High Seas Treaty Explained

THE HIGH SEAS TREATY AND ITS ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON SHIPPING AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES

On January 17, 2026, 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 – shortened to the “BBNJ Agreement” or as generically identified by many, the “High Seas Treaty” – will enter into force. Surpassing the prerequisite sixty ratifying nations in September 2025, 81 countries have to date ratified (or acceded to) the BBNJ Agreement, with more expected to follow in the coming months. The Agreement marks the first comprehensive, legally binding international framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in the high seas, which cover vast areas of the oceans.

This article summarizes the Agreement and anticipates its potential impacts on commercial maritime activities in the area covered by the Agreement.

by Scott Collins

This contribution was submitted to the FutureoftheOcean initiative on 10 January 2026, just one week before the High Seas Treaty entered into force. To explore the author’s background and his enduring commitment to the protection of our seas and oceans, you are warmly invited to read the first part of his interview published by the FutureoftheOcean initiative.

First part of Scott Collins on Futureoftheocean

What Is the BBNJ Agreement?

The BBNJ Agreement is an implementing agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which is considered the “constitution of the oceans” that took effect in 1994 and has been ratified by 170 nations and the European Union. The BBNJ Agreement aims to address long-standing gaps in the governance of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which include the ocean surface, water column, and seabed outside nations’ jurisdictional waters.

What Areas Are Covered by the BBNJ Agreement?

The Agreement applies to “areas beyond national jurisdiction.” This term means the “high seas” and the “Area,” invoking two fundamental definitions established by UNCLOS to define the areas covered by the BBNJ Agreement.

The “high seas” are the ocean waters, both surface and water column, outside the reach of any nation’s jurisdiction. Under UNCLOS, the territorial waters of a coastal nation extend seaward twelve nautical miles, and such nation’s exclusive economic zone generally extends seaward 200 nautical miles. Simply stated, the high seas are those waters over 200 miles distant from the nearest nation’s “baseline,” which is typically the low-water line along a coast (with several significant exceptions). High seas represent approximately 64% of the total surface area of the world’s oceans, which is about 45% of the Earth’s total surface area; and by volume, high seas constitute about 95% of the volume of all ocean waters.

The term “Area” was created by UNCLOS to describe an area that is not co-extensive with the high seas. UNCLOS defines the Area as the seabed – both the ocean floor and its subsoil – beyond the limits of any national jurisdiction. Under UNCLOS, a coastal nation’s jurisdiction extends to the continental shelf adjacent to the nation’s coasts, but UNCLOS defines the “continental shelf” for jurisdictional purposes differently than an oceanographer does. Over-simplifying the complicated definition under UNCLOS, a coastal nation’s continental shelf is that seabed adjacent to the nation’s coast seaward to the farther of 200 nautical miles or the reach of the geologic continental shelf, slope, and rise seaward up to 350 nautical miles. The Area, which UNCLOS labels “the Common Heritage of Mankind,” covers approximately 54% of the total ocean floor. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the body mandated by UNCLOS to govern all mineral-related activities in the Area.

What Does the BBNJ Agreement Say?

The objective of the BBNJ Agreement is to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, for the present and in the long term, through effective implementation of UNCLOS’s relevant provisions and further international cooperation and coordination.

The BBNJ Agreement is not intended to be solitary in authority. The Agreement expressly obliges parties to give deference to other relevant “legal instruments and frameworks” and “global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies” in two important ways. First, parties to the Agreement are to interpret and apply the Agreement “in a manner that does not undermine” those instruments, frameworks, and bodies. Second, the Agreement requires parties to cooperate and promote coherence with those instruments, frameworks and bodies. In the shipping context, for example, such bodies include the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and such instruments and frameworks include those already developed by the IMO that regulate international shipping, safety, security, and pollution. These include conventions on oil pollution (MARPOL), ballast water management, and other maritime safety, security, and environmental standards that apply worldwide.

It is in this context that the BBNJ Agreement has four major pillars at its core:

1. Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs)

The Agreement creates a framework for access to biological materials from areas beyond national jurisdiction – for uses by the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other industries – and promotes fair and equitable sharing of benefits generated from their uses.

2. Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs), including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Nations that are party to the Agreement are authorized to propose and establish MPAs and other spatial measures to conserve biodiversity; these may include restrictions on harmful activities.

3. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)

The Agreement requires robust impact assessments for activities that may have more than minor or transient effects on high seas ecosystems. Nation parties to the BBNJ Agreement must “ensure that the potential impacts on the marine environment of planned activities under their jurisdiction or control that take place in the areas beyond national jurisdiction are assessed.” When a nation determines that an activity “may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction,” the nation must require an EIA and, among other requirements, make information in the assessment available under the Agreement for review and comment by other nations and bodies created under the Agreement.

4. Capacity-Building and Technology Transfer

The Agreement requires developed nations to support developing nations in implementing treaty commitments, including through training, data sharing, and technology transfers.

The BBNJ Agreement also establishes a Conference of the Parties (COP), a “Clearing-House Mechanism,” and other institutional bodies to guide implementation and decision-making. Under the terms of the Agreement, the first COP must be convened within one year of after the Agreement’s entry into force, and the first COP meeting (COP1) is expected to convene in late 2026. COP1 will be a landmark session where party-nations will make the first formal decisions on the implementation of the Agreement, including establishing a Scientific and Technical Body and the Clearing-House Mechanism.

To ensure the BBNJ Agreement is operational by the time COP1 occurs, the United Nations has established a Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) to handle certain “groundwork” such as financial rules and institutional arrangements.

How Will the Agreement Impact Commercial Shipping?

The BBNJ Agreement will not regulate commercial shipping directly in the way that SOLAS, MARPOL, or UNCLOS do, but it could shape where, how, and under what conditions shipping operates on the high seas. And while the BBNJ Agreement will have no immediate impact on shipping, in time as the Agreement is implemented, it will likely have indirect, spatial, and procedural effects on how vessels operate at least in certain areas of the high seas.

Here are the main ways that the BBNJ Agreement will impact commercial shipping:

1. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Perhaps the most significant aspect of the BBNJ Agreement is that it creates a legal mechanism by which nations party to the Agreement may establish MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Where MPAs will be located, what exactly each MPA will look like, and what will and will not be not permitted within its waters are all matters to be addressed in the future with the creation of each MPA.

Most coastal nations already have their own marine protected areas within their jurisdictional waters – roughly eight percent of the ocean is now covered by MPAs – and the rules of activity within those MPAs run the gamut. Shipping is rarely prohibited outright in existing MPAs, but transit routes, speeds, anchorage locations, ability to discharge, and other operational limitations are commonly in force.

Vessel operators should expect that MPAs created in areas beyond national jurisdiction will be modeled after existing MPAs in national waters. While “freedom of navigation” will remain a bedrock principle of UNCLOS, the BBNJ Agreement opens the door for parties to invoke the BBNJ Agreement to restrict vessel navigation and operations in material ways when transiting through newly created MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Vessels could face indirect routing, restricted anchoring, or slower speed to reduce underwater noise to safeguard sensitive species.

Importantly, nations party to the Agreement cannot by themselves impose shipping rules and restrictions under the BBNJ Agreement. Shipping measures must be implemented through the IMO and, presumably, IMO involvement will bring some balance, rationalization, and industry involvement in the setting of any shipping restrictions imposed in conjunction with MPA creation. Again, time will tell.

2. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The BBNJ Agreement introduces global minimum standards for Environmental Impact Assessments for certain activities conducted in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These standards are expected to have little application to routine shipping activities, at least initially, but new shipping-related activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction will be subject to EIAs. While the deep waters of the areas beyond national jurisdiction make it unlikely that substantial shipping-related installations will be placed there, it is conceivable that future development of deep-sea transshipment hubs, offshore floating infrastructure, novel fuel platforms, and the like will trigger the need (and expense) for EIAs.

The more pertinent question may be how the requirement for EIAs may evolve with time. The BBNJ Agreement establishes a framework that explicitly considers cumulative environmental impacts, including noise, pollution, and collision risks. Underwater noise is already a sensitive topic in certain national waters, particularly in biodiversity hotspots, and as more is learned about the impacts of noise, the more the cumulative impact will come under scrutiny. While any current concerns of cumulative impact will have no immediate impact under the BBNJ Agreement, they will receive attention within the IMO and thereby influence the IMO as it considers and sets future standards.

