Negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations by an intergovernmental conference are underway for a new International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). The proposed ILBI is attempting to fill existing gaps under international law over marine biodiversity and marine genetic resources (MGR) in ABNJ. One way it is attempting to do this by having an Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) schema over these resources in ABNJ that the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its Nagoya Protocol (NP) do not currently cover. These existing frameworks that regulate genetic resources are grounded in the notion of sovereignty. Effectively, States have sovereign rights over their biological resources. The ILBI, however, is attempting to regulate marine biodiversity and MGR in ABNJ. Thus, the notion that negotiators representing nation States under the auspices of the United Nations can regulate ABNJ is paradoxical - are these areas beyond nation States' jurisdiction or not? Implicitly, the negotiators are acting as though they have sovereignty over resources located in what has been historically a sovereign-free space. Thus, the purpose of this research is to investigates this paradox. Essentially, this thesis critiques the notion that ABNJ can actually be regulated under the auspices of the United Nations by nation-State negotiators. The overarching research question is this: Who has the power to make enforceable decisions beyond jurisdiction? This is broken down into three aims and six research sub-questions. Starting with the aims, the first is to clarify the concept of sovereignty and to understand its effects for ABNJ. Thus, what is sovereignty and its implications in ABNJ? The second aim is to understand why ABNJ exist and how laws for such areas apply. Thus, the research questions associated with this aim are what is jurisdiction under international law in ABNJ, and what laws apply in these spaces? The third aim is to apply the findings from the questions from the first and second aims to three case studies on resources that are located in ABNJ. There are three research sub-questions that apply to the case studies. Firstly, what is jurisdiction with power? Secondly, what is jurisdiction without power? Lastly, what is jurisdiction without technology? The key themes throughout this thesis that unfold from asking these questions are sovereignty, law and resources. Ultimately, this research aims to provide an account of the law for those who are negotiating the proposed ILBI and any other future instrument that attempts to regulate resources located in ABNJ, such as outer space. These aims and research questions are addressed starting with Chapter 1. This chapter gives an overview on the contemporary literature on sovereignty. From there, the current framework of international law that regulates ABNJ is considered. The Starting point is the the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This chapter situates the problem of sovereignty and the current edifice of international law that attempts to regulate resources on the high seas. Chapter 2 addresses sovereignty (Aim 1, Research Question 1). It examines the concept from a historical perspective. The theories of Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt are settled upon to provide the framework to view the issues of regulating resources in ABNJ for the rest of the thesis. Kelsen is unable to locate the actual sources of sovereignty, while Schmitt argues for the central place of power in locating sovereignty. Schmitt's political approach to sovereignty challenges Kelsen's strict legal approach. Moreover, it demonstrates that law is the rationalisation of politics. Consequently, applying their work shows clear differences in an account of the effect that sovereignty has on regulating resources in ABNJ. Chapter 3 addresses jurisdiction and ABNJ (Aim 2, Research Question 2). It does so in relation to the history of the high seas. The reason for this approach was to have a complete understanding of why ABNJ exist today. There have been two views about how the world's seas and oceans ought to be organised. Firstly, the Grotian notion that they ought to be free for all. Alternatively, John Selden's notion that States can exercise sovereignty over waters adjacent to their land. Under UNCLOS, a compromise has been reached between both positions. UNCLOS now sets out the legal jurisdictions under international law for the world's seas and oceans. States have accepted a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles from their coastline. Beyond this, they have sovereign (legal) rights over resources located adjacent to their land on the continental shelf and in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Beyond this are ABNJ. They are the Area and the High Seas. The Area is the seabed beyond States' jurisdiction. The High Seas is the water column beyond States' jurisdiction. The Kelsen and Schmitt lenses reveal different accounts. Kelsen's posits that sovereign rights give States the rights to make legal decisions in these spaces. The power to do so, however, is not questioned. On the other hand, Schmitt's posits that sovereignty is about having the power to make decisions that can go beyond existing laws. This chapter concludes by arguing that this is what the United States did in 1945 with the Truman Proclamation. Essentially, they ignored existing international law by declaring sovereignty over resources that were located in and on the high seas. With this decision, the United States, in a Schmittian sense, effectively put in to motion a new nomos of the earth for the world's seas and oceans. Chapter 4 addresses the application and enforcement of laws designed for ABNJ (Aim 2, Research Question 4). This is done by analysing the 1927 Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) case of the Lotus. This chapter finds that laws for ABNJ, regardless if they are domestic laws or international laws, are only applied on land within a State's territory. Consequently, State decides what laws are applied and enforced within their jurisdiction on land within the bounds of the State. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 address case studies that illustrate the tension between sovereignty and international laws over resources for ABNJ by examining existing frameworks (Aim 3, Research Question 4, 5 and 6). Firstly, Chapter 5 examines whales on the High Seas in the context of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and its former member, Japan. This chapter reveals that Japan can decide what its commercial whaling activities look like because in a Schmittian sense it has the power to decide. Secondly, Chapter 6 examines the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Under UNCLOS, the ISA has been given the legal jurisdiction to decide over resources in the Area. This legal notion is contrasted with the power of the United States that has not ratified UNCLOS. This chapter demonstrates what jurisdiction looks like without power. Essentially, the ISA has the legal authority to decide over resources in the Area, however, it has no real power to enforce its mandate. Lastly, Chapter 7 examines outer space. The focus is on the United States' decision to create a Space Force. This chapter demonstrates what jurisdiction looks like without technology. It reveals that States can make rules and regulations for outer space, such as the Moon Treaty. It is the sovereign space-faring States the ultimately decide what rules and regulations apply for outer space. Essentially, they decide in a Kelsenian sense what is customary for outer space. Chapter 8 ties the thesis together. Essentially, it concludes that the sovereign has the power to decide (to make enforceable decisions) beyond jurisdiction. Effectively, these findings ought to help those who are negotiating the new ILBI and future legal instruments aimed at regulating ABNJ, particularly with an ABS schema, by acknowledging that without the consent of the sovereign/s, the likelihood of success is rather limited. The ISA and Moon Treaty are examples of this. Lastly, Chapter 8 provides discussion and interest about future areas of potential research that are relevant for issues surrounding international law and sovereignty over resources located in ABNJ.