Arguments: Most Active
The convention promotes the freedom of navigation and overflight by which international shipping and transportation fuel and supply the global economy. By guaranteeing merchant vessels and aircraft the right to navigate on, over, and through international straights, archipelagic waters, and coastal zones, the provisions of UNCLOS promote dynamic international trade.
- Ratification of UNCLOS would help protect American shipping industry from excessive coastal state regulations
- Commercial shipping industry dependent on the uniforms rule of law that UNCLOS provides
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to making U.S. manufactures more competitive by increasing reliability of shipping lanes
- U.S. commercial shipping industry has a lot at stake in ensuring that UNCLOS is ratified
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
U.S. does not need to ratify UNCLOS to develop hydrocarbon resources beneath the ECS -- development is actively underway already and further development can occur thrigh bilateral agreements with neightboring countries.
- Empirically, US companies have leased and developed oil development claims on ECS since 2001 without needing UNCLOS framework
- Legal certainty provided by UNCLOS is not a necessary condition for development of oil and gas resources with US EEZ
- US actively surveying extended continental shelf and can negotiate bilateral agreements with nations regarding boundaries outside UNCLOS framework
- US within its rights according to international law to develop on extended continental shelf
- U.S. resource extraction industries realize they have more to lose being outside of the treaty and have lined up in favor of it
Without the universally recognized legal regime governing the exploitation of the mineral resources of the deep-sea beyond the zones of national jurisdictions that UNCLOS provides, US companies will not assume the investment rights associated with such projects until it was clear who had “clear legal title” to the resources extracted.
- U.S. industries view accession to the treaty as essential to doing business in international waters
- Major trade industry groups support US ratification of UNCLOS because they understand the impact it would have on facilitating international trade
- U.S. will be left out of coming ocean-based economic boom unless it ratifies UNCLOS
- Ratification of UNCLOS would provide U.S. companies "clear legal title" to resources extracted, igniting an economic boom
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
- Offshore oil and gas development dependent on legal protection of UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to development of deep seabed mining industry
- Success of offshore wind power industry depends on U.S. ratification of UNCLOS
- Marine biotechnology industry would benefit from UNCLOS legal regime
- U.S. underseas cable industry needs UNCLOS protection
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to sustaining competitiveness of U.S. shipping industry
- Other states will challenge U.S. unilateral claims outside UNCLOS
The development of deep seabed claims is incredibly expensive. Companies in the U.S. are reluctant to invest heavily in deep seabed mining because of the risk that their activities would not withstand a legal challenge since the U.S. is not a party to the Convention. Conversely, foreign companies, because their governments have joined the Convention, have access to the international bodies that grant the legal claims to operate in the deep seabed area. The U.S. cannot represent the interests of its companies in those bodies.
- DSHMRA does not give mining companies the needed certainty they need to operate in international waters
- Lack of legal certainty has stalled deep seabed mining industry
- US accession to the convention would provide domestic deep seabed mining industry strong leadership and legal stability
- Seabed mining companies will only lose rights if US remains outside of UNCLOS
- ... and 14 more quote(s)
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will boost efforts to manage fishing populations in multiple ways. First, UNCLOS provides a clear legal framework for resolving disputes between countries over fishing rights, as for example the disputes between the U.S. and Canada. Secondly, becoming a party to UNCLOS gives the U.S. Coast Guard more legal tools to enforce existing regulations within the U.S. EEZ. Finally, by aceeding to UNCLOS the U.S. will be able to better lead on cooperative solutions to the global problem of overfishing.
- Widespread acceptance of UNCLOS is necessary for it to be successful in resolving current overfishing disputes
- US interest in controlling overfishing is best served by becoming a party to UNCLOS
- US and Canadian ratification of UNCLOS necessary for its provisions on overfishing to be fully effective
- The Bering Sea "Donut Hole" convention to resolve overfishing disputes was based on and supported by UNCLOS
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
The United States has historically been the world leader in protecting the common interest in navigational freedom and the rule of the law in the oceans. However, America has temporarily lost that leadership by its continued non-adherence to UNCLOS. U.S. accession to the Convention will restore that role and advance U.S. leadership in Arctic Ocean issues.
UNCLOS has a number of provisions requiring state parties to do all they can to protect the environment that could be used by environmental groups to force regulations and treaties on to the U.S.
All of the objections to UNCLOS have been answered through the past two decades of debate and study or the significant modifications to the treaty the U.S. demanded and won in 1994. In addition, the worst fears of opponents have not come to pass as the U.S. has already accepted UNCLOS as both customary law and as a guideline for domestic policy and has affirmed its committment to UNCLOS through multiple subsequent multilateral agreements.
- U.S. would not be exposing itself to liability for environmental damage in international courts by ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. already abides by UNCLOS as a matter of customary international law and domestic policy
- The 1994 Agreement explicitly dealt with and resolved concerns U.S. had with ratifying UNCLOS
- Revenue sharing agreements in UNCLOS are not a reason to reject the treaty
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS are not a reason to reject the treaty
- U.S. will not be obligated to transfer technology under UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not threaten our intelligence operations
- U.S. participation in UNCLOS will not undermine national sovereignty
- U.S. ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations will not be curtailed by UNCLOS
- UNCLOS is not administered by the United Nations
The terms of the Convention do not require Parties to comply with other international environmental treaties.
- Convention will not act as a backdoor for other environmental agreements Senate has not ratified
- Ratifying UNCLOS would not subject U.S. to increased environmental liability or act as a back door for the Kyoto agreement
- UNCLOS will not impose Kyoto obligations on parties that have not ratified it
- Language in implementing advice and consent resolution limits self executability of UNCLOS tribunal decisions
- UNCLOS does not create a new forum for challenging U.S. climate change policies
- UNCLOS can in no way be interpreted or utilized as a climate change treaty
Strategic environment and level of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Arctic will be based on the state of their bilateral relations in general, and not on the U.S. decision of whether or not to ratify the UN Law of the Sea.
- US ratification of UNCLOS will not boost capacity to challenge Russian claims, disputes likely to be resolved outside of convention
- Russia will defend its claims in the Arctic but is unlikely to resort to military means
- Bilateral relations between U.S. and Russia will be more important to Arctic security than U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS
- Russia has effectively removed option of resolving border disputes through UNCLOS in its signing statements under Article 298
- No major disagreement over ECS claims between U.S. and Russia
- Arctic nations are only cooperating through international institutions out of political convenience