The United States’ abrupt withdrawal earlier this month from dozens of international institutions, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, was more than another episode of diplomatic retrenchment. It was a reminder that the post-war architecture of global governance, particularly in environmental affairs, is under strain.
Against this backdrop, China’s decision to nominate Xiamen as the host city for the secretariat of the new High Seas Treaty should not be read as a quest for prestige. It is a proposal about how the global commons ought to be governed when traditional pillars begin to wobble.
The new High Seas Treaty, which entered into force on January 17, has finally closed a 40-year legal gap. For decades since the 1982 adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, two-thirds of the world’s oceans existed in a regulatory vacuum, where fisheries and mining operations were conducted without coordinated oversight.
Advertisement
The treaty is built around four pillars: equitable sharing of deep-sea genetic resources; binding marine protected areas; mandatory environmental impact assessments; and technology transfer to developing nations. But its true significance is in the institutional architecture that will enforce it.
This requires a secretariat that turns policy into practice.
The contest between Brussels, Valparaiso and Xiamen – all candidates to host the secretariat’s headquarters – is often framed as a logistical or geopolitical choice. In reality, it reflects three distinct approaches to international governance.
