Implementing the BBNJ Agreement

The operation of the BBNJ Agreement depends on institutions capable of translating legal participation into scientific and diplomatic agency. This working paper examines how differences in administrative resources, expertise and continuity may shape the ability of states to formulate positions, assess evidence and participate meaningfully in the Agreement’s implementation. Drawing on the treaty text and official implementation materials, the paper develops a conceptual analysis of institutional asymmetry. It considers the Agreement’s subject areas while focusing on the capabilities required to connect international obligations and opportunities with decision processes. Formal entitlement is distinguished from the capacity to use information, influence agendas and maintain engagement. Four dimensions organise the proposed framework: institutional coordination, scientific and informational capability, participation continuity and durability of capacity building. The analysis examines responsibility mapping, scientific advice, institutional memory, financing and consultation. It argues that coordination should follow defined functions rather than presume that creating an organisation necessarily resolves implementation difficulties. Capacity building and marine technology cooperation are assessed through their contribution to durable agency. Equipment provision, training attendance and project completion provide incomplete evidence unless institutions can operate, evaluate and sustain the capabilities acquired. Research cooperation is also examined through access to agenda setting, interpretation and the use of results. The paper proposes comparative investigation among institutions with different resources, including possible cooperation within the Portuguese speaking world. Hypothetical examples illustrate preparation of a scientific position and continuity in cooperative training, without evaluating named parties or assuming common negotiating preferences. Its contribution is an implementation framework linking ocean diplomacy with institutional capability. Practical implications concern national preparedness, scientific partnerships and evaluation of capacity development. The analysis does not assess compliance or establish implementation outcomes. Further research should examine practices, sustained participation and evidence of institutional learning to test whether the proposed dimensions explain differences in effective engagement.