Main points

• The mandate and structure of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has certain features that expose it to perceived or actual conflicts of interest. These require management via administrative mechanisms, many of which have not yet been addressed by the ISA.
• The ISA has received public criticism from high profile media outlets for conflict-of-interest transgressions that erode legitimacy and public trust. Losing support from primary stakeholders threatens fragmentation of global governance of shared resources and undermines multilateralism. The ISA must strengthen governance and procedural safeguards to ensure that decisions taken by its state membership on behalf of all of humankind remain impartial and accountable.
• Timing is right for reform. In 2026, the ISA is at a critical juncture: new leadership, global ‘critical mineral’ debates intensifying and companies pushing to mine the deep seabed for the first time – with some states threatening to do so outside the ISA’s permitting framework. Together these factors provide an opportunity, and necessity, for the ISA to establish stronger governance and manage potential conflicts of interest.
• The stakes are heightened by the ISA’s role as a possible institutional precedent for the new multilateral governance bodies being established under the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement, which came into force in January 2026.