UnEarth Magazine.

Words by Ru Todd, Art by Sophie Berry

“As we confront the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, this agreement is a lifeline for the ocean and humanity.” UN Secretary-General António Guterres. 

Two years ago, UN member states set out to achieve what once seemed impossible: a global pact to protect the high seas. After years of negotiations, 120 countries signed the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty — creating the world’s first legal framework to govern half of Earth’s surface.  

On September 19, 2025, Morocco became the 60th country to ratify the treaty, triggering its formal entry into force in January 2026. This milestone marks a turning point. For the first time, the ocean — earth’s largest and least protected ecosystem — will be safeguarded under international law.  

The high seas make up nearly 60 percent of the ocean, providing 95 percent of the planet’s habitable space, absorbing over 90 percent of excess heat from the atmosphere, and over a quarter of the planet’s carbon dioxide emissions. They produce 80 percent of the oxygen we breathe, support billions of people through fisheries, and contribute an estimated $2.5 trillion annually to the global economy. 

Yet, despite sustaining all life on Earth, the ocean’s worth has too often been reduced to its market price. Overfishing, deep-sea mining, plastic pollution, and warming temperatures are threatening all these ecosystem services. Nearly half of the global fish stocks are overexploited, and up to ten percent of marine species are at risk of extinction.  

The BBNJ Agreement aims to reverse decades of neglect by filling what was once a legal void. The high seas — areas beyond any nation’s jurisdiction — have long existed as a regulatory no man’s land. The treaty’s four key pillars aim to change that: 

1. Area Based Management Tools, including Marine Protected Areas, to protect biodiversity.  

2. Marine Genetic Resources, establishing fair rules for sharing benefits from high-seas genetic materials used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and biotechnology.  

3. Capacity Building and Technology Transfer, which allows for increased global knowledge, especially in developing countries, on conservation and sustainability.  

4. Environmental Impact Assessments, which require countries and companies to evaluate the ecological impact of high-seas activities before proceeding.  

Together, these measures offer a framework for collective, multilateral stewardship of the global commons.   

But here’s the catch: how binding is a “legally binding” treaty when the ocean belongs to no one? 

Once it enters into force, the BBNJ Agreement will, in theory, be a legally binding treaty. In practice, however, it binds only the states that have ratified it, and even then, enforcement depends entirely on their own domestic legislation and political will. There is no global regulatory or enforcement body to oversee compliance, no mechanism to punish violations, and no centralized authority to monitor activity across the high seas.  

Instead, the treaty operates through the flag state principle: ships are answerable only to the country whose flag they fly. This means that enforcement falls solely on the flag states, even when those ships operate in international waters. If a country chooses not to ratify, or not enforce, the treaty, its vessels and companies remain legally free to continue the same behaviour.  

This leaves an enormous implementation gap. Major industrial fishing and mining powers like China, Japan, and Russia, none of which have ratified the treaty, control fleets that extract millions of tons of fish and resources each year from the high seas. These fleets will not be subject to the BBNJ’s rules of requirements for environmental impact assessments. The result is what the Marine Biological Association calls a “promise that others must keep”.  

The nation-dependent structure of the BBNJ renders it “non-punitive by design”. The only regulatory body that is created — the Compliance Committee — has no authority to impose penalties or enforce actions. Its role is entirely limited to reviewing progress, facilitating dialogue, and encouraging transparency–in other words being a cheerleader for ocean governance.  

Without an independent oversight body, the BBNJ risks becoming a performative promise—a declaration of good intentions rather than a genuine framework for global governance. In the words of the Marine Biological Association, it is a “triumph of diplomacy, not of enforcement.” The absence of centralized authority means no one will be policing the high seas, no matter how many signatures mark a piece of paper.  

This institutional weakness reflects a broader flaw in ocean governance: “the tragedy of the commons”. Everyone benefits from exploitation, yet no one is accountable for protection. The BBJN’s failure to establish a binding enforcement mechanism reproduces this pattern, asking states to retrain themselves voluntarily in a domain where economic incentives — overfishing, mining, and bioprospecting — give them every reason not to.  

For now, the High Seas Treaty is only a compass in a sea of uncertainty. Whether it steers us towards real change or just another missed opportunity depends on whether states can transform commitment into action–and whether the global public demands they do.