After years of informal efforts, the parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) are negotiating an international legally binding instrument to address governance gaps that have impeded attempts to conserve biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Though these discussions were initiated in response to concerns about biodiversity, states have used them to advance competing claims regarding rights of access, ownership, and control of ocean spaces and resources. This paper examines how states have discussed ocean space in negotiations regarding area-based management tools (ABMTs) and marine genetic resources (MGRs) at the first three intergovernmental conferences regarding biodiversity in ABNJ. ABMTs, which have become widespread in governing ocean space for conservation, are premised on an ontological framing that ocean space can be divided by geographical boundaries into territories for management. MGRs, on the other hand, are newly recognized governance objects that cross existing spatial boundaries: between areas of national and international jurisdiction, between the seafloor and water column, and between the ocean and the laboratory. Through their mobility, MGRs reveal how territorial forms of governance over material resources intersect with other forms of exclusion, control, and rights-based institutions, suggesting the need to develop creative management regimes that go beyond territorial approaches.
ActonLCampbellLMClearyJ, et al. (2019) What is the Sargasso Sea? The problem of fixing space in a fluid ocean. Political Geography68: 86–100.
2.
AndersonJPetersK (2016) ‘A perfect and absolute blank’: Human geographies of water worlds. In: AndersonJPetersK (eds) Water Worlds: Human Geographies of the Ocean. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge, pp. 3–22.
3.
Bennett NJ, Blythe J, White CS, et al. (2021) Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy 125: 104387. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387.
BlasiakR (2019) International regulatory changes poised to reshape access to marine genes. Nature Biotechnology37(4): 357–358.
6.
BlasiakRPittmanJYagiN, et al. (2016) Negotiating the use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Frontiers in Marine Science3: 224. DOI:10.3389/fmars.2016.00224.
7.
BlasiakRDurusselCPittmanJ, et al. (2017) The role of NGOs in negotiating the use of biodiversity in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy81: 1–8.
8.
BlasiakRJouffrayJ-BWabnitzCCC, et al. (2018) Corporate control and global governance of marine genetic resources. Science Advances4(6): eaar5237. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.aar5237.
9.
BlasiakRWynbergRGrorud-ColvertK, et al. (2020) The ocean genome and future prospects for conservation and equity. Nature Sustainability3(8): 588–596.
10.
BoyleJ (2003) The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems66(1–2): 33–74.
11.
BradleyCA (1996) Territorial intellectual property rights in an age of globalism. Virginia Journal of International Law37(2): 505–586.
12.
BroggiatoAVanagtTLallierLE, et al. (2018) Mare geneticum: Balancing governance of marine genetic resources in international waters. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law33(1): 3–33.
13.
BuckMHamiltonC (2011) The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law20(1): 47–61.
14.
CampbellLMGrayNJ (2019) Area expansion versus effective and equitable management in international marine protected areas goals and targets. Marine Policy100: 192–199.
15.
CampbellLMFailRHoranR, et al. (2022a) Architecture and agency for equity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Earth System Governance13: 100144.
16.
CampbellLMGrayNJJones ZiglerSB, et al. (2022b) World-making through mapping: Large-scale marine protected areas and the transformation of global oceans. In: HimleyMHaviceEValdiviaG (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Resource Geography. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 425–440.
17.
CamplingLHaviceE (2014) The problem of property in industrial fisheries. The Journal of Peasant Studies41(5): 707–727.
18.
ChisumDS (1996) Normative and empirical territoriality in intellectual property: Lessons from patent law symposium: Intellectual property law in the international marketplace. Virginia Journal of International Law37(2): 603–618.
19.
Claudet J, Amon DJ and Blasiak R (2021) Opinion: Transformational opportunities for an equitable ocean commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(42): e2117033118. DOI:10.1073/pnas.2117033118.
20.
DavidPA (2004) Can ‘open science’ be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections?Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft160(1): 9–34.
21.
De SantoEM (2018) Implementation challenges of area-based management tools (ABMTs) for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). Marine Policy97: 34–43.
22.
De SantoEMMendenhallENymanE, et al. (2020) Stuck in the middle with you (and not much time left): The third intergovernmental conference on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy117: 103957.
23.
Decker SparksJLSlivaSM (2019) An intersectionality-based analysis of high seas policy making stagnation and equity in united nations negotiations. Journal of Community Practice27(3–4): 260–278.
24.
Deplazes-ZempAAbivenSSchaberP, et al. (2018) The Nagoya Protocol could backfire on the Global South. Nature Ecology and Evolution2: 917–919.
25.
FairbanksLCampbellLMBoucqueyN, et al. (2018) Assembling enclosure: Reading marine spatial planning for alternatives. Annals of the American Association of Geographers108(1): 144–161.
