Recently Added
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)
Although the 1994 treaty modifications have toned down some of the most direct mandatory technology transfer requirements, the treaty still places at risk some very sensitive, and militarily useful, technology which may readily be misused by the navies of ocean mining states.
- Pernicious effect of technology transfer provision still in effect even after 1994 agreement
- Entrepreneurs likely to be deterred from investing in technology and research necessary for deep seabed mining by excessive royalties requirements
- Technology transfer provisions of UNCLOS could be used to acquire militarily significant dual-use technologies
- Even with amendments, 1994 agreement still puts sensitive military technology at risk of transfer
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
While article 144 of the convention does encourage technology transfer, Section 5 of the 1994 agreement eliminated this mandate and included other provisions to protect sensitive military technologies.
- Treaty modifications in 1994 addressed national security concerns over technology transfer provisions
- Controversial technology transfer provisions have been removed from the convention
- 1994 agreement removed obligations of member states to transfer technology or share revenue
- Technology transfers have been eliminated from the treaty and military sensitive technology was never at risk
- 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
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)
- Ratification of UNCLOS would expose U.S. to broad liability for environmental damage in international courts
- U.S. participation in UNCLOS will undermine national sovereignty
- U.S. would be obligated to transfer technology under UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would further advance collectivist idea of "common heritage of mankind"
- UNCLOS would give far-reaching regulatory powers to international and national bureacracies
- The 1994 Agreement did not resolve serious problems with UNCLOS
- U.S. should reject UNCLOS because of its revenue sharing agreements
- UNCLOS would subject U.S. to anti-competitive regime
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would damage national security
Many of the risk scenarios critics predicted would happen in 1982 if the U.S. failed to ratify UNCLOS have not occurred and the U.S. is no worse off 30 years later for not having ratified the treaty.
U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has damaged U.S. national security and economic growth by forclosing valuable opportunities, increasing the costs for military operations, and crippling U.S. maritime leadership as our adversaries become more aggressive.
- U.S. non-participation in UNCLOS has tangible costs to our national security
- Both US and world losing out by US non-participation in UNCLOS
- As most prominent advocate of UNCLOS during negotiations, US has lost significant political capital by remaining outside the treaty
- It is not too late for the U.S. to join UNCLOS but there are and will continue to be real costs for delaying accession
- Serious consequences for U.S. by remaining outside the treaty
- U.S. critical security interests are continually harmed by its non party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. non-participation in UNCLOS and ceding of seabed to foreign parties could become greatest foreign policy failure
- U.S. is losing emerging Arctic race by not being party to UNCLOS
- Adversaries using U.S. absence from UNCLOS to modify martime law in ways adverse to U.S. interests
- U.S. position as a leader has been damaged by non-participation
- U.S. adversaries are using its absence from UNCLOS to push excessive maritime claims
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is undermining ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations
The U.S. is currently tracking dozens of excessive claims by states, some of which are from states seeking to take advantage of perceived U.S. weakness due to its non-party status to UNCLOS. Regardless, the U.S. would be in a better position to contest these claims (and dissuade further claims) as a party to UNCLOS.
- China and Iran challenging U.S. operations because of its non-party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. lacks standing to challenge Iranian and Chinese excessive claims as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. ability to challenge excessive claims weakened by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- UNCLOS would help protect U.S. naval freedoms against growing number of excessive claims
- ... and 4 more quote(s)
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