Evidence: Alphabetical
- UNCLOS promotes U.S. freedom of navigation in three ways
- UNCLOS won't impact the way U.S. conducts maritime interdiction operations
- UNCLOS will not impact U.S. submarine operations
- U.S. dealing with over 100 threats to our navigational freedoms that could be resolved under UNCLOS
- U.S. sovereignty has more to gain than lose from ratification of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS has already proven itself as a powerful mechanism to bring rule of law to maritime realm
- U.S. relies on maritime interdiction operations to counter threat of terrorism
- Under UNCLOS, U.S. maritime interdiction operations would be subject to jurisdiction of ITLOS
- UNCLOS would complicate intelligence operations by facilitating seizure of U.S. assets
- UNCLOS requires mineral extraction companies pay royalties to ISA to be redistributed
- U.S. codified principle of "Common Heritage of Mankind" into Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act in anticipation of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS imposes burden on states to curtail piracy and facilitates their doing so
- U.S. resource extraction industries realize they have more to lose being outside of the treaty and have lined up in favor of it
- U.S. environmental standards already meet or exceed those set by UNCLOS
- U.S. defense and intelligence community played role in drafting articles 19 & 20 to protect U.S. rights
- U.S. may be losing out on potential Arctic claims because it is outside of UNCLOS
- U.S. should make ratification of UNCLOS a top priority to ensure it doesn't lose out on opening of Arctic
- U.S. freedom of navigation disputes have decreased due in part to the influence of UNCLOS
- U.S. cannot rely on asserting claims through Freedom of Navigation program alone
- U.S. participation in ISA is no different from hundreds of other specialized international organizations
- UNCLOS stipulates modest fees on resource extraction industries but does not represent new taxing authority
- U.S. freedom of navigation rights are under constant threat from "creeping jurisdiction"
- UNCLOS is in no way a power grab by the United Nations
- UNCLOS has force as customary international law but the US needs to be a party to guide its evolution
- US ratification of UNCLOS would help secure the already favorable terms the US negotiated
- US viewed as hypocritical because it has not become a party to UNCLOS
- UNCLOS impedes interdiction efforts in the EEZ of coastal states
- UNCLOS prevents U.S. from boarding ships without flag state approval, giving pass to rogue states
- UNCLOS fails at all of its objectives -- U.S. would be better off remaining outside the convention
- U.S. access to Arctic mineral and oil wealth depends on accession to UNCLOS
- US accession to UNCLOS would obligate to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars of royalties to ISA
- UNCLOS obligates member nations to pay upwards of 7% in royalties for development of mineral and energy resources
- US has long-standing policy to claim development rights within its EEZ
- US ocean policy already allows development of deep seabed mingling resources within US EEZ
- Under UNCLOS, US could be subject to arbitrary lawsuits with binding authority for international tribunals
- US could be subject to international liability for climate change damage under UNCLOS