26.
FreestoneDJohnsonDArdronJ, et al. (2014) Can existing institutions protect biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction? Experiences from two on-going processes. Marine Policy49: 167–175.
27.
GjerdeKMRulska-DominoA (2012) Marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction: Some practical perspectives for moving ahead. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law27(2): 351–373.
28.
GjerdeKMReeveLLNHarden-DaviesH, et al. (2016) Protecting earth’s last conservation frontier: Scientific, management and legal priorities for MPAs beyond national boundaries. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems26: 45–60.
29.
GrayNJ (2018) Charted waters? Tracking the production of conservation territories on the high seas. International Social Science Journal68(229–230): 257–272.
30.
GrayNJGrubyRLCampbellLM (2014) Boundary objects and global consensus: Scalar narratives of marine conservation in the convention on biological diversity. Global Environmental Politics14(3): 64–83.
31.
GrayNJActonLCampbellLM (2020) Science, territory, and the geopolitics of high seas conservation. In: O’LearS (ed) A Research Agenda for Environmental Geopolitics. Cheltenham UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 30–43.
32.
HaasBMackayMNovaglioC, et al. (2022) The future of ocean governance. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries32(1): 253–270.
33.
HaviceE (2018) Unsettled sovereignty and the sea: Mobilities and more-than-territorial configurations of state power. Annals of the American Association of Geographers108(5): 1280–1297.
34.
HumphriesFRaboneMJasparsM (2021) Traceability approaches for marine genetic resources under the proposed ocean (BBNJ) treaty. Frontiers in Marine Science8: 661313. DOI:10.3389/fmars.2021.661313.
JouffrayJ-BBlasiakRNorströmAV, et al. (2020) The blue acceleration: The trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth2(1): 43–54.
37.
JouffrayJ-BBlasiakRNyströmM, et al. (2021, October) Blue Acceleration: An Ocean of Risks and Opportunities. Stockholm: Ocean Risk and Resilience Alliance.
38.
MallinFBarbesgaardM (2020) Awash with contradiction: Capital, ocean space and the logics of the blue economy paradigm. Geoforum: Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences113: 121–132.
39.
MendenhallEDe SantoENymanE, et al. (2019) A soft treaty, hard to reach: The second inter-governmental conference for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy108: 103664.
PetersK (2020) The territories of governance: Unpacking the ontologies and geophilosophies of fixed to flexible ocean management, and beyond. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences375: 20190458.
44.
RothwellDRStephensT (2010) The History and Sources of the International Law of the Sea. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, pp. 1–29.
45.
RungeCFDefrancescoE (2006) Exclusion, inclusion, and enclosure: Historical commons and modern intellectual property. World Development34(10): 1713–1727.
46.
ScanlonZ (2018) The art of “not undermining”: Possibilities within existing architecture to improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction. ICES Journal of Marine Science75(1): 405–416.
47.
SigwartJDBlasiakRJasparsM, et al. (2021) Unlocking the potential of marine biodiscovery. Natural Product Reports38(7): 1235–1242.
48.
SteinbergPE (2001) The Social Construction of the Ocean. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ThambisettyS (2018) Marine genetic resources beyond national jurisdictions: Components of a fair, informed and progressive internationally binding legal instrument. 3215356, SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY. Available at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3215356 (accessed 25 August 2022).
50.
ThambisettyS (2022) Intellectual property and marine genetic resources: Navigating Articles 10-13 in the BBNJ Draft Treaty. 4054874, SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY. Available at:https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4054874(accessed 25 August 2022).
51.
TillerRDe SantoEMendenhallE, et al. (2019) The once and future treaty: Towards a new regime for biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy99: 239–242.
52.
TillerRDe SantoEMendenhallE, et al. (2020) Wealth blindness beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Pollution Bulletin151: 110809.
53.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNT.S. 397 (UNCLOS).
54.
VadrotABM (2020) Multilateralism as a ‘site’ of struggle over environmental knowledge: The north-south divide. Critical Policy Studies14(2): 233–245.
55.
VadrotABMLangletAWysockiIT (2021) Who owns marine biodiversity? Contesting the world order through the ‘common heritage of humankind’ principle. Environmental Politics31(2): 226–250.
56.
WIPO (2020) PCT FAQs—Protecting your Inventions Abroad: Frequently asked questions about the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Available at:https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/faqs/faqs.html(accessed 16 June 2021).
57.
ZalikA (2018) Mining the seabed, enclosing the Area: Ocean grabbing, proprietary knowledge and the geopolitics of the extractive frontier beyond national jurisdiction. International Social Science Journal68(229/230): 343–359.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
