Fishing for Justice : A Study of Ocean Justice in the Public Debate on the Proposed Swedish Modernised Fisheries Legislation

Recent policy reforms aimed to strengthen the ecological sustainability in the Baltic Sea have raised questions of justice in fisheries governance. In Sweden, a proposed modernised fisheries legislation has sparked a public debate in which small-scale fishers question how responsibility, restrictions and recognition are distributed. The thesis analyses how justice is expressed in the debate surrounding the proposed legislation. By applying Chris Armstrong’s normative framework of ocean justice, the study examines how justice claims align with the principles of contribution to the problem, ability to pay, all affected interests and fair transition. A thematic analysis of the Swedish debate is conducted using an abductive approach that is guided by theory, while allowing new perspectives to emerge. The findings show that all four principles are present in the debate, although adapted to a Swedish context and thereby extending the justice principles. Under Swedish conditions, justice is expressed through concerns about responsibility, recognition, cultural practices, resilience and preparedness, rather than direct economic loss. The study concludes that ocean justice provides a valuable framework for analyzing fisheries governance but that justice perspectives in different socio-economic settings require adaptation to local conditions.