Global environmental change, rapid technological advances, and intensifying human activities in the oceans have collectively exposed significant gaps in the governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). These regions—comprising the high seas and the deep seabed—cover more than sixty percent of the global ocean and play a crucial role in climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and food security. Yet, despite their ecological and strategic importance, ABNJ remain governed by fragmented and largely outdated legal frameworks. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), long regarded as the “constitution for the oceans,” contains broad obligations requiring states to protect and preserve the marine environment, but it does not provide detailed mechanisms for implementing those duties. As environmental pressures escalate, the limitations of the existing regime have become increasingly apparent, prompting the international community to negotiate a new, more comprehensive agreement.

The 2023 Agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction—commonly referred to as the BBNJ Agreement—represents the most significant legal development in ocean governance since the adoption of UNCLOS. Designed to address longstanding regulatory deficiencies, the Agreement introduces four major pillars: (1) access to and fair benefit-sharing from marine genetic resources (MGRs), including digital sequence information; (2) area-based management tools (ABMTs), particularly the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs); (3) a global and more harmonized regime for environmental impact assessments (EIAs); and (4) capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology for developing states. Together, these pillars aim to provide a more coherent, equitable, and forward-looking system for managing human activities in ABNJ.







This article examines the legal and institutional implications of the BBNJ Agreement and evaluates whether it can meaningfully improve the protection of biodiversity in ABNJ. It employs a doctrinal and analytical methodology, drawing on primary legal texts, decisions of international courts and tribunals, and contemporary academic scholarship. The study pays particular attention to the complex interactions between the BBNJ regime and pre-existing institutions, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Seabed Authority (ISA), and various Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). These bodies form a dense and sometimes overlapping set of institutions whose mandates intersect with key components of the BBNJ framework.

The findings highlight that the BBNJ Agreement represents a clear normative advance in international environmental law, but also faces structural and political constraints that may limit its effectiveness. On the normative level, the Agreement significantly strengthens the interpretation of environmental obligations under UNCLOS, particularly those found in Articles 192 and 194. By establishing explicit procedural duties—such as mandatory EIAs, transparency requirements, post-activity monitoring, and public participation—the BBNJ regime transforms several previously ambiguous due-diligence obligations into more concrete legal responsibilities. The Agreement also elevates principles such as the precautionary approach, ecosystem-based management, fairness, and intergenerational equity, thereby contributing to the evolution of environmental norms applicable to global commons.

However, despite these advances, the BBNJ framework must operate in a highly fragmented institutional environment. More than fifty international and regional organizations hold partial or overlapping mandates relevant to biodiversity conservation in ABNJ. While UNCLOS has long been critiqued for segmenting the ocean into separate legal compartments—distinguishing between the water column, the seabed, and the resources within them—the BBNJ Agreement attempts to encourage a more integrated ecological approach. Yet the Agreement does not establish a hierarchy among existing institutions, nor does it create strong enforcement bodies. Instead, it relies on cooperation, consultation, and “non-undermining” clauses intended to preserve the autonomy of existing organizations. This polycentric and decentralized model offers flexibility but risks perpetuating inconsistent and uncoordinated implementation across sectors such as fishing, shipping, and deep-sea mining.

One of the most complex areas of interaction arises between the BBNJ regime and the ISA, which governs mineral activities in the deep seabed under the principle of the common heritage of humankind. Although the BBNJ Agreement excludes non-living resources from its scope, deep-sea mining activities inevitably affect the water column and marine biodiversity—areas squarely within the competence of the BBNJ framework. The absence of explicit coordination mechanisms between the two regimes creates legal uncertainty and may generate future conflicts, particularly if BBNJ-designated MPAs or EIA standards impose restrictions on activities authorized by the ISA. This institutional tension is further complicated by differing underlying philosophies: while the ISA is mandated to promote mineral exploitation for the benefit of humanity, BBNJ prioritizes environmental protection and long-term ecological sustainability.







Another major contribution of this study lies in elucidating the distributive justice dimensions of the BBNJ Agreement. The governance of MGRs has long been contentious, reflecting deep divides between technologically advanced states capable of deep-sea bioprospecting and developing countries seeking equitable access to benefits derived from these resources. The BBNJ Agreement introduces novel mechanisms for benefit-sharing, transparency in scientific activities, and capacity-building, offering a potential pathway to reduce global inequalities in marine science and technology. However, the ultimate effectiveness of these provisions will depend on states’ political will and the design of future implementing measures by the Conference of the Parties (CoP).







Overall, this article argues that the BBNJ Agreement constitutes a transformative step in the evolution of the law of the sea and international environmental law. Nevertheless, its success will depend on how states interpret and operationalize its provisions, the extent of coordination among existing institutions, and the degree to which global actors reconcile competing interests relating to exploitation and conservation. The Agreement’s innovations—particularly in EIAs, MPAs, and benefit-sharing—have the potential to significantly strengthen governance in ABNJ, but their impact will hinge on sustained cooperation and robust implementation at multiple institutional levels.

In conclusion, the BBNJ Agreement represents both a historic achievement and a critical test for multilateralism in the Anthropocene. If effectively implemented, it could lay the foundation for a more coherent, fair, and ecologically responsible system of ocean governance. If not, the structural fragmentation of the current regime may continue to undermine efforts to safeguard the biodiversity of the global commons for present and future generations.