Evidence: Alphabetical
- US being excluded from international maritime policy because it has failed to ratify UNCLOS
- US contributions to maritime leadership increasingly seen as irrelevant because of its failure to ratify UNCLOS
- US failure to ratify treaty modifications it demanded has undercut credibility in international negotiations
- US sovereignty harmed more by remaining outside the convention as it will be subject to customary international law without ability to guide treaty
- US not out of running in race for Arctic resources, it can still submit claim if it ratifies UNCLOS
- UNCLOS has proven itself as valuable global framework for resolving maritime conflicts
- US navy's emphasis on a cooperative strategy lacks necessary emphasis on international law it will need to succeed
- US interest in controlling overfishing is best served by becoming a party to UNCLOS
- US and Canadian ratification of UNCLOS necessary for its provisions on overfishing to be fully effective
- UNCLOS offers most practical legal model for outer space for several reasons
- UNCLOS model offers novel solutions to regulation of outer space domain
- UNCLOS provisions on innocent passage offer a potential model for resolving military use of space
- UNCLOS provisions on environmental protection and risk assessment offer model for protecting outer space environment
- U.S. has most interest in protections, both for environmental and security reasons, provided by convention for restricting activity within its EEZ
- US interests often thwarted in United Nations bureaucracies by regional voting blocs
- UNCLOS would create even more unwieldy, unaccountable bureaucracies that take on a life of their own
- US does not need to ratify UNCLOS to lock in freedom of navigation rights
- UNCLOS will be utilized as basis for environmental laws and claims regardless of whether US is a party but US can only guide it if accedes to the treaty
- U.S. industries view accession to the treaty as essential to doing business in international waters
- US not losing opportunity to guide development of UNCLOS, it can always make accession dependent on amendment
- US can resolve territorial disputes with each nation bilaterally without being party to UNCLOS
- US can still legally assert a claim in the Arctic without being party to UNCLOS
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is harming U.S. economy by constraining resource mining and underseas cables industries
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS has hurt our leadership and foreign policy broadly
- U.S. has choice of agreeing to mineral and resource provisions of UNCLOS by ratifying treaty or foregoing ability to extract valuable resources at all
- U.S. has absolute veto rights over preventing royalties from being distributed to undesirable actors
- U.S. participation in UNCLOS necessary to resolve Arctic dispute between Russia and Norway
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS necessary to protect underseas cables and secure further rights for the industry
- U.S. should drive development of UNCLOS to treat attacks on underseas cables the same as piracy
- Underseas cables are the lifeline for the global Internet economy and depend on legal protection
- U.S. national interest harmed by remaining outside UNCLOS regime and unable to take advantage of Arctic boom
- US ratification of UNCLOS would strengthen and preserve our authority for conducting maritime interdiction operations
- US ratification of UNCLOS will not subject military to rule by international tribunals
- US uniquely disadvantaged in its reliance on customary international law to secure navigation rights
- US already acts according to the convention without accruing its benefits -- it is time for US to resume leadership role
- U.S. assertion of rights and challenges to excessive claims lack credibility as long as we remain outside of treaty