









































The overexploitation of sharks resulting from high global market demand has posed a serious threat not only to shark 
populations, but marine biodiversity on a large scale. Through a discussion of political theory as it pertains to the 
environment, this research aims to articulate why the current laws and policies of the international community have 
failed, as well as what efforts may be taken to protect sharks and marine biodiversity. These proposed solutions are 
grounded in the political theories of commons governance and multispecies politics. Through analysis of empirical 
data regarding species decline, these theories serve as a framework for how to preserve shark populations and thus, 
marine ecosystems as a whole.

Keywords: Sharks, Environmental Politics, International Governance, Marine Conservation, Multispecies Politics, 
the Tragedy of the Commons

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  202434

Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in
the Overexploitation of Shark Species

by Elizabeth Taylor

 The issue of shark exploitation extends far beyond 
individual species: marine systems as a whole rely on 
apex predators like sharks to thrive, and therefore, 
the danger posed to sharks also threatens the survival 
of marine ecosystems. Despite them being essential 
to the health of our oceans, millions of sharks are 
killed each year. Sharks are exploited for their fins, 
meat, and cartilage daily, and these practices are 
more often than not unregulated by the international 
community. Furthermore, the international 
community has contributed to this overexploitation 
of shark species by building upon negative shark 
imagery created by the media and perpetuating 
capitalist ideals that drive overexploitation in 
global fish markets. In order for the international 
regime to adequately address the overexploitation of 
sharks, it must draw from political theory to curate 
an effective system of solutions. Historically, the 
environmental movement has followed two differing 
philosophies: conservation and preservation. These 
philosophies conflict on the basis for which nature is 
conserved: for its value to humans or for its intrinsic 
value, respectively. The challenges currently faced by 
shark conservation efforts, however, must be solved 
through international action grounded in both the 
theory of commons governance and multispecies 
politics. 

Background
Scope of Shark Exploitation
 Due to the high demand for shark products in 
the global market, the scope of shark exploitation 
and species endangerment is vast. Elasmobranchs, 
or sharks and rays, are one of the most evolutionarily 
distinct and functionally diverse vertebrate 
radiations. Despite this, it is currently estimated 
that one-quarter of sharks are threatened with 
extinction, making sharks the most threatened 
vertebrate lineage after amphibians (Pacoureau et 
al., 2021). Worsening the issue, the long generation 
times and low intrinsic population growth rates of 
many sharks makes them inherently susceptible to 
overexploitation. Globally, sharks are exploited for 
their meat, fins, gill plates, and liver oil. The catching 
and killing of sharks reached an estimated peak of 
63–273 million individuals in the early 2000s before 
declining, likely due to overfishing (Pacoureau et al., 
2021). The combination of threats posed towards 
sharks and their innate vulnerability have driven 
population declines, with 37% of shark species 
assessed as threatened with extinction (Jabado and 
Rigby, 2023).
 One of the most public displays of this 
exploitation issue is the shark finning industry. 
Shark finning is the practice of harvesting sharks 
solely for their fins and disposing of the rest of the 
animal. Shark finning is not only unsustainable and 



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  202435

cruel, but the demand for shark fin products can fuel 
unsustainable fishing practices and overexploitation. 
In January 2020, United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS) wildlife inspectors seized an illegal 
shipment of shark fins at the Miami airport during 
an inspection of an in-transit shipment from South 
America to Asia. The shipment contained over 5000 
fins, placing it among the largest seizures in the US 
to date (Partin et al., 2022). Fins from as many as 73 
million sharks end up in the global shark fin market 
every year, resulting in nine of the top 10 shark 
species in the fin trade being at risk of extinction 
(Cardeñosa et al., 2022). Shark finning serves as an 
example of how sharks are seen as resources rather 
than animals by many fishing groups. This goes 
against the fundamentals of the multispecies politics 
perspective, in which animals are seen as valuable 
not because they serve humans, but rather because 
they have intrinsic rights as living beings. 
 Even when multispecies perspectives are 
disregarded, the exploitation of sharks as a 
“resource” contributes negatively to the health 
of other “resource-species,” thus threatening the 
commercial fishing industry. Because sharks are apex 
predators, they are necessary to regulate the marine 
ecosystems they inhabit—and without them, these 
ecosystems will begin to collapse (Holcomb, 2023). 
The overexploitation of shark species therefore poses 
a dire threat to the health and existence of marine 
ecosystems. This threat reveals a need for drastic 
change in international governance regarding shark 
exploitation, and in order to devise an effective 
solution to this issue it is necessary to draw from 
existing theoretical knowledge in the realm of 
environmental politics.

