A treaty that most Americans have never heard of quietly became international law on the morning of January 17, somewhere off the coast of New York, when a UN flag was raised on time. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s oceans are currently governed by the High Seas Treaty, an ambitious treaty with an awkward name. It was completed by sixty nations. Not one of them was the United States, which made a big deal out of signing the agreement back in September 2023.
At the joyous press conferences, no one wanted to focus on the difference between signing and ratification. This type of information is incorporated into a footnote. However, it’s important and worth pausing to consider.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Treaty Name | Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) |
| Common Name | High Seas Treaty |
| Adopted | June 19, 2023 |
| Entered Into Force | January 17, 2026 |
| Ratifications Needed | 60 countries |
| Coverage | Roughly two-thirds of the world’s ocean area |
| Governing Body | UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (interim) |
| Key Pillars | Marine genetic resources, MPAs, environmental impact assessments, capacity-building |
| Linked Goals | SDG 14, 30×30 target under Kunming-Montreal Framework |
| U.S. Status | Signed (Sept 2023), not ratified |
| First COP | Within 12 months of entry into force |
| Long-Term Aim | Protect 30% of oceans by 2030 |
The United States has a lengthy, almost theatrical history of contributing to the drafting of historic ocean agreements before abandoning them in the Senate. This treaty is based on the original 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which has been pending ratification for more than 40 years. Both parties’ presidents have supported it. It hasn’t passed yet. Speaking with those who are interested in ocean policy gives the impression that this is simply how Washington handles the ocean. At the negotiating table, loudly. At home, quietly, sometimes uncomfortably.
The actual treaty is truly ambitious. For the first time, it permits the establishment of marine protected areas in international waters, which are areas of the sea that are not owned by anyone and were previously largely unregulated. Environmental impact assessments are necessary prior to large-scale industrial operations or deep-sea mining.
It promises that the genetic resources discovered in the abyss — the strange microbes, the bioluminescent oddities that pharmaceutical companies have been quietly patenting for years — will be shared more equitably with developing nations. Approximately 1% of the high seas are currently under protection. One percent. The treaty’s supporters want that figure pushed to thirty by 2030. It’s a goal that will require a great deal of collaboration and funding. Neither is assured.
It’s difficult to ignore the peculiar political geometry when observing this from a distance. China gave its approval. The EU did. Among the first were small island nations that stood to lose the most as the seas warmed. Meanwhile, the U.S. delegation has shown support without making a commitment—a well-known tactic. Sixty-seven votes are now needed for the Senate to ratify any treaty, a requirement that feels almost geologically remote in the current environment.
The fishing sector is worried. Defense officials are worried. Mining interests are undoubtedly concerned, especially those who are interested in polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. These criticisms are not brand-new. Since the end of the Cold War, they have been recycled through all significant ocean agreements.
However, something has changed. Capital cities have been shaken by the International Court of Justice’s recent advisory ruling that climate inaction may be illegal under international law. The topic of reparations is now being discussed. According to the ICJ, licensing fossil fuels may be a wrongdoing. The legal terrain is shifting. It may be more difficult for nations that believed they could watch from the sidelines to maintain that stance.
The High Seas Treaty is now enforceable for those who selected it, regardless of whether the United States ratifies it within the next year, ten years, or never. When American ships operate in international waters, they will come across regulations that were developed by the nations that carried out the work. That’s the uncomfortable reality that no one has yet to publicly acknowledge. In international law, influence usually goes to those who show up. This is what the ocean has been waiting for for twenty years. I think it can wait a bit longer for Washington. But not indefinitely.
