Evidence: Alphabetical
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS same as in other international agreements and do not threaten military
- Defense department has endorsed passage of UNCLOS because it secures global access to the oceans
- Dispute resolution mechanism in UNCLOS no worse than already accepted principle of universal jurisdiction
- Dangerous precedent to assume U.S. can continue to assert its navigational rights
- Decisions made by ITLOS would be legally binding and enforceable within United States
- Dispute settlement provisions in UNCLOS were advocated by US originally because they are still best way to further rule of law
- Deep seabed mining investors committed to abiding by UNCLOS framework
- Direct correlation between us economic and military power and the rights preserved by UNCLOS
- Dispute settlement provisions in UNCLOS contribute to advancement of maritime law and are in best interest of US
- Developing world no longer committed to "common heritage of mankind" concept in globalized world
- Development of regime for governing outer space would benefit from following the model of UNCLOS and the international seabed authority
- Despite U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS, all three branches of government have already accepted it as law of the land
- Disputes over fishing rights between Canada and US could easily have been resolve through UNCLOS framework
- DSHMRA act has already given US industries the legal authority they need to conduct deep seabed mining operations
- DSHMRA does not give mining companies the needed certainty they need to operate in international waters
- Demands for rare earth metals and instability in current producer states are driving deep seabed exploration
- Deep seabed environment is a critical ecosystem that needs to be protected
- Deep seabed mining could destroy valuable biodiversity that hasn't even been discovered yet
- Deep seabed mining can devastate fish stocks by disrupting the seamounts they depend on
- Despite rhetoric, existing governance and security framework in Arctic sufficient to prevent conflicts
- Despite rhetoric, Canada unlikely to resort to military action to protect Arctic claims
- Disputes over arctic fishing resources have already lead to increased tensions between arctic nations
- Despite broad consensus in favor of its ratification, UNCLOS has languished for past 20 years
- Defense department has consistently advocated accession to UNCLOS as critical to U.S. Interests
- Debate over bio prospecting similar to debates over marine resource utilization in UNCLOS
- Disruption of underseas cables can bring financial system to a standstill
- Dispute settlement provisions within UNCLOS provide best possible alternative for U.S.
- Debate over ISA is settled at international level and all seabed mining will take place under the ISA regime
- Disputes over Arctic shipping between Russia, U.S. and Canada likely by 2030 if not resolved
- Despite claims of UNCLOS opponents, resource exploitation in the extended continental shelf is legally impossible outside of UNCLOS