A few weeks ago, Morocco ratified what António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, called a “historic achievement for the ocean and for multilateralism.”
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 - more commonly known as the High Seas Treaty - will enter into force on January 17, 2026.
But what is the High Seas Treaty, and what will it do?
What are the high seas?
The high seas are the parts of the ocean beyond any country’s territorial sea or Exclusive Economic Zone.
Map showing exclusive economic zones in light blue, and the high seas in dark blue. Credit B1mbo/Wikimedia CC BY-SA 3.0 CL)
The high seas cover roughly two-thirds of the ocean and almost half the planet’s surface. Nobody owns the high seas, but there are some agreements that cover parts of them. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international agreement signed by 171 parties (170 states/countries plus the European Union), says the high seas are open to all to fish, lay submarine cables, conduct scientific research, and more. In fact, the High Seas Treaty is an agreement under UNCLOS!
Another example is regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). These are international bodies formed by groups of countries to regulate fishing in specific parts of the high seas.
Why do we need the High Seas Treaty?
The high seas play a vital role in supporting biodiversity, storing carbon, and sustaining global ecosystems. Conservation targets set under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework include protecting 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030. Many say this goal is impossible to achieve without including the high seas.
The High Seas Treaty is a legally binding instrument designed to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It promises to establish procedures for creating high-seas marine protected areas, introduce stronger requirements for environmental impact assessments, regulate access to marine genetic resources and ensure benefits are shared more equitably, while also supporting developing countries with funding, capacity building, and technology transfer.
What’s all this ratification business about?
International treaties typically have two stages: signature (indicating political support) and ratification (a formal domestic act that binds a state to the treaty). After nearly 20 years of negotiations, the High Seas Treaty was finalised and opened for signature in 2023. Its own text specified that the treaty would enter into force once 60 states ratified it.
With that benchmark reached, the treaty will enter into force on 17 January 2026. This delay allows time for institutional arrangements to be prepared. From January 17, the agreement will legally bind those countries that have ratified it, while other states remain outside unless they decide to join.
So, marine life in the high seas is well protected now?
Credit Pexels (Pixabay)
Not quite. The High Seas Treaty provides the scaffolding for protecting fragile ecosystems, managing resources more equitably, and ensuring that environmental impacts are assessed. But its effectiveness is not guaranteed.
Enforcement challenges
The treaty relies on states to regulate their own vessels and nationals. There is no independent policing body capable of monitoring or sanctioning violations. This is especially problematic given that international waters already facilitate maritime crime such as illegal fishing, human trafficking, and piracy (if you want to know more about this, I highly recommend the Outlaw Ocean Project). Conservation measures will need to be enforced in places where patrol presence is thin and prosecution is difficult. Without credible monitoring, illegal activity could undermine conservation goals.
Overlapping regimes
A second challenge lies in the relationship with existing regimes such as RFMOs and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The High Seas Treaty acknowledges that RFMOs’ authority must be respected, but it does not grant them absolute veto power over new marine protected areas. I don’t think this is a bad thing. RFMOs aren’t necessarily famed for their strong conservation actions.
Similarly, the treaty may interact with the ISA, which regulates deep-sea mining. While the ISA currently issues exploration licences and is drafting exploitation rules for deep-sea mining, the High Seas Treaty could bring in stricter environmental assessment standards that could influence how mining is assessed. Whether this strengthens protection or creates institutional conflict is still unclear.
Financing shortfalls
Financing is another potential weak spot. The agreement calls for capacity building and technology transfer to support developing countries, but such commitments often prove weak in practice. Without reliable and predictable funding, many of the obligations will likely remain aspirations rather than realities.
Ratification gaps
While 143 countries have signed the treaty, only around 70 have ratified so far. Among those missing is the USA. The USA has signed the treaty - they just haven’t ratified. For them to do so, at least two-thirds of the US Senate must support ratification, which some say could be quite difficult in the current political landscape, including Trump’s push to bypass the ISA to issue permits for deep-sea mining in the high seas. Countries that do not ratify are not bound by the treaty.
Political will
Even the best laid plans could be laid to waste if the political will to actually take action isn’t there. The treaty’s rules for establishing marine protected areas and conducting environmental impact assessments will be negotiated in detail at future meetings. If these negotiations become mired in geopolitics or commercial interests, the potential of the treaty could be watered down.
What happens next?
UN Member flags outside the UN headquarters in New York, USA. Credit Aotearoa/Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 3.0)
With the treaty set to take effect in January 2026, the immediate focus is on preparing the institutions that will govern it. A Conference of the Parties (CoP- the main decision-making body for a treaty) will be convened within a year. At the first CoP, states will establish detailed procedures and rules for how marine protected areas are proposed and approved, what thresholds apply to environmental impact assessments, and how benefits from marine genetic resources will be shared.
Another pressing task is the design of the financial mechanism. States will need to decide how contributions are calculated, where the money will come from, and how it will be distributed. The treaty’s credibility will hinge on whether it can channel meaningful resources into conservation and equitable participation.
Scientists and conservationists are already preparing proposals for marine protected areas in ecologically significant regions. The political test will be whether governments can agree on these proposals and move quickly. Delay risks more damage to fragile ecosystems and marine life.
Should we be hopeful?
The High Seas Treaty is a huge step towards treating the high seas as a shared responsibility. It recognises that marine life in these waters is both vulnerable and valuable, and that its governance should reflect collective stewardship. But its effectiveness will depend on enforcement by states, cooperation among institutions, adequate funding, and, above all, political will.
If governments follow through, the treaty could unlock large protected areas, ensure fairer sharing of resources, and strengthen the resilience of ocean ecosystems. If they falter, it risks becoming another well-intentioned agreement that looks good on paper but achieves little in practice.
Let’s face it, I don’t think many of us will be shocked if they do falter. Disappointed - yes, but shocked…
But there are encouraging signs. The treaty achieved ratification in record time, and we’re seeing more countries ratifying all the time, suggesting there is real political momentum. Unlike some agreements, this one creates economic incentives through resource-sharing provisions that could drive participation.
Maybe the question isn't whether governments will be perfect. Maybe it's whether they'll be good enough to make a meaningful difference in protecting two-thirds of our planet's surface. Given the alternative, even imperfect progress is worth pursuing.