China’s 2024 revision of the Mineral Resources Law seeks to integrate resource allocation, ecological governance, and strategic resource security within a single legal framework. This article examines the sustainability implications of the reform through an institutional-coupling framework that identifies how legal mechanisms link allocation, accountability, and resilience across the mining lifecycle. The study combines doctrinal and policy-oriented legal analysis with a purposively selected, document-based provincial case study of Guangxi and a functional comparison with the European Union and Australia. The analysis identifies contractual, financial, informational, administrative, participatory, and remedial mechanisms through which mineral-right allocation is linked to lifecycle ecological responsibility and strategic mineral governance. The findings indicate that mineral law can provide a legal and institutional basis for coordinating economic objectives, ecological responsibility, and long-term resource security. The analysis also identifies implementation risks, including gaps between formal compliance and ecological outcomes, as well as insufficient coordination of supply-security measures with environmental safeguards. By placing China’s reform in dialogue with research on the resource curse, just transition, lifecycle governance, and critical minerals, the article contributes a mechanism-based account of legal integration. Its conclusions remain limited to legal design and early administrative implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: