On 30 May 2026, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (“NORI”) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (“TOML”), two subsidiaries of The Metals Company (“TMC”), filed parallel cases against the International Seabed Authority (“ISA”) before the Seabed Disputes Chamber (“SDC”) of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”).[1] The cases, entered as Case No. 34 and Case No. 35, allege violations of due process, transparency, and violations of the principle of non-discrimination in the conduct of an ongoing compliance inquiry.
These are the first contentious proceedings testing the ISA’s framework. Their resolution will indirectly inform the growing tension between the U.S. permitting framework under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 (“DSHMRA”) and the multilateral regime established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), and will be determinative of the ISA’s institutional credibility.
NORI and TOML hold ISA exploration contracts for polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, sponsored by Nauru and Tonga, respectively.[2] The ISA has issued 31 exploration contracts to 21 contractors; more than USD2 billion has been invested in mineral exploration in the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (the “Area”) since 2001. However, no commercial exploitation has yet been approved, as the Mining Code remains under development.
On 27 March 2025, TMC announced that its U.S. subsidiary, TMC USA LLC (“TMC USA”), would apply for a deep-seabed mining permit under DSHMRA, citing the ISA’s failure to adopt exploitation regulations as a reason for pursuing exploitation under the DSHMRA regime.[3] On 24 April 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14285, establishing policies to advance U.S. leadership in seabed mineral recovery.[4] TMC USA submitted two applications to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) on 29 April 2025. On 1 May 2026, NOAA determined the exploration application compliant with DSHMRA requirements, and on 26 May 2026, NOAA certified the consolidated exploration/commercial recovery application. These determinations of compliance and certification do not grant TMC USA any approvals for deep sea exploration or mining activities, but rather are intermediate milestones in NOAA’s ongoing review of the applications.. Critically, TMC USA’s application areas overlap with, and in significant part are identical to, the areas under NORI’s and TOML’s ISA contracts, raising the spectre of a de facto transfer of rights from the ISA regime to the U.S. domestic regime.[5]
The claims advanced by NORI and TOML against the ISA arise out of a compliance inquiry originated in the ISA Council’s decision ISBA/30/C/19 of July 2025, which requested the Secretary-General to investigate contractors that may have acted inconsistently with the UNCLOS regime. In January 2026, the Secretary-General’s Circular/2026/001 requested all 21 contractors to provide information on potential non-compliance with the standard clauses contained in their ISA exploration contracts. NORI and TOML responded, asserting full compliance. In March 2026, the ISA’s Legal and Technical Committee (“LTC”) reported it had identified a contractor requiring “specific attention” for possible non-compliance (though without naming it) and subsequently notified NORI and TOML of their identification for possible non-compliance arising from “direct or indirect actions related to activities in the Area.”[6] NORI and its sponsoring State, Nauru, and TOML, and its sponsoring State, Tonga, respectively sought clarification of the procedure and legal basis for this identification, but the ISA declined to respond, prompting the present proceedings. In parallel, the ISA deferred its decision-making in relation to NORI’s contract extension application.[7], [8]
Both claims are framed as breaches of procedure, though they differ in emphasis:
- NORI focuses on the LTC’s inquiry’s impact on its application to extend its exploration contract, and alleges that the ISA treated its extension application inconsistently with those of other applicants.
- TOML focuses on the broader harm the inquiry causes to its legitimate interests in its exploration contract and to its compliance record, alleging that it is already prejudiced in its ability to participate in the inquiry by the ISA’s failure to provide it with information.
The substance of the two claims can be considered together. Each company alleges, in summary, that:
- its identification as requiring “specific attention to possible non-compliance” was made without lawful procedural basis and in breach of procedural fairness, transparency, due process and the ISA’s own criteria and methodology for identifying contractors at risk of non-compliance (the due process ground); and
- the ISA has breached its obligation under the exploration contracts and UNCLOS to exercise its powers and functions in good faith (the good faith ground).
Each claim is accompanied by a request for provisional measures. The companies ask that, unless and until the alleged procedural defects in the inquiry are remedied, the ISA be ordered not to make any decision that would prejudge, refuse or otherwise adversely affect their applications to extend their exploration contracts.
Accordingly, the SDC will not be considering whether NORI and TOML did in fact comply with the obligations under their ISA exploration contracts. Uncertainty remains for any contractors with, or currently seeking, overlapping licences, as to whether a breach may arise from: (i) providing ISA-collected exploration data to a sister company for use in a non-ISA application; (ii) publicly endorsing an alternative regulatory pathway allegedly inconsistent with the obligation to accept ISA control; (iii) amending sponsorship agreements to create arrangements predicated on that alternative pathway; and (iv) maintaining ISA contracts to preserve exclusive access while the corporate group pursues parallel exploitation rights over the same areas. It will be instructive to see how the discrimination and due process claims are particularised and discussed, and what guidance the SDC’s decisions provide.
For present purposes, the broader significance of these cases lies in their timing. With the exploitation regulations still under development, an exploration contract is more than a permit to explore: It is a legal position that may preserve access to future exploitation opportunities. The two cases represent distinct pathways by which exploitation-related disputes can emerge before exploitation itself begins. NORI’s case turns on contract extension: Its contract expires in July 2026, and the overlap between the LTC’s roles in the inquiry and the extension assessment creates a risk of procedural contamination. TOML’s case foregrounds compliance standing: Being identified as a contractor requiring “specific attention” may affect its regulatory position even before any formal exploitation decision arises. Together, they show how administrative judgments in the exploration phase may shape opportunities in the exploitation phase.
The provisional measures requests sharpen this timing problem. Both contractors seek orders suspending the inquiry and preventing the ISA from adopting, publishing or relying on any findings pending the SDC’s final decision. With response deadlines and LTC/Council meetings falling in June–July 2026, and NORI’s contract due to expire on 22 July 2026, the ISA’s internal processes may produce practical consequences before the SDC can address the merits. Provisional measures thus operate as a mechanism of procedural compression, bringing forward questions of institutional authority that might otherwise unfold gradually. Even without deciding the merits, the SDC may need to address the plausibility of rights, urgency and irreparable prejudice. If the cases reinforce concerns about the ISA’s efficiency, predictability or internal governance, they may create political space for, and increased interest in, alternative legal pathways and unilateral regulatory regimes.
The cases filed by NORI and TOML represent a turning point in the governance of the international deep seabed, regardless of their outcome. Whether the SDC rules on the merits, addresses provisional measures, or declines jurisdiction, it will produce jurisprudential material that will shape the pre-exploitation legal order. An applicant-friendly outcome would impose procedural constraints on the ISA’s regulatory conduct; an ISA-friendly outcome would clarify the legal basis, limits, and conditions of the ISA’s powers of inquiry. Either way, the SDC will articulate institutional boundaries that will guide future exploitation-stage disputes. The contractors’ turn to the SDC also demonstrates the ISA system’s continuing institutional value: Commercial exploitation depends on secure rights, lawful permits, and the downstream market acceptance that an ISA licence can provide and that alternative routes may struggle to replicate. For deep-sea mining stakeholders, the key takeaway is that the international legal landscape remains deeply contested. These cases are best understood as a stress test for the ISA system, pressing it to clarify the foundations of its authority and the logic of its regulatory oversight, while asking the SDC to respond earlier than expected to disputes that may shape the law of deep-sea mining for a generation. Until these competing claims of authority are resolved, the regulatory risk for companies operating in this space remains exceptionally high and multijurisdictional.
[1] Case concerning an inquiry by the International Seabed Authority (Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. v. International Seabed Authority) | International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; Case concerning an inquiry by the International Seabed Authority (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. v. International Seabed Authority) | International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
[2] List of Exploration Contracts granted by the ISA: Exploration Contracts – International Seabed Authority.
[3] Press release from The Metals Company dated 27 March 2025: The Metals Company to Apply for Permits under Existing U.S. Mining Code for Deep-Sea Minerals in the High Seas in Second Quarter of 2025 | The Metals Company.
[4] Executive Order 14285 of April 24, 2025, “Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources,” 90 Fed. Reg. 17735, April 29, 2025.
[5] TMC USA Applications for Polymetallic Nodule Exploration License for USA-A and USA-B, dated July 2025: https://www.regulations.gov/document/NOAA-NOS-2025-0702-0002 and https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NOS-2025-1330.
[6] Letter from LTC to TOML/ NORI dated 16 March 2026, as quoted at paragraph 38 of TOML’s Application to the SDC.
[7] Decision of the Council of the International Seabed Authority relating to the reports of the Chair of the Legal and Technical Commission, ISBA/30/C/19 – International Seabed Authority.
[8] Letter from the Authority to NORI dated 16 March 2026, as quoted at paragraph 56 of NORI’s Application.
