Arguments: Most Active
By relying on the Convention and the doctrine of the high seas, the United States may bypass the UNCLOS regime altogether and begin exploration and exploitation of the Arctic area immediately.
- U.S. should assert its rights under the Convention of the High Seas to mine and develop in the Arctic, independent of UNCLOS
- US not out of running in race for Arctic resources, it can still submit claim if it ratifies UNCLOS
- U.S. scuttling of Russia's initial Arctic claim shows it can still influence CLCS as a non member
- U.S. participation in Ilulissat agreement undermines claim that its non-party status to UNCLOS is hurting its ability to guide Arctic policy
- Multiple steps U.S. can take to enhance security in Arctic that do not involve ratifying UNCLOS
China's flawed interpretation of UNCLOS freedom of navigation provisions, if left unchallenged, could begin to have the status of customary international law, setting a precedent for other nations, and ultimately have serious implications for the global norms that support security and stability at sea.
- Allowing China's interpretation of Law of the Sea to prevail could have drastic consequences on global maritime stability
- China's excessive claims are a threat to the global commons and China's own role
- China's excessive maritime claims are directly analogous to its emerging claims for vertical sovereignty in space, a trend the US must not leave unchallenged
- China's excessive claims run counter to its global economic ambitions and its own territorial defense strategy
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
- Coastal states are increasingly challenging US freedom of navigation rights as it remains outside of the UNCLOS framework
- U.S. dealing with over 100 threats to our navigational freedoms that could be resolved under UNCLOS
- Currently, over 100 excessive and illegal claims threaten U.S. FON
- Over a hundred excessive claims currently, some of which are directly complicating counter narcotics operations
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
The U.S. relies on maritime interdiction operations for homeland security, counter-piracy, and crime control. However, during bi-lateral negotiations, several nations have, in the past, questioned our authority to contest certain of their excessive maritime claims simply because we have yet to ratify the treaty. Becoming a party to the Convention will enhance our ability to conduct such interdiction operations and to refute excessive maritime claims.
- Remaining outside of UNCLOS regime restricts U.S. counter-piracy options
- US naval capacity to conduct maritime interdiction or intelligence operations at risk from excessive claims and lawfare
- U.S. absence from UNCLOS hurts our leadership consistency and encourages others to flout existing standards
- Over a hundred excessive claims currently, some of which are directly complicating counter narcotics operations
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would support U.S. rights to conduct maritime interdiction operations
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. efforts to get other nations to cooperate on anti-piracy initiatives
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to protecting existing counter-piracy operations
Even as a non-party to UNCLOS, the U.S. will still retain its maritime leadership role and can influence the future of the law of the sea through the International Maritime Organization.
- Any changes to UNCLOS are more likely to occur at the International Maritime Organization, not through United Nations
- US not losing opportunity to guide development of UNCLOS, it can always make accession dependent on amendment
- International Maritime Organization is more important to global ocean policy than UNCLOS and U.S. remains leader in IMO
The sovereignty costs associated with the Convention are grossly overstated primarily because many of these costs have already been accepted by the United States. In addition, the U.S. stands to gain sovereignty over 4.1 million square miles of territory by acceeding to the treaty.
- U..S. does not forfeit its sovereignty by signing on to the convention
- U.S. sovereignty has more to lose by not being party to the treaty
- Signing on to international agreements is an exercise of U.S. sovereignty, not an abrogation
- Many sovereignty costs of the convention have already been accepted by U.S. in other agreements
- ... and 11 more quote(s)
- Benefits to U.S. from UNCLOS support for freedom of navigation rights is outweighed by loss of sovereignty
- Ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty will undermine U.S. sovereignty
- UNCLOS represents a subjugation of American foreign policy to United Nations
- UNCLOS creates multiple institutions that would abrogate U.S. sovereignty
- UNCLOS would establish global rule of law over states subordinating their powers to a new authority
U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS raises fundamental questions regarding not only the future of legal regimes applicable to the world’s oceans, but also U.S. leadership in promoting international law and order.
Additionally, our partners lose confidence in the ability of the United States to make good on its word when we negotiate and sign treaties but don’t ultimately become party to them, especially as in the case of UNCLOS where the U.S. negotiated aggressively to win valuable concessions and won them.
- US failure to ratify UNCLOS is impeding the international cooperation necessary to address multinational threats like terrorism
- U.S. rejection of international agreements like UNCLOS only emboldens our adversaries to challenge our leadership
- US being excluded from international maritime policy because it has failed to ratify UNCLOS
- US credibility and legitimacy suffers when it pushes for treaties like UNCLOS but then declines to ratify them
- ... and 22 more quote(s)
The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument for public order in the world’s oceans. It codifies, in a manner that only binding treaty law can, the navigation and overflight rights, and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global strategic mobility of U.S. Armed Forces, including:
- UNCLOS promotes U.S. freedom of navigation in three ways
- On balance, gains from freedom of navigation rights outweigh costs of UNCLOS
- Defense department has endorsed passage of UNCLOS because it secures global access to the oceans
- U.S. should join UNCLOS to protect four critical rights that ensure freedom of navigation
- ... and 23 more quote(s)
- U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation is continually challenged by excessive claims
- Freedom of Navigation program is not a long-term viable solution to address excessive claims
- Freedom of navigation is critical to U.S. leadership and economy
- U.S. will be able to challenge excessive claims more effectively as a party to UNCLOS
Although there may have been a time when the U.S. could simply declare its will and rely on the persuasive power of its global presence and naval gross tonnage to ensure cooperation, the guarantors of success in the modern maritime domain are more likely successfully coordinated coalitions and bilateral relationships. UNCLOS membership would provide a strong foundation for both.
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. efforts to get other nations to cooperate on anti-piracy initiatives
- Global naval leadership in current era requires emphasis on cooperative security
- Coast Guard relies on international cooperation with allies under UNCLOS framework and would be Bette served if US were also a party to the convention
- Protection of global commons will require cooperative efforts to develop and strengthen international governance regimes
- ... and 11 more quote(s)