Theoretical Framework 
Commons Governance
 In the international regime, the struggle to 
prevent the overexploitation of sharks can be viewed 
as a tragedy of the commons issue. The “tragedy of 
the commons” dilemma occurs when individuals 
working independently of one another will overuse 
a common-property resource for short-term 
benefits while decimating the resource for long-
term use (Hardin, 1968). Further, in order to govern 
a common resource, authorities and institutions 
require accurate information, the ability to deal with 
conflict, the ability to enforce rules, and an overall 

preparedness for change (Dietz, 2003). The concept 
of the tragedy of the commons can be applied to the 
exploitation of sharks, as sharks are a nonexcludable 
and rivalrous resource that must be governed by the 
entire community. This type of resource can only 
be effectively conserved from exploitation if it is 
governed in an adaptive way. In the case of sharks, 
a complex system governed by multiple nations 
and organizations is required to police exploitation 
such as the illegal fin trade (Dietz et al., 2003). 
Commons governance alone, however, is not a 
sufficient solution for shark overexploitation. This is 
because the conditions associated with the tragedy 
of the commons enable state actors to put fishers and 
fishing regulation on the frontlines of the issue rather 
than using more powerful mechanisms to protect 
and conserve marine ecosystems (Govella, 2023). In 
order to resolve this, the international community is 
in need of a dramatic shift in ideology regarding the 
importance of protecting marine life—a shift that 
multispecies politics can provide.

Multispecies Politics
 When discussing shark conservation through 
the lens of the commons, shark species are labeled 
as a “resource.” In order to fully understand the 
political nuances of shark conservation efforts in 
the international regime, this categorization of 
nonhuman species as expendable or sub-human 
resources must be analyzed through a multispecies 
perspective. Multispecies politics provides the 
theoretical framework to look beyond human 
exceptionalism and the human-nature binary. The 
literature governing this theory argues that human 
exceptionalism is not supported by evolution, and 
western science is grounded in “an insistence to avoid 
the anthropomorphism of nonhuman species, thus 
further dividing the human-nature binary” (De Waal, 
2016). The human-nature divide between sharks and 
humans is one of the most prominent, given that 
sharks are viewed as dangerous, violent creatures 
by the general public. The theory of multispecies 
politics can be ingrained into shark conservation 
efforts through shifting human attitudes about 
sharks and the idea that human rights supersede 
the rights of other species, effectively decentralizing 
the anthropocentric (Hammerton and Ford, 2018). 
While there are sects of human thought that are 
more ecocentric—or environmentally focused—



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  202436

the majority of thought leans more towards 
anthropocentrism. The discussed decentralization 
can lead to humans extending their ethical scope 
to include nature, creating a balance between the 
anthropocentric and the ecocentric (Kortenkamp 
and Moore, 2001). Thinking about shark population 
conservation efforts through multispecies 
perspectives allows for larger conversations about the 
use of human systems of international governance 
to protect nonhuman species and the values used 
to determine what nonhuman species garner this 
protection and attention. 

The Need for Multispecies Perspectives
 While the theory of commons governance can 
tell us a lot about the various existing institutions 
governing shark fishing, this perspective is focused 
on managing sharks as a resource. In order to fully 
address the problem of exploiting marine life the 
international community must reckon with not only 
our institutions, but also our relationship with shark 
species. This is where the theory of multispecies 
politics can greatly aid in shark conservation and the 
overall protection of marine life. 

Differing Value Levels Placed on Species by Humans
 Before shifting the human perspective on sharks 
to one that promotes mutual respect amongst 
species, we first must discern why the general human 
perception of shark species has become particularly 
negative. Much explanation for this phenomenon 
can be found in the contrast between human 
perceptions on terrestrial species compared to 
marine ones. Some of the key dimensions that affect 
the value humans place on nonhuman species are the 
degree of “mind” the species is believed to possess, 
how dangerous the species is perceived to be, the 
species aesthetic qualities (e.g. how “cute” the species 
appears to be), the species’ status as a food source 
for humans, and the degree of similarity perceived 
between the species and humans (Kozachenko and 
Piazza, 2021). The degree of similarity perceived 
between other species and humans is particularly 
informative for understanding the disproportionate 
value placed on terrestrial mammals in comparison 
to marine mammals. Similar research has found 
that anthropomorphism is a key factor in shifting 
both wildlife value and attitudes toward wildlife 
management (Manfredo et al., 2020). The ability 

to compare nonhuman species to humans expands 
moral concern and reduces speciesism (Bastian 
et al., 2012), and with far less appearance-based 
similarities to humans, marine mammals are given 
a much lower level of value than their terrestrial 
counterparts.

