Sri Lanka has taken a decisive leap onto the world stage by ratifying the landmark BBNJ Treaty, a global pact to protect marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. But can this historic pledge truly safeguard the oceans and deliver justice for small nations or will it sink under the weight of bureaucracy and competing interests?
The Treaty rests on four pillars: access and benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources, creation of marine protected areas, mandatory environmental impact assessments, and capacity-building with technology transfer.
It is a moment of profound significance that Sri Lanka, by proceeding from signature to formal ratification, has now entered the ranks of those states embracing the collective responsibility for the high seas. From the standpoint of maritime law, this step marks not only a pledge but a binding commitment under international law to uphold the principles and mechanisms of the BBNJ Agreement in the governance of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.
The journey was not without deliberative care. First, the Cabinet’s earlier approval of ratification reflected the internal political recognition of Sri Lanka’s responsibility in ocean governance. Then, the act of depositing the instrument of ratification completed the transition from intent to obligation. In doing so, Sri Lanka reinforces its role not merely as a signatory but as a participant in the legal architecture that seeks to regulate and preserve the high seas.
Sri Lanka’s ratification must be understood not in isolation but as part of a broader legal crescendo. The 60th ratification triggered the 120-day countdown for the Agreement’s entry into force. Sri Lanka’s action thus contributes to converting what had been aspirational into a binding reality, ushering in a new era of protection and cooperation over marine areas beyond sovereign limits.
The BBNJ Treaty, formally known as the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, was adopted in June 2023 and opened for signature on 20 September 2023, remaining open until 20 September. Under its terms, the treaty will enter into force 120 days after the 60th instrument of ratification, acceptance, or accession is deposited with the UN Secretary-General. On 19 September 2025, Morocco became the 60th state to ratify, triggering the countdown. The treaty is therefore scheduled to become legally binding on 17 January 2026.
At present, 145 states, plus some regional economic integration organizations, have signed the treaty or expressed intent to become parties. Of these, a growing number have already deposited ratification instruments and will become full Parties once the treaty enters into force.
The BBNJ Treaty emerges as a historic normative response to the growing realization that two-thirds of the world’s oceans remain a legal orphan, subject to fragmented regimes and insufficient stewardship. Rooted as an implementing agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Treaty stands teleologically as a moral and juridical progression of humankind’s collective conscience toward preserving the common heritage of mankind.
To appreciate the BBNJ Treaty in its essence is to see it not as a mere technical instrument of regulation but as a beacon of epistemic justice. It is a declaration that biodiversity in the high seas is not to be appropriated, depleted, or commodified at the whim of a few technologically advanced nations, but rather safeguarded as a patrimony of present and future generations. The teleology here is unmistakable: the Treaty is the embodiment of Article 136 of UNCLOS, which consecrates the principle that the deep seabed and its resources are the “common heritage of mankind.” Extending that rationale to living resources beyond national jurisdiction affirms the continuity of law with ethics, and policy with philosophy.
The Treaty establishes four cardinal pillars: regulation of access to and sharing of marine genetic resources, the creation of marine protected areas and other area-based management tools, the imposition of environmental impact assessments, and the provision of capacity-building and technology transfer. Each of these, when examined through a teleological lens, is directed not only at conservation in the ecological sense but also at equity in the economic sense. The sharing of benefits derived from marine genetic resources is designed to counter asymmetries in knowledge and wealth. The establishment of protected areas seeks to remedy the silent erosion of ecosystems that sustain fisheries and regulate climate. Environmental impact assessments operationalize the principle of precaution, while capacity-building ensures that developing nations do not remain perpetual supplicants at the altar of advanced science.
For Sri Lanka, as a small island developing state, the BBNJ Treaty carries profound implications. Economically, Sri Lanka’s prosperity is inextricably tied to the ocean. Fisheries employ thousands, while the island’s geographic location astride the Indian Ocean’s busiest sea lanes gives it an enduring strategic significance. Teleologically, the Treaty offers Sri Lanka the means to safeguard its blue economy by ensuring that activities in the high seas do not erode fish stocks or destabilize ecosystems upon which artisanal and industrial fisheries depend. By supporting marine protected areas beyond its jurisdiction, Sri Lanka indirectly fortifies its fisheries base and ensures ecological resilience within its economic zone.
Legally, the Treaty equips Sri Lanka with the normative authority to demand equity. In the realm of marine genetic resources, where biotechnology and pharmaceuticals may reap billions, Sri Lanka stands to gain through a fair system of benefit-sharing. The challenge, of course, will be ensuring that mechanisms devised by the future Conference of the Parties do not devolve into token gestures. For this, Sri Lanka’s voice must be assertive, grounded in both law and moral claim.
Economically, capacity-building and technology transfer provisions are of special value. Sri Lanka’s scientific infrastructure in marine biotechnology, ocean observation, and data analysis lags behind global leaders. The Treaty’s call for technology transfer resonates teleologically with the principle of distributive justice, recognizing that conservation without empowerment of the weak is an illusion. For Sri Lanka, access to technology and training could transform its marine research capacities, enabling it to map biodiversity, participate in genetic sampling, and regulate activities with greater competence.
There are, however, cautionary notes. The implementation of environmental impact assessments under the Treaty may impose obligations on Sri Lanka that strain its administrative capacities. A teleological interpretation, however, suggests that these obligations are not burdens but investments, tools that will prevent costly ecological degradation in the long run. Moreover, the Treaty’s potential to overlap with regional fisheries management organizations could create tensions in jurisdictional authority. Sri Lanka, situated in the Indian Ocean, will need to navigate these complexities carefully, ensuring coherence rather than duplication.
Teleology also demands that we look beyond immediate interests. The BBNJ Treaty symbolizes a collective awakening that the oceans are a connective tissue of the planet. For Sri Lanka, an island with a civilizational identity shaped by the sea from ancient maritime trade routes to contemporary naval strategy, the Treaty is a moral imperative as much as a legal opportunity. To stand with the community of nations in preserving biodiversity is to affirm Sri Lanka’s responsibility as custodian of a vital part of the Indian Ocean commons.
The analytical challenge lies in reconciling the lofty ideals of the Treaty with the realities of implementation. Will benefit-sharing be genuine or symbolic? Will marine protected areas beyond national jurisdiction truly protect migratory stocks, or will they become paper parks? Will capacity-building materialize as a meaningful transfer of know-how, or remain mired in bureaucratic language? The teleological answer is that these questions must be answered not by cynicism but by stewardship, not by suspicion but by solidarity. Sri Lanka, by ratifying and participating actively in the governance structures of the Treaty, can push the global community towards substance rather than form.
In sum, the BBNJ Treaty is not merely another annex to the ever-expanding corpus of international law. It is a reaffirmation of humanity’s teleological duty to guard what is beyond ownership yet within responsibility. For Sri Lanka, it is both shield and sword: a shield to protect its economic and ecological interests, and a sword to advocate for equity and justice in the global commons. If engaged with vision, the Treaty can help Sri Lanka secure its place not as a marginal player at the periphery of maritime law, but as a principled actor whose voice carries the weight of both law and moral authority.
Sri Lanka’s historic ratification marks a profound recognition that the oceans are not boundless frontiers for exploitation but shared legacies that demand collective care. In embracing the BBNJ Treaty, Sri Lanka does not merely join a global accord. It affirms its role as custodian of one of the world’s most strategic maritime regions, aligning law with ethics, responsibility with opportunity, and sovereignty with stewardship.
