Evidence: Alphabetical
- UNCLOS ratification would protect and expand U.S. rights to deploy naval expeditionary forces to respond to and calm crises
- Underseas cable infrastructure critical for global economy
- U.S. Navy increasingly outclassed by other Arctic nations in their ability to operate in Arctic environment
- U.S. should ratify UNCLOS to be able to take part in emerging deep seabed mining industry
- U.S. should ratify UNCLOS to be able to contribute to emerging consensus on global environmental protection
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to its widespread acceptance and ratification by other nations
- U.S. leadership position has been threatened by non-ratification but would be improved by ratification
- U.S. cannot convincingly argue for multilateral solutions to South China Seas disputes as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. missing out on opportunity to influence ITLOS over South China Sea dispute
- UNCLOS is best multilateral forum for U.S. to engage with for resolution of South China Sea dispute
- U.S. ability to conduct environmental and oceanographic research constrained by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. needs to be party to UNCLOS to fully exercise and defend its navigational rights in the Arctic
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS has locked it out of ability to successfully exploit resources in its ECS
- US-Mexico maritime treaty does not disprove necessity of UNCLOS for establishing legal claims, opponents of UNCLOS are conflating ECS delineation with maritime boundary delimitation
- U.S. non-participation in UNCLOS increases risks of military confrontation over use of ECS resources
- UNCLOS does not create a new forum for challenging U.S. climate change policies
- UNCLOS can in no way be interpreted or utilized as a climate change treaty
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is far more a financial liability than its accession would be
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS would reduce risk from asserting freedom of navigation rights and improve U.S. diplomatic position with violators
- U.S. reliance on military power to assert freedom of navigation rights is no longer sustainable, should be grounded in rule of law through UNCLOS
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has complicated its ability to engage with allies to resolve South China Sea disputes peacefully
- U.S. unwillingness to ratify UNCLOS even while attempting to enforce its rules undermines its ability to remain maritime leader
- U.S. would not have been able to contribute as member of the tribunal even if it was a party to UNCLOS
- U.S. joining UNCLOS would have no tangible impact on Chinese policy in South China Sea
- U.S. needs rule-based order of UNCLOS to secure objectives in the Arctic
- U.S. corporations will not pursue deep seabed mining without legal framework of UNCLOS to protect their investments
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS necessary to restore international maritime leadership
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS will enable it to take an active role in shaping future of International Seabed Authority
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS would be a powerful signal of U.S. maritime leadership
- U.S. absence from UNCLOS has already resulted in jobs leaving U.S. to go to member states
- U.S. maritime leadership slowly eroding due to U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS
- U.S. corporations strongly favor UNCLOS ratification because they see other countries gaining an advantage while they are sidelined
- Underseas cables are vulnerable to attack and can take days to repair, potentially severing a country from the network
- U.S. stance on FONOPs in China's territorial waters undercut by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS necessary to preserve leadership in promoting rules-based approach to governance in South China Sea
- U.S. already abiding by UNCLOS to maximum extent possible as a matter of customary law