Arguments: Most Active
Mandatory dispute resolution mechanism could be used by states unsympathetic to the U.S. to curtail its military operations even though such operations are supposed to be exempt from the mechanism. This is because it is unclear by the terms of the treaty what activities will be defined as military.
- Risks of national security damage due to a adverse dispute settlement ruling are under appreciated
- Interpretation of "military activities" clause left up to external courts and possibly unfriendly panel
- US has always resolved maritime disputes with voluntary, bilateral diplomacy -- accession to UNCLOS would compel legally binding dispute resolution
- Should recognize that U.S. will be bigger target for ITLOS because of its status as the sole global naval superpower
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
U.S. security interests in the oceans have been adequately protected to date by current U.S. ocean policy and implementing strategy. U.S. reliance on arguments that customary international law, as articulated in the non-deep seabed mining provisions of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and as supplemented by diplomatic protests and assertion of rights under the Freedom of Navigation Program, have served so far to preserve fundamental freedoms of navigation and overflight with acceptable risk, cost and effort.
- Empirically, UNCLOS has been no more effective than customary international law at reducing excessive claims and maritime conflict
- Even as a non-party to UNCLOS, US navigational rights have been protected for decades through customary international law
- Ratification of UNCLOS would trade existing stability provided by customary international law for rule by tribunals
- Customary international law already protects U.S. navigation rights
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
Indeed, global commerce, travel, and information have greatly contributed to the growing wealth of nations and to the stability of the post-Cold War international system. The world's seas, air, space, and-more recently- cyberspace also play critical roles in states' national defense and their ability to conduct military operations worldwide. The United States relies on freedom to operate in the commons in order to protect the U.S. homeland and its vital national interests.
- US freedom of navigation rights are a critical component of our global leadership
- Direct correlation between us economic and military power and the rights preserved by UNCLOS
- Freedom of operation in the global commons has been and will continue to be a key driver of US and global economic growth
- US global leadership directly tied to its leadership and dominance over the global commons
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
The United States can assert its navigational rights at any point on the globe, but it cannot be assured of a local superiority of forces simultaneously at every location of potential maritime dispute. Moreover, obvious practicality compels restraint—against both allies and potential adversaries—over maritime disputes. Even the peaceful and non-confrontational Freedom of Navigation (FON) program may present diplomatic costs and pose risks inherent in physical challenges,
- Attempting to enforce navigational rights outside of UNCLOS framework would be an expensive undertaking and waste of resources
- U.S. efforts to address excessive claims outside of UNCLOS framework are unsustainable
- Dangerous precedent to assume U.S. can continue to assert its navigational rights
- Ratifying convention would significantly reduce costs U.S. military incurs to protect navigation rights
- ... and 16 more quote(s)
The United States actively protects its Freedom of Navigation rights by protesting excessive maritime claims made by other nations and by conducting operational assertions with U.S. naval forces to physically dispute such claims. These diplomatic and military protests were formally operationalized as the Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program in March 1979 during the Carter Administration.
Iran has frequently threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for adverse sanctions or military action. Ratifying UNCLOS would nullify Iran’s challenges should it ever choose to close the strait to U.S. or other flagged ships. Moreover, ratifying LOSC will provide the U.S. Navy the strongest legal footing for countering an Iranian anti-access campaign in the Persian Gulf.
- Iran using excessive claims to restrict U.S. freedom of navigation rights in Straits of Hormuz
- Iran directly trying to challenge US maritime dominance by denying freedom of navigation
- Ratification of UNCLOS will nullify Iran's attempts to deny U.S. access to Straits of Hormuz
- Ratifying UNCLOS would give U.S. another tool to isolate Iran if it threatens to close Strait of Hormuz
- ... and 10 more quote(s)
The Internet poses legal challenges similar to those encountered in maintaining order in the use of the world's oceans. UNCLOS, which imposes law and order in the seas, entered into force based on "the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely related and needed to be addressed as a whole."" Similarly, the Internet is shared globally and the consequences of actions taken by an Internet user in one jurisdiction can be borne globally.
- Legal challenges posed by cybercrime similar to those posed by maritime piracy
- International community should follow example set by UNCLOS and establish governing regime to combat cybercrime
- A cybercrime treaty that established universal jurisdiction over crimes and an international tribunal could help deter cybercrimes
- Creating an international tribunal for cybercrime based on UNCLOS model would help deter and resolve cybercrime
- UNCLOS navigational freedom provisions provides good model for regulating cyberspace
- UNCLOS provisions on transit passage provide good model for international agreements governing military activity in cyberspace
There is considerable debate currently on how UNCLOS can govern marine genetic resources and without consensus, patent holders cannot enjoy the protections necessary in the global marketplace to spur continued investment in genetic resources. The U.S., as a non-party to UNCLOS, lacks standings to contribute to or lead these debates and puts its own marine biotechnology industry at a disadvantage as a result.
The negotiations and compromises that led to the development of UNCLOS were a watershed for the development of international law and could serve as a model for the development of similar regimes for the governance of other global commons, including outer space, cyberspace, and the genetic pool.
- Southern countries are pursuing biodiversity strategy modelled off of the lessons learned from UNCLOS
- Multiple similarities between international approaches for the management of the ocean regime and the common gene pool
- UNCLOS has become a significant milestone in the development of international law
- Both UNCLOS and emerging international biodiversity agreements are trying to define scope of resource sharing
- ISA model could be extended to protecting ocean biodiversity through a new agreement
U.S. next-generation military technology has become so dependent on a steady supply of rare earth metals that it could become a strategic disadvantage in any coming war with China. In addition, these metals have become valuable for advanced electronics and energy efficient "green" technologies.
- China maintains near monopoly on mining and production of rare earth elements and is controlling their production
- U.S. manufacturers dependent on foreign sources for rare earth metals because of its inability to mine deep seabed
- Rare earth metals are critical to development of new energy efficient technologies
- U.S. next-generation military technology is dependent on steady supply of rare-earth metals
- China currently holds a monopoly on the production of rare earth metals
- China's control over global rare earth metal supply could prove to be decisive in future conflict with U.S.