Evidence: Alphabetical
- U.S. ability to lead world in protecting marine environment hindered by its non party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. should clarify in ratifying UNCLOS that it should not supersede existing U.S. regulations under the oil pollution act
- U.S. can issue signing statement upon ratifying UNCLOS that clarifies to interpretation of the military activities exemption
- U.S. needs to ratify UNCLOS now to secure rights to deep seabed and the vast deposits of rare earth metals
- U.S. adversaries are taking advantage of U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS to shape international laws in ways inimical to U.S. interests
- U.S. should clarify intent so regulations defending against invasive species are not superseded by UNCLOS
- U.S. can't pursue cooperative maritime strategy while still relying on customary international law
- U.S. can exempt its military activities from dispute resolution tribunals
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS is a critical first step towards boosting U.S. credibility and leadership in resolving South China Sea dispute
- U.S. commercial shipping industry has a lot at stake in ensuring that UNCLOS is ratified
- U.S. cannot advocate for a rule of law based global regime whole remaining outside of UNCLOS
- U.S. multinationals forced to work through other countries to pursue seabed mining claims because of U.S. non-party status
- U.S. economy will benefit from resource exploitation in territory gained by ratifying UNCLOS
- UNCLOS ratification would bolster U.S. efforts to promote and protect international trade
- U.S. sidelined as IMO develops new global policies as they are based on UNCLOS
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is hindering its ability to engage on international maritime issues
- U.S. should issue clarifying statement to ensure that UNCLOS port of entry regulations do not override U.S. invasive species regulations
- UNCLOS ratification will bolster navigational rights of commercial shipping industry that our military and economy rely on
- U.S. Naval War College war game found multiple reasons why U.S. should immediately ratify UNCLOS
- USNWC war game found U.S. non-ratification of UNCLOS risks U.S. being replaced by Russia as the leader in Arctic
- U.S. leadership and credibility is gradually being eroded by its non party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would also address domestic legal issues with underseas cables
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS critical to giving U.S. industries a chance to compete for resources
- U.S. likely to be forced to ratify UNCLOS at some point due to the inevitable negative consequences of non-accession
- U.S. will be better able to guide international cooperation to protect the marine environment as a party to UNCLOS
- U.S. should clarify intent to make sure that Clean Water Act regulations are not nullified by UNCLOS
- UNCLOS is in U.S. strategic interests because it protects freedom of mobility necessary to meet future operational challenges
- UNCLOS preferable to customary international law because it is stable and consistent
- U.S. incurs significant political and economic costs from trying to enforce its freedom of navigation rights through the military
- U.S. rejection of UNCLOS could cause entire regime to unravel, foreclosing possibility of renegotiating similar treaty
- U.S. Global leadership on maritime affairs would be abdicated by remaining outside of the convention
- U.S. freedom to lay underseas cables are under increasing assault every year
- UNCLOS would specifically allow U.S. telecommunication companies to protect underseas cables from emerging threats of piracy and terrorism
- UNCLOS contains new provisions to protect new uses for underseas cables not anticipated by earlier treaties
- UNCLOS model could be extended to cyberspace with devastating economic impact
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS critical to making progress on many other maritime agreements