How do international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) help implement the international law of the sea in national jurisdictions ? In many states, private actors are now directly involved in the application of the law, redefining the boundaries between public and private. While this dynamic opens up new prospects for protecting the oceans, it also raises major questions about the role of the State in maritime spaces.
Interview with Camille Michel*, doctoral student in public law at the Collège de France.
NGOs are non-profit public interest organizations. Independent of governments and international institutions, they operate on a national or international scale to defend a cause or provide aid in a variety of fields, such as humanitarian aid, the environment or human rights. Some NGOs enjoy a high international profile, such as Greenpeace for environmental protection, or Médecins sans Frontières for emergency medical aid. However, NGOs remain private players with their own agendas.
For a long time, the role of NGOs was limited to lobbying or advising governments and international organizations. In recent decades, however, their influence has evolved. " They now act as co-actors with public authorities in areas as diverse as maritime surveillance and natural resource management ", explains Camille Michel. They don't just want to see national laws evolve, they want to ensure that they are actually applied. This intervention in the public domain often relies on innovative financial instruments, such as debt-for-ocean swaps, which make the restructuring of a state's public debt conditional on specific environmental commitments.
These instruments imply a growing influence of international NGOs in the implementation of the Law of the Sea within national jurisdictions, helping to redraw the boundaries of state sovereignty, through partnerships that engage the state's regalian functions, bypassing classic democratic mechanisms. The case of the Seychelles illustrates this dynamic. The Nature Conservancy, an NGO, co-directs the SeyCCAT fund with the Seychelles government, which is responsible for implementing a debt-for-ocean agreement that gives the NGO a voice on an equal footing with the state in the redistribution of economic funds earmarked for the management of some of its natural marine areas in exchange for financing. This co-direction blurs the boundaries between the public and private spheres. According to Camille Michel, " this configuration blurs the line between a strategic partnership and the substitution of the State by a private player with autonomous decision-making capacity ". By mobilizing financial resources conditional on environmental commitments, these NGOs are taking part in the elaboration and enforcement of norms that are in part beyond the reach of traditional state institutions.
This trend can also be seen in the case of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Once famous for its actions against whaling on the high seas, the NGO has moved closer to the coasts by cooperating with states to ensure the protection of marine life, through cooperation agreements that enable it to carry out maritime surveillance operations in certain jurisdictions. It tends to ensure a constant presence at sea. For the researcher, this NGO intervention must not be allowed to become " a veritable substitution ". In this sense, these interventions displace regalian functions outside their classic institutional framework, raising fundamental questions about the exercise of sovereign power and the democratic life of the states concerned.
A lack of democratic legitimacy
This assumption of public functions is accompanied by contractual opacity. All the clauses of these agreements between governments and NGOs are rarely made public. For Camille Michel, " this lack of transparency is a form of legal opacity that runs counter to the principles of democratic accountability ". Lack of access to information deprives citizens and courts of the means of control usually associated with the exercise of public power.
To anticipate this risk of criticism, some NGOs resort to consultation mechanisms and multi-party committees. However, these modes of participation are largely formal. According to the researcher, " is a case of democratic mimicry. It merely reproduces the institutional forms of participation ". This method of participation does not compensate for the lack of legitimacy. In other cases, certain local communities feel marginalized by these cooperation agreements. In other words, the language of participatory governance is mobilized without the principles of accountability, equity or participation of communities affected by NGO action being truly guaranteed.
In this context, the risk is twofold. On the one hand, a creeping privatization of public functions, beyond any popular control ; on the other, a discursive legitimization of this transformation through symbolic consultation mechanisms, the real scope of which remains uncertain. States benefit from international cooperation, while some local communities see their use rights and traditional practices reconfigured by decisions taken with private players. This discrepancy can undermine the social and political legitimacy of these arrangements.
Recomposed sovereignty
The legal transformations brought to light by this research are not only desired by NGOs, but are also provoked by international organizations, notably in the context of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, or by international financial institutions such as the World Bank. These UN agencies promote project-based governance, based on public-private partnerships and conditional financing instruments. Many states must accept these new types of cooperation with NGOs to meet their international obligations. State sovereignty is being reshaped by the involvement of NGOs in the management of maritime spaces.
Within this dynamic, the figure of the State as the central subject of international law is profoundly redefined. " My work tends to recognize a model of good government based on accountability, access to information and substantial recognition of the rights of communities ", explains the researcher, who therefore advocates international environmental law based on transparency, the legal responsibility of NGOs and effective consultation of local populations. This perspective aims to re-articulate ecological efficiency and democratic justice, so that ocean governance is not reduced to the simple outsourcing of sovereignty.
While the contribution of NGOs responds to the ecological emergency and to effective protection of maritime spaces, it calls into question the foundations of sovereignty and democracy. Finding a form of ocean governance that is effective in the face of environmental challenges, legally responsible and politically legitimate remains an open question. An analysis of the role of NGOs in redefining public responsibilities highlights the ambivalence of a governance model that combines legal innovation, ecological efficiency and a reconfiguration of democratic principles. At a time when the State is no longer the sole guarantor of the general interest, the study of the role of environmental NGOs invites us to rethink the normative conditions for fair and transparent global governance.
*Camille Michel is a doctoral student in law at the University of Orléans, and a research assistant at the International Law of Institutions chair held by Pr Samantha Besson. She is the winner of The Hugot Foundation of Collège de France Award 2025.
