ARTICLE TEXT

For thirty years, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has done most of its work on paper. Its best-known decision is the 2011 advisory opinion on the responsibilities of States that sponsor seabed mining. That changed on 18 July 2026. In two orders on provisional measures, the eleven-member Chamber, presided over by Judge Attard, unanimously ordered the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to respect the due process rights of two deep-sea mining contractors. This was the first time the Chamber had used its contentious jurisdiction under Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Parties and the Dispute

The applicants were Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (TOML). Both are subsidiaries of the Canadian company The Metals Company (TMC). NORI is sponsored by Nauru. It has held an exploration contract for polymetallic nodules since July 2011, due to expire on 22 July 2026. TOML’s 15-year exploration contract dates from January 2012. In January 2026, NORI applied to extend its contract. The ISA then opened an inquiry into whether the contractors had failed to meet their obligations. In the background, TMC’s United States subsidiary has been seeking licences under US domestic law, outside the ISA system altogether.

NORI and TOML notified the ISA of disputes in March and May 2026. They filed applications on 30 May and 5 June, and the Chamber heard both cases on 2 and 3 July.

What the Chamber Ordered

The Chamber prescribed three measures. First, the ISA must act according to the applicable legal framework, “including rules of due process”, in both the inquiry and the extension procedure. Second, it must clarify the procedures it is following and the questions it is asking, so that the contractors can respond “meaningfully” within a reasonable time. Third, both sides must cooperate and avoid anything that might aggravate the dispute. The Chamber did not suspend the inquiry, which the contractors had also asked for. Each side was required to report on compliance by 31 August 2026.

The Legal Reasoning

The Chamber found it had prima facie jurisdiction under Article 187(c) of UNCLOS, which covers disputes between a contractor and the Authority about activities in the Area. It prescribed measures under Article 290(1) and held that the Article 283 duty to exchange views had been met. The most interesting point concerned Article 189. That provision stops the Chamber from reviewing how the ISA uses its discretionary powers, and from putting its own discretion in place of the Authority’s. The Chamber held that Article 189 did not apply, because the complaint was about procedural fairness, not about the substance of a discretionary decision. It found the claimed right to due process plausible, relying on ISA Council decisions that call for due process, transparency and fairness. It was also satisfied that there was a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm, despite the ISA’s assurances. Judge Brown appended a declaration.

The Aftermath

Three days later, on 21 July, the ISA Council approved NORI’s contract extension “without prejudice” to the inquiry. TMC chief executive Gerard Barron welcomed the “unanimous decisions”. He said contractors are entitled to know the factual and legal basis of any inquiry and to have a meaningful chance to respond. The merits of both cases are still pending. Meanwhile, the Mining Code, the rules that would govern commercial exploitation, is still unfinished, and 46 ISA member States now support a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining.

Why It Matters

The orders confirm a principle with wide consequences: a treaty body that regulates the common heritage of mankind under Article 136 of UNCLOS is itself bound by enforceable duties of fair procedure. For public law students, the reasoning will look familiar. The Chamber drew a clear line between reviewing how a decision is made and reviewing what is decided, much as domestic courts do in judicial review. The case also matters in South Asia. India holds ISA exploration contracts, and Bangladesh’s own history with ITLOS runs deep. The Tribunal’s first maritime boundary judgment, delivered in 2012, settled the boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal. ITLOS marked its thirtieth anniversary this month.

Sources

1. ITLOS Press Release No. 391 (NORI v ISA, Order of 18 July 2026): https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_391_EN.pdf
2. ITLOS Press Release No. 392 (TOML v ISA, Order of 18 July 2026): https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_392_EN.pdf
3. Ocean Vision Legal, Deep seabed mining: outcomes from the ISA’s July 2026 session: https://www.oceanvisionlegal.com/post/deep-seabed-mining-outcomes-from-the-isa-s-july-2026-session-continued-negotiations-court-orders
4. Vinson & Elkins, Deep Trouble Part 3: https://www.velaw.com/insights/deep-trouble-part-3-mining-the-middle-ground-the-seabed-disputes-chambers-order-on-provisional-measures/