182     Current Issues in Comparative Education

Island Enclaves: Offshoring, Creative Governance and Subnational Island Jurisdictions, by Godfrey 
Baldacchino.	 Montreal,	 Canada:	 McGill-Queen’s	 University	 Press,	 2010.	 301pp.	 ISBN-13	 978-
0773537163.

There is a lasting perception of the ocean as an endless resource, a vast expanse that is 
fundamentally	asocial.	As	Philip	Steinberg	writes,	 the	ocean	 is	 imagined	as	“a	space	 ‘outside’	
society...an abstract point on a grid, to be developed” (Steinberg, 2001, p. 207). However, covering 
almost	three	quarters	of	the	planet’s	surface,	ocean	space	has	always	played	and	important	role	
in societies for sustenance, livelihoods, commerce, and culture. The fact that almost half the 
world’s	population	lives	within	200	km	of	the	coast	demonstrates	our	extensive	connection	to	
the	sea	(Cohen,	1997).	The	world’s	ocean	faces	dire	threats,	including	rising	acidity,	oil,	nitrate	
and	phosphate	pollution,	 as	well	 as	 the	everyday	human	 trash	 that	finds	 its	way	 to	even	 the	
most remote marine regions. As a voluminous medium of constant movement and change, the 
ocean	is	a	difficult	place	to	govern	or	regulate.	These	physical	properties	complicate	questions	of	
management, responsibility, resource allocation, sovereignty, and security.

One way of wrestling with these complex issues is by examining how they play out in subnational 
(or non-sovereign) island jurisdictions (SNIJs): a category of analysis suggested by Godfrey 
Baldacchino in his timely 2010 book, Island Enclaves. By reviewing mainland/big state-island/
small state relations as they affect SNIJs, Baldacchino examines a broad range of strategies and 
technologies of creative governance that have taken offshoring to new heights in the 21st century.

One policy domain where such novel manifestations of sovereignty are crafted and expressed is 
that of ocean governance. As small island states know only too well, ocean space still comprehends 
contested legal regimes, with their oddly striated jurisdictions, extending progressively offshore: 
Territorial Waters, the Contiguous Zone, Exclusive Economic Zones, extended Continental Shelves, 
and ending in the High Seas or international waters. Each of these jurisdictions establishes a 
gradient of ownership and liability. As a contested and peripheral region, it is a sought after space 
for economic development and, as Baldacchino writes, “contestable, border regions – such as the 
ocean depths [and including] outer space, and increasingly the Arctic, are treated as fair game 
for	mainland	subjugation	and	organization”	(p.	35).	And	like	Baldacchino’s	islands,	ocean	spaces	
also	represent	exemplars	of	‘fractal	sovereignty,’	‘ambiguous	zones’	and	‘non-spaces’	…“locations	
that are [seen as] devoid of identity, [of] organically arisen relationships and history” (p. 26).

The legal construction of the ocean stems from the 1982 United Nations Conference on the Law 
of The Sea (UNCLOS III). The resulting heterogeneous jurisdictional spaces are an attempt to 
strike a balance between full state enclosure of the ocean and a need to preserve freedoms of 
navigation so important for shipping routes and global trade. These dual functions serve capital 
well	 in	 this	 legal	 framework,	with	 the	ocean	serving	as	both	a	horizontal	 surface	of	 transport	
and a vertical exploitable resource. They are, however, not without contradictions that manifest 
in ocean governance, geopolitical tensions, and environmental impacts. As Steinberg (1999) 
describes it, ocean space is “a domain that is resistant to direct state surveillance and territoriality 
but that nonetheless has been incorporated within statist discourse…[and these] contradictory 
tendencies	in	modern-era	marine	governance…may	be	viewed	as	reflecting	the	ebb	and	flow	of	
contradictory tendencies in the spatiality of capitalism” (p. 254).

Of course, the spatial articulation of capitalism has been limited by the physical properties of the 
ocean,	retarding	its	complete	reconfiguration	of	the	seascape,	as	it	has	done	to	many	landscapes,	
as Harvey (1985) puts it, in striving “to create a physical landscape in its own image and requisite 



Current Issues in Comparative Education     183

to	 its	 own	needs	at	 a	particular	point	 in	 time”	 (p.	 150).	But	neither	 the	ocean’s	 resources	nor	
pollutants hesitate to spill over any politically, legally or socially constructed boundaries. Efforts 
to	 territorialize	 the	 sea	 simply	 further	 extend	 the	 terrestrial	 boundaries	 of	 coastal	 nations,	
imposing	fixed	grids	on	this	seething	expanse;	yet	managing	the	ocean	as	a	static	space	has	failed	
to capture its materiality and led to ambiguity regarding sovereignty, security, management and 
responsibility. One alarming outcome of this has been transboundary environmental degradation 
in the form of trash gyres: diffuse collections of garbage that gather under a migrating atmospheric 
high-pressure area in open waters. The complexity and scale of this environmental problem 
makes	it	extremely	challenging.	Five	large	trash	gyres	have	been	‘discovered’	in	the	North	and	
South	Pacific,	North	and	South	Atlantic,	and	the	Indian	Ocean.	The	North	Pacific	trash	gyre	is	
thought to be the largest. 

