These are areas that belong to everyone and no one. They cover roughly 75% of the oceans and provide billions of people with highly important goods and services.
They are potential sites for energy production—both green and fossil—as well as commercial corridors. They also produce oxygen by absorbing large amounts of global greenhouse gas emissions. However, they face heavy pressures: waste, pollution, and overexploitation of marine species.
We are talking about seas and seabeds outside any form of national jurisdiction, beyond territorial waters, the continental shelf, and Exclusive Economic Zones, which until recently were unprotected.
However, from Saturday, January 17, and following 20 years of negotiations, the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) came into force, implemented as an operational text under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Over 80 UN member states have signed, including Greece.
“The resources we are discussing should not belong to anyone; they are global commons. Unfortunately, we live in an unequal world. This Agreement could slightly reduce inequality and ensure that benefits are distributed on an equitable basis,” says Professor Ronan Long, an expert on ocean issues and the Law of the Sea, speaking to To Vima.
Environment and Geopolitics in the Eastern Mediterranean
While the BBNJ primarily addresses environmental management, setting specific measures for marine biodiversity protection and the creation of marine protected areas, it also carries clear geopolitical implications. The high seas are directly connected to the so-called “blue economy,” including energy, rare earths, genetic resources for scientific research, and shipping routes.
The control of shipping lanes and rare earths, for example, is central to disputes over Antarctica, while the United States and China compete for influence over key trade corridors. Consequently, provisions of the Agreement, such as management measures for protected areas, gain special geostrategic significance.
The Agreement, covering areas mainly accessible to the great powers of the era, has been signed—but not yet ratified—by nearly all major global powers: the US, China, India, Russia, the UK, and Japan. It has also been ratified by Greece, Cyprus, the European Union, Norway, and Turkey. Turkey’s ratification is contradictory, as the country is not a party to UNCLOS, adding to Greek-Turkish disputes over maritime boundaries.
Turkey’s Ratification and the Contested Zone
In the Eastern Mediterranean, a particularly sensitive triangular area, the BBNJ has been ratified only by Athens, Nicosia, and Ankara. Beyond structural differences regarding maritime boundaries, parties are inevitably involved in projects affecting these waters, parts of which—without bilateral agreements—fall outside their jurisdiction. Examples include energy transport projects, access to genetic resources, and planned trade routes such as IMEC.
The reality is that in the wider region, due to Turkish revisionism, conditions for the necessary consensus to implement the BBNJ are absent. According to Dr. Mustafa Baskara, member of Ankara University for Maritime Law (the state authority that posted Turkey’s Maritime Spatial Planning Map to UNESCO, according to which Turkey’s continental shelf cuts through the middle of the Aegean), Turkey’s ratification does not mean it is bound by UNCLOS provisions.
Speaking at a roundtable on BBNJ organized by the University of Athens and the Athens Public International Law Center, he argued that Turkey’s sovereign rights in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean remain intact, attributing purely environmental reasons to the country’s decision to ratify the BBNJ. Other analysts, however, see Turkey’s ratification as a signal of its willingness to participate in matters of international legality, though on its own terms.
Relationship with UNCLOS
Answering a question from To Vima regarding the link between BBNJ and UNCLOS provisions, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasizes that the BBNJ “will be interpreted and applied within the framework of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This is important for Greece, as it confirms the central role of UNCLOS as the legal framework under which all uses of the sea must be conducted.”
It is also highlighted that in cases of management measures, such as marine protected areas, “consultations with the coastal state are foreseen, especially if the proposed measures may affect the waters above its continental shelf.”
Among BBNJ’s goals is establishing a system for peaceful dispute resolution regarding its interpretation or implementation, including the possibility of recourse to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Additionally, Professor Long notes, the Agreement contains provisions suspending its application in disputed areas. “This is a very important aspect. I believe we will see the development of strong regional institutions for implementing the BBNJ or bilateral agreements. There are already examples, such as in the Indian Ocean,” he emphasizes.
He also reminds that there is no “global police enforcing international law. Ultimately, whether the Agreement will be actively applied depends on whether states choose to do so.”
Against an Era of Unilateral Decisions
The BBNJ comes at a time when for the first time since the end of World War II, the international order is being strongly questioned. “The Agreement is a multilateral application of international law at a time dominated by its opposite: the ‘Donroe Doctrine,’ transactional approaches, the law of the strongest,” says Maria Damanaki, climate and ocean expert, highlighting the main challenge: “Implementation requires international cooperation at a time when all international governance systems are collapsing.”
Professor Long observes that the Agreement came into force in record time, noting that states willing to cooperate will do so “because they believe it is in their interest—perhaps to protect shared marine resources, enable research, or ensure that others share the benefits from them.”
In today’s conflict-prone world, high seas are already contested among major powers, making consensus over waters beyond national jurisdiction a delicate exercise. The Agreement, however, represents the first step toward reversing the destructive trends threatening the oceans.
“The Agreement for the Oceans Can Reduce Inequalities”
The international community may gradually become a global arena where the “law of the strongest” replaces legality. Yet, from January 17, a new Agreement covering the management of the high seas and oceans beyond national jurisdiction has entered into force. Implemented as a text under UNCLOS, it is the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), with over 80 UN member states, including Greece, already party to it.
These areas constitute roughly 75% of the oceans, producing goods and services critical to humanity: energy, trade routes, oxygen, biodiversity, genetic resources for research. Like any applied agreement, BBNJ has geopolitical implications, especially today as rare earths and maritime corridors become major strategic stakes, such as in the Arctic.
Notably, BBNJ was ratified in the Eastern Mediterranean not only by Greece and Cyprus but also by Turkey, which declared it does not consider itself bound by UNCLOS and will not relinquish what it considers sovereign rights in the wider area.
Professor Ronan Long, a World Maritime University scholar who followed much of the negotiations, emphasizes the importance of BBNJ’s provisions. He believes its benefits will serve as a “passport” for its implementation by states that have ratified it, expressing optimism that despite the dominance of major powers, there is room for fairer resource distribution.
Q: What would you consider the most significant outcome of BBNJ?
BBNJ introduces a completely new level of protection for ocean areas over which no state has sovereignty—not only the high seas but also the seabed in these regions. This is crucial because ecosystems in these areas—upon which we rely for food, carbon absorption, and potential pharmaceutical or chemical research—face immense pressure from climate change and human activity.
Moreover, the Agreement enables the exchange of knowledge from access to marine genetic resources, which are global commons. Since we live in an unfortunately unequal world, this Agreement could slightly reduce inequality and ensure equitable distribution of benefits.
Q: Given the rise of unilateral decisions and weakening intergovernmental cooperation, why do you believe BBNJ can be effective?
Professor Long: “I disagree with the notion that international law is sidelined. It remains central, although some states attempt to misuse it to justify violence or unilateralism. BBNJ will succeed if a sufficient number of states wish to comply. Already 82 states and the EU have joined. The Agreement came into force quickly because many states ratified it fast—a process requiring effort and political commitment. States that want to cooperate will do so because it benefits them—some to protect marine resources, others to facilitate research, or even gain economic returns.”
Q: How will BBNJ compliance be ensured in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Who enforces it—national states or an international body?
“No one enforces international law except states themselves, using domestic law. Regional organizations may have the capacity to implement it. There is no global police. The Agreement provides the basis for expertise and diplomatic bodies to monitor compliance. Disputes are resolved through courts or arbitration. Ultimately, the Agreement’s effectiveness depends on whether states choose to implement it. So far, over 100 states are expected to join.”
Q: For countries with maritime boundaries that are unsettled, will the Agreement simplify or complicate cooperation?
“The Agreement applies to areas beyond national jurisdiction. It contains provisions preventing its enforcement in disputed areas in ways that affect state claims. This is a very important aspect. We will likely see the development of regional institutions or bilateral agreements for BBNJ implementation. Examples exist in the Indian Ocean, and others will follow.”
