Rest of the world has moved on in the seabed mining debate and is unlikely to tolerate unilateral US action

The work of formal international organizations, as well as interstate treaty negotiating conferences, may shape U.S. attitudes and actions. This is true not only of organizations in which the United States actively participates as a member, but also of organizations in which the United States is not a member. For example, the International Seabed Authority, headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica, is fully operational. It has received plans of work for deep seabed exploration from registered investors, has developed deep-seabed-mining regulations, and is currently considering an application for mining operations.64 These develop- ments, as well as the negotiating histories and texts of the Convention and the Part XI Agreement, limit the United States' ability credibly to assert that seabed mining beyond the limits of national jurisdiction is a high seas freedom, akin to the freedom of navigation. Legally and practically, opponents of the post- 1994 international seabed mining regime have simply lost the debate. The rest of the world-developed and developing states, market-oriented and non-market-oriented states-has accepted the revised mining regime. Any unilateral effort by a U.S. company to mine the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction would almost certainly face opposition from the rest of the world, and the U.S. company's mining claims would be insecure.