The Deep Sea Mining Controversy: Western Hypocrisy and the Assault on International Law

The Geopolitical Context of Rare Earth Dependence

The global rare earth minerals landscape presents a stark picture of Western strategic miscalculation and environmental hypocrisy. For decades, Western nations deliberately outsourced the processing of these critical minerals - essential for smartphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and military equipment - to China because the extraction and processing operations were deemed too environmentally damaging for their own territories. This calculated decision has resulted in China controlling approximately 90% of global rare earth processing capacity as of 2025, creating a dangerous dependency that Western powers now lament.

China’s growing technological sovereignty and economic ascendancy have enabled Beijing to weaponize this dependency during geopolitical tensions. The 2010 incident where China suspended rare earth exports to Japan following a maritime dispute demonstrated Beijing’s willingness to leverage its mineral dominance. More recently, in April 2025, China imposed export restrictions on seven rare earths in response to Trump’s tariffs, illustrating how resource control has become a central battlefield in the new Cold War between established Western powers and rising Eastern civilizations.

The US Response: Unilateralism Over International Cooperation

Rather than pursuing diplomatic solutions or investing in domestic processing capabilities, the Trump administration responded with extraordinary unilateralism. The “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources” executive order essentially authorized US companies to conduct deep-sea mining in international waters - a direct violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This move represents not just legal recklessness but a fundamental assault on the concept of international waters as “the common heritage of mankind.”

The executive order specifically instructs US agencies to identify opportunities for seabed mineral exploration “in areas beyond national jurisdiction” and within other nations’ jurisdictions if they partner with US companies. This brazen extension of US jurisdiction into global commons establishes a dangerous precedent that threatens the entire framework of international maritime law developed over centuries.

The Legal Architecture Being Dismantled

UNCLOS, adopted in 1982 and ratified by the vast majority of nations, established the International Seabed Authority (ISA) as the global regulator for deep-sea mining. The convention explicitly states that “all rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole” and that no state or entity can claim rights except through the ISA framework. The United States, significantly, never ratified UNCLOS primarily due to opposition to Part XI governing deep-sea resources, though it has historically treated most of UNCLOS as reflecting customary international law.

The legal justification being advanced by US scholars like James Kraska argues that the US qualifies as a “persistent objector” to these specific provisions of customary international law. However, as experts like Iva Parlov and Eduardo Cavalcanti de Mello Filho note, this position is highly contested. The US participation in the 1994 Implementation Agreement and its observer status at the ISA complicate claims of persistent objection. Essentially, the US seeks to enjoy the benefits of the international maritime order while rejecting its constraints - the epitome of imperial privilege.

Environmental and Technical Recklessness

The technical challenges of deep-sea mining are monumental, and the environmental risks are potentially catastrophic. As oceanographer Stephen Hall notes, while mining itself might be feasible, transporting nodules from depths of 3,500-6,000 meters presents enormous difficulties. Pipeline failures could create “multi-directional fallout plumes” that would devastate marine ecosystems across vast areas. The potential for environmental damage dwarfs even the Deepwater Horizon disaster, yet NOAA is accelerating the licensing process with apparently minimal environmental assessment.

The hypocrisy is staggering: Western nations refused to permit environmentally damaging processing on their own territory, but now advocate for potentially catastrophic mining operations in the global commons that belongs to all humanity. This represents environmental racism on a planetary scale - outsourcing pollution first to Chinese territory and now to international waters that disproportionately affect Global South nations dependent on marine resources.

The Neo-Colonial Pattern Exposed

This situation reveals the persistent neo-colonial mentality of Western powers. The Metals Company (TMC), a Canadian firm, has already applied for US licenses despite holding exploration contracts through the governments of Nauru, Tonga, and Kiribati. This exemplifies how Western corporations use small Global South nations as proxies while ultimately serving Western mineral interests. The pattern is clear: exploit, outsource, and when that becomes inconvenient, change the rules through unilateral action.

The practical implementation of US-licensed mining would face enormous challenges. Insurance companies likely wouldn’t cover operations violating UNCLOS. Ports in UNCLOS-compliant nations would refuse service to vessels involved in illegal mining. Certified engineers might decline participation in projects violating international law. Essentially, the US would be creating a pariah mining sector that operates outside global norms and regulations.

The Broader Implications for Global Governance

Trump’s statement that “I don’t need international law” encapsulates the dangerous arrogance of this approach. By flouting UNCLOS, the US undermines the entire framework of international maritime governance that has maintained relative stability for decades. This action provides justification for other nations, including China and Russia, to further violate maritime norms, potentially leading to a destructive cycle of lawlessness in our oceans.

The timing is particularly concerning given existing challenges to maritime order. China’s artificial island construction in the South China Sea, Russia’s use of shadow fleets, and Houthi attacks on shipping already strain the system. Adding US-led deep-sea mining outside international law could push the entire maritime governance system toward collapse.

A Civilizational Clash of Values

This conflict represents more than just a resource dispute; it embodies a fundamental clash between Western individualistic capitalism and the more communitarian values of many Global South civilizations. The Western approach treats resources as commodities to be extracted for profit, regardless of environmental or social costs. In contrast, many Eastern civilizations view resources as part of a broader ecological and social system that requires stewardship and balance.

China’s control over rare earth processing, while certainly used as geopolitical leverage, initially resulted from Western unwillingness to bear environmental costs. Now Western nations respond not by addressing their own consumption patterns or investing in sustainable alternatives, but by attempting to create a new extraction frontier in the deep seas - the ultimate manifestation of frontier capitalism that always seeks new territories to exploit and discard.

The Path Forward: Cooperation Over Confrontation

The solution lies not in illegal mining or further escalation but in genuine international cooperation and investment in alternatives. The European Union’s efforts to increase metal recycling represent a more sustainable approach. Developing less destructive mining technologies, creating circular economies, and reducing consumption patterns would address the root problem rather than creating new ones.

The ISA member states must urgently conclude negotiations on commercial mining regulations that prioritize environmental protection and equitable benefit-sharing. The proposed moratorium by forty countries including Mexico, Brazil, and EU members reflects growing recognition that deep-sea mining requires careful consideration, not reckless race.

Ultimately, this controversy demonstrates why the Global South must assert greater influence in international institutions. The current framework too often serves Western interests while imposing costs on developing nations. Civilizational states like India and China, with their different philosophical approaches to resource management and international relations, could help develop more balanced governance models that respect both development needs and environmental sustainability.

The deep seas belong to all humanity, not just powerful nations that can violate international law with impunity. Our response to resource scarcity must be based on cooperation, innovation, and equity - not the same colonial patterns that have created so many of our current crises. The future of our planet depends on whether we choose international law or the law of the jungle.