08/26/2026
Do Articles 137 and 139 of UNCLOS establish a universal legal regime for all seabed mineral activities, irrespective of the regulatory framework they operate under? As legal experts note, what would be non-compliant for a State Party to UNCLOS does not apply to activities of American companies operating under longstanding U.S. law, as the U.S. is not a party to the Treaty.
"A final point should be made regarding the implications of Article 139 for participation in projects licensed under a US domestic regime. Article 139 speaks of an obligation to “ensure” compliance with UNCLOS. Since UNCLOS binds its States Parties, the obligation to ensure compliance arises only where compliance with UNCLOS is legally in issue. The US is not a party to UNCLOS. Its conduct, as such, cannot be characterized as non-compliant with UNCLOS, because UNCLOS does not apply to it as a treaty matter. Accordingly, even if Article 139 were given the wider interpretation discussed above, and extended to all nationals and all forms of participation, involvement in exploration or exploitation programmes licensed by a non-party would not present a question of compliance with UNCLOS."
chbuk9459 Blog 25/08/2026 25/08/2026 By Nathan Eastwood, Haeran Chung and Iuliia Samsonova 1. Introduction Do Articles 137 and 139 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establish a universal legal regime governing all seabed mineral activities, irrespective of the regulator...
