Hard-Fought Treaty To Protect Ocean Life Clears a Final Hurdle

The high seas, the vast waters beyond any one country's jurisdiction, cover nearly half the planet. On Friday, a hard-fought global treaty to protect the "cornucopia of biodiversity" living there cleared a final hurdle and will become international law. From a report: The High Seas Treaty, as it is known, was ratified by a 60th nation, Morocco, crossing the threshold for United Nations treaties to go into effect. Two decades in the making, it allows for the establishment of enormous conservation zones in international waters. Environmentalists hailed it as a historic moment. The treaty "is a conservation opportunity that happens once in a generation, if that," said Lisa Speer, who directs the International Oceans Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

It is also a bright spot amid a general dimming of optimism about international diplomacy and cooperation among nations toward common goals. It will come into force just as the high seas are poised to become the site of controversial industrial activities including deep sea mining. The treaty provides a comprehensive set of regulations for high seas conservation that would supersede the existing patchwork of rules developed by United Nations agencies and industrial organizations in sectors like oil, fishing and shipping. Currently, less than 10 percent of the world's oceans are protected under law, and conservation advocates say little of that protection is effective. The treaty states a goal of giving 30 percent of the high seas some kind of protected status by 2030.

Enforcement?

[ShanghaiBill]

How will it be enforced?

Who will do the enforcing?

Re:Enforcement?

[JoshuaZ]

As is the case for almost all international treaties, enforcement mechanisms are limited. Egregious violators will get pressure from other countries. Many countries will depend on citizens to enforce it. For example, in some countries regular citicizens can file lawsuits when their country is not fulfilling treaty obligations. But generally, when countries sign on to international treaties, most involved countries also pass internal legislation to comply with treaty aspects. This is the way for almost all international treaties, and it largely works. People have an idea that international law doesn't work but the vast majority works fine, and we often just notice the serious failures and breakdowns, not all the stuff that is quietly working on a day-to-day basis.

Re:

[Registered Coward v2]

People have an idea that international law doesn't work but the vast majority works fine, and we often just notice the serious failures and breakdowns, not all the stuff that is quietly working on a day-to-day basis.

International law works as long as the major powers want it to work.

Re:

[rbrander]

You can ask Iraq about that. The ultimate UN Treaty is the Charter itself, whose main provision is "no war", i.e. Article II.4, no use of force against fellow members.

This would all be a bit overwrought and off-topic, except Trump has broadened the exception from international law from "if I have a story about a nuclear threat", to "If I feel that we signed a bad trade deal and I want to throw it in the garbage on a whim"...even for trade deals HE signed a few years ago.

"International Law" now means jus

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

"International Law" now means just about nothing. What's Canada going to do with that lawbreaking? Take it to a US court?.

Canada fought Bush II 's softwood lumber tariffs and won at every step. That didn't get them revoked. A deal was finally made but Trump broke it. The Republicans think they are above any agreements.

The only meaningful "environmentalism"

[alternative_right]

Is the Half Earth [eowilsonfoundation.org] project:

In order to safeguard a sufficient number of species to protect global biodiversity, including humanity, the late American biologist, E.O. Wilson and a new generation of scientists, ecologists, and conservationists concluded that we must set aside roughly half of Earth’s land and seas for nature, known as the principle of “Half-Earth.”

No matter how many little laws we write, nature is at risk if humans are present. If we leave half of the land and sea in its natural state and protect it from human intervention, nature will adapt and thrive.

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

Great! I love academics who recommend realistic policies that can be quickly and easily implemented.

A hard truth of life

[alternative_right]

Realism (long-term, enduring, resilient, logical solutions) and pragmatism (convenient, easy, quick) are opposites.

Re:

[Local ID10T]

No matter how many little laws we write, nature is at risk if humans are present.

"Kill all humans!" -Bender

Plastic Polution Covered?

[will4]

The treaty does not address (?) plastic dumping into the ocean.

The willful ignoring of this, with the repeated calls for others countries always to "take the first step (monetarily)" is not working.

https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]

Plastic pollution in the ocean per 2023 by country

1 Philippines 356,371 metric tons
2 India 126,513
3 Malaysia 73,098
4 China 70,707
5 Indonesia 56,333
6 Myanmar 40,000
7 Brazil 37,799
8 Vietnam 28,221
9 Bangladesh 24,640
10 Thailand 22,806
Rest of the World 176,012
Total 1,012,500

Re:

[CommunityMember]

The treaty does not address (?) plastic dumping into the ocean.

It is not clear it could have been passed if it did try to deal with it at the time. International treaties are about long term compromise and consensus building, and no one tends to get everything they want, and a future addendum might be able to address plastic.

Re:

[Local ID10T]

The treaty does not address [...]

Perfect need not be the enemy of Good.

Only asking because

[will4]

I'm only asking because, the UN, NGOs, EU, etc. are constantly working on the smaller problems without tackling the larger ones such as plastic pollution systemically dumped into the Pacific and Indian oceans by third-world countries.

One aspect could be that the EU and others use their trade imbalance and import taxes to help encourage the largest dumpers of plastic into the ocean to clean up.

From what I see

[hdyoung]

Neither China nor the US have signed on. In other words, this is basically nothing. Its like an agreement on cell phone battery standards that doesnt include Samsung, Apple, or any of the Chinese manufacturers.

United Nations rules (Re:From what I see)

[MacMann]

The United Nations is broken in that a nation like Tuvalu, with a population of about 10,000, has as much of a vote on resolutions as China, with over a billion people.

How do we make the UN "fair" on setting any kind of international policy? Maybe have some kind of system like the USA where there's a vote based on population, as we have with the House of Representatives, and another vote based on political boundaries, as we have with the Senate.

I'm confused on how it takes only 60 member states to pass any

Typical UN nonsense

[RogueWarrior65]

Only the UN would expect first-world countries to slit their own throats because a bunch of third-world countries did. Sometimes I wish that line from Heavy Metal were true "The UN? It's been turned into low-rent housing."

Finally a great Idea that doesn't directly tax us.

[UsRanger175]

There might be some indirect expense passed on but the bulk will be paid by the member states and conservation funds.

I expect Trump

[fredrated]

to withdraw from the UN any day now.

We'll see how it can be enforced

[Wolfier]

When I shop for seafood, I intentionally avoid buying a product of a certain country with the largest fleet of fishing vessels aiming to flood the market with cheap frozen seafood and try to monopolize supply. This country also has a record of unsustainable fishing practices, including target Galapagos.

This grave offender will remain unnamed - I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find out.

Re:

[cusco]

So has Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Norway and the US. When the Peruvians tried to protect their anchovy harvest Reagan (IIRC) sent warships to protect them.

There was a "safe zone" near Madiscascar.

[ndsurvivor]

I am pulling this from memory, but the designated a "safe zone" where no fishing could be done. They found that there was an abundance of fish, corrals, and little critters that overflowed into the spaces that was not safe for them. A selfish person could fish around the "safe zone" and could get plenty of fish. I think this makes sense. An yes, some tried to yank fish and shit from the "safe zone", and from what I remember, they were prosecuted to the fullest extent.