Jeanne M. Grasso and Holli B. Packer ●
Roughly two thirds of the ocean lies outside of any country’s jurisdiction. This area, encompassing about half of the Earth’s total surface, is known as the “high seas.” The high seas hold huge importance to the health of the planet, with rich biodiversity and natural resources. A comprehensive framework to govern and safeguard the high seas has been absent, until now.
Commonly known as the “High Seas Treaty,” the Agreement on the Conversation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction or “BBNJ Agreement,” was ratified in September 2025 and officially entered into force on January 17, 2026. From this date, ratifying countries are legally bound by the BBNJ Agreement to support conservation and sustainable management of high seas biodiversity.
Why Does It Matter and What Is Included?
The BBNJ Agreement is the first legally binding convention that provides for comprehensive management of resources on the high seas. Absent a binding global agreement, governance of the high seas consisted of a patchwork of regional fisheries agreements, shipping conventions, and Marine Protected Areas (“MPAs”) that covered less than one percent of the high seas. The BBNJ Agreement is intended to fill regulatory gaps, complementing national efforts and enabling coordinated conservation measures on the high seas.
Continue reading “High Seas Treaty Takes Force: What You Need to Know”
In many civil disputes, the application of choice of law principles as well as the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. This is especially true where one of the parties conducts business in the maritime industry and the other does not. Some parties may prefer that state law be applied to the dispute because of a favorable state statute (such as a statute of limitations) or because the state’s courts have rendered decisions that support the parties’ position on a substantive issue. Others may prefer that federal law apply where it is more advantageous to a party given the facts of the case. Of course, some parties prefer to litigate in federal court rather than state court, or vice versa, for cost or other reasons.
Vessel owners rarely carry cargo for their own account. More commonly by far, a vessel owner will charter its vessel to another party to carry their (or their sub-charterer’s) cargo. The contracts can vary widely—from voyage charters or contracts of affreightment to time charters and negotiable bills of lading (not to mention the more complex arrangements that one often sees for container cargos). But in most instances, vessel owners are in the business of transporting cargo on behalf of others and, all going well, of being paid to do so. This article is about one mechanism the vessel owner may use to ensure that it gets paid: the maritime lien against cargo.