Evidence: Alphabetical
- Iran using excessive claims to restrict U.S. freedom of navigation rights in Straits of Hormuz
- Interpretation of "military activities" clause left up to external courts and possibly unfriendly panel
- If U.S. remains outside UNCLOS, U.S. firms will have no legal rights to deep seabed mining resources
- ISA will promulgate regulations on nations outside of U.S. control
- In prepared signing statements, U.S. has declared an exemption for its military activities from compulsory dispute resolution
- INCSEA agreement with China would artificially elevate status of their navy to that of U.S.
- International law has established precedent that peacetime intelligence collection is not aggressive
- It is not a credible position for the US to rely on customary international law precedents from half a century ago
- India is working to mine rare earth elements from seabed to counter China's monopoly
- International law has been less effective at preventing nations from making excessive claims than U.S. naval supremacy
- If US accedes to UNCLOS, mining companies would have to abide by burdensome regulations
- International law unlikely to dissuade Iran from taking steps to close Strait of Hormuz
- International institutions like the ISA and dispute settlement tribunals cannot be created through customary international law
- In signing statements, US has explicitly declared right to determine venue for settling disputes involving military
- If other nations follow China's example of limiting access to the maritime commons, the results could have devastating economic impact
- Iran directly trying to challenge US maritime dominance by denying freedom of navigation
- International maritime law has evolved to act more to foster coordination and cooperation than to set limits
- Impossible for proponents of UNCLOS to have high confidence that UNCLOS won't restrict US intelligence operations
- Importance of the Arctic region to U.S. national security is winning over many skeptics of UNCLOS and isolating remaining voices
- Interest in seabed mining is growing but not enough attention is being paid to the environmental impacts
- International Maritime Organization is more important to global ocean policy than UNCLOS and U.S. remains leader in IMO
- Intelligence community has not raised any objections to ratifying UNCLOS
- International community should follow example set by UNCLOS and establish governing regime to combat cybercrime
- Implications of warming Arctic are creating a national security imperative for the U.S to ratify UNCLOS
- It is not too late for the U.S. to join UNCLOS but there are and will continue to be real costs for delaying accession
- Impeccable incident demonstrates variance in interpretations of UNCLOS Article 301 between US and China
- International seabed authority will have no ability to levy taxes and is limited to managing deep seabed mining
- Increasing global reliance on internet telecommunications underscores need for protections for underseas cables provided by UNCLOS
- ISA was crafted to meet all U.S. objections during initial negotiations
- ISA model could be extended to protecting ocean biodiversity through a new agreement
- International Seabed Authority could override U.S. objections to environmentally harmful mining and drilling
- Increased arctic shipping traffic will create its own environmental problems
- ITLOS inefficiently managed and perceived as unfair, undermining compliance in its decisions
- Idealist approach to resolving arctic conflict through international institutions or economic interdependence does not hold up to scrutiny
- It could take U.S. economy months, if not years, to recover from a large-scale attack against underseas cables
- Imbalance of attention poses greatest threat to Arctic stability