While most ocean pollution originates on land, this waste once at sea, becomes ephemeral and 
fragmented,	allowing	it	to	evade	quantification	and	resist	the	Cartesian	spatialities	imposed	upon	
it.	Despite	these,	the	North	Pacific	trash	gyre	has	been	widely	represented	in	the	media	through	a	
terrestrial imaginary, adopting such categories as solid, visible, stationary – even described as “an 
island	twice	the	size	of	Texas”	(Hoshaw,	2009).	These	constructions	of	the	sea,	as	sharing	properties	
of the terrestrial, are incongruent with the physicality of ocean space. These portrayals paint a 
much different picture than the diffuse and pervasive detritus, constantly in motion. In actuality, 
this	gyre	phenomenon	shares	the	properties	of	its	medium,	something	that	flows,	penetrating	to	
unknown depths, resistant to tracking or collection, incompatible with these island-like notions. 
Like	Harvey’s	description	of	an	assemblage,	 the	gyre	embodies	“ephemerality,	 fragmentation,	
discontinuity, and the chaotic” (Harvey, 1991, p. 44).

The resources of the high seas are the common property of all countries, and the largest 
convergence	 zone	 for	 the	 North	 Pacific	 trash	 gyre	 inhabits	 international	 waters.	 But	 still,	 its	
seasonal circulation and interactions with different currents does bring it into the purview of 
many other jurisdictions, and particularly small island developing states like Fiji, Kiribati and 
Samoa. The gyre also migrates seasonally, crossing these boundaries with prevailing winds. 
This drifting clearly complicates matters of responsibility, occupying regions that are treated 
as extraterritorial or non-space. “Moreover, being on the edge, out of sight and so often out of 
mind”, as Baldacchino writes: “paradigms tend to be weakest at their peripheries; challenges to 
sovereignty [are] most apparent at the margin, where power is more clearly contested” (p. 14).

Despite	the	evident	land/sea	binary,	the	juridical	enclaves	of	the	islands	discussed	in	Baldacchino’s	
book	seem	to	share	many	commonalities	with	spaces	of	ocean	governance,	such	as	a	‘fuzziness’	
of sovereignty, contestable borders, and the probability of being subjugated by mainland entities. 
But	they	also	share	the	potential	for	alternative	modes	of	viable	‘development’.	As	stated	above,	
the complexity of dealing with this environmental issue is an extremely challenging problem. 
Managing the ocean as a static space has failed to disrupt the incursion of everyday consumer 
products,	such	as	lighters,	plastic	bags,	soda	bottles,	and	other	flotsam	and	jetsam,	 journeying	
thousands of kilometers from their terrestrial locales to drift at sea and eventually sink into the 
depths or dissipate into increasingly smaller particulates.

The spatiality of capitalism demands that ocean space be treated as either a surface of transport 
or	the	 location	of	exploitable	resources.	However,	 the	obvious	maritimity	of	 the	world’s	small	
island states and territories demands a more comprehensive concern with, and stewardship of, 
the sea. The degradation of the ocean by marine debris – and noting the equally galling crisis in 
fish	stocks	worldwide	-	necessitates	new	legal,	political	and	social	understandings.	Perhaps,	the	



184     Current Issues in Comparative Education

‘fuzziness’	of	sovereignty	and	juridical	ambiguities	may	allow	a	chance	to,	as	Baldacchino	writes,	
“exploit a situation to serve [another] purpose” (p. 27), one beyond just the economic exploitation 
for which the Law of the Sea seems intended. Perhaps, by better aligning our aquatic imaginaries 
with the physical spatialities of ocean space, we can begin to envision policies that reduce trash 
production,	prevent	ocean	pollution	and	restore	the	ocean’s	health.

Other Works Cited

Cohen, J. (1997). Estimates of coastal populations. Science, 278, 1211-1212.

Harvey, D. (1985). The Geopolitics of Capitalism. In D. Gregory & J. Urry (Eds.), Social relations and 
spatial structures (pp. 128-163). London, UK: Methuen.

Harvey, D. (1991). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. 
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hoshaw.	L.	(2010,	Nov.	10).	Afloat	in	the	ocean,	expanding	islands	of	trash.	The New York Times.

Steinberg,	P.	E.	(1999).	Navigating	to	multiple	horizons:	Toward	a	geography	of	ocean-space.	The 
Professional Geographer, 51(3), 366-375.

Steinberg, P. E. (2001). The social construction of the ocean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 
Press.

– Reviewed by Katherine G. Sammler, The University of Arizona

Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching, by Charlotte Danielson. Alexandria, VA: 
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007. 200 pp. ISBN-13: 978-1416605171

Education in Small States: Policies and Priorities, by Michael Crossley, Mark Bray, & Steve Packer. 
London, UK: Commonwealth Secretariat, 2011. 120 pp. ISBN-13: 978-1849290364

The teaching profession has been the subject of perpetual scrutiny for several reasons, but one 
of	the	most	prevalent	criticisms	is	that	educators’	practices	are	not	supported	by	standards.	It	is	
true that most professions have a set of norms regarding conduct for their members. Teachers 
also have sets of standards, but they are usually more relevant to the actual training of instructors 
or the way in which the curriculum is to be taught. The natural concern for having a benchmark 
by which professional conduct is evaluated is that school environments can vary so wildly 
within even a single district that these standards may be rendered irrelevant depending upon the 
circumstances. With this problem in mind, Charlotte Danielson does an admirable job of outlining 
the standard of conduct to which educators should strive to adhere in Enhancing Professional 
Practice: A Framework for Teaching.

Danielson’s	aim	is	elegant	in	its	simplicity:	create	a	framework	which	supports	new	teachers	while	
enhancing the abilities of veteran teachers by giving them a common language to communicate