Evidence: Alphabetical
- Underdeveloped Law of the Sea regime is encouraging countries to enforce their excessive maritime claims with military force
- UNCLOS does not have anything constructive to offer to address problem of overfishing
- US is falling behind in the race to exploit Arctic resources because it remains outside of UNCLOS
- U.S. has lost its leadership role and its credibility by non-adherence to UNCLOS and risks losing claims to valuable resources
- UNCLOS is a peacetime treaty that will not impair U.S. ability to conduct military operations but will greatly facilitate them
- UNCLOS is already established law -- U.S. only stands to benefit from participation
- U.S. non-participation in UNCLOS and ceding of seabed to foreign parties could become greatest foreign policy failure
- U.S. has more to gain than lose from accession to the convention especially since in just about every maritime realm, the U.S. is already abiding by the convention
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS puts them at a disadvantage in the Arctic
- U.S. Navy's freedom of operation in South China Sea could be more constrained after ratification of UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would encourage more states to participate in PSI
- U.S. is locked out of the institutions that will govern control of arctic resources as a non party to UNCLOS
- U.S. should formally accept UNCLOS treaty to fully take advantage of its benefits and regain its leadership role
- UNCLOS represents international government at its worst
- US naval operations already regulated by several treaties and organizations that formed the basis of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS is a remarkable achievement of international law
- U.S. could send powerful signal of its willingness to cooperate in Arctic by ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. non party status to UNCLOS complicates ability to operate and compete for Arctic resources
- UNCLOS ratification is key to securing claims to Arctic resources through CLCS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to securing freedom of navigation rights in Arctic
- U.S. foreign aid could be used to offset any required transfers to states, eliminating any tax burden
- U.S. should not ratify UNCLOS before the ambiguous "military activities" exemption are resolved or it will risk ceding a valuable tool for controlling China
- U.S. Courts already rely on UNCLOS as established customary international law
- U.S. Homeland security officials favor UNCLOS ratification because it furthers rule of law and facilitates coastal law enforcement
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would restore leadership on maritime affairs
- U.S. could challenge China's claim to Arctic resources by becoming party to UNCLOS
- U.S. would be better able to contest Russian and Canadian excessive claims in the Arctic if it were party to UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will restore its leadership in maritime affairs and arctic policy more generally
- U.S. lacks standing to challenge Iranian and Chinese excessive claims as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. strategy for dealing with Chinese aggression in South China Sea must first establish credibility by ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. freedom of operations under continual and increasing challenge by a more aggressive China
- U.S. officials have found no reason to be concerned that U.S. Ratification of UNCLOS would impede PSI
- UNCLOS navigational freedom provisions provides good model for regulating cyberspace
- UNCLOS provisions on transit passage provide good model for international agreements governing military activity in cyberspace
- USNS Impeccable incident illustrates the ambiguities inherent in UNCLOS clause on military activities
- U.S. arctic strategy would be strengthened if U.S. acceded to UNCLOS