As nations pursue energy transitions and technological innovation, demand for critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare-earth elements has surged. These minerals are not only essential for renewable energy and high-tech applications but are also deeply entwined with global power dynamics. Central to their movement is maritime transport, which accounts for over 80% of worldwide trade and underpins critical mineral supply chains. However, naval shipping is increasingly vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions.
This article, based on a systematic literature review and grounded in neorealist international relations theory, explores the reciprocal relationship between geopolitics and the maritime trade in critical minerals, revealing how security, infrastructure, and global strategies intersect with mineral flows.
Geopolitical crises significantly affect critical mineral mining, trade, and transportation, manifesting in various forms, including political pressure, economic sanctions, military conflicts, and terrorism. Political and media scrutiny has led to delays and restrictions on mining projects, driven by concerns about environmental and human rights issues. This has been particularly evident in the criticism surrounding Australia’s use of indigenous lands and China’s mining activities in Greenland.
Additionally, trade sanctions, notably the Western response to Russia following the events of 2014 and 2022, have hindered Arctic projects and disrupted established supply chains. Military conflicts, like the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, have not only raised energy prices but also increased maritime insurance costs and shifted global trade flows. As a result, Europe has become more reliant on liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States, with shipments increasingly routed via the Atlantic.
Furthermore, threats posed by terrorism and piracy in regions such as the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have compromised port security and altered global shipping routes, necessitating a diversion of maritime traffic around the Cape of Good Hope. Together, these factors illustrate the complex interplay between geopolitical dynamics and the critical mineral sector.
Shipping routes and ports are strategic geopolitical assets. Nations respond to critical mineral supply risks by building new infrastructure, asserting maritime sovereignty, and forging international alliances. The Indian Ocean, with chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal, is a central arena for strategic competition. China, India, and the U.S. all have growing interests in this region.
New routes and infrastructure, such as Arctic passages, Gwadar Port in Pakistan, and the proposed Kra Canal in Thailand, are being developed to bypass traditional choke points and reduce reliance on vulnerable shipping routes. Control over these passages can shift global power balances. For instance, China’s involvement in Gwadar heightens competition with India and raises regional tensions.
Climate Change and Deglobalization: Complicating Factors
Environmental shifts and the rhetoric of global integration are reshaping the landscape of maritime geopolitics in significant ways. One major development is the melting of Arctic ice, which has opened up new shipping routes. This has intensified disputes over sovereignty and usage rights in the region. While Arctic nations are asserting exclusive control over newly accessible areas, other global actors, such as China and the European Union, advocate open governance to ensure that these routes benefit a wider array of countries.
In addition to geopolitical tensions, the global push for decarbonization has led to an increased demand for green-energy minerals. However, this shift is occurring against a backdrop of deglobalization and regional fragmentation, which have disrupted supply chains. In some cases, these challenges have even prompted renewed investments in fossil fuels, complicating the long-term goals for sustainable energy. As a result, the evolving dynamics of maritime geopolitics reflect a complex interplay between environmental changes and the competing interests of nations in the pursuit of energy and resources.
The maritime transport of critical minerals is increasingly contributing to future geopolitical risks. One key concern is that the emergence of new trade routes may create divisions within existing alliances; for instance, tensions within ASEAN could escalate as trade dynamics shift due to the anticipated Kra Canal. Additionally, developing countries may become hotspots of instability if their access to critical maritime passages is jeopardized by piracy, militarization, or exclusion from governance frameworks. This scenario underscores the growing relevance of mineral politics as a new battleground in global rivalry, as evidenced by U.S.-led initiatives to circumvent China’s dominance, including the Minerals Security Partnership and the expansion of BRICS+6.
The geopolitics of critical minerals is inseparable from global maritime trade. As great powers compete for supply chain security, shipping routes and infrastructure become flashpoints in an increasingly contested global order. Climate change, deglobalization, and technological shifts complicate these dynamics. If left unchecked, these tensions could lead to future crises.
A more balanced research agenda that incorporates environmental justice, developing-country voices, and shipping-focused analyses is crucial to building fair, resilient, and sustainable global critical-mineral supply chains.