Executive Director
Image Source: Getty Images, Royalty Free
The adoption of the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) in June 2023 marked a historic milestone in international ocean governance. Often referred to as the “High Seas Treaty,” the BBNJ Agreement fills a critical legal gap in the governance of the vast ocean spaces that lie outside national jurisdictions. It offers a framework for protecting biodiversity by introducing measures such as area-based management tools—including the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs)—regulating access to marine genetic resources (MGRs), conducting environmental impact assessments (EIAs), and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing. Yet, while the adoption was momentous, the treaty’s effectiveness hinges on ratification. Sixty countries must ratify the treaty for it to enter into force, and as of April 2025, just 21 have completed this process. This issue brief examines six key dimensions of the BBNJ Agreement’s evolving trajectory and its implications for global and regional governance.
Since its adoption, the BBNJ Agreement has garnered widespread support, with over 110 countries having signed the treaty. However, the pace of ratification has been slower than many advocates had hoped. Comparisons with other multilateral treaties such as the Paris Agreement on climate change or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) reveal a familiar challenge: securing domestic legislative approval for international commitments.
Some countries have moved swiftly. Palau, Chile, and several European Union members have already ratified the treaty, motivated by strong domestic environmental agendas and a desire to lead in global ocean diplomacy. For Palau and other Pacific Island nations, the health of marine ecosystems is not only an environmental concern but an existential one—deeply tied to food security, cultural identity, and climate resilience. Chile, with its long Pacific coastline and leadership in hosting major ocean conferences, views the BBNJ Agreement as a continuation of its international environmental engagement.
Early ratifiers generally fall into three categories. The first includes Small Island and coastal nations with high dependence on marine resources, such as Palau and Micronesia. These countries often suffer firsthand the consequences of ocean degradation—coral bleaching, declining fish stocks, and rising sea levels—and thus see the treaty as a vital tool for securing their ecological and economic future.
The second category includes proactive ocean policy leaders with robust conservation track records, such as Chile, and Belize. These states have been instrumental in regional marine protection initiatives and are eager to translate their national experience into global leadership. Their support for the BBNJ Agreement aligns with long-standing commitments to biodiversity, marine protected areas, and sustainable ocean development.
The third group includes European Union member states, who benefit from coordinated regional political momentum and shared environmental priorities. The EU has framed the BBNJ Agreement as a cornerstone of its international ocean policy, linking it to its broader European Green Deal (EGD) and Global Gateway strategies. This institutional alignment has allowed EU states to act quickly and collectively, reinforcing their image as champions of multilateral environmental governance.
Across all three categories, early ratifiers share a common trait: they face urgent ecological or political incentives to act promptly, whether to safeguard national interests, fulfill regional obligations, or assert leadership in shaping the rules of the high seas. Their early ratification sends a signal to the international community that the time for action is now—and that leadership on ocean governance is no longer confined to traditional maritime powers.
In contrast, other countries have taken a more cautious approach, awaiting internal reviews or coordinating with regional or strategic partners. Slower ratifiers often include major fishing and industrial powers concerned about the treaty’s potential economic impacts on fisheries and seabed mining, landlocked or less ocean-dependent states with lower perceived urgency, and geopolitical holdouts awaiting alignment with influential allies such as the United States. These countries either face fewer immediate incentives or harbor greater regulatory and sovereignty-related concerns. Some are also wary of setting precedents that might later affect their claims or interests in other areas of ocean governance.
Despite the uneven pace, momentum is steadily building—particularly among small island developing states (SIDS) and Global South countries, who view the BBNJ Agreement as a critical tool for promoting marine equity, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. For these states, the treaty represents not only a safeguard against ecological degradation but also a step toward rectifying historical imbalances in ocean governance. Many of them are proactively advocating for swift ratification, seeing the Agreement as a means to ensure equitable access to MRGs, greater participation in scientific research, and stronger capacity-building mechanisms. Their leadership is helping to shape a more inclusive global narrative, one in which the protection of the high seas is intrinsically linked to equity, climate resilience, and sustainable development.
The ratification landscape of the BBNJ Agreement reflects broader geopolitical dynamics and varying national priorities. Early ratifiers such as Palau and Chile have demonstrated strong commitments to marine conservation. The European Union has also shown coordinated enthusiasm, viewing the BBNJ Agreement as complementary to its Green Deal and Blue Economy initiatives. In April 2024, the European Parliament voted in favor of ratifying the treaty, signaling the EU’s commitment to advancing ocean governance.
In contrast, major maritime powers such as the United States, China, and Russia have yet to ratify the agreement—highlighting the enduring conflict between global environmental commitments and national strategic calculations. The United States, while generally supportive of the treaty’s goals and active in BBNJ negotiations, remains outside UNCLOS, complicating its formal participation. Constitutional constraints—namely, the requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate—combined with longstanding objections to Part XI of UNCLOS, which critics argue undermines U.S. economic and security interests, continue to hinder ratification. The U.S. maintains a watchful stance, engaging in implementation discussions but holding off on formal commitment until domestic political conditions become more favorable.
China has expressed general support for the BBNJ Agreement, reflecting a strategic balancing act between advancing national economic interests and upholding global environmental responsibility. But it has also raised concerns about the governance architecture. Beijing has questioned the equity of benefit-sharing mechanisms, especially with regard to MGRs, and has sought greater recognition of the principle of the “common heritage of humankind” within the treaty framework. Its emphasis on equitable representation and capacity-building reflects broader alignment with developing countries in the Global South. However, China’s advocacy for these principles also serves its strategic interest in influencing norm-setting processes for emerging ocean industries, including bioprospecting and seabed resource exploitation.
Russia, meanwhile, has voiced more direct opposition to several provisions of the BBNJ Agreement. Moscow criticizes what it sees as vague scientific standards and potential overreach by international oversight mechanisms, arguing that these could unduly restrict legitimate high seas activities such as fishing, shipping, and deep-sea mining. Additionally, Russia has expressed skepticism over the treaty’s financing model, warning that the absence of predictable funding could render implementation inconsistent and burdensome for states with significant oceanic interests.
This uneven commitment pattern raises important questions about leadership, responsibility, and follow-through in the governance of global commons. While early adopters—particularly SIDS and proactive ocean policy leaders—demonstrate strong normative and moral leadership, the absence of formal engagement from the world’s largest maritime powers risks undermining the treaty’s universality and enforcement potential. Nevertheless, the active participation of these early movers has established a moral and political foundation for the BBNJ Agreement as a mechanism to promote marine equity, environmental stewardship, and long-term sustainability. The challenge ahead lies in building momentum that can bridge political divides and integrate diverse interests—particularly those of lagging powers—into a cohesive and functional global regime.
Ratification is only the beginning. Once the BBNJ Agreement enters into force, the next and arguably more complex phase will involve translating treaty commitments into action. This includes convening the Conference of the Parties (COP), establishing compliance mechanisms, and operationalizing funding and capacity-building provisions.
A significant hurdle will be domestic implementation. Many countries—particularly developing states—will need to amend or adopt legislation to give effect to new obligations, especially those related to EIAs, access and benefit-sharing of MGRs, and enforcement protocols in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These tasks require not only legal changes but also significant investments in technical capacity, monitoring infrastructure, and scientific expertise—resources that are often limited.
The treaty will also face the challenge of institutional coordination. Several existing bodies—the International Seabed Authority (ISA), Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), and the International Maritime Organization (IMO)—already govern overlapping aspects of ocean governance. Without clearly defined coordination mechanisms, jurisdictional fragmentation could lead to conflicts, duplication, or legal uncertainty. For example, the ISA’s existing mandate over mineral resources in the Area could come into tension with the BBNJ regime’s approach to MGRs, especially regarding benefit-sharing and access protocols. Similarly, if RFMOs and the BBNJ framework adopt differing approaches to the establishment and management of MPAs, enforcement and legitimacy could suffer.
Operationalizing the funding and capacity-building provisions of the BBNJ Agreement will be another critical test. While the treaty includes commitments to assist developing countries, questions remain about the adequacy, accessibility, and governance of financial and technical support. There is a risk that the promises made during negotiations may not translate into predictable or equitable resource flows, particularly if contributions from developed countries remain voluntary or fragmented.
Finally, the effectiveness of the agreement will depend on the design and enforcement of compliance mechanisms. It remains to be seen whether parties will opt for a robust, independent compliance committee or a more political, consensus-driven review process. Similarly, the treaty’s dispute settlement provisions— which some argue would default to UNCLOS Part XV—may prove insufficient if implementation disputes grow more frequent or complex.
One of the treaty’s most politically sensitive areas is the governance of MGRs. Developing countries have long advocated for a fair share in the benefits arising from MGRs, which are often collected and utilized through sophisticated biotechnological processes predominantly controlled by wealthier nations and private corporations. For many developing states, the MGR issue is not just about access to resources, but also about access to science, technology, and the economic opportunities that stem from marine biodiversity research.
The BBNJ Agreement introduces a framework for benefit-sharing, both monetary and non-monetary, including data sharing, technology transfer, and capacity-building. However, many of these provisions are non-binding or dependent on future decisions by the COP, leaving uncertainty about how equity will be operationalized in practice. The actual mechanisms—whether they involve centralized benefit-sharing funds, open-access databases, or licensing models—remain to be defined, and the effectiveness of these mechanisms will depend on political will and institutional design.
