Evidence: Alphabetical
- UNCLOS lacks full force and effectiveness unless it is universally accepted
- UNCLOS will continue to change and adapt and US needs to be party to the treaty in order to help guide its evolution
- U.S. should join UNCLOS to protect four critical rights that ensure freedom of navigation
- US will be unable to participate in discussions over future of Arctic as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would boost its international environmental leadership and support multilateral environmental cooperation
- UNCLOS supports work of IWC to save cetacean populations
- U.S. should assert its rights to develop in the Arctic by invoking the existing convention on the high seas
- US ratification of UNCLOS will not boost capacity to challenge Russian claims, disputes likely to be resolved outside of convention
- U.S. would weaken its bargaining position in disputes over Arctic claims if it ratifies UNCLOS
- U.S. should assert its rights under the Convention of the High Seas to mine and develop in the Arctic, independent of UNCLOS
- U.S. currently collects billions of dollars in royalties on outer continental shelf resource development which would go ISA under UNCLOS
- US offshore oil development could generate $92 billion in royalty payments for US treasury over next 50 year
- Under UNCLOS billions of dollars in royalties for offshore oil development would shift to ISA instead of to US revenue
- U.S. seat on ISA board won't necessarily prevent article 82 revenue from going to our adversaries and dictatorships
- UNCLOS has no restrictions on how recipient nations under article 82 have to spend the money
- US should challenge Chinese claims within multilateral fora like UNCLOS because China responds best to multilateral pressure
- US accession to UNCLOS would greatly increase territory under its sovereign control
- US non-party status to UNCLOS undermines is global leadership and complicates efforts to challenge excessive claims through its FON program
- UNCLOS already enjoys global consensus among coastal states and reflects values and interests of US government
- US biotechnology industry won't be able to secure international patents on marine genetic resources without UNCLOS protections
- U.S. needs to be party to UNCLOS to participate in deliberations that are shaping treaty and its institutions
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would enhance PSI and freedom of navigation efforts
- US credibility and legitimacy suffers when it pushes for treaties like UNCLOS but then declines to ratify them
- US shaping operations in Asia Pacific region would be greatly enhanced by US accession to UNCLOS
- US reliance on freedom of navigation program and customary law emboldens other coastal states to make excessive claims
- US ratification of UNCLOS would aid operations in South China Sea by improving legitimacy in challenges to China, bolster credibility on rule of law, and foster multilateral dialogue
- US ratification of UNCLOS would immediately improve prospects for PSI by encouraging more nations to participate
- US global leadership directly tied to its leadership and dominance over the global commons
- UNCLOS has already been used as a backdoor mechanism to change environmental policies of member nations
- US attempts at bilateral diplomacy only complicating disputes, should agree to international framework of UNCLOS
- US currently conducting surveying missions to shore up its Arctic claims to the CLCS
- US can only influence development of UNCLOS by becoming a party to the treaty
- US will have no capacity to challenge CLCS claims unless it is a full member of UNCLOS
- US tacit acceptance of UNCLOS framework for Arctic policy can be seen by its putting forward CLCS bid and Arctic roadmap Strategy
- US should ratify UNCLOS to be able to further check Chinas growing influence in the Arctic
- US policy makers should not underestimate Chinas potential interests or influence in the Arctic region