Mapping the law of the sea: does ocean governance need its own legal database?

Which laws govern a given stretch of ocean and how they compare across countries is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Chloé F. Smith, Chris Hopkins and Joana Setzer present reflections from an LSE roundtable that discussed whether ocean governance needs a new compass akin to the ‘Climate Change Laws of the World’ database.

This week, governments meeting in Yerevan, Armenia, for the UN Biodiversity Conference (CBD COP17) are taking stock of progress towards protecting 30% of the world’s land and ocean by 2030, the ‘30×30’ target set under the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Next month, UN Climate COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, is set to put the ocean–climate nexus at the centre of the talks. Both COP processes ask countries to make their ocean commitments add up across climate, biodiversity and the new High Seas Treaty. Yet a basic question remains surprisingly hard to answer: which laws actually govern a given stretch of ocean, and how do they compare across countries?

Who makes the law – and who enforces it – beyond the borders of nation states, way out at sea? The law of the sea, anchored in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has a storied history of law-making and law-breaking – and the natural world often seems to end up at the losing end of the deal. The high seas offer up an image of ungovernability but new efforts to protect, manage and value nature at sea are already making waves, with the recent entry into force of the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) on 17 January 2026, an implementing agreement under UNCLOS also known as the High Seas Treaty. Already, legislators, policymakers and civil society are asking ‘what next?’ as international agreements, obligations and a new turn in ocean governance imply the urgent need for national governments to act.

Could the Climate Change Laws of the World approach work for the oceans?

Last month the Grantham Research Institute and the Sustainability Regulation Observatory (SRO) at LSE’s Global School of Sustainability convened a roundtable bringing together researchers, practitioners, policymakers and civil society organisations to explore this exact question: does ocean governance need a new compass, a respected legal database similar to Climate Change Laws of the World (CCLW)?

Climate Change Laws of the World, hosted by the Grantham Research Institute and powered by Climate Policy Radar, is already a leading global resource, covering more than 200 countries, on national climate legislation and policy, helping policymakers, researchers and practitioners navigate a rapidly expanding body of climate-related laws and regulations. Could this approach work for ocean laws? Would stakeholders even want it if it did? Participants at the roundtable brought perspectives from a range of geographies and organisational backgrounds on what could best support the ocean governance community. Key details and perspectives from the discussion are summarised below.

Ocean law is everywhere, but hard to see

There was broad agreement on one point: while ocean governance benefits from several excellent resources (for example, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s FAOLEX database and the Regional Seas Conventions), information remains fragmented across legal regimes, sectors and institutions. Laws, policies, regional agreements, implementation measures and litigation are also often dispersed across different platforms. This can make it difficult for users to identify relevant developments, understand emerging trends and learn from different approaches. This fragmentation is a challenge; a global resource capable of bringing together information in a more accessible and coherent way could have value.

The problem has been visible in Yerevan this week. As negotiators finalise the Cali Fund for the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources, industry groups have objected to ‘obligation stacking’ with national benefit-sharing laws already existing in at least 20 countries, and have called for legal certainty. The BBNJ Agreement raises similar questions for marine genetic resources. Legal certainty starts with knowing which rules already apply, and where.

New treaties will accelerate legal change

The timing of this discussion is particularly significant. The recent entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement marks an important turning point in ocean governance. Based on experience with other environmental agreements, it is likely to generate further legal and policy developments at the international, regional and national levels. Other rapidly evolving areas of governance include marine protected areas, marine genetic resources, deep seabed mining, ocean litigation and plastic pollution. Litigation is a case in point: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s 2024 Advisory Opinion confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions can constitute pollution of the marine environment under UNCLOS, building a bridge between climate and ocean law that courts and litigants are only beginning to cross.

Together, these developments create a growing need for better visibility of how legal frameworks are evolving across jurisdictions.

Ocean law is not climate law

Ocean governance differs from climate governance in important ways. Ocean law is highly regional, shaped by multiple overlapping legal regimes and institutions, and often organised around sectors, species or ecosystems rather than a single overarching objective. Even where sectoral targets exist such as the GBF’s 30×30 target, there is no single unifying goal comparable to the temperature goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. As a result, monitoring and negotiating ocean law is likely to remain a patchwork endeavour. Any future Ocean Laws of the World platform would need to reflect these distinctive characteristics and not simply replicate an existing climate model.

Test first, then build

Despite these challenges, the case for better visibility of ocean law is strong. At LSE, we will continue exploring the feasibility and added value of this proposed initiative, and build a community of practice of interested stakeholders. A focused pilot phase built around carefully selected case studies might allow us to test methodologies, build out partnerships and assess where an Ocean Laws of the World platform could make the most impactful contribution to the ocean governance community.

Amid growing concerns over biodiversity loss, pollution and the competing uses of the ocean in a changing climate, we can be forgiven for sometimes feeling lost at sea. A new compass, a global tool to navigate the legal waters, might just help show the way.

The LSE team welcomes interest from organisations and individuals who would like to be part of this conversation. Please email GSoS.PLG@lse.ac.uk.