Highlights and images for 30 July 2026

During the penultimate day of the Assembly, delegates focused on the periodic review of the international regime of the Area (the seabed, ocean floor, and subsoil lying completely beyond the limits of national jurisdiction) and considered a proposal for "a request for an advisory opinion from the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on the legal implications for the International Seabed Authority (ISA) of activities in the Area undertaken by non-States Parties."

Discussions on the periodic review in the morning revealed divergent positions among members. South Africa for the African Group, Germany, Belgium, France, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Finland, Greece, Malta, the Philippines, Brazil, the UK, Italy, Canada, Australia, Guatemala, Chile, the Cook Islands, Zambia, Bangladesh, and the Republic of the Congo supported initiating the review process. 

They cited UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Article 154 (Periodic review), emphasizing that the requirement for the periodic review is non-discretionary and constitutes an integral part of the institutional balance of the Convention. They underscored that the review offers a vital opportunity to strengthen the ISA, enhance the effectiveness of its governance structure, streamline operations, and enhance transparency, accountability, and mutual trust. 

In contrast, while recognizing that UNCLOS provides for the periodic review, China, Japan, India, and the Russian Federation emphasized that initiating it at this stage would divert time, as well as human and financial resources, from the negotiations on the draft exploitation regulations.

They stressed the need to develop a clear understanding of the purpose of the review before deciding upon embarking on such an endeavor, with several adding that there is no allocation in the 2027–2028 budget for conducting the review. Norway called for carefully considering the timing of the periodic review.

Civil society observer organizations stressed that the periodic review is a legal obligation, noting the last one was a decade ago and now multilateralism is under threat. 

President Whitehead noted there is no consensus and suggested deferring consideration of the periodic review to the next Assembly session, which was agreed.

The afternoon was devoted to consideration of a request for an advisory opinion from ITLOS pursuant to UNCLOS Article 191 (Advisory opinions) on the legal implications for the ISA of activities in the Area undertaken by non-States Parties. The relevant document included a draft decision and three draft questions to be addressed to ITLOS on:

• whether the principle of non-appropriation has acquired the status of customary international law;
• the legal nature, scope, and extent of ISA members’ obligations not to recognize any claim of sovereign rights over the Area or appropriation of its resources; and
• the legal nature, scope, and extent of members’ obligations not to recognize any claim, acquisition, or exercise of rights with respect to the minerals recovered from the Area.

Many delegates, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Jamaica, and others, stressed that adopting the decision on requesting an advisory opinion would be premature. They stressed that substantive discussion is required on the content of the legal questions to be addressed by ITLOS, if any, and highlighted:

• insufficient time to consider the proposal;
• lack of engagement with ISA members, stressing that the advisory opinion may affect their legal obligations;
• lack of transparency on the proposal’s development; and
• insufficient deliberations on the questions, stressing that their scope and broad implications need to be carefully examined. 

Others, including South Africa for the African Group, Germany, Indonesia, Romania, Greece, and others, supported, in principle, the request for an advisory opinion, reiterating the ISA’s exclusive mandate to regulate activities in the Area and noting that advisory opinions are important institutional mechanisms to assist the ISA and its organs in addressing complex legal questions. They added, however, that further state-led discussion is required on the legal questions, with the African Group also calling for a deliberation on the broader strategic institutional implications. 

China, the Russian Federation, and others urged addressing the issue intersessionally if a decision is not feasible at this session. President Whitehead suggested further informal consultations on the way forward and noted that discussions will continue Friday.

During the day’s deliberations, delegates also continued their discussion on the annual report of the ISA Secretary-General and concluded consideration of the activities of the interim Director-General of the Enterprise, taking note of the report. They also held informal discussions on guidelines for observer status of contractors within the ISA and on a draft decision regarding the adequate scientific understanding to support informed decision-making in the ISA.