The Jaws Effect
 While this lack of anthropomorphism explains 
humankind’s overall lesser regard for marine species, 
it fails to explain why sharks in particular are viewed 
so negatively. After all, other marine predators such as 
whales and dolphins have established intrinsic value 
as a result of the aquarium industry. Scholars have 
found that sharks not only generate less conservation 
concerns from humans than other sea animals like 
dolphins, but also are likely the most vilified species 
by the general public (Neves et al., 2021). Though 
sharks are equally represented in culture and media, 
the imagery used to represent them carries a much 
different connotation. For example, the media treats 
negative human-shark interactions, or shark attacks, 
as high-impact, high-affect, and newsworthy. 
This is due to their potential for dramatization as 
detrimental to human personal safety, property, 
economic viability, and recreational prerogatives 
(Guerra, 2019). These fear-mongering media tactics, 
referred to as “The Jaws Effect” in reference to the 
1975 film by Steven Spielberg, contribute greatly to 
the negative perceptions of sharks by humans. 
 In an analytical study of 109 shark films aiming 
to investigate how films portray shark-human 
interactions, it was found that almost all of these films 
(96%) overtly portrayed shark-human interactions 
as being potentially threatening to humans, a few 
(3%) covertly portrayed shark-human interactions 
as being potentially threatening to humans, and 
only one film did not include potentially threatening 
interactions (Le Busque and Litchfield, 2022). 
There are a multitude of problems related to the 
media’s reliance on fear when depicting sharks: 
gory reenactments of incidents and their aftereffects 
minimizes science and displaces attention from the 
shark species and populations in urgent need of 
recovery. It also negatively impacts public opinion 
and support for conservation and effective policy-
making, and fundamentally distracts from the vision 
that sharks have intrinsic rights to their habitats 
(Cermak, 2021). Even the background music in 



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  202437

shark films has an effect on human perception: 
evidence shows that negative attitudes arise from 
an instinctive fear, which is validated and reinforced 
by disproportionate and sensationalistic news 
coverage of shark “attacks” and by highlighting 
shark-on-human violence in popular movies and 
documentaries (Nosal et al., 2016). In short, hostile 
shark representations aggravate the extent to which 
conflict is perceived, instill fear that negatively 
impacts conservation campaigns, and harm the 
species health as a whole through vilification 
(Cermak, 2021). 
 Research has cautioned that public values and 
attitudes are becoming increasingly relevant to 
wildlife conservation (Macdonald et al., 2023). 
Therefore, the way we communicate about sharks 
is in dire need of change. Public attitudes shape 
how political leaders respond to conservation 
campaigns, therefore reducing fear of sharks, 
and changing attitudes about consuming them is 
essential to crafting policy responses that support 
conservation (Jarvis, 2019). There has already been 
some success in changing the narrative surrounding 
sharks in the media: the film Racing Extinction, for 
example, portrays several commonly diminished 
wildlife species as individuals worthy of concern and 
protection. This departure from the typical “Jaws 
Narrative”  represents animals in their natural habits 
and as individuals with their own interests and 
desires. The film’s narrative also supports a view that 
mantas, sharks, and whales have value intrinsically, 
not just instrumentally (Rooney, 2019). Given that 
the future of ocean ecosystems is directly tied to 
the existence of sharks, it is essential to shift public 
attitudes towards the animals into a more positive 
light. 

Ecotourism as a Potential Catalyst for Shifting Public 
Attitudes

 The ecotourism industry has substantially 
benefited global nature-conservation efforts. This 
industry, particularly shark tourism, also has great 
potential to serve as a catalyst for changing public 
attitudes regarding sharks and their importance. 
Shark tourism often takes the form of cage-diving 
experiences, which allow tourists to have up-close 
encounters with sharks. While this industry provides 
extraordinary opportunities for shark conservation 
education, there are some aspects of this industry 

that have the potential to cause harm and thus must 
be addressed. The environmental impact of shark 
tourism, for example, must be considered. If not 
properly managed, shark tourism can be harmful to 
sharks and their habitat. Too much food resulting from 
the use of attractants to lure sharks can alter sharks’ 
feeding behavior or create too many nutrients or 
microbes in their coral reef systems (Shark Stewards, 
2022). Ecotourism additionally has the potential 
to counteract the efforts of multispecies-focused 
policy to better relationships between humans and 
nonhuman species, because the ecotourism industry 
regards nonhuman species as a resource for profit 
(Pookhao, 2013), just as these species are viewed as a 
resource for consumption by the commercial fishing 
industry. Both of these potential consequences 
can be avoided however, if shark tourism is driven 
primarily by environmentally-focused motivations. 
One could argue that shark tourism industries have a 
degree of moral obligation to ground their businesses 
in sustainability, and therefore these consequences 
can be avoided if these motivations become the most 
widely supported by the international community.

Implementing A Multispecies Commons 
Governance Approach
Existing Regulations
 In order to fully grasp why international 
governance has failed to protect shark populations 
thus far, one must look deeper into the existing legal 
protections for sharks and other marine life. The 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species (CITES) is perhaps the most substantial 
protection currently in place for endangered shark 
species. CITES is an international agreement 
adhered to voluntarily by states and regional 
economic integration organizations. States that have 
agreed to be bound by the Convention are known 
as Parties. Although CITES is legally binding on the 
Parties, it is not implicitly enforced as national law. 
Rather, CITES provides a framework to be respected 
by each Party, which has to adopt its own domestic 
legislation to ensure that CITES is implemented at 
the national level. It is also pertinent to note that 
only endangered shark species are protected by 
CITES, rather than all species as a whole. Essentially, 
despite acting at the international level,  CITES is 
not mandatory for countries that are part of these 
regulations (Dorantes-González et al., 2023). 



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  202438

 An additional existing protection is the 
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory 
Species (CMS), which is an environmental treaty 
under the United Nations Environment Programme. 
It provides a global platform for the conservation 
and sustainable use of migratory animals and 
their habitats. CMS is the only global and UN-
based intergovernmental organization established 
exclusively for the conservation and management 
of terrestrial, aquatic, and avian migratory species 
throughout their range. Although thirty-four 
elasmobranch species are listed under CMS, most 
CMS-listed elasmobranch species remain seriously 
threatened (Lawson and Fordham, 2018). 
 The third prominent existing regulation is the 
International Plan of Action for the Conservation 
and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), 
which was adopted by the FAO Committee on 
Fisheries in 1999. The IPOA-Sharks is a voluntary 
international instrument. In essence, it calls upon 
states to develop national plans of action (NPOAs) 
for the conservation and management of sharks. 
It covers both target species and bycatch and 
applies to states whether sharks are caught in their 
waters or elsewhere by their nationals (Techera 
and Klein, 2011). The IPOA-Sharks addresses 
shark conservation and management in a more 
comprehensive way than is achieved in other treaties. 
However, from a legal perspective it does not create 
binding rights and obligations on states, because 
it is not a treaty or “hard” law. Instead, much like 
CMS it serves as a framework for regulatory action 
at regional and national levels. This lack of legal 
binding has resulted in a slow uptake at the national 
level; however, the regional level has proved to be 
more promising with the adoption of a regional plan 
of action in the South Pacific and a proposed plan of 
action to be adopted by the European Union. This 
interaction at international, regional, and national 
levels contributes to the problem of fragmented and 
ineffective governance (Techera and Klein, 2011). 
These fragmentations not only reveal a multitude of 
weaknesses in the current international regime, but 
also provide information regarding what aspects of 
regulation are the most in need of change. 

A Complex Solution for a Complex System
 When looking at these institutions through the 
lens of Hardin’s commons governance theory, sharks 

can be viewed as a nonexcludable and rivalrous 
resource in need of conservation efforts from a 
complex system of international governance. As a 
pelagic, or migratory species, sharks are in need of a 
complex system of governance as they move through 
different jurisdictions and exclusive economic zones 
(Dulvy et al., 2017). Many important environmental 
challenges today involve systems that are intrinsically 
global and result in outcomes that are spatially 
displaced from their causes, such as larger scale 
economic incentives that are not closely aligned with 
the condition of local ecosystems. Therefore, in order 
to connect these causes and consequences, there 
must be stronger connections made between sharks 
and humans. This can be achieved most effectively 
by raising the human-perceived intrinsic value 
of sharks through the aforementioned avenues of 
positive media portrayal and ecotourist experiences 
(Cermak 2021). Once this multispecies perspective 
has been achieved, the international community will 
have the proper motivation to determine where the 
weaknesses of existing regimes such as UNCLOS 
and CITES lie in their ability to ensure sustainable 
shark fisheries. This information can then be used to 
create a framework for the international community 
to use to fill in the gaps left by these weaknesses with 
more sufficient solutions (Wigginton, 2014). Dietz’s 
proposed “adaptive governance” for the commons 
is the most promising solution for complex systems 
such as the shark fishing industry, particularly 
when there is a prominent need for emphasis on 
the value of the species itself. In order for adaptive 
governance to be successfully implemented, there 
are six requirements that must be met: providing 
information, dealing with conflict, inducing rule 
compliance, providing infrastructure, preparedness 
for change, and institutional variety. 

Providing Information
 Environmental governance depends on good, 
trustworthy information about the resource system 
being governed. Because the current legal regimes 
operate independently from one another, they 
often fail to communicate information adequately. 
The sharing of information between existing 
legal regimes would allow for the international 
community to delegate responsibilities to the system 
that is most capable of fulfilling the specific needs 
of that responsibility. Furthermore, the three guiding 



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  202439

principles for fisheries law (harvest levels, regulations 
of the species through its whole range, and broad 
consideration of the relevant ecological factors 
affecting conservation) all rely on detailed scientific 
information (Wigginton, 2014). The current lack of 
accurate species-specific harvest data inhibits the 
international community's ability to assess the level 
of risk to shark species. In an attempt to combat 
this, some studies have used trade records from 
global markets to determine global shark catches 
and measure the degree of exploitation impacting 
sharks (Clark et al., 2006). This method is promising 
for the future gathering and sharing of information 
regarding resource management. Accurate and 
frequent procurement of these data sets is essential 
to conservation efforts, but if this information is 
not shared with all involved actors, the governance 
system will fail.

