Ratifying UNCLOS would expand U.S. ability to conduct MIO and shore up PSI regime
In addition, some columnists and think tank analysts have argued that U.S. accession to the Convention would interfere with the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), under which the United States and more than a dozen allies have agreed to interdict some ships that may present a nonproliferation risk. In fact, the Convention expands the list of justifications for ship interdictions set forth in its predecessor, the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, to which the United States has been a party for more than forty years. Among the many legal bases that may be applicable to interdictions under the PSI are the jurisdiction of coastal states in their territorial seas, the right to board stateless vessels, an agreement concerning high-seas boarding with a flag state (the country of origin of an oceangoing vessel) and the inherent right of self-defense. Indeed several allies have recently expressed concern about the U.S. failure to ratify the Convention, asserting that this failure could weaken the PSI.
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: