UNCLOS has numerous new provisions specifically for protection of underseas cables that are only available to parties to the treaty
The 1982 Convention provides this modern legal compass. In ten specific articles6, the Convention provides a comprehensive international legal regime for submarine cables and pipelines in territorial seas, archipelagic waters, the Exclusive Economic Zones ("EEZ"), upon the continental shelves, and on the high seas.
Critics of the 1982 Convention argue that existing customary international law should suffice. For cables this is simply not the case for several reasons. Foremost among these reasons is that the Convention explicitly goes beyond preexisting international law in crucial areas of submarine cable installation, maintenance, and operations and provides binding dispute resolution to ensure proper enforcement of these new obligations, but only for countries that are parties to the Convention.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
Currently the vital U.S. underseas cable industry has to rely on the outdated 1884 telegraph treaty for its legal basis when defending its rights to lay, maintain, and repair underseas cables. U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would better protect U.S. companies’ existing cable systems and foster additional investments by giving telecommunications the legal certainty to their claims that they need.Â
Keywords:Related Quotes:- Telecommunications industry supports the treaty because of its valuable support for underseas cables
- As a non-party to UNCLOS, U.S. can only use 1884 convention rules on telegraph cables to protect its underseas cables
- Protections for underseas cables upgraded in UNCLOS
- US telecom companies are disadvantaged in disputes over underseas cable rights by the US being a non-party to the convention
- ... and 31 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments: