COMPARE
Acceding to UNCLOS would expose the U.S. to lawsuits on virtually any maritime activity, such as alleged pollution of the marine environment from a land-based source or through the atmosphere. Regardless of the merits, the U.S. would be forced to defend itself against every such lawsuit at great expense to U.S. taxpayers. Any judgment rendered by an UNCLOS tribunal would be final, could not be appealed, and would be enforceable in U.S. territory.
- Navy would be the target of a deluge of lawsuits under UNCLOS
- Under UNCLOS, US could be subject to arbitrary lawsuits with binding authority for international tribunals
- U.S. ability to exclude its military from arbitration is not absolute and our adversaries will use that to their advantage
- Even proponents of Law of Sea acknowledge ambiguity of 'military activities' clause could lead tribunal to rule against U.S. military
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
VERSUS
Some opponents of UNCLOS have argued that by ratifying UNCLOS, U.S. military forces could be subject to adverse ruling by international tribunals through the dispute resolution mechanisms of the treaty. However, the U.S. defense department has reviewed the relevant law and has found no undue liability risk to U.S. forces. Furthermore, in the Senate's Advice and Consent resolution that would ratify UNCLOS, the U.S. has taken advantage of article 298(1) in UNCLOS to exempt itself from all dispute settlement.
- US advice and consent resolution regarding UNCLOS already excludes military activities from third party arbitration
- On balance the U.S should welcome the dispute resolution mechanisms in the treaty
- U.S. can issue signing statement upon ratifying UNCLOS that clarifies to interpretation of the military activities exemption
- U.S. can exempt its military activities from dispute resolution tribunals
- ... and 10 more quote(s)