U.S. needs to ratify UNCLOS to be able to counter regional blocs with ISA
In addition, critics of the Convention argue that by ratifying the Convention, the United States would set the wrong precedent by subjecting itself to the authority of international organizations created by the Convention, i.e., the ISA and the Commission.105 Because the decision- making process in these organizations usually requires a majority vote, the United States would have to face “regional, economic, or political blocs that coordinate their votes to support outcomes counter to U.S. interests.”106 However, if the United States ratifies the Convention, it would permit the United States to nominate members for such bodies. As a result, the United States would either have veto power or would have to get concurring votes to prevent an adverse decision.107 Moreover, having American representation in the bodies created by the Convention would ensure that the Convention is interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with United States’ interests.
An Arctic Race: How the United States' Failure to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention could Adversely Affect its Interests in the Arctic ." University of Dayton Law Review. Vol. 35. (2009-2010): 149-173. [ More (10 quotes) ]
"Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
The U.S. safeguard against such transfers becomes operative through the interaction of the convention and the 1994 agreement. Convention Article 161, paragraph 8(d) requires consensus of the ISA council to distribute economic benefits, pursuant to Article 162. Section 3, paragraph 15(a) of the annex to the 1994 agreement provides the United States a permanent seat on the council by virtue of being the largest economy on the date of entry into force of the convention.
Keywords: