The relationship, commonalities, and differences between the Mineral Resources Law and the Energy Law: a perspective on the impact of domain law systems engineering on legislation

The Mineral Resources Law and the Energy Law are examples of domain-based legislation. As an emerging legal framework addressing complex societal challenges, domain law, underpinned by systems thinking, emphasizes the overall coherence, structural functionality, and dynamic adaptability of the legal system. Analyzing the relationship between these two laws from this perspective enables a clearer understanding of their interconnections, commonalities, and differences. Firstly, most key and primary energy sources are mineral resources, and the development and utilization of new energy heavily depend on the use of these mineral resources. This establishes the foundational link between the two laws. Furthermore, both laws exhibit an integration of public and private law elements, necessitating a balance between an effective market and active government in the design of specific legal frameworks. This approach reinforces a systems-oriented perspective and fosters a synergistic force for the efficient and coordinated allocation of resources, thereby ensuring a close interrelationship among the relevant legal provisions. Secondly, although both laws aim to safeguard national security, enhance ecological protection, and advance market reforms, they diverge in their functional orientation and regulatory pathways. The Mineral Resources Law primarily focuses on the development and protection of mineral resources, particularly in areas such as mining rights management and ecological restoration, whereas the Energy Law addresses issues related to energy conversion, utilization, consumption, optimization of energy industry structure, and the green and low-carbon transformation of the energy sector. Lastly, both laws are subject to the influence of policy directions, international trends, and technological innovations, requiring adaptive, dynamic adjustments in response to evolving circumstances. Through a comparative analysis of these two laws, this article seeks to provide strategic guidance for their coordinated implementation, offering a foundational basis and support for the development of detailed implementation regulations and supplementary institutional frameworks.