Abstract
Effective control is central to the State sponsorship system for deep seabed mining (DSM) in the Area. It ensures there is always a State(s) responsible for private sector company DSM contractors, and is a precondition for the relationship between a non-State ISA contractor and its sponsoring State (UNCLOS). Two core approaches have emerged in literature and in practice to interpreting 'effective control': 'regulatory control' and 'economic control'. To date, the ISA has allowed the former, satisfying effective control merely by company registration in the sponsoring State. The ISA's Council is currently negotiating draft exploitation regulations, providing a pivotal opportunity to reshape ISA practices and set a clear definition at the international level. Analyzing both approaches, this paper concludes that appropriate accountability over private sector company contractors and meaningful participation by developing States in the DSM regime can only be achieved by including both regulatory and economic control elements in 'effective control.'