U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is impairing its ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations to combat drug trafficking
The United States could use the provisions of UNCLOS effectively to combat excessive maritime claims, which can interfere with narcotics interdiction and other law enforcement efforts. Several critical coastal states continue to claim territorial seas of 200 nautical miles, in violation of the convention’s 12-nm limit. These countries see our law enforcement operations in their claimed territorial seas as violations of their sovereignty and are either reluctant or refuse to cooperate with proposed actions against vessels engaged in drug-smuggling that are interdicted in these disputed areas.
Since we are not yet party to UNCLOS, it is very difficult for us to credibly argue that they must give up these excessive claims. The result is that counter-drug bilateral agreements with these nations are difficult, interdiction efforts in their claimed territorial seas are hampered, and our negotiating ability to change the situation is compromised.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
The U.S. conducts a wide range of maritime interdiction and related operations with its allies and partners, virtually all of whom are parties to the Convention. If the U.S. were to ratify UNCLOS, it would only strengthen its ability to conduct such operations by eliminating any question of its right to avail ourselves of the legal authorities contained in the Convention.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- UNCLOS does not require U.S. to ask permission before boarding a ship, thats already ruled out by 1958 convention
- UNCLOS won't impact the way U.S. conducts maritime interdiction operations
- US ratification of UNCLOS would strengthen and preserve our authority for conducting maritime interdiction operations
- 1958 Convention already regulates U.S. naval rights to board ships and submarines
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments: