U.S. resource extraction industries realize they have more to lose being outside of the treaty and have lined up in favor of it
Opponents of UNCLOS claim that accession will also harm U.S. commercial interests in the world‘s oceans. The provisions on seabed mining, in particular, are seen as an attempt at international wealth redistribution.65 Additionally, there is a fear that the ISA would have the power to enforce an international tax on resources extracted from the seabed.66
Although these commercial concerns resonate with many economic conservatives, they are among the easiest to debunk, primarily by examining the economic consequences the United States will face if it does not accede. Claims to mineral rights in the Arctic are governed by UNCLOS provisions on an extended continental shelf, and the United States may lose these claims without representation on the ISA or State Party status.67 Additionally, many economic concerns ring hollow in the face of favorable opinions of the treaty by U.S. industries affected by such regulations.68 For example, the oil and gas industries have agreed to pay any tax levied on deep seabed extractions.69
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
U.S. does not need to ratify UNCLOS to develop hydrocarbon resources beneath the ECS -- development is actively underway already and further development can occur thrigh bilateral agreements with neightboring countries.
Related Quotes:- Empirically, US companies have leased and developed oil development claims on ECS since 2001 without needing UNCLOS framework
- Legal certainty provided by UNCLOS is not a necessary condition for development of oil and gas resources with US EEZ
- US actively surveying extended continental shelf and can negotiate bilateral agreements with nations regarding boundaries outside UNCLOS framework
- US within its rights according to international law to develop on extended continental shelf
- U.S. resource extraction industries realize they have more to lose being outside of the treaty and have lined up in favor of it
Parent Arguments:Counter Argument: -
Without the universally recognized legal regime governing the exploitation of the mineral resources of the deep-sea beyond the zones of national jurisdictions that UNCLOS provides, US companies will not assume the investment rights associated with such projects until it was clear who had “clear legal title” to the resources extracted.
Related Quotes:- U.S. industries view accession to the treaty as essential to doing business in international waters
- Major trade industry groups support US ratification of UNCLOS because they understand the impact it would have on facilitating international trade
- U.S. will be left out of coming ocean-based economic boom unless it ratifies UNCLOS
- Ratification of UNCLOS would provide U.S. companies "clear legal title" to resources extracted, igniting an economic boom
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments:- Offshore oil and gas development dependent on legal protection of UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to development of deep seabed mining industry
- Success of offshore wind power industry depends on U.S. ratification of UNCLOS
- Marine biotechnology industry would benefit from UNCLOS legal regime
- U.S. underseas cable industry needs UNCLOS protection
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to sustaining competitiveness of U.S. shipping industry
- Other states will challenge U.S. unilateral claims outside UNCLOS