The MGR debate embodies larger divides in global governance—between open access and equitable sharing, and between scientific freedom and regulatory oversight. Developed countries often stress the need to preserve open access to genetic materials in the high seas to promote research and innovation, while developing countries emphasize the historical asymmetries in who benefits from such innovation. Without careful balancing, the BBNJ Agreement could unintentionally perpetuate the very disparities it aims to address.
Moreover, the governance of MGRs intersects with questions of intellectual property rights, data sovereignty, and scientific infrastructure. Who owns the data generated from marine research? How can developing states meaningfully participate if they lack access to marine expeditions, research vessels, or sequencing technologies? Addressing these issues will require not only legal clarity but also sustained investment in global scientific partnerships and knowledge-sharing platforms.
Ultimately, ensuring that the BBNJ regime promotes equity in marine scientific research and innovation—rather than reinforcing existing hierarchies—will be critical to its legitimacy and effectiveness in the long term.
The BBNJ Agreement does not operate in isolation; rather, it is part of a broader, interconnected framework of international instruments that collectively address global environmental challenges. These include the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which focuses on halting biodiversity loss. The high seas, which constitute roughly 50% of the Earth’s surface, play a critical role in regulating the climate, serving as vital carbon sinks, reservoirs of marine biodiversity, and significant contributors to global weather patterns. Consequently, their protection is not only essential for conservation but also for enhancing climate resilience.
The BBNJ Agreement, by facilitating the establishment of MPAs and enhancing EIA protocols, can significantly contribute to the achievement of both climate and biodiversity goals. For instance, the creation of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) can help preserve critical ecosystems that support marine carbon sequestration processes, such as phytoplankton blooms. These actions directly support the goals of the Paris Agreement by promoting the protection of ocean-based carbon sinks, which are crucial for maintaining the Earth’s carbon cycle.
Moreover, by strengthening the environmental governance of the high seas, the BBNJ Agreement provides a new avenue for collaboration between states, non-governmental organizations, and scientific communities. This collective effort is critical as ocean ecosystems face mounting pressures from climate change, overfishing, and pollution. The treaty’s entry into force would not only represent a significant step in marine conservation but also send a powerful message of renewed commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation at a time when such efforts are increasingly urgent.
The BBNJ Agreement does not operate in isolation; rather, it is part of a broader, interconnected framework of international instruments that collectively address global environmental challenges. These include the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global warming, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which focuses on halting biodiversity loss. The high seas, which constitute roughly 50% of the Earth’s surface, play a critical role in regulating the climate, serving as vital carbon sinks, reservoirs of marine biodiversity, and significant contributors to global weather patterns. Consequently, their protection is not only essential for conservation but also for enhancing climate resilience.
The BBNJ Agreement, by facilitating the establishment of MPAs and enhancing EIA protocols, can significantly contribute to the achievement of both climate and biodiversity goals. For instance, the creation of MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) can help preserve critical ecosystems that support marine carbon sequestration processes, such as phytoplankton blooms. These actions directly support the goals of the Paris Agreement by promoting the protection of ocean-based carbon sinks, which are crucial for maintaining the Earth’s carbon cycle.
Moreover, by strengthening the environmental governance of the high seas, the BBNJ Agreement provides a new avenue for collaboration between states, non-governmental organizations, and scientific communities. This collective effort is critical as ocean ecosystems face mounting pressures from climate change, overfishing, and pollution. The treaty’s entry into force would not only represent a significant step in marine conservation but also send a powerful message of renewed commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation at a time when such efforts are increasingly urgent.
The BBNJ Agreement represents a landmark achievement in global ocean governance, but its promise hinges on timely and inclusive ratification. As more countries complete the ratification process, the focus must shift to institutional design, legal alignment, and equitable implementation. Ensuring that the treaty fulfills its potential requires sustained political will, capacity-building support, and a commitment to fairness. In an era of rising geopolitical tensions over the oceans and growing ecological fragility, the BBNJ Agreement offers a rare chance to reaffirm multilateral cooperation for the global commons. At the same time, the continued absence of major powers raises important questions about the resilience of global governance in the face of selective disengagement. The treaty’s progress thus serves as both a test and a testament: a test of whether ambitious, inclusive frameworks can endure amid fragmentation, and a testament to the determination of countries that continue to uphold multilateralism. Now is the moment to turn that opportunity into action.
The Institute for China-America Studies is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening the understanding of U.S.-China relations through expert analysis and practical policy solutions.
1919 M St. NW Suite 310,
Washington, DC 20036
icas@chinaus-icas.org
(202) 968-0595
© 2025 INSTITUTE FOR CHINA-AMERICA STUDIES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The Nordic Reaction to America’s Arctic Posture