Dealing with Conflict
 Stark differences in power and values across 
interested parties make conflict inherent in 
environmental choices. The potential for conflict is 
greatly increased when dealing with criminal activity, 
and thus the mechanisms for dealing with such 
conflict are particularly important for the regulation 
of illegal shark fishing organizations. The role of 
state actors is especially important when regulating 
illegal shark fishing, as the states must have vested 
interest in stopping these criminal organizations 
(Rosello, 2020). Therefore, regulations proposed 
within a system of adaptive governance must benefit 
all state actors, not just those with the most power 
to influence regulations. Further, there is also the 
issue of environmental regulations conflicting with 
other governance objectives. The current growing 
trend towards securitization of the maritime 
commons, for example, seriously impacts state 
cooperation in sustainable fisheries governance. The 
securitization of maritime commons undermines 
the effectiveness of the international framework 
for sustainable fisheries governance because of its 
fragmented nature and reliance on each country’s 
willingness to implement change (Luo and Chi, 
2022). State actors’ willingness to implement change 
is one of the larger challenges faced by proposed 
governance systems, and ultimately will lead to 
confrontation rather than cooperation in sustainable 
fisheries governance. It is in this aspect of commons 

governance where multispecies perspectives are 
most vital: after all, pressure from the public 
through tactics such as “naming and shaming” 
negative behaviors can be extremely effective in 
urging compliance. Additionally, in order to avoid 
confrontation between states and larger governing 
bodies, compromise must be made to some extent. 
For example, although no-take marine reserves are 
very effective in restoring biodiversity and enhancing 
ecosystem resilience (Sala and Giakoumi, 2018), they 
often rely on some of the strongest systems of control 
in comparison to other forms of marine protected 
areas, which can be difficult to entice governments 
to implement. Therefore, effective compromise and 
conflict-resolution strategies must be utilized to 
find a common-ground solution that the majority of 
actors will abide by.  

Inducing Rule Compliance
 In order to induce effective rule compliance, 
there must be clear implementation of rules 
and clear consequences for breaking them. The 
implementation of rules is only as effective as 
the weakest area of enforcement. This is why it is 
important that there are strong frameworks for 
implementation at all levels of governance. Many 
countries struggle to implement international law in 
multi-jurisdictional or legally pluralist contexts. The 
international regime could provide much greater 
guidance and facilitate the sharing of best practice 
regulatory options to overcome these issues (Techera 
and Klein, 2011). Research regarding enforcement 
tactics shows that it is generally most effective to 
impose modest sanctions on first offenders, and 
gradually increase severity of sanctions who do not 
learn from their first or second encounter (Dietz 
et al., 2003). When these enforcement tactics are 
implemented by all state actors in a cohesive manner, 
the international regime will be much more capable 
of preventing further harm to shark species and 
marine ecosystems. 

Providing Infrastructure
 The importance of physical and technological 
infrastructure is often overlooked. Infrastructure 
determines the degree to which a commons can be 
exploited, the extent to which waste can be reduced 
in resource use, and the degree to which resource 
conditions and the behavior of human users can 



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  2024

effectively be monitored. Effective communication 
and transportation technologies are also of 
immense importance. The nonprofit organization 
Global Fishing Watch has the potential to serve as 
sufficient infrastructure for ocean monitoring. The 
organization uses satellite radar imagery to monitor 
and report illegal fishing operations (Global Fishing 
Watch, 2023). This use of satellite data provides, 
in essence, a panopticon governance system for 
international waters. Moreover, this system has 
already proven itself as a vital tool for exposing 
illegal activity at sea: in 2020, Global Fishing Watch 
used satellite data to reveal hundreds of Chinese 
squid ships fishing in North Korean waters, which 
led to much political contention in the international 
community (Urbina, 2023). 

Preparedness for Change
 Institutions must be designed to allow for 
adaptation because some current understanding is 
likely to be wrong, the required scale of organization 
can shift, and biophysical and social systems 
change. Fixed rules are likely to fail because they 
place too much confidence in the current state of 
knowledge, whereas systems that guard against the 
low probability, high consequence possibilities and 
allow for change may be suboptimal in the short run 
but wiser in the long run. The issue with prioritizing 
systems with long-run benefits is that states are less 
likely to be inclined to implement them. Therefore, 
these adaptive and flexible regulations must 
have incentives attached to them that make their 
implementation more attractive to state actors.

Institutional Variety
 Governance should employ mixtures of 
institutional types that employ a variety of decision 
rules to change incentives, increase information, 
monitor use, and induce compliance. For example, 
illegal and unregulated shark exploitation requires 
a different system of governance than the regulated 
shark trade. The tragedy of the commons occurs 
often in wildlife crimes, where species become 
overexploited to increase short-term profits while 
endangering and eliminating a natural resource 
for future users. Current approaches to the illegal 
wildlife trade include implementing trade bans or 
regulatory schemes at the national and international 
level, similarly to the systems in place for regulated 

wildlife trade. However, a better approach in 
reducing the illegal wildlife trade is a combination of 
making it more difficult to poach and incentivizing 
locals to abstain from poaching (Pires and Moreto, 
2017). An example of success with this approach can 
be found in the 2019 Lima Declaration. Twenty-one 
Latin American and Caribbean countries jointly 
signed the Lima Declaration, an agreement to enact 
stronger laws, better enforcement, and stricter 
penalties to halt the illegal shark trade. In 2022, as 
a result of this declaration, Peru set an important 
precedent by successfully prosecuting and convicting 
two shark traffickers for the first time in the nation’s 
history (Guynup, 2023). While efforts like the 
Lima Declaration are a step in the right direction, 
they are only effective if the enforcement aspect is 
strengthened across all aspects of the shark finning 
trade. In order for enforcement to remain consistent, 
governments must pay for and train enforcement 
officers to be able to recognize illegal wildlife when 
it is imported and exported. Furthermore, in cases 
where governments lack the financial resources 
to train these enforcement officers, international 
organizations must step in to assist them.

Ecosystem-Based Governance
 When reflecting on the aforementioned solutions, 
it is important to also recognize the importance of 
local and ecosystem-based commons governance. 
Too many strategies for governance of local commons 
are designed in capital cities in ignorance of the state 
of the science or local conditions (Dietz et al., 2003). 
When local conditions are made the central factor 
in conservation strategies, there is a much greater 
opportunity for success, as evidenced by studies of 
ecosystem-based tuna fisheries management. These 
studies revealed that many of the elements necessary 
for ecosystem-based management are already present 
in governance, yet they have been implemented 
in an ad hoc way, without a long-term vision and 
a formalized plan (Juan-Jordá et al., 2018). When 
these elements are implemented intentionally and 
with long-term goals in mind, Regional Fisheries 
Management Organizations have great success in 
conservation and protection. The success of tuna 
management is promising for shark conservation, as 
tuna are also a highly migratory species. The elements 
of an ecosystem-based conservation approach 
proven to be successful for tuna fisheries can 

40



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  2024

therefore be applied to shark fisheries management 
to generate the same successes. While there has been 
great success with regional fisheries management, 
there are also challenges that must be addressed. 
Reducing fisheries' impacts on marine ecosystems 
is particularly challenging in small-scale fisheries, 
where endangered species can have important 
consumptive use values (Booth et al., 2023). In order 
to combat this challenge, governance regimes must 
provide incentives whose value outweighs the value 
of exploiting endangered species. Recent research 
has revealed that payments for ecosystem services 
have led to a reduction in exploitation of marine life 
in small-scale fisheries (Booth et al., 2023); however, 
more research into effective incentives is necessary 
to fully combat this challenge. 

Conclusion
Reckoning with the Negative Human Impact on 
Marine Ecosystems
 Global shark populations are undoubtedly in 
need of conservation and protection; however, when 
looking at these conservation efforts through a wider 
lens, the need for a much larger conversation in the 
realm of multispecies politics is revealed. The use 
of human systems of international governance to 
protect nonhuman species—as well as the values 
used to determine what nonhuman species garner 
this protection and attention—must be questioned in 
order to give nonhuman species the most autonomy. 
While the implementation of conservation efforts 
by human systems of international governance can 
be regarded as humans infringing upon nonhuman 
species’ independence and autonomy, it is perhaps 
the most effective way for humans to reckon with 
our impact on marine ecosystems that has resulted 
in their need for conservation in the first place. The 
overexploitation of sharks and the overall destruction 
is predominantly the result of human action. This 
human responsibility is not just due to direct harm 
from overfishing, but the indirect consequences of 
climate change on marine ecosystems as well. 

Concluding Discussion
 Overall, the theoretical frameworks of commons 
governance and multispecies politics provide a 
multitude of promising solutions for the issue of 
shark overexploitation. While there are promising 
signs that conservation efforts are working in the 

oceans, overfishing remains the principal cause 
of biodiversity loss (Sherman et al., 2023); and the 
risk that overfishing poses to apex predators such as 
sharks is quite substantial. Sharks regulate a multitude 
of food-chains in the ocean, and therefore, threats 
to shark species are threats to the health of ocean 
ecosystems as a whole. The proposed frameworks, 
when combined, are the most practical solution 
for the threat currently facing shark species. The 
implementation of multispecies perspectives into 
international politics will help shift public attitudes 
not only towards shark species, but also towards 
their importance and our moral obligation to 
protect them from the threats that our international 
community has allowed to perpetuate for so long. 
Once this attitudinal shift has occurred, commons 
governance theory can then be implemented as a 
framework for new and improved international 
regulations surrounding the overexploitation of 
sharks. While this is admittedly a daunting task 
for the international community to take on, the 
importance of protecting and conserving shark 
species is too great to overlook, and therefore must 
be met with collective and immediate action from 
the international community. 

