Evidence: Alphabetical
- UNCLOS provisions on freedom of navigation have already archived status of customary international law
- US can enjoy all navigational freedoms ensured by UNCLOS without acceding to it
- US failure to ratify UNCLOS is impeding the international cooperation necessary to address multinational threats like terrorism
- US freedom of navigation rights are a critical component of our global leadership
- US is abdicating its global maritime leadership role by remaining outside of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS unique from other environmental agreements in the scale of the external judicial review it imposes
- U.S. signing statements for UNCLOS outlined and clarified seven critical issues for U.S. support
- UNCLOS expands U.S. sovereignty by 4.1 million miles
- U.S. needs to ratify UNCLOS to be able to counter regional blocs with ISA
- U.S. is being left behind in race for the Arctic as a non-party to UNCLOS
- UNCLOS similar to Geneva Law of the Sea which has achieved status of customary international law and the U.S. has agreed to treat it as such
- UNCLOS complicates anti-piracy efforts by allowing pirates to act within the EEZ of weak states
- UNCLOS expanded national sovereignty more than any other international agreement
- U.S. has committed to abiding by UNCLOS framework in the Arctic both formally and informally
- U.S. has significant economic interest in Arctic oil reserves
- U.S. will be left out of coming ocean-based economic boom unless it ratifies UNCLOS
- U.S. accession to UNCLOS necessary to provide leadership on a number of critical environmental issues
- U.S. has no standing in CLCS until it ratifies convention
- U.S. energy and mining interests are at a considerable disadvantage if U.S. remains outside convention
- U.S. military already constrained by UNCLOS restrictions since Reagan's 1983 Executive Order
- U.S. failure to ratify treaties like UNCLOS directly responsible for the decline of American influence around the world
- US has made clear numerous times that military activities including intelligence gathering would not be subject to dispute resolution
- UNCLOS would have no impact on US intelligence activities and would be more be more favorable than 1958 convention we have been operating under for decades
- U.S. needs to accede to UNCLOS to be able to hold other countries to same rule of law standard
- U.S. absence from UNCLOS hurts our leadership consistency and encourages others to flout existing standards
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS necessary for resolving conflicts and showing leadership in Asia-Pacific region
- U.S. and China disagree on definition of Marine Scientific Research clause under UNCLOS
- Underseas cables handle trillions of dollars of transactions a day and help sustain global banking industry
- U.S. banking and military command systems rely on underseas cables
- US telecom companies are disadvantaged in disputes over underseas cable rights by the US being a non-party to the convention
- US accession to the convention would provide domestic deep seabed mining industry strong leadership and legal stability
- US no longer has same influence on customary international law of the sea now that UNCLOS has going into effect without US as a party
- U.S. and China have established a bilateral forum to resolve differences over application of UNCLOS
- U.S.-Chinese diplomatic disputes over EEZ claims have spillover effects on larger global issues
- US missing out on tremendous economic gain from exploiting oil, gas, and mineral resources outside EEZ
- UNCLOS will not interfere with PSI or interdiction efforts, all provisions are the same as 1958 convention