Arguments: Most Active
Future growth of offshore wind power industry in the United States depends on legal protection and arbitration available under UNCLOS.
- US ratification of UNCLOS necessary to secure US interests in the development of offshore wind power
- US can only take advantage of offshore wind possibilities if it ratifies UNCLOS
- US companies cannot secure rights to build offshore wind platforms until US ratifies UNCLOS
- Even within EEZ, uncertainty over rights provided by customary international law as opposed to UNCLOS is stymieing offshore wind power development
- US should ratify UNCLOS to enable the offshore wind energy industry to flourish
Many of the most onerous provisions of UNCLOS were left in place even after the 1994 amendment, including provisions on technology transfer and wealth distribution.
- 1994 Agreement has not changed intent of International Seabed Authority
- Pernicious effect of technology transfer provision still in effect even after 1994 agreement
- 1994 Agreement does not give U.S. a true veto in the International Seabed Authority
- US should unsign 1994 agreement to resolve legal ambiguity over its actions
- ... and 5 more quote(s)
In 1994, the U.S. and other developed nations lobbied and won a number of significant concessions and amendments to UNCLOS that addressed the concerns that previous administrations had with the treaty, including provisions over tech transfer and resource sharing.
- Treaty modifications in 1994 addressed national security concerns over technology transfer provisions
- The 1994 agreement explicitly resolved issues that Reagan administration had with UNCLOS
- The 1994 agreement resolved U.S. concerns over deep seabed mining
- All issues with Deep Seabed Mining identified by President Reagan in 1983 have been remedied in subsequent 1994 agreement
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
There is a strong economic, military, and strategic case to be made for U.S. ratification of UNCLOS. Economically, the U.S. would benefit by attaining new protections for its vital maritime industries while opening up new industries and vast amounts of terroritory. The military case is just as strong with the overwhelming consensus of military leaders advocating for ratification as a way to ensure the freedom of navigation rights the U.S. depends on. Finally, ratification of UNCLOS would help the U.S.
- On balance, policy benefits of ratifying UNCLOS far outweigh any disadvantages
- Four key advantages for the U.S. in ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS can be justified on military, commercial, and environmental grounds
- U.S. would gain multiple advantages from formal accession to UNCLOS
- ... and 5 more quote(s)
- Ratifying UNCLOS key to advancing numerous U.S. interests
- Multiple advantages for U.S. from ratification of UNCLOS
- U.S. has most interest in protections, both for environmental and security reasons, provided by convention for restricting activity within its EEZ
- U.S. has significant strategic and commercial interests in ensuring that provisions of convention are fully implemented into domestic law
- UNCLOS is a remarkable achievement of international law
- Consensus of experts advocate for U.S. ratification of UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS best way to preserve freedom of navigation rights
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would benefit marine conservation efforts
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would boost U.S. global leadership
- UNCLOS treaty helps establish needed rule of law and governance regime for oceans
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to a number of maritime industries
- UNCLOS necessary to protect rights of marine researchers
- Ratification of UNCLOS is in U.S. national security interests
- Model of UNCLOS useful for governance of other global commons
- UNCLOS has empirically been successful
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would help resolve disputes with Russia in Arctic
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would help moderate rising Chinese naval power
- U.S. underseas cable systems can be protected by existing laws or bilateral treaties
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is not necessary for development of offshore oil and gas industry
- U.S. can make claim to Arctic resources without being party to UNCLOS
- U.S. could rely on bilateral treaties as an alternative to UNCLOS regime
- UNCLOS regime is not a viable model for governing outer space
- U.S. can mine the deep seabed without ratifying UNCLOS
- Existing customary international law is sufficient to protect U.S. interests without ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not help resolve Arctic disputes with Russia
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS won't help resolve disputes in South China Seas
- UNCLOS has empirically not been successful
- UNCLOS is inadequate for protection of U.S. underseas cables
The U.S. conducts a wide range of maritime interdiction and related operations with its allies and partners, virtually all of whom are parties to the Convention. If the U.S. were to ratify UNCLOS, it would only strengthen its ability to conduct such operations by eliminating any question of its right to avail ourselves of the legal authorities contained in the Convention.
- UNCLOS does not require U.S. to ask permission before boarding a ship, thats already ruled out by 1958 convention
- UNCLOS won't impact the way U.S. conducts maritime interdiction operations
- US ratification of UNCLOS would strengthen and preserve our authority for conducting maritime interdiction operations
- 1958 Convention already regulates U.S. naval rights to board ships and submarines
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
If the United States ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the legality of maritime interdiction operations whether to stop terrorist attacks or prevent nuclear proliferation will, depending on the circumstances, be left to the decision of one of two international tribunals.
- Under UNCLOS, U.S. maritime interdiction operations would be subject to jurisdiction of ITLOS
- U.S. relies on maritime interdiction operations to counter threat of terrorism
- U.S. would lose capability to interdict and hold terrorists under UNCLOS and ITLOS
- Convention would subject U.S. counterterrorism efforts to review by international tribunals
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
As a signatory to UNCLOS, the PRC occasionally implies that its interpretations should trump those of the United States, which has yet to ratify the convention that Washington nevertheless employs as a bludgeon against Beijing’s claims that UNCLOS permits limitations by coastal states on foreign military activities in the EEZ.
- US abstention from UNCLOS is a vulnerability China can exploit to promote its lawfare campaign to control South China Sea
- Ratifying UNCLOS would give U.S. stronger argument to pressure China in South China Sea
- Multilateral cooperation to curb Chinese aggression in South China Seas depends on U.S. adherence to and ratification of UNCLOS
- Allowing China to prevail in its South China Sea claims would pose a number of risks to U.S. national security and global economy
- ... and 28 more quote(s)