The Forgotten Half of Climate Justice: What COP30 Must Remember About the Ocean
By: Ayman Irfan
COP30 in Belém will undoubtedly spotlight the Amazon, but the true measure of global climate ambition may lie elsewhere—in the ocean. For decades, the ocean has served as the silent stage of climate politics: acknowledged as a “carbon sink,” lamented as a casualty of rising temperatures, and then quietly sidelined when decisions are made. That silence may finally be breaking.
Recent advisory opinions from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) and the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) have redefined what it means for States to protect the marine environment. For the first time, the world’s highest courts have affirmed that States carry binding obligations—not voluntary pledges—to prevent harm to the ocean caused by climate change.
These rulings go beyond legal interpretation. They expand the boundaries of our moral and political imagination, reminding us that protecting the marine environment is not just about reducing carbon—it is about confronting every way human activity that destabilizes the ocean system. Many of those pressures remain largely ignored.
As the world prepares for COP30, three critical yet overlooked fronts will determine the future of ocean protection and, with it, the integrity of global climate justice.
The Deep Sea, Climate’s Final Frontier
The deep sea covers half the planet yet remains one of the least understood ecosystems on Earth. It is also the new frontier for industrial extraction. A growing number of companies are lobbying to begin deep-sea mining, scraping the ocean floor for minerals needed for renewable technologies.
Scientists warn that disturbing the seabed could release trapped carbon, disrupt nutrient flows, and permanently damage habitats that have evolved over millions of years. Once destroyed, they may never recover.
The advisory opinions from ITLOS and the ICJ make clear that States have a duty of due diligence: they must take all necessary measures to prevent harm to the marine environment. That duty extends beyond national borders and includes activities authorized through international bodies such as the International Seabed Authority.
If that standard is taken seriously, it is difficult to see how deep-sea mining can move forward without violating international law. Yet COP after COP has largely ignored the issue.
Belém should change that. The deep sea is not just a scientific curiosity—it is a massive carbon reservoir and a critical part of Earth’s climate system. Recognizing it within the UNFCCC framework could be a turning point. The advisory opinions give countries the legal basis to demand exactly that.
The Next Biodiversity Battle: Marine Genetic Resources
A second quiet revolution is happening at the microscopic level. Marine genetic resources—the biological material found in deep-sea organisms—are now prized for their potential in medicine, biotechnology, and even carbon capture.
The 2023 Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (“BBNJ”) Agreement, sometimes called the “High Seas Treaty,” was designed to ensure that these resources are used fairly and sustainably. But it is still awaiting full ratification, and climate negotiators have yet to grasp its implications.
The advisory opinions provide clues. Both courts emphasized that equity and intergenerational justice are binding principles under international law. That means States cannot exploit ocean life for commercial gain without considering who benefits and who bears the ecological cost.
At COP30, parties could begin linking marine genetic resources to climate adaptation finance. The ocean’s genetic diversity underpins its resilience, and protecting it is a form of climate adaptation in itself. Ensuring that profits from ocean biotechnology help fund conservation would be a powerful expression of the equity the advisory opinions demand.
Ocean Loss and Damage
When negotiators talk about “loss and damage,” they usually mean flooded homes, failed crops, and climate refugees. Rarely do they mention dying coral reefs, collapsing mangroves, or disappearing fish stocks—losses that devastate coastal and island nations.
The new Loss and Damage Fund established at COP28 was a historic step forward, but so far it remains almost entirely land-focused. There is no mechanism to measure, let alone compensate for, ecological losses in the ocean.
Yet the ICJ’s advisory opinion makes clear that States may be responsible for transboundary environmental harm. That principle could be extended to marine ecosystems. If one country’s emissions destroy coral reefs or fisheries vital to another nation’s survival, the logic of loss and damage should apply.
COP30 could be where this conversation is finally prioritized. An “Ocean Loss and Damage” framework focused on restoration, blue carbon recovery, and ecosystem resilience would bridge the gap between the climate and ocean regimes. It would also honor the courts’ declaration that the duty to protect the marine environment is a global obligation owed to all humankind.
Listening to the Ocean
The common thread across these issues—from deep-sea mining to genetic equity and ocean loss and damage—is that they challenge us to see the ocean not as a passive victim but as a living system with legal rights and global significance.
The advisory opinions have shifted the baseline. Environmental protection is no longer a matter of goodwill or policy preference—it is a legal duty enforceable under international law. That recognition should embolden States, civil society, and regional coalitions to push harder for concrete ocean action at COP30.
The ocean is the planet’s oldest climate witness and its most powerful ally. It has absorbed our heat, buffered our mistakes, and held our history in its depths. The question for COP30 is simple: will we finally start listening before it falls silent?
This article was written by PECC's Energy and Climate Law Scholar Ayman Irfan, a Pakistani environmental lawyer and Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) candidate at Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. It was originally published on November 10, 2025, in Volume 1, Issue 2 of the R.E.A.C.T. by PECC Newsletter.
Editors: Mercè Martí I Exposito, Frances Gothard, Carington Lowe