This thesis explores how rights to the Barbadian flyingfish fishery are understood, legitimated, and contested. It addresses three overarching research questions: 1) who gets the fish and on what basis; 2) how is this system of allocation governed and why in this way; and, 3) is this governance challenged? Answers to these questions matter to coastal communities in Barbados and for the analysis of resource governance more broadly. The existing literatures on fisheries tends to study governance from the top-down. Omitted are the social motivations of actors targeted by such governance. Furthermore, these accounts fail to recognise both the legitimacy gaps created by top-down governance, and, the alternative forms of bottom-up governance practiced by fisherfolk and local communities. This thesis adopts an ethnographic methodology situated within an International Relations critical constructivist theoretical approach to capture these localised perspectives. My key argument is that to understand how this resource is governed, and by extension, the rights afforded to Barbadian fisherfolk, there is a need to be attentive to socio-political norms that have shaped what is deemed appropriate. This study's empirical findings foreground regional and development norms as the two areas most pertinent. Tensions between the norms of regional community and national sovereignty have undermined attempts to formally demarcate regionally-shared distributive rights to the Eastern Caribbean flyingfish fishery, though fisherfolk have enacted their own kind of informal regionalised governance. Tensions within the norm of sustainable development have left unresolved the issue of whether fisherfolk should have access rights to valuable coastal spaces occupied by the luxury tourism industry, with local communities using the language of social sustainability to make the case that they should have access to preserve their livelihoods and associated cultural traditions.