Strategic Implications of U.S. Delays in Ratifying UNCLOS for Blue Economy Investments

The blue economy, a $2.2 trillion global sector as of 2025, is poised to become a cornerstone of sustainable economic growth and geopolitical strategy. However, the United States' prolonged delay in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has created a complex web of opportunities and risks for investors in oceanic resource markets. This analysis examines how U.S. policy choices-particularly its unilateral push for deep-sea mining and its stalled UNCLOS ratification-reshape the geopolitical landscape and financial dynamics of the blue economy.

Geopolitical Implications: A Fractured Ocean Governance Framework

The U.S. remains one of only a handful of major nations that have not ratified UNCLOS, a treaty ratified by 170 countries as of 2025. This absence weakens its ability to shape international maritime norms, particularly as the BBNJ Treaty-a supplementary agreement under UNCLOS to protect biodiversity in international waters-approaches its 60-ratification threshold for entry into force on January 17, 2026. The U.S. is evaluating its position on the BBNJ Treaty, but its lack of participation in UNCLOS itself limits its influence over critical issues such as marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments, and the equitable sharing of marine genetic resources.

A pivotal 2025 development was the introduction of bipartisan Senate Resolution S.Res.331, which called for the U.S. to ratify UNCLOS to safeguard national security, assert navigational rights, and strengthen its role in global maritime governance. Military leaders, including the former Chief of Naval Operations, have emphasized that ratification would provide a stronger legal foundation for challenging excessive maritime claims and defending U.S. interests in exclusive economic zones (EEZs). However, the resolution has yet to translate into concrete action, leaving the U.S. in a precarious position as other nations advance their agendas under the UNCLOS framework.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration's April 2025 Executive Order, "Unleashing America's Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources," has accelerated domestic efforts to exploit seabed minerals in international waters, bypassing the International Seabed Authority (ISA). This move, framed as a "core national security and economic interest", has drawn sharp criticism from the EU and China, who argue it violates UNCLOS's principle that the deep seabed is the "common heritage of mankind." The U.S. absence from the ISA further erodes its moral authority to advocate for a rules-based order, potentially empowering China and other actors to reshape international norms in their favor.

Financial Opportunities and Risks in Oceanic Resource Markets

The blue economy's growth is driven by innovations in sustainable aquaculture, marine technology, and critical mineral extraction. However, the U.S. delay in UNCLOS ratification and its unilateral approach to deep-sea mining create both volatility and potential for strategic investors.

Opportunities in Critical Minerals and Blue Bonds
The global energy transition has intensified demand for seabed minerals like nickel, cobalt, and manganese, essential for batteries and green technologies. U.S. companies such as The Metals Company (TMC) and Korea Zinc have secured exploration licenses in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone under domestic law, circumventing the ISA's stalled regulatory process. While this could position the U.S. to dominate seabed mining, it also risks triggering a "land grab" in international waters, destabilizing the ISA's authority and complicating global governance.

Risks from Regulatory Uncertainty and Environmental Concerns
The U.S. approach to deep-sea mining raises significant legal and environmental risks. Critics argue that seabed mining could irreversibly damage deep-sea ecosystems, with growing calls for a precautionary pause on exploitation. Additionally, the ISA's regulatory vacuum-its deadline for finalizing mining rules was extended to July 2025-creates uncertainty for investors, as does the potential for litigation over U.S. compliance with customary international law.

Geopolitically, the U.S. strategy risks undermining its extended continental shelf claims and weakening its position in maritime disputes, particularly in the South China Sea. This could deter foreign investment in U.S.-led blue economy projects and complicate partnerships with allies who prioritize multilateral governance.

Strategic Recommendations for Investors

1. Diversify Exposure to Blue Economy Sectors: Prioritize investments in sustainable aquaculture, marine biotechnology, and recycling technologies, which align with both environmental goals and long-term profitability.
2. Monitor Geopolitical Shifts: Track U.S. ratification of UNCLOS and the BBNJ Treaty, as these will determine the legal framework for international resource governance.
3. Engage in Advocacy for Multilateral Solutions: Support initiatives that promote transparent, science-based governance of the high seas, such as the ISA's regulatory process, to mitigate risks from unilateral actions.
4. Assess Environmental and Legal Risks: Conduct due diligence on seabed mining projects, considering potential litigation, regulatory changes, and ecological impacts.

Conclusion

The U.S. delay in ratifying UNCLOS and its aggressive push for deep-sea mining reflect a strategic pivot toward unilateralism in ocean governance. While this creates short-term opportunities for domestic firms, it also heightens geopolitical tensions and regulatory uncertainty. For investors, the blue economy offers immense potential, but success will depend on navigating the interplay between geopolitical dynamics, environmental stewardship, and evolving international law. As the BBNJ Treaty moves toward implementation in 2026, the coming months will be critical in shaping the future of oceanic resource markets.