Evidence: Alphabetical
- Commercial mining of rare earth metals from sea floor still a decade away
- China actively lobbying for inclusion in the Arctic Council to gain access to Arctic resources
- China using local companies as way of gaining access to Arctic resources
- Convention clarifies frequently disputed rights of "innocent passage"
- China and other counties are reinterpreting customary international law to detriment of the U.S.
- Consensus of experts is that joining UNCLOS would benefit U.S. foreign policy objectives
- Convention will not act as a backdoor for other environmental agreements Senate has not ratified
- China using excessive claims to its Exclusive Economic Zone as a way of constraining U.S. freedom of navigation
- China executing a lawfare campaign against U.S. navy with excessive EEZ claims
- Convention would subject U.S. counterterrorism efforts to review by international tribunals
- CLCS has already received submissions from 40 countries without participation of a U.S. commissioner
- Controversial technology transfer provisions have been removed from the convention
- Customary international law of the sea has developed over centuries
- Convention offers diplomatic mechanism to resolve maritime disputes with China
- Currently, over 100 excessive and illegal claims threaten U.S. FON
- Customary international law is no longer viable because of the increasing number of excessive claims
- Chinese naval ambitions likely to drive changes in the customary international law of the sea
- Coastal states are becoming increasingly assertive in controlling activities of other states in their EEZ
- Customary international law increasingly being forced to adapt quickly to technology
- China's assertive naval rise will change the nature of the customary international law of the sea
- Consistent practice of states illustrates that UNCLOS freedom of navigation provisions have become customary international law
- Coastal states are increasingly challenging US freedom of navigation rights as it remains outside of the UNCLOS framework
- Customary international law is not reliable because it is ambiguous and lacks certainty needed for investment
- Current UNCLOS treaty represents a victory for the U.S. in preserving critical navigational freedoms
- China's aggressive claims have no basis in customary international law or UNCLOS
- China has adopted prior notification requirements that are at odds with UNCLOS and U.S. policy
- China has asserted right to control military activity within EEZ in conflict with UNCLOS
- China at odds with UNCLOS standards defining coastal baselines
- Concerns over international tribunal being used against US military forces fail to fully understand text of convention
- Coast Guard relies on international cooperation with allies under UNCLOS framework and would be Bette served if US were also a party to the convention
- Careful analysis of treaty text shows how U.S. negotiators were able to eliminate the possibility that U.S. forces would be subject to international courts
- Closed hearings before the Senate Armed Services and Classified Intelligence committees confirmed that UNCLOS will not jeopardize intelligence gathering
- Conventions's provisions on 'peaceful purposes' cannot be used to constrain lawful military activities
- Counterfactual claims are invalid - UNCLOS would not constrain U.S. capacity for self-defense
- China walked back its excessive claims with the "9-dash line" when U.S. emphasized rule of law but U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS has weakened our position
- Conservatives should favor Law of Sea because it establishes property rights regime for high seas resources