Seabed mining is in the news. This piece sets out some important distinctions to help situate seabed mining matters involving the United States or U.S. companies.
The recent push within the United States to extract hard minerals from the seabed found expression in an April 2025 Executive Order calling for “immediate action to accelerate the responsible development of seabed mineral resources” in three geographic areas: the U.S. seabed (or juridical continental shelf), seabed areas under the national jurisdiction of partner countries, and seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction. The order also provided a non-exhaustive list of strategic minerals “which are vital to our national security and economic prosperity,” including nickel, cobalt, copper, manganese, titanium, and rare earth elements (REE or REY to include the non-lanthanides scandium and yttrium).
Knowing which minerals are the target of commercial seabed mining, in what deposit types they are found, and where, among those three geographic areas, mining activities might take place should assist in understanding which legal regime governs the resource, who the relevant actors might be, and why, how, and when exploration or commercial recovery might proceed.
What Minerals, in Which Deposit Types?
The 2025 United States Geological Survey (USGS) List of Critical Minerals contains 60 entries from aluminum and antimony to zinc and zirconium. Of those 60 critical minerals, 43 occur within the marine environment of the U.S. continental shelf, and all 60 occur on U.S. land territory, but most currently are not mined or processed within the United States.
Seabed critical minerals are found in at least six deposit types, each with its predominant mineral composition and unique geographic distribution.
- Polymetallic nodules (PMN) – Small, potato-shaped rocks on the ocean floor at depths of 4,000 to 7,000 meters, containing manganese, cobalt, copper, nickel, titanium, and trace REEs, with concentrations found in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
- Polymetallic sulfides (or seafloor massive sulfides) (PMS) – Metalliferous accumulations around seafloor hydrothermal vents along spreading ridges at depths between 100 and 7,000 meters containing copper, zinc, lead, and silver.
- Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts (CFC) – Accumulations on hard-rock substrates of volcanic origin on seamounts and ridges occurring at depths of 400 to 5,000 meters composed of cobalt, manganese, nickel, platinum, and trace REEs.
- Rare earth element-rich muds (REE or REY) – Sedimentary layers embedded in the ocean floor subsoil (found at depths below the seabed of 0 to >100 meters) containing concentrations of REEs with known occurrences in the Pacific and Indian Oceans at water depths of 3,000 to 6,000 meters.
- Phosphorites – Sedimentary rocks occurring along continental shelves and seamounts at depths of <1,000 meters containing phosphate, uranium, and trace REEs.
- Marine placers – Heavy mineral sands deposited in nearshore marine environments of <200 meters depth containing titanium, tin, platinum, silver, and trace REEs.
Although often lumped together, literally in the case of nodules, seabed critical minerals satisfy different end uses. REEs are inputs for heat-resistant, permanent magnets; copper is needed for electrical wiring; and nickel, manganese, and cobalt are ingredients in the eponymous NMC batteries. The reasons for their criticality and their processing requirements also vary widely.
Where Matters
The legal rules applicable to the exploration and exploitation of these seabed mineral deposits depend upon where they are found: within U.S. jurisdiction, within the jurisdiction of another coastal State, or beyond the jurisdiction of any coastal State.
Seabed Within U.S. Jurisdiction
The U.S. continental shelf consists of 11 million square kilometers of seabed extending up to and beyond 200 nautical miles from U.S. territory, including the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and, importantly in the context of seabed mining, the Pacific island territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. One million of these 11 million square kilometers – the so-called extended continental shelf – lies beyond 200 nautical miles. In this vast area of ocean floor, the United States enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over and sovereign rights to the mineral resources on the seabed and in the subsoil.
All six deposit types are known to exist within the U.S. seabed area. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, among other U.S. statutes, governs the use of the non-living natural resources of the U.S. continental shelf. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM, now under the newly-formed Marine Minerals Administration at Department of the Interior) is the administrative and leasing agency for these resources. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, under Department of Commerce), which plays a role in all three geographic areas, is the primary marine scientific research agency on the U.S. continental shelf.
Except where domestic seabed mining activities might interfere with high seas freedoms enjoyed by other nations, in particular their freedoms of navigation and laying of submarine cables and pipelines, or where environmental harms from such activities might spread beyond the U.S. continental shelf, public international law has little to say about the modes by which these U.S. resources may be utilized. Instead, in these areas, decisions related to mining will be subject to domestic political and legal processes.
To offer some concrete examples from current events, community and conservation groups brought a legal challenge in U.S. District Court to block a forthcoming BOEM seabed mineral lease sale for areas surrounding American Samoa, and an unsolicited request to lease phosphorites and heavy mineral sands off the coast of Virginia triggered a BOEM request for information and interest eliciting nearly 77,000 public comments as of July 2026.
Seabed Within the Jurisdiction of Other Coastal States
Some 150 other coastal States enjoy the same exclusive jurisdiction and sovereign rights with respect to their own continental shelves and seabed natural resources. They, too, control whether, when, where, how, and by whom those resources will be studied or developed. Pursuant to their national laws and under the administration of their government agencies, several of these States are pursuing mineral resource development in their respective seabed areas.
U.S. seabed mining companies, often through subsidiaries, anticipate or are already operating in some of those foreign jurisdictions. At the intergovernmental level, the United States has entered into non-binding agreements (e.g., with Japan and Cook Islands) to expand cooperation and access in respect of areas and resources within the exclusive national jurisdiction of other States. The United States has no jurisdiction or sovereign rights in these seabed areas, but U.S. agencies can play a role here; in partnership with coastal States, NOAA conducts marine scientific research within their zones.
In these exclusive national areas, if and how seabed mining moves forward will depend on the political and legal environments in each individual country. For example, in December 2025, following a national election, Norway, on the verge of opening its inaugural seabed minerals licensing round, instead announced a pause through 2029. In 2023, perhaps in response to the 2019 failure of its Solwara 1 PMS mining project, Papua New Guinea (along with four other Pacific island nations) signed a declaration calling for a region-wide moratorium on seabed mining. In 2022, the Cook Islands issued three five-year exploration licenses, but the prospect of exploitation is not without domestic opposition. In February 2026, Japan collected REY-rich muds from its seabed and plans to return for a mining trial in 2027.
Seabed Beyond National Jurisdiction
The legal landscape changes substantially in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Approximately half of the planet’s ocean floor is covered by seabed within the exclusive national jurisdiction of coastal States. The remaining half lying beyond, or seaward of, coastal State jurisdiction is the third, legally-distinct part of the seabed referenced in the April 2025 Executive Order.
The rules governing this seabed area (“the Area” (UNCLOS, Art. 1)) and its resources (“all solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources” (UNCLOS, Art. 133(a))) are set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or the Convention). The Convention designates the Area and its resources as the “common heritage of mankind” (UNCLOS, Art. 136) and establishes the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to organize, carry out, and control the exploration and exploitation of the Area and its resources on behalf of humankind as a whole. To that end, the ISA has developed exploration regulations for PMN, PMS, and CFC deposits. The ISA has not developed regulations for REY-rich muds or phosphorites, but they would also come under the ISA’s purview. (Marine placers are not found in the Area.)
To date, the ISA has entered into 32 exploration contracts with 22 separate contractors, each of whom is formally sponsored by a State party to the Convention. The Convention, ISA regulations, and individual contracts govern the exploration activities of ISA contractors in respect of the Area’s resources. The ISA continues to work toward the completion of its exploitation regulations and has not yet entered into any exploitation contracts.
One hundred seventy-one States and the European Union are parties to the Convention and are bound by its rules. The United States, uniquely among industrialized nations, is not one of them. In April 2025, the United States announced its intention to unilaterally issue “seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction” under its 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA, for which NOAA is the permitting agency). Industry responded. Four days later, The Metals Company USA applied for two DSHMRA exploration licenses and one commercial recovery permit, the first license applications since 1984 and the first DSHMRA permit application ever. As of this writing, six applications for exploration licenses, and one for a commercial recovery permit, have been made public. More are in the pipeline.
These developments in U.S. practice trigger at least two questions of international law:
Q1: Would the United States violate its international legal obligations by authorizing or undertaking unilateral seabed mining?
A1: Since the United States is not a party to the Convention, as a matter of treaty law it is not bound by the Convention’s rules, but it may be bound by similar rules as a matter of customary international law. Some authors conclude that the United States would breach its customary international law obligations by undertaking unilateral seabed mining in the Area (here and here), while others argue that it would not (here). This question is not likely to be tested before an international court or tribunal because the United States has not consented to their jurisdiction.
Q2: What are the obligations of States parties to the Convention in the context of possible unilateral mining by a non-State party?
