What is the UN high seas treaty and how could it change global ocean conservation?
UNITED NATIONS (US), June 11 — The high seas treaty could be law by the end of the year, affording protection to marine life in the vast swathes of ocean that belong to no one.
The treaty was adopted by UN member states in June 2023.
It has been ratified by 49 nations plus the European Union, according to the UN, and comes into force 120 days after its 60th ratification.
The US signed the treaty in 2023 under Joe Biden's administration but is not expected to ratify it while Donald Trump is president.
Here are the key points of the treaty text:
International waters
The treaty covers international waters, which fall outside the jurisdiction of any single state, and account for more than 60 per cent of the world's oceans.
Specifically, it applies to waters beyond countries' exclusive economic zones, which extend up to 200 nautical miles from the coast.
It also covers what is known as 'the Area', shorthand for seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
The Area comprises just over half of the planet's seabed.
Once enacted, a decision-making body — a Conference of the Parties (COP) — would have to work with regional and global organisations that already oversee different aspects of the oceans.
These include regional fisheries bodies and the International Seabed Authority, the arena where nations are hotly contesting a proposed set of rules to govern deep-sea mining.
Trump's decision to sidestep the authority — to which the US is not a member — and issue deep-sea mining permits in international waters has raised tricky questions of jurisdiction.
Marine protected areas
Currently, almost all protected marine areas (MPAs) are within national territorial waters.
The treaty, however, allows for these reserves to be created in the open ocean.
Most decisions would be taken by a consensus of the COP, but an MPA can be voted into existence with a three-quarters majority, to prevent deadlock caused by a single country.
One crucial shortcoming: the text does not say how these conservation measures will be monitored and enforced over remote swathes of the ocean — a task that will fall to the COP.
Some experts say satellites could be used to spot infractions.
Individual countries are already responsible for certain activities on the high seas that they have jurisdiction over, such as those of ships flying their flags.
Sharing the bounty?
On the high seas, countries and entities under their jurisdiction will be allowed to collect animal, plant, or microbial matter whose genetic material might prove useful, even commercially.
Scientists, for example, have discovered molecules with the potential to treat cancer or other diseases in microbes scooped up in sediment, or produced by sponges or marine mollusks.
Benefits-sharing of those resources has been a key point of contention between wealthy and poorer nations.
The treaty establishes frameworks for the transfer of marine research technologies to developing countries and a strengthening of their research capacities, as well as open access to data.
But it is left to the COP to decide exactly how any monetary benefits will eventually be shared, with options including a system based on specific commercialised products, or more generalised payment systems.
Environmental impact studies
The treaty requires signatories to assess the environmental impacts of planned activities under their control on the high seas before they are authorised in instances when such activities may have more than a minor or transitory effect.
It also calls for countries to assess the potential impact on international waters of activities within national jurisdictions that may cause 'substantial pollution' or harm the high sea marine environment.
Ultimately, states are responsible for giving the green light to any potentially harmful activity — a role NGOs hoped would go to the COP, to make controversial approvals more difficult.
The treaty also requires states to publish updates on an activity's environmental impacts.
Approvals can be called into question if unanticipated impacts arise.
Though they are not specifically listed in the treaty, activities that could come under regulation include transport and fishing, as well as more controversial subjects such as deep-sea mining or even geo-engineering initiatives to mitigate global warming. — AFP
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Barnama
an hour ago
- Barnama
Trump Says US Is Evacuating Personnel From Middle East As 'It Could Be A Dangerous Place'
ISTANBUL, June 12 (Bernama-Anadolu) -- United States (US) President Donald Trump said Wednesday that American personnel are being evacuated from locations in the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran because "it could be a dangerous place, Anadolu Ajansi (AA) reported. Speaking to reporters before attending the opening night of the award-winning musical Les Misérables at the Kennedy Centre, Trump acknowledged the withdrawal while maintaining his firm stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions. "Well, they are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place. We'll see what happens. We've given notice to move out," he said when asked about reports of personnel relocations.


