Arguments: Most Active
Offshore operations are capital-intensive, requiring significant financing and insurance. Oil and natural gas companies do not want to undertake these massive expenditures if their lease sites may be subject to territorial dispute. They operate transnationally, and need to know that the title to the petroleum resources will be respected worldwide and not just in the United States.
- Oil, gas, and mining interests have made it clear that they won't operate without legal protection from UNCLOS
- Oil and gas companies not willing to undertake extensive capital investments required to develop offshore without legal stability provided by UNCLOS
- Oil and gas industry unwilling to rely solely on rights outlined in 1958 convention
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS will leave U.S. commercial mining and energy interests without legal protection
- ... and 11 more quote(s)
Russia, Denmark, Norway, and Canada are staking their claims to Arctic resources but the United States, which has conducted research on how far the continental shelf extends from Alaska toward the North Pole, cannot submit any of its evidence because it is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
- Russia asserting its rights in Arctic to gain access to resources
- Several countries including China and Japan are lobbying for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council
- China using local companies as way of gaining access to Arctic resources
- Ratification of UNCLOS is necessary to exploit Arctic oil and gas
- ... and 6 more quote(s)
States, corporate entities, and NGOs all have incentives to challenge unilateral claims by countries to resources outside the UNCLOS regime. Knowing this, U.S. corporations are reluctant to risk the liability involved in pursuing these claims, to the detriment of the U.S. economy.
- Corporations reluctant to embark on development outside of UNCLOS because of the potential backlash
- States that are party to UNCLOS could bring legal action against U.S. entities for not following UNCLOS in foreign courts
- Multiple states, corporate entities, and NGOs would have cause to challenge U.S. companies claims to resources outside of UNCLOS
- U.S. could still be bound by UNCLOS law even if it hasn't ratified the treaty
Buoyed by ideological opposition to the United Nations, a small minority of conservative opponents in the Senate have stopped it from coming to a vote, even though it will advance U.S. interests in the Arctic and around the world.
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS has bipartisan support with exception of a small minority of Tea Party aligned senators
- Conservatives are letting opposition to international cooperation trump strong economic and strategic gains U.S. would receive from ratifying UNCLOS
- Only a small conservative minority holds up ratification of UNCLOS
Ratification of UNCLOS would bolster U.S. national security in numerous ways, including: protecting all six core freedom of navigation rights, protect maritime interdiction rights, and supporting efforts to combat piracy.
- UNCLOS supports all six core competencies of the U.S. Navy
- UNCLOS provisions directly support and improve ability of Coast Guard to complete its law enforcement and homeland security missions
- Ratification of UNCLOS would further US national security interests in multiple ways
- UNCLOS supports U.S. national security objectives by ensuring freedom of navigation rights and supporting maritime interdiction operations
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
By ratifying UNCLOS, the U.S. would be exposed to climate change lawsuits and other environmental actions brought against it by other members of the convention and the economic and political ramifications of such lawsuits could be dire.
- US accession to UNCLOS would uniquely expose it to baseless climate change lawsuits
- Climate change activists looking forward to having venue of ITLOS tribunal to bring climate change suits against US
- UNCLOS unique from other environmental agreements in the scale of the external judicial review it imposes
- Environmentalists anxious to use UNCLOS to sue U.S. government over environmental damage
- ... and 10 more quote(s)
Opponents of UNCLOS often point to the royalty payments required under Article 82 of the convention as a reason to reject ratifcation. However, on closer examination many of the criticisms of the revenue sharing agreeements do not hold up. The actual amount the U.S. would have to pay pales in comparison to the revenues that would be generated, a significant reason why industry represenatives have consistently been in favor of UNCLOS. Additionally, the concern that royalty payments would go towards anti-U.S. states and non-state actors could be mitigated if the U.S.
- Royalties U.S. has to pay on mineral and hydrocarbon worth it given the extraordinary benefits U.S. would gain
- Revenue sharing arrangement of UNCLOS is insignificant compared to value of resources and was negotiated with support of oil and gas industry
- U.S. foreign aid could be used to offset any required transfers to states, eliminating any tax burden
- Modest revenue sharing system in UNCLOS will not pose any burden on extracting industries and is in U.S. best interests
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
Opponents argue that by ratifying UNCLOS, the United Nations would be given the first opportunity to tax U.S. citizens. However, this is a misunderstanding of the royalties structure within UNCLOS. The International Seabed Authority requires royalty payments from all companies engaged in seabed mining in areas that do not belong to any country and are therefore under the management of the ISA. These payments are a small fraction of the revenue and similar to payments U.S. companies already pay around the world to governments for resource concessions.
- UNCLOS stipulates modest fees on resource extraction industries but does not represent new taxing authority
- UNCLOS does not impose a tax but a royalty scheme that comes with unprecedented U.S. control over administration
- UNCLOS does not establish tax on corporations or individuals, only a modest revenue sharing agreement for mineral/energy extraction in international waters
- Royalty payments in UNCLOS are neither unique nor burdensome which is why the oil and gas industry views them as a bargain and favors UNCLOS ratification
- ... and 6 more quote(s)
Russia has made no secret of their ambitious and aggressive plans for dominating the Arctic region and its resources. U.S. inattention to their advances could pose a long-term strategic threat to U.S. national security.
- Russia asserting its rights in Arctic to gain access to resources
- Russia is preparing for a new cold war in the Arctic
- Russia views Arctic as a potential area of future conflict and it is building up its military in response
- Russia views Arctic as necessary to restoring its leadership role that it lost after the Cold War
- Russia and U.S. still aggressively trailing each other's submarines in Arctic
Currently, there is no major tension between the Arctic states. They all want peaceful solutions to their border disputes and see the advantages of freedom of navigation through the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. However, at the time when the coastal nations are able to increase their oil production in the Arctic, conflict can more easily occur. A shortage of energy and other resources will make the nations more determined to solve their border issues, which may increase the tension between them.
- Warming arctic is opening up new potential shipping lanes and resource extraction possibilities but increasing risks of conflict and tension over the same
- Nations are pursuing Arctic claims in emotional and nationalistic manner, heightening the risks of conflict
- No major tension between Arctic states but situation could change dramatically as race for resources heats up
- Disputes over arctic fishing resources have already lead to increased tensions between arctic nations
- ... and 5 more quote(s)