3. Port State and Flag State Expectations. Parties to the BBNJ Agreement commit to stronger monitoring, transparency, and compliance related to activities affecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The questions are to what extent will vessel flag states that are party to the Agreement adopt stricter environmental standards for vessels flying their flags; and to what extent will port states party to the Agreement increase their data requests and inspections tied to environmental performance. Again, these are not matters that will have an immediate impact on shipping, but are matters to watch over time as the BBNJ Agreement and its principles become more ingrained into regulation of commercial vessel operations.

4. Strategic Commercial Effects. Effective route planning and logistics will plan around not just MPAs and prospective MPAs, but also other areas with sensitive biodiversity. Avoiding EIAs, slowdowns, or inadvertent discharges while operating through seas with sensitive biodiversity will provide competitive advantages; and lenders and liability insurers may add compliance and risk avoidance to their underwriting consideration.

How Will the Agreement Impact Deep Seabed Mining?

One of the most intriguing questions under the BBNJ Agreement is how will the Agreement and its goals of protecting biodiversity intersect with the emerging (yet not commercially active) industry of deep seabed mining and the work of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA is an authoritative body established under UNCLOS to create and enforce regulations that permit and regulate seabed mineral harvesting in the Area. While most view “deep seabed mining” to be the extraction (by vacuum, raking, or plucking) of polymetallic nodules (the size of Russet potatoes) laden with manganese, nickel, cobalt, and lithium lying on large swaths of flat seabed, the industry covers other forms of resource extraction as well. The field of deep seabed mining includes breaking up and collecting massive sulfide deposits that form at hydrothermal vents where hot, mineral-rich fluids emerge from volcanic activity creating metal-rich chimneys and mounds. It also includes scraping (or grinding) crusts of cobalt, manganese, and other precious metals that form on the flanks of seamounts (undersea mountains).

The requirements of the BBNJ Agreement that call for cooperating with, and not undermining, other legal instruments, frameworks, and governing bodies are aimed in part at preserving the authority of the ISA to permit and regulate deep seabed mining. Yet, as issuance of the ISA’s first permits for commercial seabed mining draws near, so too does a growing body of scientific literature about adverse effects seabed mining will have on deep ocean biodiversity. How the ISA and the nations party to the BBNJ Agreement collaborate (or conflict) over the competing goals they face with deep seabed mining will present future case studies for university classes studying international rule-making and conflict-resolution. In practice, have the many nations on record to being opposed to deep seabed mining just found a backdoor to stopping seabed mining in the Area?

How Will the Agreement Impact Deep Seabed Mining?

1. EIAs. In the short term, while the ISA will remain the primary regulator for the seabed, the BBNJ Agreement will require comprehensive EIAs to be performed and reported by mining companies under the jurisdiction or control of a nation party to the Agreement. The perception is that EIAs under the Agreement will be more rigorous than any that the ISA may call for. And such EIAs will not solely focus on environmental impact to the seabed; they will consider impacts on the biodiversity of the water column above and near prospective mining areas. With COP1 not occurring until late this year, that timing has essentially blocked anticipated issuance of permits by the ISA during 2026. Until the nations party to the BBNJ Agreement can meet and spell out the processes and requirements for EIAs, no mining company can know what it will be required to assess in producing EIAs about its anticipated mining operations.

It is also inconceivable that the ISA will not require EIAs from deep seabed mining companies not under the jurisdiction or control of a nation party to the Agreement, while requiring EIAs from those that are. Taking such a position would create a significant competitive advantage for mining companies from nations that are not party to the BBNJ Agreement, and cause (as is the case with shipping) “flag shopping.” The time, burden, and cost of obtaining an EIA that meets the requirements of the BBNJ Agreement will, at the very least, slow down the process of issuing permits, and, at most, be so cost prohibitive as to de-rail some mining efforts. If nothing else, EIAs will formally create a body of scientific data and analyses as to the adverse effects that deep seabed mining and the various means of performing such mining will have (or not have) on deep ocean biodiversity on and above the Area under mining consideration.

