Should not overstate the impact that US will be able to have with a full seat on CLCS

More importantly, having a “seat at the table” is just that – one nation, one vote. And, clearly, the last two decades have witnessed a continued decline in U.S. diplomatic and economic influence in multilateral negotiations (e.g., Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997); Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998); 2008 Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions, to name a few.) Additionally, do the authors really believe that Canada and Russia will change their positions regarding the status of the waters of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route/Northeast Passage or that they will rescind their illegal straight baselines in the Arctic if the United States joins the Convention? Or that China will change its position regarding the legality of military activities in the EEZ or that Beijing will rescind its illegal straight baselines along its entire coast or relinquish its illegal claims to the South China Sea islands and their surrounding waters? U.S. accession to the Convention will have absolutely no impact on these or other nations’ illegal maritime claims. The only way to effectively challenge these excessive claims and prevent them from becoming ingrained in customary law is through routine, firm and tar- geted diplomatic protests by the State Department and frequent operational challenges by DoD ships and aircraft. But to do that, we need to maintain naval superiority, and have the political will to exercise it.