u/yarenSC

Links to sources at the bottom
I am not a lawyer

TL;DR: IMO, this was all in favor of TMC and sets up a more likely approval from the ISA of their contract extension request on Monday

-------------

THESE ARE THE MAIN FINDINGS - At least read this part if nothing else

Note that there's 54 pages of PDF. They only discussed some sections in the hearing

IMO, this was all in favor of TMC. Only thing better would have been if the court had told ISA they were forced to renew and forced to view TMC-USA as a separate legal entity. But that wouldn't realistically have happened and wasn't asked for by TMC

Operative Measures NORI - 47:32 The chamber Unanimously prescribes:

• The Authority shall act according to legal frameworks when evaluating the exploration contract
• In particular, the Authority shall clarify or provide to NORI the relevant information to provide meaningfully to the questions posed to them, and for NORI to constructively work with the Authority in a reasonable timeframe
• The parties shall cooperate and refrain from actions leading to aggravating the dispute
• NORI and the Authority shall submit a report to the Chamber no later than Aug 31st 2026 on how they're working to resolve the dispute
• Each party shall pay its own costs for this court case (ISA had asked for TMC to pay the ISA fees - common for a defendant to ask this in cases; but was denied)

TOML Provisional Measures

• (Same bullets as NORI)

------------

More details from the first 3/4 of the recording

Chamber findings (my summary from the video)

First 15 minutes of the recording are mostly a summary of what the case was about

• The Chamber found prima facie jurisdiction exists (aka, they have jurisdiction to look at the case): Good
  • This is the most important thing IMO - Otherwise, the ISA could easily back out of their draft decision to extend the contract that will be decided Monday, since they would have no legal pressure. But now they're more likely to stick with the extension draft
• Chamber confirms there was a dispute: Good
• Chamber finds that the parties have attempted to exchange views. "The chamber wishes to recall A party is not obliged to continue with an exchange of views when it concludes that the possibility of reaching an agreement has been exhausted" - 27:53 : Good
  • ISA had argued that NORI was stonewalling them by not directly answering and sending a list of their own questions back. This seemed like one of the more plausible ISA arguments to me during the hearing. Glad to see it didn't hold up.
• "The chamber shall not pronounce on the merits of The Authorities[aka the ISA] exercise of its discretionary powers [...] much less act as a substitute for the Authority in the exercise of its discretion when evaluating possible instances of non-compliance or assessing the extension of a contract. The jurisdiction of the chamber in these proceedings concerns the observance of the Authority of Due Process. Such observance being required by the relevant legal framework is extranious to the exercise of the Authority of the Authority on its discretionary powers. In light of the foregoing the chamber finds the article does not preclude the assertion of its jurisdiction in these proceedings" 31:45 : Mostly Good?
• NORI claims the ISAs inquiry is violating its due process in trying to find if there is non-compliance since it wasn't part of a structured process before an escalation. - 36:00
  • The chamber is not called upon to if the rights claimed exist or to settle the claims of the parties. Only to decide if the rights are plausible.
  • The chamber is of the view that due process requires consistent application of the procedure. The Commissions procedure states contracts must be told possible consequences in advance.
  • The chamber finds the right asserted by NORI, including the right to be informed of the case against it, is plausible - GOOD
• The chamber may give provisional measures if the situation is urgent if irreparable damage may happen if they don't. They find that there could be a real and irreparable risk to NORI: GOOD 40:00-ish (finding at 42:20)
• The chamber finds they parties must cooperate :rofl:. And each party must submit ASAP a report on compliance with the provisional measures prescribed: Neutral 44:15 - 47:35

--------

ITLOS outcome:

Nauru (NORI): https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/case-concerning-an-inquiry-by-the-international-seabed-authority-nauru-ocean-resources-inc-v-international-seabed-authority/case-concerning-an-inquiry-by-the-international-seabed-authority-nauru-ocean-resources-inc-v-international-seabed-authority-provisional-measures/

Tonga (TOML): https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/case-concerning-an-inquiry-by-the-international-seabed-authority-tonga-offshore-mining-ltd-v-international-seabed-authority/case-concerning-an-inquiry-by-the-international-seabed-authority-tonga-offshore-mining-ltd-v-international-seabed-authority-provisional-measures/

Recording:

https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/webcast/webcast-archives-cases-nos-34-35/ (No direct link, scroll all the way to the right in the list to "18.07.26: Reading of the Orders")

Findings for NORI:

Main doc: https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/34/Provisional_Measures/Order_180726/C34_Order_18.07.2026_orig.pdf

(Long, not going to try and read it all - video recording is the key points I believe)

Supplements from 2 judges

• https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/34/Provisional_Measures/Order_180726/C34_C35_Order_18.07.2026_decl_Kittichaisaree_orig.pdf
  • mostly philosophical musings. Seems to be more in favor of TMC with lines like
  • "Sponsoring States and contractors have invested decades of scientific research, technological innovation and vast financial capital in the prospect of deep seabed mining. They have done so under a grand, treaty-bound promise – the promise of a forthcoming, stable deep seabed exploitation regime"
• https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/34/Provisional_Measures/Order_180726/C34_Order_18.07.2026_decl_Brown_orig.pdf
  • mostly talking about if TMC/NORI/TOML had the right to bring a case to ITLOS, and agreeing they did, but for different reasons than the main outcome

EDIT: Formatting