For the private enterprise and their nation-sponsors that have already spent years and substantial sums navigating the ISA rule-making and permit processes, the BBNJ Agreement will no doubt increase their frustration. The Agreement will otherwise put those efforts on hold as the ISA now must consider the interplay of the Agreement and the role that nations party to the Agreement must have in the ISA rule-making and permit-issuance processes, and the ISA’s role in the processes to be adopted and implemented under the BBNJ Agreement.

2. Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs). While plains of the seabed with polymetallic nodules have been described as veritable deserts, areas with hydrothermal vents and seamounts are viewed as hotspots for unique and plentiful biodiversity. (Whether such characterizations are true will be answered through the EIA process.) The BBNJ Agreement establishes a regime for sharing the benefits of MGRs among all nations party to the Agreement. To the extent EIAs for deep seabed mining, and even the mining operations themselves, collect MGRs, the BBNJ Agreement will establish and implement a Clearing-House Mechanism for sharing MGRs and the information they derive. Again, read “more expense.”

3. MPAs. Little needs to be said as to the impact that creating an MPA will have on deep seabed mining within the boundaries of the MPA.

How Will the Agreement Impact Commercial Fishing?

Curbing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a primary goal of the BBNJ Agreement. While the Agreement does not replace Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), it does create a framework where MPAs may restrict fishing in certain biodiversity hotspots and take other measures to protect fish stocks and other biodiversity.

1. People’s Republic of China. Fingers frequently point at China as a sponsor nation for IUU. After all, China is the world’s largest producer of seafood and the operator of the most extensive distant-water fishing fleet. And when distant-water fishing fleets amass in areas adjacent to (or inside) rich fishing grounds covered by a nation’s EEZ or a national MPA, these fleets are often characterized as Chinese in origin.

But 2025 was a year for China affirmatively taking responsibility for its distant fishing fleet, which it did in three significant ways. First, on 15 December 2025, China deposited with the United Nations its articles of ratification of the BBNJ Agreement, joining the other ratifying nations and binding itself to the terms and commitments of the Agreement. China’s ratification of the Agreement is viewed as a watershed moment for ocean governance, showing a commitment by China to keep its distant-water fishing fleet in compliance with conservation measures advanced under the Agreement and to stop alleged IUU fishing by its fleet.

Second, effective 16 April 2025, China ratified the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), which entered into force in 2016 as the first binding international agreement to specifically target IUU fishing. The objective of the PSMA is to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU fishing by preventing vessels engaged in IUU fishing from using ports and landing their catches. In this way, the PSMA reduces the incentive of such vessels to continue to operate while the PSMA also blocks fishery products derived from IUU fishing from reaching national and international markets. Effective implementation of the PSMA ultimately contributes to the long-term conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources and marine ecosystems. The provisions of the PSMA apply to fishing vessels seeking entry into a designated port of a nation that is different to their flag state. As such, the PSMA complements the BBNJ Agreement – while the BBNJ Agreement targets sea-side activities, the PSMA targets land-side activities.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, in late December 2025, China overhauled its Fisheries Law for internal application taking effect on 1 May 2026. The amendments, aimed at advancing the country’s fishing industry and fostering “greater green development,” call for balancing development with ecological security, as well as resource conservation with sustainable use, and placing equal emphasis on both the quantity and quality of production. The amendments reportedly tighten China’s management of fishing activities, enhance protection of fishery resources, and bolster oversight. According to press releases, the amendments accomplish these measures by introducing a system for safeguarding important waters related to fisheries, and improving regulations on fishing bans, including clearer specifications on geographic scope, duration, and prohibited activities. The amendments further add a new chapter on supervision and management clarifying enforcement powers, defining responsibilities between fishery authorities and coast guard authorities, and establishing a mechanism for coordinated law enforcement. Finally, the amendments reportedly tighten the regulation of vessels without a name, certification, or port of registry, strictly banning their fishing activities and prohibiting ports from supplying them with fuel, water, or ice. China’s fisheries law amendments are reported to further include:

Stricter Licensing: Implementing more rigorous requirements for ownership, vessel specifications, and catch reporting.
Subsidy Reform: Moving away from “harmful subsidies” (like fuel tax rebates) that have historically made it profitable for vessels to travel to the furthest reaches of the ocean to engage in overfishing.
Observer Programs: Increasing the presence of national and international observers on vessels to verify that catches are reported accurately.

These measures, it is reported, provide a legal basis for forcing illegal operators out of the market.

The theme of this article, “time will tell,” applies equally to how effective China’s recent steps toward regulating domestic and international fisheries will be.

How Will the Agreement Impact Commercial Fishing?

2. MPAs. The BBNJ Agreement’s most direct impact on IUU fishing will come from the creation of MPAs. In addition to creating an MPA aimed at curbing IUU fishing, nations party to the Agreement will establish the rules relating to fishing activity within the MPA and will likewise provide mechanisms for enforcement. On top of that, China, for example, has committed to integrating MPAs into its vessel monitoring systems, allowing the government to track its fleet in real-time and identify “dark” vessels that turn off their transponders near protected boundaries.

3. EIAs. Most certainly, industrial fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction will be viewed as having more than minor or transient effects on high seas ecosystems, thus requiring EIAs be made before a nation may permit high seas fishing under its flag, even when such fishing may be permitted under the auspices of an RFMO. Fishing companies already operate under narrow profit margins and the requirement for an EIA and its expense by themselves may be deterrent enough. Of course, nations that subsidize fuel and other fishing expenses may likewise subsidize the EIA, but the EIA will still deliver important data and analyses and provide benchmarks on which accountability for sustainable harvesting can be established. In practical terms, can China and its 2,500+ fleet, distant-water fishing industry provide transparent assurance that the operations of that fleet are not causing “significant harm” to marine diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction?

While it is significant that 81 nations have already ratified the BBNJ Agreement, and many more are expected to ratify in the coming months, more than that number of nations have not ratified the Agreement and subjected themselves to the Agreement’s requirements. If a vessel will turn off its location transponder while fishing along (or inside) the edge of a nation’s EEZ or other protected area, then it will not be surprising to see fleets of distant-water fishing vessels change their flags to that of a non-party nation. It happens regularly with cargo vessels, and it will likely become common place with distant-water fishing fleets. Addressing that issue will add emphasis to the need for nation parties to create MPAs, provided a means to enforce MPA regulations are also instituted.

How Will the Agreement Impact Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Industries?

A significant portion of the BBNJ Agreement creates a new legal regime for Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs) taken from areas beyond national jurisdiction. This part of the Agreement is particularly significant for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, which look to the ocean’s environments and resources for unique biological compounds. In brief summary, the BBNJ Agreement imposes a number of requirements on industries engaged in removing, studying, and capitalizing on MGRs. The MGR requirements, however, do not apply to fishing and fishing-related activities.

1. Mandatory Benefit Sharing. The most significant shift for industry players is the requirement to share the benefits of “utilizing” MGRs taken from areas beyond national jurisdiction. This includes:

Monetary Benefits: Companies commercially capitalizing on MGRs derived from organisms in areas beyond national jurisdiction may eventually have to pay a percentage of their revenue from products derived from such MGRs. Initially, “developed State Parties” must make annual contributions to a special fund, but the Agreement empowers the Conference of the Parties (COP) to establish milestone payments or royalties in the future.
Non-Monetary Benefits: Such companies must share scientific data, samples, and research results. For pharmaceutical R&D, this will mean more “open science” requirements than traditional, commercial proprietary models.

How Will the Agreement Impact Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Industries?

2. Digital Sequence Information (DSI). Unlike many previous treaties, the BBNJ Agreement specifically covers DSI, the genetic data of an organism that can be studied or used without the physical sample. The impact of the Agreement is thereby extended far from areas beyond national jurisdiction, to the inland labs of industry. For example, and taken to its extreme, even if a cosmetic company never goes to sea but uses a genetic sequence found in a public database that originated in an area beyond national jurisdiction, that company may be subject to the benefit-sharing obligations of the BBNJ Agreement. This extension of the Agreement’s coverage is intended to close what is perceived as a major loophole that formerly allowed companies to bypass international regulations.

Compounding the extended coverage of the Agreement to DSI is the express statement that the Agreement will apply to utilization of MGRs and DSI collected or generated before the Agreement entered into force, unless the nation with jurisdiction or control over such utilization expressly makes exception to such application when ratifying the Agreement. While a few of the nations that have to date ratified the BBNJ Agreement have expressed such exception – including Belgium, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Ireland, Japan, Malta, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, and Vietnam (and the European Union) – the other 81 ratifying nations (to date) have not.

3. Batch Identifier and Transparency. To manage MGRs, the BBNJ Agreement establishes a Clearing-House Mechanism. Those collecting or studying MGRs – both researchers and industry – must submit “pre-collection” and “post-collection” notifications. A standardized “BBNJ” batch identifier will be assigned to samples or data, which will be inventoried for reference and review by all nations party to the Agreement. This identifier must then follow the resource through its life cycle. For example, if a pharmaceutical company licenses a compound from a university, it must ensure the BBNJ identifier is attached to maintain a clear “chain of custody.”

4. Intellectual Property (IP) Challenges. The BBNJ Agreement emphasizes that “no State shall claim or exercise sovereignty” over MGRs. While the Agreement does not expressly ban patenting products derived from resources taken from areas beyond national jurisdiction, it requires transparency regarding the origin of the genetic material used in patent applications.

5. Higher Compliance Costs for R&D. Companies bio-prospecting areas beyond national jurisdiction will face new administrative costs in documenting MGR origin. For example, every marine-derived enzyme or peptide used in anti-aging creams or new antibiotics will need to be documented, reported, and tracked through the Clearing-House Mechanism.

What Are The Key Take-Aways?

This article only provides a high-level overview of what the BBNJ Agreement says and how it may impact various commercial operations taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Agreement is 62 pages of detailed articles and annexes, and every company operating in such areas should carefully review the terms and requirements to understand and appreciate how they apply to and may impact operations and practices. As is common with international agreements and treaties, there will not be an immediate impact on 17 January, but as PrepCom gets underway and the party nations move forward with COP1, impacts will surely come.

The words of the BBNJ Agreement cannot be taken by themselves. Equally important will be future decisions and resolutions for implementing and enforcing those words. A central theme of this paper is “time will tell,” and much of that telling will come down to future decisions of the nations party to the Agreement in electing how to implement and enforce the terms of the Agreement. Existing bodies like the IMO, ISA, and RFMOs will have seats at the table and will be given voice as the meetings to implement the BBNJ Agreement occur. It will be important for industry participants and associations to let their “representatives” know where they stand on issues that impact them.

A question always subject to debate with international agreements is whether industry participants in nations that have not ratified the BBNJ Agreement “want” their government to join the Agreement or not. Are they in a better, more-competitive position being in a nation that has not ratified the Agreement? On the one hand, industry in such nations will not be directly subject to the requirements of the Agreement; but on the other hand, so much of how international agreements and treaties are interpreted, administered, and enforced is determined through implementation of the terms after taking force. Having a seat at the table at COP1 will be vitally important for those nations and their industry able to “get in on the ground floor” of the BBNJ Agreement. Nations that decide to “go it alone” – such as the United States – or “wait and see” may be left on the outside looking in as critical decisions are made at COP1 and in the coming years in implementing the Agreement, creating MPAs, and establishing enforcement mechanisms. The fact that China ratified the BBNJ Agreement is evidence enough of how important it is for a nation – even those with military strength – to be at the table at COP1.

In final conclusion, the BBNJ Agreement marks the end of the era where the areas beyond national jurisdiction were “out of sight, out of mind.” For commercial actors, operating in those is now subject to the Agreement and will soon require much the same level of environmental due diligence as operating within a nation’s jurisdictional waters.

I will continue monitoring developments under the BBNJ Agreement and issue updates and observations from time to time.

About the author:

Scott Collins is the senior partner at the 135-year-old Seattle law firm of Helsell Fetterman LLP. His law practice includes serving as outside general counsel to, and the business transactional needs of, companies involved in maritime operations.

For information about Helsell Fetterman please visit company’s site:

https://www.helsell.com/

For contacting Mr. Collins please visit the page:

https://www.helsell.com/helsell-attorney/scott-collins/