Evidence: Alphabetical
-
Overwhelming consensus of experts and officials is in favor of ratifying convention
-
On balance, UNCLOS is net positive for U.S. national security
-
Other parties will respect U.S. declaration on "military activities"
-
Ordinary pollutants pose special problem in the Arctic
-
Oil and gas companies not willing to undertake extensive capital investments required to develop offshore without legal stability provided by UNCLOS
-
Oil and gas companies regularly pay royalty payments to foreign governments to extract resources, UNCLOS royalties are no different
-
Opportunity cost to US of not joining UNCLOS is greater vulnerability to excessive lawfare claims hampering mobility and access rights
-
On balance, gains from freedom of navigation rights outweigh costs of UNCLOS
-
Overview of the US-China impeccable incident
-
On balance, ratifying UNCLOS is best alternative for protecting US freedom of navigation rights
-
On balance, policy benefits of ratifying UNCLOS far outweigh any disadvantages
-
Over a hundred excessive claims currently, some of which are directly complicating counter narcotics operations
-
Oil and gas exploration in the Arctic likely to occur independent of Arctic warming
-
Oil, gas, and mining interests have made it clear that they won't operate without legal protection from UNCLOS
-
Our adversaries can take advantage of US absence from the treaty to change the rules to their advantage
-
On balance the U.S should welcome the dispute resolution mechanisms in the treaty
-
Overwhelming and consistent bipartisan consensus for U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea
-
Oil and gas industry unwilling to rely solely on rights outlined in 1958 convention
-
On balance, critics' arguments that ratification of UNCLOS would impede PSI do not hold up under scrutiny
-
Opponents who argue UNCLOS would impose U.N. law on U.S. ignore long negotiation history and U.S. leadership in writing treaty
-
Oil and gas industries favor UNCLOS because it provides legal framework for accessing resources outside EEZ
-
Oil and gas industries have concluded revenue sharing agreement in UNCLOS is a fair price to pay considering advantages
-
Oil and gas industry strongly supports U.S. accession to UNCLOS to regain the leadership role in maritime affairs it has lost
-
Other Arctic nations are taking the lead in developing rich Arctic resources in oil, minerals, and rare earth elements
-
Opposition to U.S. ratification of UNCLOS outnumbered by consensus of political, economic, and business leaders
-
Offshore petroleum companies looking to UNCLOS to provide legal title to areas beyond U.S. EEZ
-
Only by being party to UNCLOS can the U.S. protect its rights to deploy and maintain underseas cables
-
Oil and gas industry strongly supports accession to UNCLOS in order to protect U.S. interests
-
Original collectivist and redistributionist framework UNCLOS was built on remains in place
-
Only by acceeding to UNCLOS can the U.S. shape direction of ITLOS and its rulings
-
Only U.S. firm with claim rights for deep seabed mining unable to secure investment as long as U.S. remains outside of UNCLOS
-
Over 85 treaties U.S. is already a party to contain similar if not more restrictive dispute settlement provisions to UNCLOS
-
On balance, multiple reasons to believe that U.S. exposure to dispute settlement provisions under UNCLOS would be more to its benefit than detriment
-
Over 60 percent of potential Arctic oil and gas resources are located in Russian territory
-
Other countries could follow China's lead and push for more restrictive interpretation of military passage that limits U.S. military freedom of navigation
-
Oil and gas industry are strong proponents of U.S ratification of UNCLOS
Pages
