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 moratorium: A rare example of the precautionary principle in fisheries management

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

Key Uncertainties and Modeling Needs for Managing Living Marine Resources in the Future Arctic Ocean

Arctic Ocean Management and Indigenous Peoples: Recent Legal Developments

A case for the commons: The Snow Crab in the Barents

Governing the Arctic Ocean

Collapse of cooperation? The North-Atlantic mackerel dispute and lessons for international cooperation on transboundary fish stocks

Undermining by Mining? Deep Seabed Mining in Light of International Marine Environmental Law

Not so green after all? The EU's role in international fisheries management: the cases of NAFO and ICCAT

Advancing tuna catch allocation negotiations: an analysis of sovereign rights and fisheries access arrangements

Subsidies and allocation: A legacy of distortion and intergenerational loss

DEEP-SEA mining: Policy options to preserve the last frontier - Lessons from Antarctica’s mineral resource convention

Introducing the Seasonal Closure into the CCAMLR Fishery Management Framework: Problems, Methods, and Prospects

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

International Practice Regarding Traditional Fishing Privileges of Foreign Fishermen in Zones of Extended Maritime Jurisdiction

Moving beyond panaceas in fisheries governance

Taking Precautionary Approaches to the Governance of Commercial Deep Seabed Mining: Law-Making of International Seabed Authority and Multi-Subject Participation

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

Global Fisheries Management and Community Interest

An Environmental Agreement in a Trade Court – Is the WTO's Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies Enforceable?

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