- A brand-new ocean governance treaty, officially called the “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the preservation and sustainable usage of marine biological variety of locations beyond nationwide jurisdiction” (BBNJ) was concurred to by the worldwide neighborhood in 2023.
- As the settlements injury down, a rebranding effort started, which called the brand-new contract the ‘High Seas Treaty,’ which is not precise and leavesout the most crucial term, biodiversity, however it’s not too late to re-think, re-frame, and re-name the arrangement.
- “Calling it the High Seas Treaty was a option, however there are muchbetter choices, which are more precise and do not predisposition the analysis of the contract…we argue that the shorthand oughtto consistof the word biodiversity,” state the authors of a brand-new commentary.
- This post is a commentary. The views revealed are those of the authors, not always Mongabay.
In lateron 2023, the global neighborhood concluded settlements for a brand-new ocean governance treaty, officially called the “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the preservation and sustainable usage of marine biological variety of locations beyond nationwide jurisdiction.” Throughout the settlements, the treaty was referred to as the “BBNJ” arrangement (or treaty, or instrument), which stands for “biodiversity beyond nationwide jurisdiction.” Indeed, the UN website hosting key information about the negotiations and subsequent agreement is www.un.org/bbnj.
But as the settlements injury down, a rebranding effort started, which called the brand-new contract the ‘High Seas Treaty.’ This brand-new name is expected to be pithier and more available to the public. It can now be discovered in scholastic posts, popular media, and federalgovernment interactions. We argue that this option – calling it the ‘High Seas Treaty’ – is considerable, and a error.
That name has 3 standard issues: (1) it misrepresents the scope of the BBNJ arrangement, disregarding the global seabed (Area); (2) it raises the liberty of the seas concept to the hinderance of the typical heritage of mankind concept; and (3) it leavesout the focus of the contract which is biodiversity, and particularly reversing biodiversity loss. These issues will grow in significance as we getin the execution stage of the treaty.
‘High Seas Treaty’ is unreliable
The BBNJ arrangement uses to the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), which indicates both the high seas and the Area as specified under UNCLOS. The high seas are the sea surfacearea and water column beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and the Area is the seafloor and subsoil beyond the continental rack. The high seas and Area are not co-extensive – the limitation of the EEZ is 200 nautical miles, however seaside states can extend their continental rack beyond 200 nautical miles in particular scenarios (and over 80 states haveactually done or are doing so). The method the high seas and the Area are handled is extremely various. Activities in the high seas are governed by a range of local and sectoral companies, whereas activities in the Area are governed by the International Seabed Authority.
Most significantly, various governance concepts underlie the high seas and the Area. The high seas routine shows the open gainaccessto ‘freedom of the seas’ concept, with a history that can be traced back to at least the 1600s. This concept prefers maritime ‘users,’ who have clear ‘freedoms’ (rights) to gainaccessto, makeuseof, and otherwise usage high seas resources. In contrast, the Area shows the more progressive ‘common heritage of humankind’ concept, which states that the Area and its resources belong to all mankind. When ‘common heritage’ resources are utilized, the advantages oughtto be equitably shared. This concept can be traced back to the late 1960s and shows the objectives and interests of establishing and land-locked nations in the more fair and sustainable usage of ocean resources. Its main existence in UNCLOS was a significant success for the Group of 77 (G77) union.
The BBNJ arrangement consistsof both concepts. Article 7 on ‘General concepts and approaches´ consistsof the “[t]he concept of the typical heritage of humankind” (supported by the 134 members of the G77 as well as Mexico, Turkey, Palau, and others). The addition of “[t]he liberty of marine clinical researchstudy, together with other liberties of the high seas” was proposed by established nations in the overtime hours of the last settlement session, regardlessof having neverever been present in earlier drafts. The applicability of these 2 concepts to the BBNJ problem locations, and particularly to Marine Genetic Resources, was controversial throughout the settlements, and will mostlikely continue to be a source of stress in the analysis and execution of the arrangement. The pressure to complete a treaty text exposed the depth of dedication on both sides. In the end, compromise was reached such that both concepts were consistedof in the arrangement.
But the name ‘High Seas Treaty’ suggests that the treaty is about the high seas just, and forthatreason reflective of the ‘freedom of the seas’ concept. This is unreliable – it completely ignores the Area – and develops predisposition in how we comprehend the treaty.
‘High Seas Treaty’ predispositions analysis, shapes execution
Treaties are official legal arrangements madeup of composed text. Like all United Nations contracts, the BBNJ treaty exists in the 6 authorities languages of the UN. Its words are often accurate, often uncertain, depending on where agreement might be discovered.
What a treaty suggests is a more complex than simply what the treaty states. Essentially, states choose what the words of treaties mean as they carryout them. Implementation consistsof domestication (translating treaties into domestic legal and regulative structures), the development and operation of treaty bodies, and modifications in state habits. Implementation is important to efficiency – it figuresout whether and how a treaty works. Sometimes, states disagree about the requirements of execution. They might ask a court or tribunal for an reliable legal analysis of treaty shortarticles. T