Oceans as a Test for Multilateralism

The ocean is both a metaphor and a mirror of international cooperation, being vast, liquid, and collective. It demonstrates, perhaps more graphically than any terrestrial setting, the evolving capacity of multilateralism to address international crises. Ocean governance has for decades depended largely on soft law as its adaptable, consensus-based instruments that aim at cooperation without coercion. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and associated frameworks crafted a moral, but mostly voluntary, architecture of ocean stewardship. However, the degradation of the sea’s ecology due to overfishing, habitat loss, and unmanaged exploitation has now required something more substantial.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS), adopted in June 2022 and entered into force recently on 15^th September, represents a paradigm shift as to the translation of soft law ideals into hard, enforceable obligations. This shift in trade regime for the first time mandates better sustainability regulations for ocean governance. The AFS is not just a trade accord, but it stands as a litmus test of multilateralism’s ability to evolve, integrate, and uphold sustainability as a collective legal commitment.

 Soft Law Foundations of Ocean Governance

The sea has traditionally been governed through a system of soft-law mechanisms like the guidelines, voluntary codes, and regional agreements, all of which are based on the principle of shared responsibility but constrained by national sovereignty. The Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), or the “Constitution for the Oceans,” is the foundation framework of ocean management.

Nonetheless, most of its application has depended on later soft-law measures, including the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and regional Memoranda of Understanding under the Convention on Migratory Species.  Soft law continues to be vital for ocean governance when “the complexity and transboundary nature of marine issues outpace the reach of binding norms”. Yet there still persists regulatory fragmentation and unbalanced compliance due to this voluntarism of soft law.

Over the decades, voluntary action under UNCLOS and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) was never able to stop fish stock depletion across the world. The 2022 State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture Report by the FAO places over 35 per cent of fish stocks under overexploitation, with government subsidies estimated at over USD 35 billion annually, with the majority supporting unsustainable fishing. This unwavering environmental mathematics validated the insufficiency of soft commitments and the need for enforceable disciplines.

The WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement

The process from soft law to hard law in ocean governance reached its climax at the 2022 WTO Ministerial Conference (MC12), when members agreed to the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS). It is the first WTO treaty unequivocally drafted around a sustainability goal, a signal that rules of trade can and must be used for the protection of the environment. After over two decades of deliberate discussions, the agreement came into being as a soft but crucial compromise by shutting three kinds of destructive subsidies, namely, first that leads to illegal, undisclosed and unregulated fishing (IUU), second for the overexploited stocks fishing and last one for unregulated fishing in the high seas. Further, the AFS reinforces notification and transparency obligations, requiring members to report all subsidy schemes and allowing the WTO’s dispute settlement system to examine compliance. This was an aspirational modification to implement the enforceability of sustainable fishing, which came as a long-achieved goal, as the agreement stands as a testament for binding trade and sustainability together, demonstrating that the WTO is broadening its scope other than just focusing on resolving market access and globalisation.

Multilateralism in Crisis: Oceans as the Litmus Test

The AFS best illustrates the tensions of contemporary multilateralism. Oceans, being what they are, lay bare the vulnerabilities of state-based regimes. The tragedy of the commons, in which short-term national interests are prioritised over collective sustainability, is played out dramatically in oceanic resource depletion. The AFS negotiations identified three profound cleavages in the multilateral order:

First, the AFS is coexisting with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), and UNCLOS commitments, which could have the potential of creating rivalry instead of coordination, as these institutions are coexisting and overlapping one another in terms of management. As legal expert Margaret Young notes, the fisheries regime “shows an elaborate dance among fragmentation and interaction,” forcing the WTO to operate not in isolation but in conjunction with environmental and regional instruments. Second, there is the issue of North–South Divide and Developmental Justice, as history has shown that developing states have depended on fisheries for economic livelihoods and food security. Developing states were concerned that strong subsidy disciplines would unequally impact artisanal and small-scale fishers. The agreement includes provisions for special and differential treatment for least developed countries (LDCs), providing them transition period and technical assistance; nevertheless, some critics suggest that the implementation cost is also a major burden for developing countries. Lastly, Institutional Legitimacy and Compliance should also be analysed as Multilateralism can only survive if legitimacy flows not only from consent but from capacity. States’ capacity to harmonise domestic subsidy policies with WTO obligations is the key to success for the AFS. Transparency mechanisms, dispute settlement mechanisms, and capacity-building, therefore, become compliance scaffolds.

Binding Commitments and Shared Futures through the Sustainability Dimension

The AFS redefines the purpose of trade law by embedding sustainability into its normative core. By banning subsidies that directly contribute to overfishing, it operationalises Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, which mandates the elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies. The agreement’s enforcement potential via the WTO’s dispute settlement system provides a sharp contrast to the soft-law ethos of earlier ocean governance efforts.

However, the AFS promise should be gauged not only by ratification but by implementation. As of now 114 countries have ratified the AFS and further ratifications are moving forward steadily. The main concern is to operationalise these commitments into binding implementations to provide justice to small-scale fishers by adopting sustainable approaches. From a governance perspective, the AFS is “a necessary institutional innovation for the sustainability of global fisheries.” It constitutes binding disciplines where there used to be merely exhortations and sets an example for the incorporation of environmental norms into the multilateral trading system.

The Future of Ocean Multilateralism

Although historic in its nature, the AFS is still a half-victory. Serious loopholes still exist like mainly subsidies leading to fisheries overcapacity are put off for “second-wave” talks. Implementation will also depend on the political will of powerful fishing countries, such as China, the European Union, and the United States, whose domestic industries exercise significant power.
In addition, the monitoring mechanisms of the agreement have to navigate political sensitivities: compliance information can reveal national policy failure, and settlement of disputes would risk provoking backlash from already WTO-sceptical states. These are not weaknesses inherent to the AFS, as they are the structural challenges of multilateralism itself, which are balancing sovereignty and solidarity.
Nevertheless, the AFS marks an unusual intersection of environmental imperative and institutional convenience. It is a paradigm to reflect on how the WTO, which has always been highlighted for its trade-centric regime, is redefining itself and building a focus on sustainability. This shift from ‘right to trade’ to ‘responsibility of stewardship’ is a stepping stone that could reinvent the legitimacy of global economic governance.

Conclusion

The sea, which was once regulated by voluntary undertakings, now carries the burden of binding commitments reflecting a change representative of the potential revival of multilateralism. The WTO Fisheries Subsidies Agreement does not just discipline subsidies; it redefines the calculus between trade and conservation. It combines the vision of UNCLOS’s common heritage of humankind with the enforceability of trade law, with the result that sustainability can no longer be only a hoped-for ideal. The shift from soft law to hard obligation is therefore more than a legal development; it is a political and moral awakening. The AFS insists that multilateralism, not unilateral benefit, must shape global governance. Just as with the tides, the power of multilateralism is in motion and reciprocity: the commitment of each state reinforces the entire system. If the oceans of the world are truly the test of human cooperation, then the AFS is its first binding response. Whether or not that response stands up to the gusts of power and politics will not only decide the fate of marine ecosystems but the very fate of multilateralism itself.