The U.S. should Ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
The U.S. would benefit from ratification of UNCLOS
- Consensus of experts advocate for U.S. ratification of UNCLOS
- Defense department has consistently advocated ratification of UNCLOS
- Political opposition to ratification of UNCLOS dominated by small group of conservatives
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS best way to preserve freedom of navigation rights
- U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation is continually challenged by excessive claims
- Freedom of Navigation program is not a long-term viable solution to address excessive claims
- Freedom of navigation is critical to U.S. leadership and economy
- U.S. will be able to challenge excessive claims more effectively as a party to UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would benefit marine conservation efforts
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS necessary to control overfishing
- Deep seabed mining has potential to cause significant environmental damage and should be regulated
- Arctic environment requires special environmental protection
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would boost U.S. global leadership
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS critical to naval soft power needed for cooperation with other navies
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS treaty necessary to restore maritime leadership role
- UNCLOS treaty helps establish needed rule of law and governance regime for oceans
- UNCLOS regime empirically has already shown that it is a stabilizing force
- Customary international law is no longer sufficient to protect U.S. interests
- UNCLOS has empirically been successful
- Bilateral treaties are not an alternative to UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to a number of maritime industries
- Offshore oil and gas development dependent on legal protection of UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to development of deep seabed mining industry
- Success of offshore wind power industry depends on U.S. ratification of UNCLOS
- Marine biotechnology industry would benefit from UNCLOS legal regime
- U.S. underseas cable industry needs UNCLOS protection
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to sustaining competitiveness of U.S. shipping industry
- Other states will challenge U.S. unilateral claims outside UNCLOS
- UNCLOS necessary to protect rights of marine researchers
- Ratification of UNCLOS is in U.S. national security interests
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would bolster homeland security and counterterrorism efforts
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS best way to preserve freedom of navigation rights
- U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation is continually challenged by excessive claims
- Freedom of Navigation program is not a long-term viable solution to address excessive claims
- Freedom of navigation is critical to U.S. leadership and economy
- U.S. will be able to challenge excessive claims more effectively as a party to UNCLOS
- Model of UNCLOS useful for governance of other global commons
- Many valuable lessons in UNCLOS for international governance of cyberspace
- UNCLOS regime sets a good precedent for governance of outer space
- UNCLOS has empirically been successful
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would help resolve disputes with Russia in Arctic
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would help moderate rising Chinese naval power
- U.S. ability to peacefully resolve South China Sea disputes compromised by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. must challenge China's flawed interpretation of UNCLOS freedom of navigation provisions
- U.S. can best influence China to abide by international rule of law as a party to UNCLOS
- U.S. can best challenge China's excessive claims as a party to UNCLOS
U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has been detrimental
- U.S. is losing emerging Arctic race by not being party to UNCLOS
- U.S. has significant interests in untapped mineral wealth in Arctic
- Other nations are pursuing Arctic claims to the detriment of the U.S.
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. naval operations in the Arctic
- UNCLOS is best regime for Arctic Governance
- Struggle for Arctic resources could devolve into conflict
- Arctic resource disputes unlikely to lead to conflict
- U.S. can't secure claims to Arctic resources through CLCS as a non-party to UNCLOS
- Russia poses a strategic threat to the U.S. in the Arctic
- Adversaries using U.S. absence from UNCLOS to modify martime law in ways adverse to U.S. interests
- U.S. position as a leader has been damaged by non-participation
- U.S. adversaries are using its absence from UNCLOS to push excessive maritime claims
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is undermining ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not be detrimental
- U.S. would not be exposing itself to liability for environmental damage in international courts by ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. already abides by UNCLOS as a matter of customary international law and domestic policy
- The 1994 Agreement explicitly dealt with and resolved concerns U.S. had with ratifying UNCLOS
- Revenue sharing agreements in UNCLOS are not a reason to reject the treaty
- As a party to UNCLOS, U.S. would be able to prevent revenues from being redistributed to non-desirable actors
- Revenue sharing agreements in UNCLOS are not the same as a tax
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS are not a reason to reject the treaty
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS do not threaten U.S. military action
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS not unique to the convention
- U.S. will not be obligated to transfer technology under UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not threaten our intelligence operations
- U.S. participation in UNCLOS will not undermine national sovereignty
- U.S. can extend the range of territory under its sovereign control by ratifying UNCLOS
- U.S. is losing emerging Arctic race by not being party to UNCLOS
- U.S. has significant interests in untapped mineral wealth in Arctic
- Other nations are pursuing Arctic claims to the detriment of the U.S.
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. naval operations in the Arctic
- UNCLOS is best regime for Arctic Governance
- Struggle for Arctic resources could devolve into conflict
- Arctic resource disputes unlikely to lead to conflict
- U.S. can't secure claims to Arctic resources through CLCS as a non-party to UNCLOS
- Russia poses a strategic threat to the U.S. in the Arctic
- U.S. ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations will not be curtailed by UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would bolster counter-piracy efforts
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not undermine Proliferation Security Initiative
- UNCLOS is not administered by the United Nations