Accession to UNCLOS would allow telecommunication companies to prevent damage to underseas cables before it occurs
Under the 1884 treaty, nations are required to provide criminal and civil sanctions for negligent or intentional actions by third parties which damage a cable. But under the 1884 treaty, the cable owner must wait until the damage is done before these sanctions are triggered. In welcome contrast, under the 1982 Convention, third party conduct which is likely to result in damage is sanctioned in addition to actual damage cases. So the cable owner has a remedy to prevent the injury to critical infrastructure in the first place10. When one considers the average $1M plus cost repair a single cable and the disruption a cable break can cause to essential economic and strategic interests, it is easy to see why U.S. telecommunications companies need the United States to accede 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Currently the vital U.S. underseas cable industry has to rely on the outdated 1884 telegraph treaty for its legal basis when defending its rights to lay, maintain, and repair underseas cables.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: