United Nations “High Seas Treaty” – To Ratify or Not to Ratify, that is the question
On January 17, 2026, the historic United Nations (UN) Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (BBNJ), colloquially deemed the “High Seas Treaty”, went into effect after several years of advocacy by proponents. The international agreement is meant to provide a legal framework so the world’s governments can safeguard and sustainably utilize the resources of the high seas with an emphasis on conservation and biodiversity.
“It’s time to celebrate,” said Oregon State University (OSU) Distinguished Professor Jane Lubchenco on OSU’s website. Dr. Lubchenco is a senior author of the paper The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean published in Science in September 2021 that provided much of the groundwork for the BBNJ. MPA stands for Marine Protected Areas and are a central component of BBNJ guidelines. These areas act somewhat like how national park systems do on land, i.e. regulate and limit resource extraction. When it comes to MPAs, commercial fishing, deep sea mining, and energy drilling tend to be the industries most effected or outright prohibited.
Notably when the treaty was first opened for nation signatures in 2023, it only took three days for it to gain formal signatures from 81 UN member states, including the United States then under the Biden Administration. The first nation to sign back then was Palau; pan forward and on September 20, 2025 the 60th vote came from Morocco. The vote meant the BBNJ achieved the necessary 60 votes to “go into effect” this year in 2026.
It is critical to note that the initial BBNJ was signed by the nations as a non-binding agreement, representing a “signal of intent to comply” versus a hardline, legal treaty to adopt the guidelines from the BBNJ as law. Each member state would have to individually ratify the BBNJ into law by their perspective governing bodies.
Nevertheless, the success and broad buy-in from the international community has been encouraging for many who’ve been pushing for this cause for years.
What are the “high seas”?
International waters, also known as the high seas, cover about two thirds of the planet Earth. These vast expanses of bluewater are beyond the direct legal governance of individual nations. However, these waters are not technically “lawless”, even though no specific nation has sovereignty over them. Governments (often in cooperation or on behalf of private interests) do come together to regulate the high seas via international treaties and agreements like the BBNJ. This can be done via international mechanisms like the UN or directly between countries state-to-state.
“We have an unprecedented opportunity to protect and sustainably use the biodiversity in an area covering nearly half the planet,” continued Dr. Lubchenco. “That area houses phenomenal biodiversity, but it’s declining and at risk. This new treaty is a very big deal and very good news – science is informing pioneering global policy and needs to continue doing so.”
The Nitty Gritty – Ratify or No?
The UN summarizes the main points of the BBNJ:
“Under the overall objective of 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 the relevant provisions of the Convention and further international cooperation and coordination, the Agreement addresses four main issues:
- Marine genetic resources, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits;
- Measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas;
- Environmental impact assessments; and
- Capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology.
The Agreement also addresses a number of “cross-cutting issues”, establishes a funding mechanism and sets up institutional arrangements, including a Conference of the Parties and various subsidiary bodies, a Clearing-House Mechanism and a secretariat.”
Rallying nations to sign the BBNJ as a non-binding agreement is one thing but taking that extra step to ratify the treaty into the law is another question each member state must answer for itself. As of January 15 as reported by OSU, 145 of the UN’s member states have signed the treaty—an increase from the initial 81 in 2023. However, out of the 145 nations who signed the treaty, only 81 have ratified it into law. Notably, the United States, now under the Trump Administration, is among nations like Russia that signed the treaty but have not ratified it. One reason the United States may remain in the “not ratified” camp is due to the country’s governmental structure. Two thirds majority of the US Senate must vote to ratify an international, legally binding treaty.
Naturally, proponents of the BBNJ advocate for all nations to ratify.
“Ratification is in every country’s interest,” Dr. Lubchenco said. “It means having a voice and vote in decisions, such as about creating marine protected areas or allowing activities like geoengineering or deep-ocean aquaculture that might impact their domestic fisheries or coastal waters. Not ratifying means you’re ceding power to other nations for decisions that affect everyone.”
Another perhaps quirk of the BBNJ is that, while proponents like Dr. Lubchenco focus on the MPA and research assessment conservation aspects of the BBNJ, the UN also touts “marine genetic resources, including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits… and Capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology” mandates that are a part of the treaty.
What does “fair and equitable sharing” the “genetic resources” of two thirds of the planet really mean when it comes to a legally binding UN treaty? Genetic resources in the treaty are described as “any material of marine plant, animal, or microbial original that contains functional units of heredity with actual or potential value”. The positive take on this proviso is that pooling together scientific data will lead to benefits like pharmaceutical breakthroughs. However, there is a big difference between nations willingly sharing information with the international science community versus being mandated by law via the UN. Do nations that ratify the BBNJ have legal requirements to report/contribute all gained knowledge about life itself to a UN genetic research effort in the name of “equity”?
Additionally, the technology transfer mandate merits closer inspection. The positive spirit of the law is that the sharing of marine technology will benefit humankind as less developed nations gain access to expert knowledge, scientific gear and equipment, and more. However, when one is bound by a ratified treaty, one must legally provide the technology in question, again, for “facilitating equity”, even “free of charge or at a reduced rate”. According to the UN’s own Fact Sheet Capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology, the BBNJ does not even define “capacity-building” or “transfer of marine technology”. This lack of definition begs the question; can a nation ratify a treaty to do “something” if “something” is not legally defined?
Zooming Out, Pros and Cons
More macrolevel critique of international law agreements and the UN also apply. If a deep-sea mining interest from Russia wants to operate in international waters outside their economic exclusive zone, say 500 nautical miles off the Kuril Islands in the Pacific, will Russia willingly subject the endeavor to the political influence of countries like Palau or Morocco via the United Nations? Should it?
Will American commercial fishing seiners going after Pacific bluefin tuna willingly consent to rules in-part enforced by China, again via the United Nations? When looking to other UN-based agreements, many of the same old questions about the institution show themselves. What does enforcement actually look like in the real-world for violators? Would the UN really bring down the hammer on a Chinese commercial fishing vessel violating the treaty, or will the regulatory ramifications fall on lesser powerful nations while the more powerful ones (especially the ones on the Security Council) remain untouched?
The BBNJ also requires monetary contributions from member states that sign the treaty—is everyone really going to pony up? How can we ensure the funds are spent properly? The UN’s Oil-for-Food Programme scandal investigated in 2005 involved widespread corruption, kickbacks, and smuggling that allowed Saddam Hussein’s regime to illicitly earn billions of dollars despite UN sanctions. Nations who ratify the BBNJ will want to ensure the money is spent where it’s supposed to be.
Perhaps the UN, using the ratified BBNJ as its justification, would like to designate a patch of the high seas as a Marine Protected Area, but what happens if a nation closest to the area in question and most effected wants resources from the area? To essentially need permission from the UN would be an entirely new dynamic for a planet of sovereign nations with unregulated open oceans. On the other hand, coming together peacefully as an international community to benefit our oceans—and mankind—with informed policy is an admirable effort that may even be necessary in this era of environmental degradation.
Weighing the pros and cons of ratifying the BBNJ is a crossroads every nation will take in the coming months and years. For skeptics, the BBNJ contains some bizarre mandates—for example genetic resources and technology transfers—while also inheriting the same enforcement, political, and funding obstacles inherent to other UN endeavors. For believers of the BBNJ, the treaty represents a new era of hope and progress to ensure the high seas are sustainably managed by an international community of forward-thinking nations. If you were the leader of a sovereign nation, would you ratify?
https://www.un.org/bbnjagreement/en
