Op-Ed: U.S. Seabed Mining Order Could Undermine Protections for Antarctica

 

[By Doaa Abdel-Motaal]

An executive order by the United States in April authorizing expanded engagement in seabed mining reflects shifting approaches to the governance of critical mineral resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As legal frameworks evolve beneath the sea, questions are likely to follow about their implications on land.

The order was framed as a response to supply chain and energy security concerns, but it may also influence how other internationally governed spaces—particularly Antarctica—are viewed in the context of long-standing prohibitions on mineral extraction.

At the heart of this issue lies the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the legal bedrock for maritime governance. Among its provisions is the creation of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), charged with regulating mineral-related activities in the international seabed area beyond national jurisdiction. To date, the ISA has issued more than 30 exploration contracts, authorizing states and companies to scout for minerals including cobalt, manganese and rare earths.

Crucially, no commercial mining has begun. That next step hinges on the adoption of a long-debated mining code: a comprehensive legal and environmental framework still under negotiation.

The US has not ratified UNCLOS, though it did sign a 1994 revision designed to address concerns about seabed mining. But it has not been ratified, despite bipartisan support from defense, business and environmental stakeholders.

Nevertheless, on 24 April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to facilitate seabed mining activities by US entities. The order invokes domestic legislation, such as the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, to streamline exploration and permitting processes. The rationale is rooted in securing critical minerals for energy and economic resilience, especially in light of supply chain competition.

China has raised objections. The Chinese Foreign Ministry expressed concern that the move could be inconsistent with international legal norms and might affect the broader negotiations underway at the ISA. China, itself an ISA exploration contractor, emphasized the importance of maintaining a collaborative approach to shared global resources.

This brings us to Antarctica. The continent is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System, whose 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection explicitly bans mineral resource activity ‘other than scientific research’.  Article 7 sets the prohibition, while Article 25 carves out a conditional ‘review clause’.  Article 25 provides that the mining ban may be reviewed after 50 years from the protocol’s entry into force—that being in 2048, but only if certain stringent conditions are met. These include a request by any consultative party and agreement by three-quarters of the consultative parties to convene a review conference.

This clause, often referred to as the US’s walk-out clause, was included to accommodate US concerns about long-term access to resources. It offers a mechanism for future reconsideration, should geopolitical or economic priorities evolve. Recent developments in seabed mining may offer a precedent—intended or not—that determine the future of the mining ban in Antarctica.

The point is this: if unilateral actions become the norm in managing global commons such as the deep seabed, how resilient is the consensus that protects Antarctica? Both are areas beyond national jurisdiction, governed by international or plurilateral agreements that rely heavily on political cohesion. When strategic imperatives dominate, cooperative stewardship may come under strain.

In both domains, the environmental risks are significant. Deep seabed ecosystems remain largely uncharted; mining could cause irreversible impacts. Antarctica, already vulnerable to climate change, could face similar uncertainties if its protections are re-evaluated. Moves that prioritize resource access over multilateral process could reshape global expectations.

In essence, a shift in undersea mining approaches may do more than just loosen seabed regulations—it could recalibrate the norms that have long shielded Antarctica as well.

Doaa Abdel Motaal is visiting professor of polar studies at Sciences Po, Paris.

This article appears courtesy of The Strategist and may be found in its original form here.