Seabed Mining and the Fracturing of Ocean Governance

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) was established under Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to administer the seabed beyond national jurisdiction. “The Area,” as it is known, is recognized by the convention as the “common heritage of mankind“, to be protected and explored for the benefit of all. The ISA’s role is to ensure that any future deep-sea mining occurs in an orderly, environmentally responsible, and equitable manner.

The ISA now finds itself in a precarious position: by finalizing a legal framework for seabed mining (as expected this month), it may paradoxically hasten the land grab it was meant to prevent. Legal certainty could attract private and state investment, making deep-sea mining economically viable and triggering a race for resources that risks unraveling the cooperative foundation of UNCLOS. ISA authorization thus becomes more than a legal tool—it acts as a market signal. Legitimacy begets investment, which spurs technological feasibility and economic value, transforming the deep ocean from a shared commons into a contested frontier. History suggests that once a resource becomes valuable, international law often struggles to restrain opportunism.

At present, “the Area” has little practical value, as commercial-scale seabed mining remains speculative. Despite advances in robotics and sensing, no company has demonstrated extraction at scale, and key questions about sediment plumes, ecosystem recovery, and system durability remain unresolved. But that condition is rapidly changing, raising a contentious question: should the ISA impose a moratorium? For years, a growing chorus has called for a precautionary pause, arguing that environmental impacts are poorly understood and that once extraction begins, they may be impossible to halt. Strategically, a moratorium could deny the industry the legal legitimacy, financing, and data access it needs to advance.

However, a moratorium would raise difficult questions about the ISA’s long-term role and political sustainability. Although legitimacy is not defined solely by enabling extraction, many developing countries supported UNCLOS with the expectation of shared seabed wealth. A prolonged or indefinite pause could be seen as a retreat from its original mandate, especially if it lacks a timeline or criteria for resumption.

This tension may intensify as geopolitical interests shift. As the United States, which has not ratified UNCLOS, signals interest in advancing deep-sea mining permits outside the ISA framework, others may feel emboldened to bypass the Authority. In this context, indefinite delays may not serve as safeguards, but may instead prompt unilateral action if countries perceive the ISA as permanently closed to development.

Is it wiser to pause in the name of precaution, or proceed now to ensure regulation before the window for consensus closes? If seabed minerals are essential to the energy transition, some may argue for the latter. Accelerating approvals could deliver these resources sooner within a framework that nominally upholds equity and environmental safeguards. But this is a gamble: it risks privileging powerful actors, weakening oversight, and sacrificing long-term ecological integrity for short-term industrial goals.

These outcomes are not inevitable, especially if the ISA frames a moratorium as a good-faith exercise of its mandate to protect the environment and ensure equitable governance. The Authority now has an opportunity to reinforce its credibility by demonstrating scientific caution, transparency, and responsiveness to global concerns. In this light, the question is not simply whether to pause or proceed, but how to govern in a way that preserves international trust and the long-term viability of deep-sea governance, with or without commercial extraction.

If mining advances—whether under international regulation or not—the implications are profound. The high seas and the deep seabed are our last major global commons. Their governance under UNCLOS was meant to reflect principles of equity, stewardship, and collective management. If “the Area” becomes a site of profitable extraction, the pressure to treat it like territory will intensify. We could see growing calls for exclusive claims, nationalized zones of control, or regional licensing regimes—a creeping partition of the global ocean that echoes the historical division of terrestrial frontiers.

Oscar Serpell

Deputy Director

Oscar Serpell oversees all student programming, alumni engagement, faculty and student grants, and visiting scholars. He is also a researcher, writer, and policy analyst working on research initiatives with students and Center partners.

Arwen Kozak

Senior Research Coordinator

Arwen Kozak is senior research coordinator at the Kleinman Center. She assists with research and programming initiatives at Kleinman, working to support visiting scholars, students, and grant recipients.