Under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), states made efforts to protect marine ecosystems in national and international waters when negotiating the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). However, consensus was lacking concerning the applicability of the CBD in international waters, with states striving to apply the GBF only within national jurisdiction or on both areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. Such struggles provide a unique case for studying diplomats’ efforts to (re)define the CBD’s mandate. We apply the concepts of communities of practice, creative variation, and selective retention to explain this phenomenon. We draw on ethnography and interviews conducted during three sessions of the Open-Ended Working Group on the GBF, and the 15th Conference of the Parties to the CBD, as well as document analysis. Our results show that states strove to change the jurisdictional scope of the GBF for two different purposes. Firstly, achieve the GBF’s marine targets in light of the agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Secondly, contest the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’s dominant role in the regulation of activities on the ocean. This highlights the limited capacities of several states to protect marine areas within their territories.
