The Amsterdam Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) to limit the right to protest at sea in connection with deep sea mining. The case followed NORI’s request to impose a 500-meter exclusion zone around its deep sea mining vessel. NORI is described as a subsidiary of The Metals Company, and the dispute involved protests against its operations in the Pacific Ocean.
Court action over exclusion zone around deep sea mining vessel
Greenpeace International had been seeking to stage protests related to NORI’s deep sea mining activities. NORI’s proposed exclusion zone was intended to prevent Greenpeace from staging demonstrations against the company’s operations in the Pacific Ocean. The appeal decision upheld the rejection of NORI’s attempt to restrict protest activity.
In late November 2023, Greenpeace had already resisted a separate legal effort by NORI to obtain an injunction against a peaceful protest. That protest involved kayaks and small boats disrupting a mining expedition. At the time, the Amsterdam District Court said it understood Greenpeace’s actions and pointed to potentially very serious consequences of deep sea mining.
Application of ECHR on vessels flagged by member states
In its ruling, the Court affirmed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to vessels flying flags of ECHR member states, including the vessel used by NORI. The decision addressed NORI’s argument that the ECHR does not apply in international waters. The Court’s approach reaffirmed that protest rights can be considered on the high seas.
The Court also found that NORI did not provide sufficient evidence showing that Greenpeace’s protests posed any concrete risk to its operations. This assessment weakened NORI’s legal claim related to restricting protest activity. The appeal decision therefore rejected NORI’s bid to limit protest at sea.
Greenpeace response and wider opposition to deep sea mining
Greenpeace welcomed the ruling as support for peaceful protest in the context of deep sea mining. Greenpeace International Legal Counsel Michel Uiterwaal said cases like this can be used to drain resources from activist organizations that do not accept funding from governments or corporations. Louisa Casson, a Greenpeace campaigner, linked the decision to broader opposition to deep sea mining.
Casson said more than 30 governments have called for a halt to the industry, and that major businesses and insurers have distanced themselves from deep sea mining. Greenpeace continued to argue that governments should act before deep sea mining causes irreversible harm to oceans. The ruling was presented by Greenpeace as reinforcing protection for protest rights amid environmental threats as scrutiny of the industry increases.