America Will Regret Sitting Out the High Seas Treaty

The Rules Are Being Written Now

The rules governing the world’s oceans are being written right now—and the United States is largely not in the room.

The High Seas Treaty, long in the making and now entering into force, establishes the first binding framework to govern biodiversity, resource use, and environmental protection in international waters. It covers nearly two-thirds of the planet. It will shape how one of the largest domains of the global commons is managed for decades to come.

Yet the United States has not ratified the treaty and remains outside the broader Law of the Sea framework. Its role in the institutional architecture now taking shape is limited.

What matters now is not the agreement itself. It is what comes next.

From Agreement to System

The focus has shifted from negotiation to implementation. The treaty’s text is largely settled, but its meaning is not. That meaning will be shaped through practice—through the creation of a secretariat, the development of data systems, the allocation of funding, and the interpretation of how rules are applied across vast and contested spaces.

These decisions may appear administrative. They are not. They will determine how authority is exercised, how disputes are resolved, and how priorities evolve over time.

In global systems, this is how standards are set—not only in formal language, but in institutional practice.

Why Presence Becomes Power

China has moved quickly to position itself in this next phase, including a bid to host the treaty’s secretariat in the port city of Xiamen. That decision is not simply administrative. The location of an institution influences who participates, how agendas are set, and how norms develop over time. Hosting does not determine outcomes, but it provides proximity to the processes through which those outcomes are formed.

In systems defined by process and precedent, proximity becomes influence—and influence compounds.

This is not a new pattern. China’s earlier engagement with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea followed a similar logic: participate, embed, and shape how rules are interpreted in practice. Even where disputes persist, sustained engagement provides leverage. Influence accrues not only from formal authority, but from being present where systems are built.

The Cost of Standing Outside

The United States continues to exert significant influence through its naval presence, alliances, and longstanding support for freedom of navigation. The case for remaining outside such frameworks has often rested on preserving flexibility and avoiding constraints.

But in a system increasingly shaped by institutions and implementation, that flexibility carries a cost.

The rules governing the high seas will continue to evolve. The institutions that interpret them will take shape. The norms that guide their application will emerge through repeated use. But they will be shaped by those who are present—those who fund institutions, host convenings, and engage in the daily work of governance.

Over time, this creates a simple but consequential shift: the United States risks moving from a maker of rules to a taker of them.

This shift will not occur in a single moment. It will emerge gradually, as decisions accumulate and precedents harden. It will affect how environmental standards are defined and enforced, how marine resources are managed, and how disputes are understood. It will shape who sets expectations—and who must adapt to them.

And once those patterns are established, they are difficult to unwind.

How Systems Take Hold

What is happening in ocean governance reflects a broader pattern. Standards are not only written in treaties. They are embedded in systems—through participation, implementation, and institutional design.

In some domains, they emerge through deployment, as widely adopted systems become the default environment others must navigate. In others, they emerge through governance, as institutions define how rules are interpreted and applied. In both cases, they shape the conditions under which power operates.

The High Seas Treaty is now entering that phase. What was once a diplomatic achievement is becoming an operational system.

The Strategic Choice

For the United States, the question is no longer only whether it supports the principles behind the treaty. It is whether it is willing to help shape the system those principles will operate within.

In a system-defined world, influence depends not only on capability, but on participation. It depends on being present where rules are interpreted, where institutions are built, and where standards evolve.

The United States will continue to lead in innovation and power. The question is whether it will help define the systems within which that leadership operates.

The seas are one of the largest of those systems—and among the least forgiving of absence.

Because in the end, the systems that endure are not simply those that are built.

They are those that are defined.

And increasingly, those definitions are being written by those who show up.

Development Impact: The rules now being set for the high seas will shape who can access ocean resources and on what terms, with major implications for developing economies. Without broad participation, many countries risk becoming rule takers in domains critical to their future growth.