Antoniotti, Sylvain, Cécile Sabourault, Christophe den Auwer, Jean-Christophe Martin, Julien Andrieu, and Saranne Comel. 2025. “Sommet Sur l’océan à Nice : Des Résultats Prometteurs Mais Un Essai à Transformer.” July. https://hal.science/hal-05161550. Cite

Blok, Anders, Moe Nakazora, and Brit Ross Winthereik. 2016. “Infrastructuring Environments.” Science as Culture 25 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2015.1081500. Cite

Bueger, Christian. 2025. “Nice, New York: Le Fossé Diplomatique de l’océan, Entre Ambitions de Conservation et Impératifs de Sécurité.” Diplomatie, no. 135: 19–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48835475. Cite

Bueger, Christian, Tobias Liebetrau, and Jan Stockbruegger. 2023. “Theorizing Infrastructures in Global Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 67 (4): sqad101. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqad101. Cite

Cadalen, Pierre-Yves, Gaëlle Ronsin, and Nadège Legroux. 2022. “One Ocean Summit : tournant marin des négociations environnementales ou diplomatie océanique de club ?” Négociations 37 (1): 87–113. https://doi.org/10.3917/neg.037.0087. Cite

Campbell, Lisa M., Catherine Corson, Noella J. Gray, Kenneth I. MacDonald, and J. Peter Brosius. 2014. “Studying Global Environmental Meetings to Understand Global Environmental Governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.” Global Environmental Politics 14 (3): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_e_00236. Cite

Carlson, McKenna E. n.d. Forty Years of UN Ocean Governance: Stakeholder Power and Policy Shifts (1982–2022). Cite

Esteban C, Julian, Andre Almeida, Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, et al. 2024. “Dynamic Ocean, Dynamic Solutions: New Multi-Disciplinary Approaches for Marine Conservation Tools.” October 24. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13992368. Cite

Gattuso, Jean-Pierre, and François Houllier. 2025. “June 2025: Nice, Capital of the World Ocean.” Arts et Sciences 9 (2): 3–8. https://doi.org/10.21494/iste.op.2025.1287. Cite

Gattuso, Jean-Pierre, François Houllier, Mahé Butel, and Wilfried Sanchez. 2025. “Ocean Science Meets Diplomacy: Contribution of the One Ocean Science Congress to the Third United Nations Ocean Conference.” Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin 34 (4): 119–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.70003. Cite

Gattuso, J. P., F. Houllier, J. Adams, et al. 2025. Knowledge for a Thriving Ocean. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15533850. Cite

Guilloux, Bleuenn, Youna Lyons, Joëlle Richard, and Denis Bailly. 2025. “The Third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC3): Blue Diplomacy in the Service of Environmental Action?” Revue Juridique de l’Environnement 50 (4): 717–20. https://www.jle.com/en/revues/rje/e-docs/la_troisieme_conference_des_nations_unies_sur_locean_unoc3_la_diplomatie_bleue_au_service_de_laction_environnementale__354918/article.phtml?tab=texte. Cite

Kervran, David Dumoulin, Jean Foyer, and CLIMACOP. 2024. “L’ethnographie collaborative des méga-conférences. Une proposition méthodologique pour enquêter sur les évènements politiques « monstres ».” Critique internationale 104 (3): 111–36. https://doi.org/10.3917/crii.104.0111. Cite

Kong, Jason, and Sara A. Cooley. 2016. An Untapped Resource for Intergovernmental Organizations: Ocean Waste Environmental NGOs. Cite

Lidström, Susanna, Tirza Meyer, and Jesse D. Peterson. 2022. “The Metaphor of Ocean ‘Health’ Is Problematic; ‘The Ocean We Want’ Is a Better Term.” Frontiers in Marine Science 9 (February). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.818229. Cite

Milhiet, Paco. 2025. “The Third UN Ocean Conference in Nice: A Global Summit to Safeguard the Ocean.” RSIS Commentaries, 130-25. https://hdl.handle.net/10356/201647. Cite

Sanchez, Wilfried, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Francois Houllier, Mahé Butel, Francois Houllier, and Mahé Butel. 2026. “Le Congrès One Ocean Science, Un Éclairage Scientifique Pour La 3e Conférence Des Nations Unies Sur l’Océan.” Natures Sciences Sociétés, January 1. https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00987/109881/. Cite

Spalding, Ana K., and Ricardo de Ycaza. 2020. “Navigating Shifting Regimes of Ocean Governance: From UNCLOS to Sustainable Development Goal 14.” Environment and Society. Environment and Society 11 (1): 5–26. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2020.110102. Cite

Treyer, Sébastien, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, and François Houllier. 2025. “L’Océan et la recherche scientifique à l’épreuve des tensions géopolitiques. Les leçons de la 3e Conférence des Nations unies sur l’Océan.” Natures Sciences Sociétés 33 (2): 120–21. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2025052. Cite

“N° Spécial : UNOC 2025.” n.d. Arts & Sciences 9. Accessed December 1, 2025. https://www.openscience.fr/No-Spe-UNOC. Cite

