The book has outlined detailed examples of the inter-regime activities resulting from law's response to the global fisheries crisis. In response to the detailed legal and political analysis contained in Part II, it has offered, in this Part, suggestions for deliberation and oversight according to a legal framework of regime interaction. This has several major implications for international law, and this chapter reflects on the operation of the legal framework in practice. It then discusses further implications, both for the conclusions of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation and for fisheries governance and beyond. The chapter pre-emptively replies to possible critiques that the legal framework endorses managerialism or makes otherwise invalid assumptions, and concludes by calling for greater attention to the future participants of regime interaction in the context of the fragmented legal order.

A Appropriate regime interaction in practice

One of the major implications of the legal framework for regime interaction is that it operates across the full spectrum of law-making, implementation and adjudication. Regime interaction in negotiating new laws promotes the possibility of entrenched procedures. Ongoing regime interaction in the implementation of rules will be relevant to the resolution of disputes. Conversely, in drawing on rules and standards from exogenous regimes, dispute settlement bodies will consider how such standards were themselves developed, and the history of participation in negotiations will again be relevant.