UNCLOS is already established law -- U.S. only stands to benefit from participation

MOORE: Let me just turn it around as well. I find rather interesting the notion that the argument is made that, well, it's all customary international law. Why do you need to sign? If it is already customary international law and binding on the United States, why shouldn't we go ahead and sign? What's the harm? In fact, one of the greatest errors in the series of arguments is even if every one of these arguments were true, which take one little, you know, bits and pieces of this thing and make an argument against it, even if they were all true, they miss the aggregate of the overall benefit for the United States of America. And by staying out, nothing that they are concerned about will stop. We just simply will be non-empowered. For example, the International Seabed Authority is not going to go away. It's out there. If we've turned it all over to the United Nations so far, which is nonsense, it's already done. It will not go away. There are 153 countries and the European Union. So these are really nonsense arguments that are being made.