The governance of seabed has always been a paramount concern of the international community even at the time of formulating foundational principles for the administration oceans. While the prospective economic benefits exert a strong allure on the states around the world to take concrete steps towards the commencement of seabed mining at commercial scale, the significant environmental threats it poses stands as a formidable hurdle. The proactive steps taken by states like Nauru, Tonga, Cook Islands illustrate the mounting pressure upon the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to grant permission for exploitation of seabed minerals. Since the seabed beyond national jurisdiction is designated as the common heritage of mankind, it is inevitable to have a robust legal framework for the governance of activities on the seabed is imperative. Such a legal framework shall ensure not only sustainability but also prevents unwarranted destruction of marine environment and resources of the oceans. The law, hence, should be uncompromising in ensuring that the heritage of mankind is safeguarded. Even a minute deficiency in this legal architecture could have profound and adverse consequences for whole humanity, both present and future generations. Therefore, the law should always remain vigilant to protect the universal interest and to sanction the violations. While the imperative for preserving marine ecology is a recurring theme throughout the provisions of the UNCLOS, 1982 and the ISA’s Mining Codes, a significant lacuna emerges concerning countermeasures for illegal activities. On this point, the law currently wanders in a state of uncertainty.

The liability regime governing the seabed mining can be traced from various sources. The liability of the contractor as well as ISA finds its place in UNCLOS as well as in the ISA Mining Codes. The liability of the sponsoring states received clarification from the Seabed Dispute Chamber through its Advisory opinion in 2011. The liability and also its extend varies among each of these parties. Notably, the nature and extent of liability differ among these various parties. A peculiar paradox exists: although the Area enjoys the elevated status of the common heritage of mankind, liability is triggered solely by the commission of a wrongful act, with the wrongdoer then bearing responsibility for the full extent of the damage. This contingent framework creates more complications than it resolves. It gives rise to a multitude of complex issues, ranging from foundational legal doctrines such as the principle of locus standi to the profoundly challenging task of quantifying environmental damage in a deep-sea context. Neither UNCLOS, 1982 nor the Mining Codes provides sufficient clarity on the specific measures to be adopted following a wrongful act, nor do they establish a definitive procedure for such scenarios. This procedural ambiguity compounds the substantive gaps in the regime.

This paper will undertake a critical analysis of the shortcomings inherent in the present liability regime for seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction. Furthermore, it will examine the feasibility and desirability of incorporating the doctrine of strict liability into this legal realm as a potential mechanism to strengthen accountability.