References
Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, 

G. (2012). When closing the human–animal 
divide expands moral concern: The importance 
of framing. Social Psychological and Personality 
Science, 3(4), 421-429.

Booth, H., Ramdlan, M. S., Hafizh, A., Wongsopatty, 
K., Mourato, S., Pienkowski, T., ... & Milner-
Gulland, E. J. (2023). Designing locally-
appropriate conservation incentives for small-
scale fishers. Biological Conservation, 277, 
109821.

Cardeñosa, D., Shea, S.K., Zhang, H., Fischer, G. A., 
Simpfendorfer, C. A.,& Chapman, D. D. (2022). 
Two thirds of species in a global shark fin trade 
hub are threatened with extinction: Conservation 
potential of international trade regulations for 
coastal sharks. Conservation Letters, 15, e12910. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12910 

41



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  2024

Cermak, I. (2021). Jumping the shark: White Shark 
representations in Great White serial killer 
lives—The fear and the (pseudo-)science. 
Journalism and Media, 2(4), 584–604. https://
doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2040035

Clarke, S. C., McAllister, M. K., Milner-Gulland, 
E. J., Kirkwood, G. P., Michielsens, C. G., 
Agnew, D. J., ... & Shivji, M. S. (2006). Global 
estimates of shark catches using trade records 
from commercial markets. Ecology letters, 9(10), 
1115-1126.

De Waal, F. (2016, April 8). What I learned from 
tickling apes. The New York Times. https://www.
nytimes.com/2016/04/10/opinion/sunday/what-
i-learned-from-tickling-apes.html

Dietz, T et al. (2003). The struggle to govern the 
commons. Science 302,1907-1912  DOI: 10.1126/
science.1091015  

Dorantes-González, M. A., Hernández-Guerra, 
J. M., & Arreguín-Sánchez, F. (2023). The role 
of the actors in the trade network structure of 
fishing products: The case of the shark market. 
Ocean & Coastal Management, 242, 106680.

Dulvy, N. K., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Davidson, L. N., 
Fordham, S. V., Bräutigam, A., Sant, G., & Welch, 
D. J. (2017). Challenges and priorities in shark 
and ray conservation. Current Biology, 27(11), 
R565-R572.

Global Fishing Watch. (2023). Transparency for a 
sustainable ocean. https://globalfishingwatch.
org/

Govella, K. (2023). Avoiding and exploiting the 
tragedy of the commons: fishing, crime, and 
conflict in the South China Sea. International 
Politics, 1-21.

Guerra, A. S. (2019). Wolves of the sea: Managing 
human-wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense 
ocean. Marine Policy, 99, 369-373.

Guynup, S. (2023). Can targeted action stop illegal 
trade in time to prevent widespread losses? 

ReVista (Cambridge), 22(2), 1-16. https://
www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/can-
targeted-action-stop-i l legal-trade-t ime/
docview/2785663671/se-2  

Hammerton, Z., & Ford Dr, A. (2018). Decolonising 
the waters: Interspecies encounters between 
sharks and humans. Animal Studies Journal, 
7(1), 270-303.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. 
Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. http://www.jstor.
org/stable/1724745

Holcomb, S. (2023, June 15). Sharks under threat. 
Oceana. https://oceana.org/blog/sharks-under-
threat/ 

Jabado, R and Rigby, C. 2023. 2022 Report of the 
Shark Specialist Group. In: Nassar, JM, García, L, 
Mendoza, L, Andrade, ND, Bezeng, S, Birkhoff, 
J, Bohm, M, Canteiro, C, Geschke, J, Henriques, 
S, Ivande, S, Mileham, K, Ramos, M, Rodríguez, 
A, Rodríguez, JP, Street, B, and Yerena, E (Eds.). 
2022 Report of the IUCN Species Survival 
Commission and Secretariat. International Union 
for Conservation of Nature. 8 pp.

Jarvis, J. L. (2019). Shark fin soup: Collective 
imagination in the transnational public sphere. 
Global Media Journal: Canadian Edition, 11(1).

Juan-Jordá, M. J., Murua, H., Arrizabalaga, H., 
Dulvy, N. K., & Restrepo, V. (2018). Report 
card on ecosystem-based fisheries management 
in tuna regional fisheries management 
organizations. Fish and Fisheries, 19(2), 321-339.

Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). 
Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: Moral 
reasoning about ecological commons dilemmas. 
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 261-
272.

Kozachenko, H. H., & Piazza, J. (2021). How children 
and adults value different animal lives. Journal of 
Experimental Child Psychology, 210, 105204.

42



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  2024

Lawson, J. M., & Fordham, S. V. (2018). Sharks 
ahead: realizing the potential of the convention 
on migratory species to conserve elasmobranchs. 
Shark Advocates International, The Ocean 
Foundation, Washington, DC, USA, 76.

Le Busque, B., & Litchfield, C. (2022). Sharks on film: 
An analysis of how shark-human interactions 
are portrayed in films. Human Dimensions of 
Wildlife, 27(2), 193-199.

Luo, G., & Chi, Z. (2022). Conflicts and challenges of 
sustainable fisheries governance Cooperation 
under the securitization of the maritime 
commons. Fishes, 8(1), 1.

Macdonald, C., McEntee, K., & Wester, J. (2023). 
Values, attitudes, and media exposure: Public 
perception of sharks and shark conservation in 
the USA. Biological Conservation, 286, 110305.

Manfredo, M. J., Urquiza-Haas, E. G., Carlos, A. 
W. D., Bruskotter, J. T., & Dietsch, A. M. (2020). 
How anthropomorphism is changing the 
social context of modern wildlife conservation. 
Biological Conservation, 241, 108297.

Neves, J., Giger, J. C., Piçarra, N., Alves, V., & 
Almeida, J. (2021). Social representations of 
sharks, perceived communality, and attitudinal 
and behavioral tendencies towards their 
conservation: An exploratory sequential mixed 
approach. Marine Policy, 132, 104660.

Nosal, A. P., Keenan, E. A., Hastings, P. A., & Gneezy, 
A. (2016). The effect of background music in 
shark documentaries on viewers' perceptions of 
sharks. PLoS One, 11(8), e0159279.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The 
evolution of institutions for collective action. 
Cambridge University Press.

Pacoureau, N., Rigby, C. L., Kyne, P. M., Sherley, 
R. B., Winker, H., Carlson, J. K., ... & Dulvy, N. 
K. (2021). Half a century of global decline in 
oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 589(7843), 567-
571.

Partin, T. G., Gonzalez, A. J., & Burnham-Curtis, 
M. K. (2022). Sharks on a plane: Large shark 
fin seizure shines light on shark exploitation. 
Forensic Science International: Animals and 
Environments, 2, 100055.

Pires, S. F., & Moreto, W. D. (2011). Preventing 
wildlife crimes: Solutions that can overcome the 
‘Tragedy of the Commons’. European Journal on 
Criminal Policy and Research, 17, 101-123.

Pookhao, N. (2013). Ecotourism ethics: 
Anthropocentrism or ecocentrism. Journal of 
Thai Hospitality and Tourism, 8(1), 31-37.

Rooney, D. (2022). ‘All fishing is wildlife poaching:’ 
Nonhuman animal imagery and mutual avowal in 
racing extinction and seaspiracy. Journalism and 
Media, 3(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.3390/
journalmedia3020020

Rosello, M. (2020). Illegal, unreported and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing as a maritime security 
concern. Global Challenges in Maritime Security: 
An Introduction, 33-47. 

Sala, E., & Giakoumi, S. (2018). No-take marine 
reserves are the most effective protected areas in 
the ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(3), 
1166-1168.

Shark Stewards. (2022). Sustainable ecotourism. 
https://sharkstewards.org/shark-science-
education/sound-shark-ecotourism-practices/

Sherman, C. S., Digel, E. D., Zubick, P., Eged, 
J., Haque, A. B., Matsushiba, J. H., ... & Dulvy, 
N. K. (2023). High overexploitation risk due to 
management shortfall in highly traded requiem 
sharks. Conservation Letters, 16(2), e12940. 

‘T Sas-Rolfes, M., Challender, D. W., Hinsley, A., 
Veríssimo, D., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2019). 
Illegal wildlife trade: Scale, processes, and 
governance. Annual Review of Environment and 
Resources, 44, 201-228.

43



Preying on Predators: The Role of International Regimes in the Overexploitation of Shark Species

Aisthesis      Volume 15,  2024

Techera, E. J., & Klein, N. (2011). Fragmented 
governance: Reconciling legal strategies for 
shark conservation and management. Marine 
Policy, 35(1), 73-78.

Urbina, I. (2023). The crimes behind the seafood 
you eat. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.
com/magazine/2023/10/16/the-crimes-behind-
the-seafood-you-eat  

Wigginton, J. R. (2014). Governing a global 
commons: Sharks in the high seas. Villanova 
Environmental Law Journal, 25, 431.

      

44


