Currently, global competition for strategic mineral resources continues to intensify, and the international seabed areas containing key minerals such as polymetallic nodules, cobalt rich ferromanganese crusts, and polymetallic sulfides have shifted from being the "frontier of scientific exploration" to the "focus of rule-based games". With the deliberations of the International Seabed Authority on the "Regulations on the Development of Mineral Resources in the Area" coming to a substantial halt due to disagreements on core issues such as environmental standards, institutional settings, and financial burdens, some countries have continuously challenged existing mechanisms through domestic legislation, small multilateral cooperation, and other unilateral measures, resulting in a delay in multilateral processes and fragmented and highly uncertain governance rules. In this context, the game of international seabed mineral resource governance rules is presenting a complex new situation, which profoundly affects the future direction of the global deep-sea governance system. The current situation of the game of international seabed mineral resource governance rules. The multilateral main channel negotiations are deepening but the process is hindered. The multilateral mechanism centered around the International Seabed Authority remains the main channel for rule making, with its core task being to achieve commercial development of mineral resources in the Area. After completing the exploration regulations for three types of resources, namely polymetallic nodules, cobalt rich ferromanganese crusts, and polymetallic sulfides, the organization initiated the review process for the "Regulations on Mineral Resource Development in the Area" in 2011 and has successively released drafts for 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2024. However, there are significant differences in substantive issues such as environmental standards, financial systems, contractor obligations, and institutional settings in the negotiations, which have entered deep waters. The delay in the introduction of key rules has led to the prolonged "vacuum period" of governance rules, which undoubtedly provides objective conditions and operational space for the growth of unilateral actions by individual countries. The structural contradiction between technological advancement and regulatory lag is highlighted. Deep sea mining technology is on a fast iteration track, and its development pace has significantly surpassed the progress of formulating multilateral governance rules. Some technologically advanced countries and their corporate entities, relying on their first mover advantage in core equipment research and development and maritime test verification, not only substantially promote the development process, but also in fact influence the future technological path and operational standards. This situation has a dual effect. On the one hand, forced rule negotiations must face the upcoming commercialization reality; On the other hand, in the absence of a binding global regulatory framework, factual standards shaped by pioneers may develop into industry conventions. This will inject enormous uncertainty into the global deep-sea governance system. Diversification of interest camps and differentiation of positions. During the review process of development regulations, different camps with distinct positions were formed based on the differences in national interests and development stages. Some developed countries and mineral resource consuming countries advocate simplifying procedures and accelerating the commercialization process in order to ensure supply chain security and seize industrial high ground; The camp composed of some Pacific island countries, EU member states, and international environmental organizations strongly calls for the suspension or even ban of deep-sea mining activities based on concerns about the fragile ecology of the deep sea; Developing countries, on the other hand, pay more attention to capacity building and fair benefits. Their core demands focus on substantive technology transfer and fair and reasonable profit sharing mechanisms, striving to find a difficult balance between resource development and environmental protection. The divergent positions and diverse interests of all parties make it extremely difficult to gather consensus and achieve a balanced solution in negotiations. The core dilemma of the game of international seabed mineral resource governance rules. The efficiency of multilateral rule making and governance authority continue to weaken. One of the core challenges facing international seabed area governance is the serious lag in the multilateral rule making process, which leads to the continuous loss of governance authority. This dilemma is closely related to the operation of the "consensus through consultation" decision-making mechanism. Specifically, when the negotiation topics delve into areas involving fundamental interests such as mining rights allocation and benefit sharing, this mechanism gives any member the ability to prevent consensus from being reached, leading to a long-term stalemate in the entire process. Taking the "Regulations on the Development of Mineral Resources in the Region" as an example, since its review was initiated in 2011, despite multiple rounds of negotiations and draft revisions, consensus has not been reached due to the deadlock among all parties on key provisions. This institutional lag not only slows down the process of commercial development, but also fuels unilateralism tendencies. The direct consequence is a "vacuum period" in governance rules, where countries either watch helplessly or act independently, ultimately leading to the risk of fragmentation in the global deep-sea governance system. The cooperation mechanism based on the principle of "common heritage of mankind" is being severely tested. The scientific basis for ecological protection and resource development is seriously insufficient. The deep sea is one of the largest biosphere on Earth, but there are still significant gaps in human understanding of the operational mechanisms and resilience baselines of deep-sea ecosystems. This lack of understanding is directly reflected in the negotiations of the International Seabed Authority, where key technical standards such as setting environmental benchmarks and determining ecological thresholds are difficult to reach consensus due to a lack of sufficient data support. Some countries and environmental organizations advocate implementing the highest standards of environmental protection based on the "precautionary principle", while resource demanding countries emphasize that development should not be indefinitely postponed due to scientific uncertainty. The rule dilemma caused by limited scientific knowledge makes any discussion about development and protection based on fragile foundations, which may hinder technological applications due to high standards or cause irreversible ecological damage due to inadequate regulation. It is difficult to establish a fair pattern of benefit distribution and development rights. As a capital and technology intensive industry, deep-sea mining objectively creates a huge gap in development capabilities between developed and developing countries. Developed countries, with their technological and financial advantages, have taken a significant lead in exploration equipment, mining systems, and environmental monitoring. However, many developing countries, despite having equal rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, are unable to participate substantively due to their limited capabilities. This structural inequality is directly reflected in the negotiation of development regulations, such as core clauses on mining fee rates, profit distribution mechanisms, technology transfer, etc., where there are significant differences in positions among all parties. Developed countries tend to adopt market-oriented solutions, advocating for the protection of intellectual property rights and investor returns; Developing countries emphasize the implementation of the principle of "common heritage of mankind", demand the establishment of a fair distribution mechanism that benefits all countries, and bridge capacity gaps through mandatory technology transfer. This fundamental divergence of interests, coupled with the systemic flaws brought about by some countries not yet joining the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has made it extremely difficult to build a universally accepted benefit sharing scheme. It not only delays the process of rule making, but also fundamentally shakes the international community's confidence in multilateral governance mechanisms. China's strategic choices and response measures. Strengthen the shaping of rules and lead the process of international governance. China has always adhered to participating in and leading the formulation of international rules as its core strategy. As a member of the International Seabed Authority Council, China is not only a follower of the current system, but also an active shaper of the future governance system. In the negotiation of the Regulations on the Development of Mineral Resources in the Area, the Chinese delegation systematically proposed a series of constructive solutions based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and its 1994 implementing agreement, including balancing development and environmental protection, safeguarding the fair rights and interests of contractors, and optimizing inspection mechanisms. These "Chinese solutions" that embody the principle of "common heritage of mankind" have gained widespread national recognition and have been included in several draft regulations, contributing key efforts to breaking the negotiation deadlock and accelerating the introduction of multilateral rules. In the future, China should strive to transform from a "key participant" in rule making to a "core leader", actively setting scientific issues, building broad consensus alliances, and leading the shaping of a fair and sustainable new international seabed governance order. Tackle core technologies and master the autonomy of development. The breakthrough in deep-sea mining technology is the cornerstone of achieving strategic autonomy. Faced with the technological advantages of some countries, China must seize the opportunity to achieve leapfrog development. The country has set a clear roadmap for the development of deep-sea technology, integrating the strengths of industry, academia, and research, focusing on key technologies such as mining systems, mineral upgrading, and environmental monitoring, and conducting deep-sea field experiments as soon as possible. At the same time, based on independent innovation, international cooperation should be actively carried out to quickly fill the gaps through joint research and development, technology introduction, and other means, ensuring that China has a complete set of independent, reliable, and environmentally friendly technological capabilities when entering the commercial development stage in related fields. Coordinate the market and capital, and build an industrial support system. The success of commercial development cannot be achieved without a mature market environment and sustainable investment. China needs to strengthen its trend analysis and strategic analysis of the global seabed metal market, providing decision-making basis for industrial policy formulation. In terms of funding, innovative investment and financing mechanisms should be established to encourage and guide state-owned enterprises, private capital, and even international funds to jointly invest in this strategic field through policies such as fiscal and tax incentives. In addition, we should actively fulfill our international responsibilities and support the capacity building of other developing countries. This is not only a manifestation of the principle of "common heritage of mankind", but also helps to consolidate a broader international consensus. Improve domestic rule of law and achieve internal and external strategic coordination. A sound domestic legal system is the fundamental guarantee for fulfilling international obligations and exercising international rights. China has established a domestic legal system centered on the Deep Sea Subsea Resource Exploration and Development Law and supported by multiple supporting management measures. In the future, China should continue to promote the dynamic adjustment and coordinated development of domestic laws and international rules, ensuring that domestic contractors engage in compliant activities under international rules. At the same time, China's practical achievements and institutional advantages should be transformed into stronger international rule discourse power through legislative upgrading, forming a virtuous cycle of "domestic law promoting international practice, and international practice feedback domestic law". Author: Jin Yongming (Vice Dean of the Institute of Ocean Development at Ocean University of China and Director of the China Institute of Ocean Security)