Arguments: Most Active
While article 144 of the convention does encourage technology transfer, Section 5 of the 1994 agreement eliminated this mandate and included other provisions to protect sensitive military technologies.
- Treaty modifications in 1994 addressed national security concerns over technology transfer provisions
- Controversial technology transfer provisions have been removed from the convention
- 1994 agreement removed obligations of member states to transfer technology or share revenue
- Technology transfers have been eliminated from the treaty and military sensitive technology was never at risk
Although the 1994 treaty modifications have toned down some of the most direct mandatory technology transfer requirements, the treaty still places at risk some very sensitive, and militarily useful, technology which may readily be misused by the navies of ocean mining states.
- Pernicious effect of technology transfer provision still in effect even after 1994 agreement
- Entrepreneurs likely to be deterred from investing in technology and research necessary for deep seabed mining by excessive royalties requirements
- Technology transfer provisions of UNCLOS could be used to acquire militarily significant dual-use technologies
- Even with amendments, 1994 agreement still puts sensitive military technology at risk of transfer
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
Opponents argue that UNCLOS's provisions calling for states to reduce pollution through "best practicable means" could be used as a "backdoor" to force environmental treaties on the U.S. However, legal scholars and State Department officials have concluded that the convention only binds the United States to act in accordance with its own laws or appropriately ratified international agreements and cannot be used as a “back door” to compel enforcement of international agreements the Senate has not ratified.
- State Department legal team analyzed Law of the Sea treaty and found there was nothing in treaty that would force U.S. policy on climate change
- UNCLOS will be utilized as basis for environmental laws and claims regardless of whether US is a party but US can only guide it if accedes to the treaty
- Convention will not act as a backdoor for other environmental agreements Senate has not ratified
- U.S. environmental standards already meet or exceed those set by UNCLOS
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
One way to determine the extent to which UNCLOS’s navigational provisions have achieved the status of binding international law is to study the behavior of nations. The consistent practice of states—maritime states, coastal states, UNCLOS members, and nonmembers—indicates that the UNCLOS navigational provisions are almost universally accepted law.
- UNCLOS has already proven itself as a powerful mechanism to bring rule of law to maritime realm
- Existing treaties that laid the foundation for UNCLOS have been empirically obeyed by most parties
- Most coastal states have already adapted their maritime law to bring it into compliance with UNCLOS
- Procedures of CLCS commission are empirically working with countries working peacefully together to resolve disputed claims
- U.S. freedom of navigation disputes have decreased due in part to the influence of UNCLOS
- Consistent practice of states illustrates that UNCLOS freedom of navigation provisions have become customary international law
Empirically, after 30 years there is a significant and consistent pattern of non-compliance with UNCLOS provisions.
UNCLOS represents the consensus of decades of debate on how best to govern shared ocean resources and to handle disputes over border conflicts. The Arctic nations have settled on UNCLOS, adopting it in their laws and subsequent agreements, and it forms the basis for governance of the Arctic region.
- Antarctica treaty is poor alternative to UNCLOS for resolving Arctic disputes because it was based on environmental protection, not resource exploitation
- Abandoning UNCLOS in Arctic would undermine all principles UNCLOS is based-on, encouraging non-diplomatic solutions to territorial disputes
- Law of the sea is an ideal framework for arctic governance
- U.S. needs to ratify UNCLOS to establish shared law in the Arctic to avoid conflict
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
UNCLOS does not provide adequate protection for underseas cables against malicious attack or terrorist threat and should be modified.
The United Nations has virtually no role in management, implementation, or execution of this treaty. It remains in the convention’s title only because the treaty was initially negotiated at the United Nations. In addition, the only international organization UNCLOS creates (the International Seabed Authority) is no different from the hundreds of other international organizations the U.S. is already party to, including the U.S.- Canadian Fisheries Convention or the International Maritime Organization.
- Governing structure of UNCLOS regime is not under United Nations control
- Fears of an overreaching UNCLOS bureaucracy are overwrought
- UNCLOS is in no way a power grab by the United Nations
- Fears of the vast unaccountable bureaucracy of UNCLOS have been proven unfounded in the 10 years since it has been in force
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
U.S. based oceanographers and others conducting marine research are at a significant disadvantage due to U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS as they have to seek slow slow and complicated approval from foreign governments from access to their exclusive economic zones or continental shelves to conduct scientific research. Ratification of UNCLOS would resolve this because they could take advantage of the more favorable "implied consent" provisions under UNCLOS to further marine research.
- UNCLOS protects the rights of marine researchers to conduct operations in foreign EEZs
- U.S. oceanographic research would benefit from accession to UNCLOS
- U.S. lead in marine research imperiled by its inability to use UNCLOS to secure marine researchers access
- UNCLOS protections necessary to preserve U.S. research rights in Arctic waters
- U.S. ability to conduct environmental and oceanographic research constrained by its non-party status to UNCLOS
If the U.S. accedes to UNCLOS, it will be required pursuant to Article 82 to transfer royalties generated on the U.S. continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm)—an area known as the “extended continental shelf” (ECS)—to the International Seabed Authority.
- UNCLOS requires mineral extraction companies pay royalties to ISA to be redistributed
- US accession to UNCLOS would obligate to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of royalties to ISA
- US offshore oil development could generate $92 billion in royalty payments for US treasury over next 50 year
- UNCLOS obligates member nations to pay upwards of 7% in royalties for development of mineral and energy resources
- Under UNCLOS billions of dollars in royalties for offshore oil development would shift to ISA instead of to US revenue
- U.S. currently collects billions of dollars in royalties on outer continental shelf resource development which would go ISA under UNCLOS
- Mining companies have incentive to over develop resource in inefficient manner to avoid paying higher royalty share