COMPARE
It is not essential or even necessary for the United States to accede to UNCLOS to benefit from the certainty and stability provided by its navigational provisions. Those provisions either codify customary international law that existed well before the convention was adopted in 1982 or “refine and elaborate” navigational rights that are now almost universally accepted as binding international law.
Keywords:
Related Quotes:
- US does not need to ratify UNCLOS to lock in freedom of navigation rights
- International law has been less effective at preventing nations from making excessive claims than U.S. naval supremacy
- U.S. does not need the Law of the Sea treaty to guarantee navigation rights
- US can enjoy all navigational freedoms ensured by UNCLOS without acceding to it
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:
Supporting Arguments:
VERSUS
The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument for public order in the world’s oceans. It codifies, in a manner that only binding treaty law can, the navigation and overflight rights, and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global strategic mobility of U.S. Armed Forces, including:
Keywords:
Related Quotes:
- UNCLOS promotes U.S. freedom of navigation in three ways
- On balance, gains from freedom of navigation rights outweigh costs of UNCLOS
- Defense department has endorsed passage of UNCLOS because it secures global access to the oceans
- U.S. should join UNCLOS to protect four critical rights that ensure freedom of navigation
- ... and 23 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:
Supporting Arguments:
- U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation is continually challenged by excessive claims
- Freedom of Navigation program is not a long-term viable solution to address excessive claims
- Freedom of navigation is critical to U.S. leadership and economy
- U.S. will be able to challenge excessive claims more effectively as a party to UNCLOS