Ocean Resources and Who Owns Them? An Overview of Deep-Sea Mining, International Law and the Emerging Legal and Environmental Conflict.

The ocean has long been a great mystery to mankind, and exploring the deep seas has been at the top of many scientific organisations’ lists. For centuries, the ocean has served as a medium for resources, navigation, and communication. 

But the change is inevitable. Just below the seabed lies another layer of polymetallic nodules (PMN), polymetallic sulfides (PMS), and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts (CFC), which contain minerals such as manganese, copper, cobalt, gold, silver, nickel, iron, and other essential resources. The defence systems of nations and technology. Even common items such as batteries are in need of such minerals to work. The question of resource security, technology, economics and power arose after the deep seabed became a threat to environmental homeostasis. 

This development raises a core legal question: with the availability of minerals under the seabed, who has possession over it? The answer heavily relies on where the minerals are located. Resources in a coastal state’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or continental shelf are subject to the sovereign rights of that state. The seabed beyond national jurisdiction is the Area, which no state owns. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Area and its mineral resources are the “common heritage of humankind.”

This distinction has become very important as states and private companies move from scientific exploration to commercial aspirations. In 2026, the international regime has reached a contradictory position. There are numerous exploration contracts, advanced mining technologies, and increasing commercial pressure, but the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has still not completed the exploitation regulations required for commercial mining in the international seabed Area.

What are Ocean Resources?

Ocean resources have been classified into living and non-living resources.

Living resources include aquatic and marine resources. Non-living resources include oil and natural gas, sand and aggregates, and minerals on or beneath the seabed. The three main resources, PMNs, PMSs and CFCs, have their own specific mining techniques, but at the cost of the environment.

What is Deep-Sea Mining?

The mining of minerals from the ocean floor is referred to as deep- sea mining or DSM for short. The machines used vary depending on the mineral’s location. Some machines can be operated remotely, while some machines cut or collect the minerals and transfer them to the surface using installed pipelines.

Today’s interest in deep-sea minerals was particularly strong in the 1960s and 1970s. Marine scientist John L. Mero’s 1965 book, “The Mineral Resources of the Sea”, helped generate the idea that ocean-floor minerals could be of great economic value. Technical exploration and disturbance studies were later carried out, especially for polymetallic nodules in the eastern Pacific’s Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ). Scientific and engineering experiments also grew in the late 1970s.

But the issue soon became more than engineering. States realised that if individual countries or companies were allowed to just claim mineral-rich seabed areas, then the deep ocean could become a new arena of territorial competition. In response, the international community established a legal regime under UNCLOS Part XI and created the International Seabed Authority in 1994.

Who owns the deep-sea minerals?

The answer is not simply “the country nearest to them.” Minerals in national jurisdiction.

Under UNCLOS, a coastal State has exclusive rights to explore and exploit the natural resources of its EEZ and continental shelf, as stated in Article 56 (the coastal State has sovereign rights over the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil in its EEZ) and in Article 77 (sovereign rights over the natural resources of the continental shelf).

Minerals outside national jurisdiction

The legal position is fundamentally different in the international seabed area.

Article 136 of UNCLOS states that “The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.”Article 137 provides that “No State can claim sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources and those rights in the resources are vested in mankind as a whole, with the ISA acting on behalf of humanity.”

So, the legal model is not traditional ownership. A State cannot just say, “this mineral deposit is mine.” Instead, minerals in the area are governed through an international institutional system to ensure that their exploitation is conducted for the benefit of mankind as a whole.

One of the most important legal concepts in deep-sea mining is that the resources may be exploited under law, but they cannot be privately or nationally appropriated before lawful recovery under the UNCLOS regime.

The International Seabed Authority: At the Heart of the Dispute.

The International Seabed Authority: The Institution at the Front Line.

Under UNCLOS, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) was established to manage and control activities in the international seabed area. The ISA has foundational rules regarding the exploration of all three major mineral categories, that is, the PMNs, PMSs, and CFCs. 

However, this exploration is not the same as commercial exploitation. As of 31st March 2026, the ISA has reported multiple exploration contracts; 31 exploration contracts are in effect. 19 of those contracts are for PMNs, 8 of those contracts are for PMSs, and 4 contracts are for CFCs. India has an ISA exploration contract for polymetallic sulphides in the Indian Ocean.

Furthermore, exploitation regulation rules for commercial mining in the area are still being negotiated. The first part of the ISA’s 31st Council session in March 2026 covered 29 of 32 outstanding issues. Negotiations continued in July 2026 on environmental monitoring, compliance, test mining, closure plans, regional environmental management plans and inspection.

So, the current legal position is very important. Exploration is already legal, but commercial exploitation rules are not completely clear. The ISA is still prioritising the completion of the Mining Code and remarks on the importance for future activities in the Area.

Three Different Deep-Sea Mining Frontiers 

The PMNs are scattered across the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the central Pacific, containing manganese, nickel, copper and cobalt.

This region contains a very large concentration of exploration contracts. The CCZ has become a major battlefield for deep-sea mining because it has enormous mineral potential, involves international ownership rules, and raises environmental and commercial concerns.

The CCZ has become the primary battlefield over the future of deep-sea mining because it combines enormous mineral potential, international ownership rules, uncertain environmental impacts, and widespread commercial interest.

One of the most recent developments is Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI), sponsored by Nauru and associated with The Metals Company. In July 2026, the ISA Council approved a five-year extension of NORI’s exploration contract. At the same time, a lawsuit between NORI and the ISA reached the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS.

Importantly, scientific research after industrial-scale testing has shown that ecosystem impacts cannot be assumed to disappear after mining equipment is removed from the site. A 2025 Nature Ecology & Evolution study of the 2022 industrial mining test found a 37% decrease in macrofaunal density and a 32% reduction in species richness directly within mining tracks two months after the test.

A 2026 review concluded that the impact of polymetallic nodule mining may continue to run its course for several more years, with recolonisation of certain groups.

Along the ocean ridges, PMSs are commonly found in hydrothermal vents. They contain copper, zinc, iron, gold and silver. They are particularly controversial because hydrothermal vents are not only mineral deposits; they are ecosystems supporting living organisms that inhabit these extraordinary conditions.

However, this creates a legal and scientific problem. The mineral resource and the ecosystem are physically connected. Removing the mineralised structures in the ocean is destroying the habitat of the organisms themselves.

Sulphides are being explored in several areas, including the Southwest Indian Ridge, Central Indian Ridge and Mid-Atlantic Ridge under ISA contracts. India has become particularly relevant here. In September 2025, India signed a 15-year ISA contract for the exploration of polymetallic sulfides over 10,000 square kilometres in parts of the Central Indian Ridge and the Southwest Indian Ridge.

The environmental challenge is potentially greater at vent systems than in PMN fields because of the limited data on recovery after industrial disturbances. An environmental review in 2026 noted that exploration of PMS deposits has been relatively limited, and the recovery cannot be understood.d For some vent ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity due to mining can be very serious.

Found mainly on the slopes and summits of seamounts, the third major category is CFCs. Rich in cobalt, nickel, manganese and other metals. Unlike nodules that are loosely distributed on sediment, crusts are attached to rock. Extraction may therefore involve cutting or removing parts of seamount surfaces.

The Western Pacific is an important area for crust exploration, and ISA contracts with countries like China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Russia. Research also indicates crust and nodule resources around Pacific seamounts and EEZs of countries like Japan.

The environmental concern here is habitat destruction at biologically important seamounts, including organisms living on hard surfaces and deep-water coral ecosystems.

National Waters: A Very Different Legal Problem 

A large source of confusion is that not every deep-sea mining project falls under the ISA. The ISA governs mineral activities in the international seabed area, not all deep-ocean mining everywhere. Deep- sea mining within the country’s jurisdiction may be regulated by the country’s laws, but must also be subject to the obligations of the international environmental rules.

Papua New Guinea- Solwara 1

Papua New Guinea served as the most important example. In 2011, Papua New Guinea granted Nautilus Minerals a license associated with the Solwara 1 hydrothermal-vent project in the Bismarck Sea. The deposit contained copper and gold and was within PNG’s EEZ. The project became the first widely cited example of a State granting a commercial license for deep-seabed mining.

But Solwara 1 finally collapsed. Nautilus Minerals went bankrupt in 2019 due to years of financial, technical, governmental, and social obstacles. The project was a warning about applying conventional mining frameworks to a very different ecological and technological context.

The legal lesson is, of course, very important.

Having a domestic mining law does not necessarily mean that the law is sufficiently designed for deep-sea mining. PNG’s experience has since influenced the debate on specialised offshore mining legislation.

The United States and the New International Legal Tension 

The United States has brought one of the most important new developments in the deep-sea mining debate. The United States has not formally joined the UNCLOS, although it takes many of its provisions as international law. It has domestic legislation, that is, the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA).

In April 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14285, which directed the U.S. government to promote extraction of minerals from the seabed. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) then revised its regulations in January 2026 to create a single application process for exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits for seabed mining. NOAA is now processing applications from U.S. companies for activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This, however, is a major international law controversy.

Under the UNCLOS system, international seabed resources are the common heritage of mankind and activities in the Area are to be organised through the ISA. But the United States depends on its own domestic legal framework.

Legal scholarship is divided. Some argue that because the United States never ratified UNCLOS, it cannot simply be treated as bound by the treaty’s Part XI framework. Other scholars believe that broader customary international law and the duty to cooperate constrain unilateral action even by non-parties. This is perhaps the clearest example of the larger problem facing the international legal system:

What happens when the state with the technological and economic capacity to exploit an international resource does not accept the institution established to regulate that resource?

The Environmental Law Problem 

Deep-sea mining engenders a great deal of tension between resource extraction and environmental protection.UNCLOS is not just an economic treaty. Article 145 gives specific directions for the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects of activities in the area.

The major environmental problems are: habitat destruction; sediment plumes; biodiversity loss; and noise, light and physical disturbance.

The 2026 scientific review concludes that for nodules, some ecological impacts might last decades, while for vents and seamounts the available data are even more limited.

The Precautionary Principle: Can Mining Begin When the Science Is Incomplete? 

One of the most difficult legal issues to resolve is whether governments should permit an activity when the consequences are uncertain. The precautionary approach becomes very important here. The logic is straightforward. Scientific uncertainty should not be seen as permission to proceed without restriction. The ISA has incorporated precautionary principles into its regulatory work, and the environmental debate increasingly focuses on whether the available scientific information is sufficient to establish enforceable environmental thresholds before commercial exploitation begins. This creates a fundamental policy choice.

Should the law require proof that mining is environmentally safe before mining begins, or should it permit mining while environmental knowledge develops? That question remains unresolved.

The Benefit Sharing Problem: Who Benefits? 

The meaning of the phrase “common heritage of mankind” has consequences that go beyond ownership. The idea was partly to prevent technologically advanced States from monopolising resources simply because they possessed the technology to reach them first.UNCLOS therefore links the area regime to benefit-sharing, participation of developing States, technology transfer and equitable opportunities. 

But that’s a very difficult economic question. Who should receive the revenue? How should benefits be divided between developed and developing states? How should landlocked developing countries benefit from resources located thousands of kilometres from their territory? What happens if widespread seabed mining reduces the market price of minerals and harms countries dependent on terrestrial mining exports?

The current ISA negotiations deal with not only environmental standards but also financial payment processes and equalisation mechanisms.

The Legal Responsibility of States Sponsoring Mining Companies

Deep-sea mining also creates a problem of corporate accountability. A mining company may conduct operations, but international law usually looks to the sponsoring State as part of the regulatory chain. This issue was examined extensively in the landmark Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, ITLOS Seabed Disputes Chamber Advisory Opinion, 2011. The case arose because the ISA wanted clarification on the responsibilities and potential liability of States sponsoring companies involved in activities in the Area. The Chamber delivered its advisory opinion on 1 February 2011.

The opinion is important because it established the idea that sponsorship is not just a political relationship. Sponsoring States have legal responsibilities and due diligence obligations with companies they sponsor. This means a State cannot simply say, “The company is private, so the company is responsible.”

International law places regulatory responsibilities on the State as well.

The Deep- Sea Mining Law- ITLOS Cases

Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. v. International Seabed Authority and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. v. International Seabed Authority

These are ISA-related disputes involving exploration contractors sponsored by Nauru and Tonga. The Seabed Disputes Chamber heard provisional measures proceedings in July 2026. On 18 July 2026, it issued Orders concerning the two cases, and further procedural orders were issued in August 2026.

The 2026 cases have been historically important because they are the first cases before the Seabed Disputes Chamber under Part XI, not just an advisory opinion. In public reporting on the Orders, the Chamber recognised due process and fair-treatment rights in the proceedings and required compliance with the applicable legal framework.

The cases are important for a more general reason: they show that the ISA is not beyond legal scrutiny. Its regulatory decisions can themselves become the subject of judicial proceedings. The disputes therefore put the ISA in a difficult position. It is at once regulator, administrator of contracts, and participant in a legal system that can be challenged before an international tribunal.

The BBNJ Agreement: A New Layer of Ocean Law 

Another major development is the 17th January 2026 enforcement of the Agreement under UNCLOS on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, commonly known as the BBNJ Agreement. 

The agreement was first adopted in 19th June 2023. The BBNJ Agreement is concerned with four areas: marine genetic resources; area-based management tools and marine protected areas; environmental impact assessments; and capacity-building and technology transfer. It also addresses cross-cutting issues. This agreement has cemented the legal landscape for deep-sea mining and serves as another legally binding instrument. 

One of the future challenges is figuring out how the BBNJ agreement will collide with the already existing mineral regime put forth by the ISA. But the question is, can these different ocean treaties control the existing ecosystem without creating gaps, overlapping authority or conflicting decisions?

The Technical Difficulties: Mining the Deep Ocean Is Not Ordinary Mining 

Deep-sea mining, apart from the law, has huge technological challenges.

Mining may take place at depths of several kilometres under high pressure and near zero visibility. Equipment must work remotely and reliably. Constant operation requires highly sophisticated vessels, subsea machinery, lifting systems, navigation systems and monitoring technologies. A technical failure can be very expensive as conventional human intervention is difficult or impossible at those depths.

One reason is that much of the present industry is still at the exploration, testing and pilot stage rather than full commercial production. The history of Solwara 1 illustrates the combination of financial, technological, political and regulatory risks. The current international Area projects still face unresolved questions about commercial-scale technology, processing, economics, environmental monitoring and liability.

The Economic Problem: Are Minerals Really Necessary? 

The supporters of deep-sea mining argue that the world needs to have more supplies of necessary minerals. But there’s one big economic question in there: is seabed mining actually necessary to meet future mineral demand, or can recycling, substitution, terrestrial mining and technological change meet the requirement?

This is a matter that is legally important because environmental justification cannot be divorced from economic necessity. The claim that deep-sea mining is crucial for the energy transition is contested. The answer may differ for the mineral, for market situation and battery technology, recycling rates and future demand. Deep-sea mining should therefore not be evaluated simply by asking, “Are there minerals under the ocean?” but the more important question is, “Is the social and economic value of extracting those minerals worth it?”

Current Global Situation: 2026 Update.

As per 2026 data, the global deep-sea mining landscape can be summarised as follows:

• International seabed: The ISA has 31 exploration contracts, but commercial exploitation regulations are still being determined.
• Clarion-Clipperton Zone: remains the main centre of polymetallic nodule exploration and commercial attention.
• India: Has an ISA contract for polymetallic sulphide exploration in the Central and Southwest Indian Ridges and is investing in ocean technology and research capacity.
• Japan: Has great interest in polymetallic nodules in its EEZ around Minamitorishima, showing how deep-sea mineral development can also occur under national jurisdiction rather than exclusively through the ISA.
• Cook Islands: Exploration licences are in place under national law, and the regulator states that exploration licences do not authorise mineral harvesting; no subsea mining licence has yet been issued.
• Papua New Guinea: Solwara 1 is an important cautionary case in point after the collapse of Nautilus Minerals and the debate over whether the country should allow future seabed mining.
• Norway: Norway opened its continental shelf to mineral activity in 2024, but the government said in December 2025 that it would not announce the first licensing round during that parliamentary term, illustrating the political and regulatory hesitation surrounding commercial seabed mining.
• United States: The United States is pursuing a parallel domestic regulatory route under DSHMRA, posing one of the most important current questions regarding the relationship between unilateral national action and the UNCLOS/ISA system.

Major Legal Problems That Still Remain Unresolved 

There are several fundamental legal questions about deep-sea mining at the moment.

Who has final authority?

The ISA is the fundamental institution for the international Area, but the U.S. position shows that not every major maritime power accepts the same regulatory framework.

When does “exploration” turn into “exploitation”?

Testing machines and recovering minerals can blur the boundary between scientific exploration and commercial extraction.

What environmental threshold is sufficient?

How much biodiversity loss is allowed? How should irreversible damage be quantified? In the event that scientists are unable to predict recovery, what happens?

Who is liable for environmental damage?

The legal chain may involve the contractor, sponsoring State, flag State, coastal State, vessel operator and possibly the ISA.

How will benefits actually be distributed?

And the common heritage principle is about much more than allowing corporations to extract minerals and pay fees.

Can protected marine areas coexist with mining?

The BBNJ Agreement introduces stronger biodiversity governance mechanisms while ISA regional environmental management plans are being developed at the same time.

What happens if international rules are incomplete but companies are ready?

This may be the most immediate issue facing the international community. Companies can develop technology much faster than States can negotiate detailed multilateral regulations.

The Central Conflict: Development Versus Conservation 

Deep-sea mining shouldn’t be portrayed as “good” or “bad” at all. It is a collision between multiple legitimate interests. Developing countries may see ocean minerals as an opportunity for economic participation. Critical minerals are strategically important to industrial states. And yet there is a potentially huge new source of raw materials for companies to acquire.

Scientists see ecosystems that are poorly understood. Environmental organisations say that the consequences of irreversible damage are too great. International lawyers are tasked with reconciling these interests in a system that was established decades ago in the absence of modern seabed-mining technology.

This is why the deep-sea mining debate is ultimately about much more than mining. It is about who gets to decide what happens in areas that belong to no individual State but are legally held for humanity as a whole.

Conclusion 

Deep-sea mining is emerging as one of the most difficult subjects in contemporary international environmental and maritime law. There are resources on the ocean floor that could contribute to global mineral supply, yet they are in ecosystems that are complex and vulnerable and still not fully understood.

The law can be an important starting point. Under UNCLOS, the seabed beyond national jurisdiction is the common heritage of mankind and mineral activities in the international area are to be organised through the International Seabed Authority. At the same time, resources within national maritime zones fall under the sovereign resource rights of coastal States.

The problem is that the legal framework is developing almost at the same time as the technology. In 2026, the ISA has dozens of exploration contracts and is still negotiating on exploitation rules, while companies and some States are already preparing for commercial-scale extraction. The parallel approach of the United States to regulatory action, the new BBNJ Agreement, the ongoing fight over environmental standards and the ITLOS cases indicate that the legal framework for deep-sea mining is still evolving.

And so the central question for international law is not “Who owns the minerals?” It is, “Who has the right to exploit the common resources of the deep ocean, under what conditions, for whose benefit, and at whose environmental risk?”

Until those questions are answered convincingly, deep-sea mining will remain caught between technological possibility and legal uncertainty, economic opportunity and environmental precaution, and national interests and the principle of the common heritage of mankind.