New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Donald Trump and the 'rhetoric of emergency'
TARIFFS, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring "emergency" situations that his critics insist do not exist. "In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution," New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP. But various laws allow the commander-in-chief's powers to be expanded on an exceptional – and usually temporary – basis. Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. "But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it," Rosenblum said. Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas – eight times in all, according to National Public Radio – thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration's part. They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes. On his first day in office, Trump declared a "national energy emergency" in the United States – the world's leading oil producer. By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, "to increase our competitive edge," the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike. The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants. Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a "rebellion or danger of rebellion." The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a "dictatorial" drift. "The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren't any," said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents. "All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don't account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking... to exercise extraordinary power," Bowman told AFP. Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the "emergency" created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan. In Trump's case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril? The tendency of judges "in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president," Bowman said. On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump's troop deployment. In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump's judgment has historical precedent. Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers' strike, "and courts should not interfere here either," it said. Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed. Trump, he said, "is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive – and so demanding government intervention."


Daily Express
2 hours ago
- Daily Express
Donald Trump and the ‘rhetoric of emergency'
Published on: Thursday, June 12, 2025 Published on: Thu, Jun 12, 2025 By: AFP Text Size: AFP pic WASHINGTON: Tariffs, immigration, energy: In all these areas, Donald Trump has granted himself exceptional and broad presidential powers by declaring 'emergency' situations that his critics insist do not exist. 'In the United States, there is no tradition of emergency powers (granted to the president) under the Constitution,' New York University professor Noah Rosenblum told AFP. Advertisement But various laws allow the commander-in-chief's powers to be expanded on an exceptional -- and usually temporary -- basis. Historically such emergency powers have been invoked to deal with natural disasters, to deploy responders or troops, and to unlock critical funding. 'But that, of course, is not how Donald Trump is using it,' Rosenblum said. Since returning to the White House on January 20, the Republican president has repeatedly invoked states of emergency in a variety of areas -- eight times in all, according to National Public Radio -- thus green-lighting swift and forceful intervention on his administration's part. They have had little to do with hurricanes, floods or earthquakes. On his first day in office, Trump declared a 'national energy emergency' in the United States -- the world's leading oil producer. By early April, frustrated by the trade deficits the United States had with many countries, including some imbalances going back decades, Trump declared a national emergency, among other reasons, 'to increase our competitive edge,' the White House said. The result? Tariffs slapped on adversaries and allies alike. The flow of migrants arriving from Mexico has prompted Trump to declare a state of emergency at the US southern border, and he apparently feels empowered to respond with massive import duties, or forced deportations of undocumented migrants. 'Aspiring autocrat' Now, Trump has sent the US military into Los Angeles to quell protests, invoking a seldom-used law that allows the president to deploy National Guard units if there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion.' The move countered the wishes of local authorities and California Governor Gavin Newsom, who accused Trump of a 'dictatorial' drift. 'The president is simply announcing emergencies when there aren't any,' said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri, noting how local police have said they are capable of handling clashes with protesters opposed to raids by immigration agents. 'All of these grants of potential emergency powers really don't account for the election of a president like Mr. Trump, who is not entirely rational, who is not dedicated to the rule of law, who is, in fact, an aspiring autocrat who is looking... to exercise extraordinary power,' Bowman told AFP. Trump is not the first US leader to invoke exceptional circumstances to justify such moves, even if he does so in a way without precedent. His Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, for example, decided to forgive student debt given the 'emergency' created by the Covid pandemic. The conservative-leaning Supreme Court was not convinced, however, and blocked the plan. Eisenhower and Nixon In Trump's case, will the courts, which have been flooded by lawsuits, affirm the legality of actions taken in the name of imminent peril? The tendency of judges 'in these kinds of things is to defer pretty heavily to the president,' Bowman said. On Thursday, a California court will consider a request by Governor Newsom to suspend Trump's troop deployment. In a filing to the court, the administration said Trump's judgment has historical precedent. Courts did not interfere when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to protect school desegregation or when Richard Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail during a postal workers' strike, 'and courts should not interfere here either,' it said. Beyond the legal tussles, the relentless use of the language of urgency, of imminent threat or national peril, is part of a broader strategy, professor Rosenblum stressed. Trump, he said, 'is using the perpetual rhetoric of emergency to keep us perpetually riled up and either on the defensive and so increasingly exhausted or scared and aggressive -- and so demanding government intervention.' * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia