Revision of U.S. will not be obligated to transfer technology under UNCLOS from Mon, 02/02/2015 - 19:48
While article 144 of the convention does encourage technology transfer, Section 5 of the 1994 agreement eliminated this mandate and included other provisions to protect sensitive military technologies.
Quicktabs: Arguments
U.S. Technological Advantage. It is true that the 1982 form of the convention mandated private technology transfer detrimental to U.S. national security and economic interests. That was one of the factors specifically cited when President Reagan rejected the convention. Article 144 of the convention does encourage technology transfer, calls for parties to “cooperate in promoting the transfer of technology and scientific knowledge,” and remains in force following the adoption of the 1994 agreement but does not mandate technology transfer. Such transfer, mandated by Annex III Article 5 of the convention, was eliminated by section 5 of the annex to the 1994 agreement. Additional protection against national security damage through technology transfer is provided by Article 302 of the convention: “[N]othing in this Convention shall be deemed to require a State Party, in the fulfillment of its obligations under this Convention, to supply information the disclosure of which is contrary to the essential interests of its security.”
[MYTH]: Obligatory technology transfers will equip actual or potential adversaries with sensitive and militarily useful equipment and know-how (such as antisubmarine warfare technology).17 In fact, no technology transfers are required by the Convention. Mandatory technology transfers were eliminated by section 5 of the annex to the 1994 Agreement amending Part XI of the Convention. Further, Article 302 of the Convention explicitly provides that nothing in the Convention requires a party to release information the disclosure of which is contrary to the essential interests of its security.
The United States has not ratified UNCLOS because it initially objected to part XI of the treaty, as did many other developed nations.110 The objections to part XI were based on economic and security concerns.111 Part XI recognized the region of seabed and ocean floor beyond the jurisdiction of any state to be the common heritage of humankind.112 Part XI, therefore, requires states to share the financial benefits113 from activities within the region as well as the related technology.114   In response to the objections to these provisions, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution to encourage the United States and other objecting states to ratify UNCLOS.115 This resolution, known as the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, allows countries to ratify UNCLOS without being bound to part XI.116 Given that the United States may ratify UNCLOS without part XI, the benefits to the development of offshore wind power are one of the many reasons for the United States to ratify UNCLOS.117
[MYTH] Obligatory technology transfers will equip actual or potential adversaries with sensitive and militarily useful equipment and know-how (such as anti-submarine warfare technology).
- No technology transfers are required by the Convention. Mandatory technology transfers were eliminated by Section 5 of the Annex to the Agreement amending Part XI of the Convention.
- Article 302 of the Convention provides that nothing in the Convention requires a party to disclose information the disclosure of which is contrary to the essential interests of its security.
Lastly, U.S. companies are not subject to the mandatory technology transfer requirements of Article 5 of Annex III of UNCLOS.213 As a result of Implementation Agreement, Section 5 of the treaty has been replaced by a set of general principles relating to technology transfers with a developing Member State.214 Furthermore, the treaty includes language to prevent technology transfers in the event it poses a national security risk to the U.S.215 Article 302 states: “[N]othing in this Convention shall be deemed to require a State Party, in the fulfillment of its obligations under this Convention, to supply information the disclosure of which is contrary to the essential interests of its security.”216
Only through the ratification of UNCLOS will the U.S. be able to truly provide American companies with the support and competitive edge that they have been craving for three decades.217 Without the risk of mandatory technology transfers, U.S. companies have nothing to lose and much to gain from the stability and predictability UNCLOS provides.218 To avoid losing American jobs to foreign locations like the U.K., the U.S. needs to accede to UNCLOS to help foster a deep seabed mining industry for U.S. companies and create jobs in this potentially lucrative and emerging industry.219