U.S. can't pursue cooperative maritime strategy while still relying on customary international law
Myth 1: “We don't need no stinkin' UNCLOS! " as customary international law will protect important U.S. interests.
Not so. The Convention provides clear legal rules in a written, comprehensive treaty, as opposed to sometimes fuzzy customary international law that is easily challenged by unilateral claims and altered by countries' practices over time. The United States was one of only four countries to vote against the Convention in 1982 and continues to be aligned with such non-signatories as North Korea, relying on a curious mixture of customary law and unofficial adherence to UNCLOS provisions. We can't have it both ways, especially as we seek international partnership in other critical areas of national concern-such as the I.OOO-ship navy and a variety of international governance regimes for the good order and security of the maritime commons.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
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.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- 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)
Parent Arguments: