continuous provision of services, but also to provide minimum levels of security to their users.

In many regions of Latin America, the protection of personal data has been conceived as an inalienable right, which prevails over others that are not constitutionally recognized. States therefore have an obligation to protect their citizens from possible unauthorized treatment, which could result in the violation of other human rights. Likewise, in Latin America the autonomy and independence of this right has been developed through organic laws, which in general terms protect personal data. However, some regulations are much broader than others and, therefore, require an in-depth analysis of this topic.

This paper focuses on developing a comparative study of the regulations currently in place to protect personal data in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Peru, Costa Rica, Colombia and Ecuador. Using a qualitative approach, the authors compare legislative documents and discuss how the 8 countries under study developed their laws on the basis of constitutional provisions. However, it must be noted that not all of them consider the right to data protection as independent and autonomous.