This article focuses on the advantages and limitations of regionalization in fisheries, using the experiences of Europe, the United States, and Canada. Regionalization in European fisheries has encountered several obstacles that have greatly reduced its scope since implemented in 2004. After discussing the historical dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy, the methodological approach draws on neo-institutional economics and research on the socio-systems. The third section is devoted to a comparative approach between three main fisheries management systems in Europe, the United-States and Canada. Since the passage of the Magnuson Act, the U.S. has experimented with advanced forms of decentralization. Canada, on the other hand, has evolved towards a more centralized form of fisheries management. In reviewing these three cases, Europe seems to be somewhere between these other two examples. Decentralized management using markets and rights-based management in principle offers a better allocation of fishing efforts than centralized management because it takes into account the regional or even local nature of the resources exploited and the human populations that depend on them. However, the financial burden related to decentralized fisheries management may be expensive for the institutions involved. The comparative approach of the three major fisheries management systems is based on institutions guided by the search for a compromise between ecological and socio-economic criteria. Indeed, fisheries management in Europe and North American is now integrated into an ecosystems approach.