Arguments: Most Active
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS threaten U.S. national security
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would subject U.S. military to rulings by third-party tribunals
- U.S. ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations would be curtailed by UNCLOS
- U.S. adherence to UNCLOS would jeopardize maritime intelligence gathering operations
- Principle of the common heritage of mankind enshrined in UNCLOS makes no moral or practical sense
- US ratification of UNCLOS would amount to endorsement of flawed common heritage of mankind principles
- UNCLOS treaty based on collectivist agenda to create global socialist entity
- Libertarians should be concerned by the collectivist and redistributionist origins of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS based on outdated and discredited redistributionist ideas from the 1970s
- Original collectivist and redistributionist framework UNCLOS was built on remains in place
UNCLOS uniquely gives the United Nations the ability to impose a tax on nations by use of its royalties assessments on the exploitation of oil and gas reserves.
- UNCLOS would create taxing authority within UN for the first time, starting a dangerous precedent
- UNCLOS would establish new precedent for allowing United Nations to levy taxes that would lead to further abuses
- UNCLOS uniquely sets up an international taxing authority that is a step in the wrong direction
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is critical to broader U.S. strategy in the Asia Pacific and managing China's rise.
- U.S. ability to peacefully resolve South China Sea disputes compromised by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. must challenge China's flawed interpretation of UNCLOS freedom of navigation provisions
- U.S. can best influence China to abide by international rule of law as a party to UNCLOS
- U.S. can best challenge China's excessive claims as a party to UNCLOS
Tension between Russia and other Arctic nations will remain high as they continue to compete for Arctic territory. Maintaining UNCLOS as a viable legal framework for settling Arctic territorial claims should help avert potential confrontations between Russia and other UNCLOS members.
- U.S. participation in UNCLOS necessary to resolve Arctic dispute between Russia and Norway
- USNWC war game found U.S. non-ratification of UNCLOS risks U.S. being replaced by Russia as the leader in Arctic
- Russia's use of CLCS to validate its claim over Lomonsov ridge is an example of their use of lawfare to the disadvantage of the US
- Abandoning UNCLOS framework in Arctic could lead to military confrontation with Russia, working within framework best way to resolve disputes
- ... and 17 more quote(s)
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)
By ratifying UNCLOS, the U.S. would be subjecting its resource extraction industries to control by the United Nations. Furthermore, these industries would be assessed a royalty fee on these resources that the International Seabed Authority would redistribute to other states, possibly counter to U.S. national security interests.
- Law of Sea structure still favors discredited and corrupt redistributionist model for foreign aid
- Actual royalty rate has yet to be determined, leaving US companies vulnerable to exorbitant costs
- Land-based mineral mining countries possess equivalent voting rights to the US in ISA
- Voting in ISA already beset by corruption and vote dilution
- UNCLOS would create new international authority for a massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth
- UNCLOS obligates states that mine the seabed to provide funds to subsidize its land-based competitors
- Under UNCLOS, U.S. revenues from offshore resource extraction would be redistributed to non-desirable state actors
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would give United Nations ability to impose tax on U.S. citizens
- UNCLOS participation would require U.S. to transfer significant royalties to International Seabed Authority
Currently the vital U.S. underseas cable industry has to rely on the outdated 1884 telegraph treaty for its legal basis when defending its rights to lay, maintain, and repair underseas cables. U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would better protect U.S. companies’ existing cable systems and foster additional investments by giving telecommunications the legal certainty to their claims that they need.
- Telecommunications industry supports the treaty because of its valuable support for underseas cables
- As a non-party to UNCLOS, U.S. can only use 1884 convention rules on telegraph cables to protect its underseas cables
- Protections for underseas cables upgraded in UNCLOS
- US telecom companies are disadvantaged in disputes over underseas cable rights by the US being a non-party to the convention
- ... and 31 more quote(s)
The U.S. does not need to ratify UNCLOS to protect the interests of its underseas cable industry. Submarine cables are already protected under existing international law and any gaps in this law can be resolved by implementing bilateral treaties with states as needed.
U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS means its challenges to excessive claims are less credible than they would otherwise be. Other States are less persuaded to accept its demand that they comply with the rules set forth in the Convention, given that the U.S. has not joined the Convention.
- States will be less likely to challenge U.S. with excessive claims when it is backed by its ratification of UNCLOS
- Ratification of UNCLOS key to resolving numerous boundary disputes in a consistent manner
- U.S. assertion of rights and challenges to excessive claims lack credibility as long as we remain outside of treaty
- U.S. is in no position to challenge excessive maritime claims as a non-party to UNCLOS
- Ratifying UNCLOS enhances U.S.national security by improving its ability to challenge excessive claims