A2: States parties to the Convention are under several relevant treaty obligations: the obligation to ensure that a long list of actors do not participate in unilateral mining activities in the Area, including their nationals and any companies and individuals their nationals effectively control (UNCLOS, Art. 139(1)); the obligation not to recognize any acquisition, claim, or exercise of right in respect of minerals recovered from the Area except in accordance with the Convention (UNCLOS, Art. 137(3)); and anti-alienation (transfer of ownership) obligations related to minerals recovered from the Area (UNCLOS, Art. 137(2)). Several authors have explored the contours of these treaty obligations in more depth (here, here, here, here, here, and here), obligations which, if implemented, would isolate and disable U.S. activities in the Area. These questions are likely to be tested before international courts and tribunals. Should unilateral mining continue to move forward, it could spur a request for an advisory opinion or a contentious case for breach of one of the obligations set out above.
In the Area, if and how seabed mining unfolds will depend on the multifaceted political and legal environments in:
- Kingston, Jamaica (seat of the ISA and locus of decision-making related to regulations and contractor discipline, among other issues);
- The capitals of 171 States parties (sponsorship decisions, effective implementation of international legal obligations, and decisions related to international adjudication will occur here);
- Hamburg, Germany (home of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS or the Tribunal) and its Seabed Disputes Chamber which would rule on disputes among States parties concerning activities in the Area); and
- Washington, DC (where a new administration might revert to a cooperative stance vis-a-vis the ISA and multilateral ocean governance or stay the current course).
Why, Who, How, and When
Per the 2025 Executive Order, the urgent need to mine the seabed is driven by a scarcity narrative pitting perceptions of need against stability of supply told through the lens of China’s access to land and seabed mineral resources, dominance in critical minerals processing, and willingness to use critical mineral export restrictions as a geopolitical tool. Shifting demand and supply patterns could reduce or increase pressure on seabed resources. Consider the move away from NMC battery chemistries, development of U.S. land-based sources, and potential gains from improved recycling. In stark contrast to the message coming from the White House, 46 States have called for a pause or moratorium on seabed mining in the Area.
Who might be involved in seabed mining depends in large part on the geographic area in which mining activities might occur. Within areas of national jurisdiction, government agencies, industry, and domestic civil society will be involved, as will the national courts when disputes arise.
In areas beyond national jurisdiction, the constellation of actors grows. Mining under the Convention involves the ISA and its 171 member States, specific sponsoring States, contractors (including their parents, partners, and auxiliary service providers), and international civil society. Disputes arising under the Convention in respect of “activities in the Area” would come before the ITLOS Seabed Disputes Chamber, while broader disputes related to seabed mining might be heard by the full Tribunal or other international courts.
Now, as a major non-State party (the United States) enters the Area, it brings with it additional actors. The ISA, sole regulator for the last 30 years, faces a potential competitor in NOAA. Industry players engaging in regulatory arbitrage are attempting to secure interests under both the ISA and U.S. regimes. And multiple fora are seized of matters related to unilateral activities in the Area, with active cases before both the Seabed Disputes Chamber and U.S. courts.
How seabed mining might occur at commercial scale involves the mechanical engineering required to extract and lift minerals from the seabed and the economic engineering needed to attract investment to an untested industry in an uncertain political, legal, and financial landscape. Without significant government intervention, including commodity price floors, offtake agreements, grants, and loan guarantees, the commercial viability of seabed mining is in question. Some have characterized deep-sea mining as “a multi-billion-dollar solution to problems that do not exist.”
Exploration of seabed mineral resources has been underway for decades. When exploitation might begin will, again, depend largely on the jurisdiction in which it would occur and the regime under which it would be authorized. In the United States, The Metals Company anticipates that NOAA will issue a commercial recovery permit to mine areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction by the end of 2027, but legal action could push that date further into the future. Likewise, lawsuits could delay the BOEM lease sales set for November (American Samoa) and December (Northern Mariana Islands) 2026.
* * *
Access to critical minerals is not a new concern (see, e.g., the 1939 U.S. Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act). In the middle of the last century, as U.S. land-based sources of hydrocarbons were diminished by global war, the seabed played a major role in satisfying demand. Will the seabed be the next frontier for hard mineral ores, who will make the rules for their exploitation, and who will benefit from their use?
The post United States Seabed Mineral Activities: Understanding the Legal Landscape appeared first on Just Security.