FOR centuries, the high seas have embodied a defining principle: freedom. States have enjoyed broad rights to navigate, fish and conduct scientific research in areas beyond national jurisdiction, while the mineral resources of the international seabed are governed by the principle that they constitute the common heritage of humanity. As long as these two principles remained broadly compatible, the existing legal order proved remarkably durable.

That balance, however, has become increasingly difficult to sustain. In January, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction — also called the BBNJ Agreement or the High Seas Treaty — came into force. Concluded after nearly two decades of negotiations, it is widely regarded as the most important development in international law of the sea since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. More importantly, it reflects a broader shift in global ocean governance — from maximising access to safeguarding sustainability.

The agreement comes at a time when the shortcomings of the existing governance framework have become increasingly apparent. Areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the high seas and the international seabed area, account for almost two-thirds of the world’s oceans. Yet governance of these waters has long been fragmented. While different international bodies oversee shipping, fisheries, seabed mining and other activities, no single legal framework has comprehensively addressed the conservation of marine biodiversity across these spaces.

The result has been growing pressure on marine ecosystems. Advances in science and technology have made previously inaccessible marine genetic resources and deep-sea minerals increasingly valuable, intensifying competition over emerging ocean resources. At the same time, biodiversity loss, climate change and marine pollution have exposed the limitations of governance arrangements that were largely designed around resource utilisation rather than ecosystem protection.

The BBNJ Agreement seeks to fill that gap. Through rules on marine genetic resources, area-based management tools such as marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments, and capacity building and technology transfer, it establishes the first comprehensive implementation framework dedicated specifically to conserving biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Its significance, however, extends well beyond environmental governance. Like many international agreements, the BBNJ Agreement is not simply about what it regulates, but also about who helps shape the rules. Decisions concerning marine protected areas, access to marine genetic resources and environmental assessments inevitably influence future patterns of resource use. Countries with stronger scientific capabilities, more advanced marine technologies and greater monitoring capacity may be better positioned to participate in these processes and to shape the practical implementation of the treaty.

Such participation is entirely legitimate under the agreement. Yet it also illustrates why implementation will inevitably involve strategic considerations alongside environmental ones. As governance gradually shifts from broad freedom toward more structured regulation, the allocation of influence over the global commons becomes an increasingly important issue in its own right.

This explains why the treaty’s implementation is likely to prove more challenging than its negotiation. Geopolitics remains an unavoidable reality. The United States has signed but not ratified the agreement, while Russia has yet to sign it, limiting the treaty’s universality. At the institutional level, the relationship between the BBNJ Agreement and existing bodies — including the International Maritime Organisation, the International Seabed Authority and regional fisheries management organisations — will require careful coordination to ensure that the treaty complements rather than undermines established mandates.

Differences in national capacity present another challenge. Effective implementation depends not only on legal obligations but also on scientific expertise, financial resources and technological capabilities. Ensuring that developing countries can participate meaningfully through capacity building and technology transfer will therefore be essential if the agreement is to deliver genuinely inclusive governance.

Nor should conservation tools themselves become sources of new contention. Area-based management measures are intended to protect marine ecosystems, not to create new forms of competition over ocean space. Preserving an appropriate balance between conservation and sustainable use will remain one of the agreement’s most important tests.

Published in Dawn, July 13th, 2026