COMPARE
The U.S. conducts a wide range of maritime interdiction and related operations with its allies and partners, virtually all of whom are parties to the Convention. If the U.S. were to ratify UNCLOS, it would only strengthen its ability to conduct such operations by eliminating any question of its right to avail ourselves of the legal authorities contained in the Convention.
Keywords:
Related Quotes:
- UNCLOS does not require U.S. to ask permission before boarding a ship, thats already ruled out by 1958 convention
- UNCLOS won't impact the way U.S. conducts maritime interdiction operations
- US ratification of UNCLOS would strengthen and preserve our authority for conducting maritime interdiction operations
- 1958 Convention already regulates U.S. naval rights to board ships and submarines
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:
Supporting Arguments:
VERSUS
If the United States ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the legality of maritime interdiction operations whether to stop terrorist attacks or prevent nuclear proliferation will, depending on the circumstances, be left to the decision of one of two international tribunals.
Keywords:
Related Quotes:
- Under UNCLOS, U.S. maritime interdiction operations would be subject to jurisdiction of ITLOS
- U.S. relies on maritime interdiction operations to counter threat of terrorism
- U.S. would lose capability to interdict and hold terrorists under UNCLOS and ITLOS
- Convention would subject U.S. counterterrorism efforts to review by international tribunals
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:
Supporting Arguments: