As governments race to secure minerals for clean energy, AI, defense, and manufacturing, this study reveals how “criticality” has become a powerful political tool for reshaping markets, trade rules, and global resource governance.
Paper: The third wave of critical minerals. Image credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT/OpenAI
A recent study in the Leiden Journal of International Law examines how the discourse on critical minerals has evolved over the past century in response to shifting geopolitical, economic, and security priorities. The study shows that criticality extends beyond geological scarcity and is strongly influenced by political priorities, national security concerns, industrial policy objectives, and claims about US hegemony. Overall, the analysis highlights the growing influence of critical minerals on industrial policy, supply-chain planning, international trade, and the politics of the energy transition.
The Rise of Critical Minerals in Global Policy
Critical minerals play a central role in discussions about the energy transition, advanced manufacturing, national security, and supply-chain resilience. Governments across North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region have developed critical minerals lists and introduced policies to secure supplies of materials considered essential for economic growth and technological advancement. Despite the growing importance of these initiatives, relatively little attention has been paid to the historical development and political significance of the discourse on critical minerals.
The study examines how the concept of critical minerals evolved across three major historical periods. The first wave emerged during the late 1930s and 1940s, when governments sought to secure materials needed for military and industrial production. The second wave developed during the energy crises of the 1970s and 1980s, as resource security became closely linked to economic stability. The third wave began after the global financial crisis and gained momentum following the COVID-19 pandemic.
The author, Cait Storr, of the University of Melbourne Law School, Melbourne, Australia, argues that each wave reflected concerns about perceived threats to US hegemony, framed as threats to national and international security. The definition of national security has broadened beyond military concerns to encompass economic and technological priorities, leading to an expansion of the classification of critical minerals. As a result, critical minerals discourse has become an important tool for shaping policy, resource governance, and state intervention in extractive markets.
Historical and Policy Analysis of Criticality Frameworks
The study uses a historical and policy analysis approach rather than experimental or quantitative methods. The author examines more than a century of government reports, legislation, policy documents, international agreements, trade frameworks, and academic literature. This broad evidence base allows the evolution of critical minerals discourse to be assessed within its geopolitical, legal, and economic context.
The analysis begins with debates over access to raw materials in the early 20th century, particularly those that emerged after the First World War. It places special emphasis on debates within the League of Nations. These discussions introduced key ideas about supply security, resource nationalism, and government intervention in resource markets that continue to influence critical minerals policy today.
The study then traces the development of formal critical materials policies in the United States during the late 1930s. It examines key legislative measures to understand how governments identified and secured strategically important resources. The analysis also explores post-war initiatives that linked resource access to broader geopolitical and economic objectives.
The author analyzes major geopolitical and economic developments that reshaped resource policy. These include the oil crises of the 1970s, the rise of resource nationalism, China’s growing influence in critical mineral supply chains, including the 2010 rare-earth elements export dispute involving China and Japan, and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the analysis, the author draws on concepts from critical security studies to interpret how governments define resource-related risks. This framework links critical minerals policies to concerns about security, competitiveness, supply-chain resilience, and the securitization of extractive activity.
Expanding Strategic Role of Critical Minerals
The analysis identifies three major phases in the evolution of the discourse on critical minerals. The first emerged before and during the Second World War, when governments prioritized access to materials needed for military production and national defense. Policymakers defined criticality primarily in terms of wartime necessity and responded through strategic stockpiling and domestic resource development.
The second phase developed after the oil shocks of the 1970s. Resource security expanded beyond defense concerns to encompass economic stability and energy independence. Policymakers extended their involvement in resource markets through stockpiling programs, geological exploration, industrial subsidies, and support for international supply chains.
The third phase emerged after the global financial crisis and gained momentum following the COVID-19 pandemic. Critical minerals became closely associated with renewable energy technologies, electric vehicles, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence infrastructure, and industrial policy. As governments broadened their definitions of economic and national security, the list of materials classified as critical expanded significantly.
The author discusses how contemporary critical minerals discourse advances national security and economic objectives, supports resource development, shapes market expectations, and links mining to clean-energy goals. However, the study argues that third-wave criticality claims are not organized solely around climate objectives, but also around military, commercial, and technological competitive advantage. Expanding criticality designations can also encourage market speculation and increase resource-sector volatility. Many critical mineral deposits are located on or near Indigenous lands and local communities, with one cited study estimating that around 54% of critical minerals projects are located on land over which Indigenous peoples exercise some recognized rights. This raises important concerns about environmental justice, community rights, and equitable resource governance.
Implications for Resource Governance and the Future of Critical Minerals
This study offers valuable insight into the growing importance of critical minerals in global policy discussions. By tracing the historical evolution of criticality frameworks, the author shows that critical minerals are not defined solely by geology or resource scarcity. Instead, governments designate materials as critical based on changing security priorities, economic objectives, geopolitical considerations, and contested claims about whose security should matter.
The analysis highlights the broad influence of critical minerals policy across the materials and resource sectors. Decisions about which materials are classified as critical can shape investment patterns, industrial strategies, trade relationships, research priorities, and debates over security exceptions in international trade law. The study also emphasizes the need for balanced and sustainable approaches to resource governance. Securing supplies of critical minerals will remain important for emerging technologies and energy-transition infrastructure.
However, policymakers must also consider environmental protection, social equity, and long-term sustainability. Resource-security goals should be pursued alongside responsible mining practices and meaningful engagement with affected communities. Looking ahead, the future of critical minerals policy will likely depend on whether US allies continue to locate their own security in the defense of US hegemony or instead support renewed international institutions and collective climate action. The growing demand for strategic materials and intensifying geopolitical competition will continue to shape debates over resource governance.
Download your PDF copy by clicking here.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.