Abstract:The Collective Arrangement, subscribed to by OSPAR and NEAFC and presented as a model by these organisations, suggests that regional seas organisations, such as OSPAR , are to act as standard setters for the conservation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction ( ABNJ ). The model suggests that regional seas organisations and other organisations, such as NEAFC , the IMO and the ISA , then are to regulate human activities for which they are competent within these conservation standards. This article explores whether the Collective Arrangement might indeed function as a model for ocean governance in ABNJ and merits encouragement in a future BBNJ agreement. It concludes that the Collective Arrangement, as a model, raises both opportunities and challenges but that it might not be transplantable to other areas beyond national jurisdiction, given that the elements that characterise cooperation in the North-East Atlantic are not present in most other areas in ABNJ . The Collective Arrangement, subscribed to by OSPAR and NEAFC and presented as a model by these organisations, suggests that regional seas organisations, such as OSPAR , are to act as standard setters for the conservation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction ( ABNJ ). The model suggests that regional seas organisations and other organisations, such as NEAFC , the IMO and the ISA , then are to regulate human activities for which they are competent within these conservation standards. This article explores whether the Collective Arrangement might indeed function as a model for ocean governance in ABNJ and merits encouragement in a future BBNJ agreement. It concludes that the Collective Arrangement, as a model, raises both opportunities and challenges but that it might not be transplantable to other areas beyond national jurisdiction, given that the elements that characterise cooperation in the North-East Atlantic are not present in most other areas in ABNJ . The Collective Arrangement, subscribed to by OSPAR and NEAFC and presented as a model by these organisations, suggests that regional seas organisations, such as OSPAR , are to act as standard setters for the conservation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction ( ABNJ ). The model suggests that regional seas organisations and other organisations, such as NEAFC , the IMO and the ISA , then are to regulate human activities for which they are competent within these conservation standards. This article explores whether the Collective Arrangement might indeed function as a model for ocean governance in ABNJ and merits encouragement in a future BBNJ agreement. It concludes that the Collective Arrangement, as a model, raises both opportunities and challenges but that it might not be transplantable to other areas beyond national jurisdiction, given that the elements that characterise cooperation in the North-East Atlantic are not present in most other areas in ABNJ . The Collective Arrangement, subscribed to by OSPAR and NEAFC and presented as a model by these organisations, suggests that regional seas organisations, such as OSPAR , are to act as standard setters for the conservation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction ( ABNJ ). The model suggests that regional seas organisations and other organisations, such as NEAFC , the IMO and the ISA , then are to regulate human activities for which they are competent within these conservation standards. This article explores whether the Collective Arrangement might indeed function as a model for ocean governance in ABNJ and merits encouragement in a future BBNJ agreement. It concludes that the Collective Arrangement, as a model, raises both opportunities and challenges but that it might not be transplantable to other areas beyond national jurisdiction, given that the elements that characterise cooperation in the North-East Atlantic are not present in most other areas in ABNJ .

The Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement As an Element in the Evolving Arctic Ocean Governance Complex

The Central Arctic Ocean fisheries moratorium: A rare example of the precautionary principle in fisheries management

Governing the Arctic Ocean

Arctic Ocean Management and Indigenous Peoples: Recent Legal Developments

Adding a Gakkel Ridge Regime to the Evolving Arctic Ocean Governance Complex

Indigenous Rights and Interests in a Changing Arctic Ocean: Canadian and Russian Experiences and Challenges

Whither the Arctic? Conflict or Cooperation in the Circumpolar North

Unlocking Oil and Gas Reserves in the Arctic Ocean: Is there a Conventional Solution to Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaries?

Introduction to the New Maritime Arctic

Next Steps in Arctic Ocean Governance Meeting the Challenge of Coordinating a Dynamic Regime Complex

The Arctic in Play: Governance in a Time of Rapid Change

The OSPAR NEAFC Collective Arrangement and Ocean Governance: Regional Seas Organisations as the Setters of Conservation Standards in ABNJ?

Arctic Governance – Pathways to the Future

Canada and the Russian Federation: Maritime Boundaries and Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean

What Can We Learn about Ocean Governance from the Performance of the Arctic Council’s Task Force on Arctic Marine Cooperation?

Appraising the Modus of Conservation and Sustainable Use of Arctic Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction under the Umbrella of the BBNJ Treaty

Arctic Policy Developments and Marine Transportation

Emerging Issues on Arctic Environmental and Climate Change Governance: Introduction

Governing the Barents Sea Region: Current Status, Emerging Issues, and Future Options

The conservation‐extraction nexus in ocean areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Tension or co‐constitution?

The effectiveness of legal framework of Arctic vessel-source black carbon governance