“Politics Here Is about How Socio-Material Structures Are Built, Maintained, and Repaired to Stabilize and Order Complex Social Systems and Organizations. In This Style, Theorizing, Hence, Aims at Capturing Both the Building and Using of Infrastructures, as Well as Their Inherent Powers. Given the Ambitions Linked to the Style, We Describe It with the Term ‘Infrastructuralism.’” n.d. Cite

“The Third Style of Theorizing Does Not Advance or Develop Prior Theories, but Aspires to Develop an Alternative Theoretical Vocabulary. The Attempt Is to Advance Infrastructure as a General Analytical Concept and Methodology to Shed Light on the Making and Maintenance of Fragile Political Structures.” n.d. Cite

“Theorists Conceive of Infrastructures as Physical Networks That Create Structural Interdependencies and Relationships in Trade, Finance, Communication, and Other Areas of IR. Politics Here Is Agentic and Takes Place around Infrastructures—That Is in the Ways in Which Actors Build, Use, and Govern Infrastructures as a Specific Object in World Politics.” n.d. Cite

“The First Style of Theorizing Views Infrastructure as an Empirical Instance.” n.d. Cite

“Infrastructuralism Draws on Empirical Research and Extends Key Insights Carried out under the Two Other Styles, Namely the Idea That Actors Strategically and Purposefully Build and Use Infrastructures (Style-A), and the Idea That These Structures Have Socio-Material Agency and Power, Are Fluid, Contested, and Subject to Change (Style-B).” n.d. Cite

“The Second Style Interprets Infrastructures as Fragile Socio-Material Entanglements and Relational Processes That Entail Both Physical and Immaterial, Ideational Elements. It Theorizes Them by Advancing Frameworks and Vocabularies Often Imported from Other Disciplines, Including Actor-Network Theory or Assemblage Thinking. Politics Here Is Inherent in Infrastructure’s Design and Evolves around Questions of How Infrastructures Govern Behavior and How They Are Used and Renegotiated Locally in Everyday Activities. Theorizing Primarily Concerns How Infrastructures Shape Actors’ Conduct. Given the Focus on Practices, We Describe This Style with the Term ‘Infrastructuring.’” n.d. Cite

“In General Terms, Infrastructure Theorists Are Interested in Structuring Effectsthat Is, How Infrastructures Shape and Condition Behaviorand in Infrastructure Processes and Relations—That Is, How Infrastructures Are Designed, Contested, Changed, Used, and Maintained in Specific Contexts.” n.d. Cite

“Introduced from French into English Language, the Term Was Originally Used in Railroad Construction (Carse 2016). It Referred to the Planning and Construction Work That Was Required to Allow Structures (Railways System) to Be Build. As Signaled by the Prefix ‘Infra,’ the Concept Introduces a Hierarchy of Structures, Where Infrastructures Are beneath and Prior to Any Structure to Be Build. Infrastructures, Hence, Provide the Necessary Foundations for All Forms of Behavior, Interactions, and Practices. Put Differently, All International Political Phenomena Can Be Seen as Having One or More Underlying Infrastructures That Enable and Sustain Them.” n.d. Cite

“The Term Infrastructure and How One Can Theorize with It, Increasingly Is Controversial. While Some Use It as a Rather Loose Figure of Speech and Metaphor,1 Others Disagree over What Infrastructures Are, and Whether Infrastructure Is a Theoretical Concept or Merely Refers to a Cluster of Empirical Phenomena. Some Scholars Treat Infrastructures as Objects of Global Politics While Others Attribute Political Force to Them. Clarifying the Conceptual Terrain, Giving Direction to the Controversy, and Enhancing the Analytical Purchase of Infrastructure Is the Key Objective of This Theory Note.” n.d. Cite

“Studies Addressing These Questions Have Proliferated in Recent Years to a Degree That Infrastructure Is Becoming a Fundamental Concept in the Discipline of International Relations (IR). Yet, These Studies Approach and Study Infrastructures in Different and Disparate Ways. A Range of Scholars Is Interested in Systemic, Distributional, and Strategic Effects. They Investigate, for Example, How the United States Uses Digital and Financial Transaction Platforms to Ensure Its Global Dominance, or How China and Other Revisionist States Build Infrastructure to Redesign the International System (Farrell and Newman 2019b; Kardon and Leutert 2022). Others Investigate How Infrastructures Such as Telegraph Cables and Shipping Increase International ‘Interaction Capacity’ (Buzan et al 1993, 66–80) and Lead to the Emergence of Regimes That Facilitate Cooperation (Zacher and Sutton 1996). Another Set of Scholars Are Inspired by the Substantial Wave of Studies on Infrastructure in Geography, Anthropology, Science and Technology Studies, and Organization Studies. They Argue That Infrastructures Are Both Constitutive of, and Constituted by Politics, and Shape the Conditions of Possibility of Global Affairs. Researchers Aim at Demonstrating That Infrastructures May Have Political Agency of Their Own, Shape Behavior, and Constrain Powerful Actors (Aradau 2010; Bernards and Campbell-Verduyn 2019; de Goede and Westermeier 2022).” n.d. Cite