Energy laws play a pivotal role in shaping policies that ensure energy independence and strengthen national security. This research investigates how legal frameworks contribute to reducing energy dependence, enhance infrastructure resilience, and support the transition to renewable energy. A qualitative and comparative legal research design has been applied, incorporating an extensive literature review, examination of both domestic and international energy legislation, thematic coding, and a synthesis of findings. In this essay, applied publicly available materials, legislative acts, and scientific publications have been applied to draw general conclusions. Evidence shows that regulatory inconsistencies continue to hinder the use of renewable energy, and loopholes in the protection of infrastructure expose countries to security risks. Nations that successfully adopted and incorporated their legal procedures into the new circumstances are more successful in diversifying energy supply, abusing of geopolitical risks, and facilitating technological changes. Strengthening and harmonizing energy laws ensures resilience, independence, and stability in global energy governance systems.

Five countries have made submissions for an extended continental shelf in the South China Sea (SCS) to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), fuelling tensions and disputes with China. As the CLCS’ decision to consider and qualify these submissions may have a far-reaching impact on the settlement of territorial and maritime disputes in the region, comprehensive understanding and analysis of the CLCS’ strategies in managing “submissions involving land or maritime disputes” in practice is needed. China’s notes verbales contesting the submissions may not stop the CLCS from considering these submissions. Therefore, to ensure that its interests are respected, China should amend its notes verbales by: (1) identifying the ‘dispute’; (2) clarifying its status as party to the ‘dispute’; (3) expressing “not consent” and requesting the CLCS “not to consider or qualify” any of the submissions; and (4) clarifying the legal scope of waters in the SCS.