Skip to main content
Home
Debate
Overview
Positions
Arguments
Evidence
Resources
News
Bibliography
Authors
Organizations
About
Blog
Contact
Login
Register for an account
The U.S. should not Ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
POSITION
The U.S. should not Ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
The U.S. would not Benefit from Ratification of UNCLOS
U.S. underseas cable systems can be protected by existing laws or bilateral treaties
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is not necessary for development of offshore oil and gas industry
U.S. can make claim to Arctic resources without being party to UNCLOS
U.S. could rely on bilateral treaties as an alternative to UNCLOS regime
UNCLOS regime is not a viable model for governing outer space
U.S. can mine the deep seabed without ratifying UNCLOS
Deep seabed mining is not currently technologically viable
Existing customary international law is sufficient to protect U.S. interests without ratifying UNCLOS
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not help resolve Arctic disputes with Russia
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS won't help resolve disputes in South China Seas
UNCLOS has empirically not been successful
UNCLOS is inadequate for protection of U.S. underseas cables
U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has not been detrimental
U.S. does not need to ratify UNCLOS to preserve freedom of navigation rights
Freedom of navigation program is sufficient to protect U.S. navigation rights
U.S. not losing ability to guide maritime law by not being party to UNCLOS
U.S. is not losing out in Arctic by not being party to UNCLOS
U.S. can make claim to Arctic resources without being party to UNCLOS
U.S. is not losing out by not having a seat on CLCS
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would be disadvantageous
Ratification of UNCLOS would expose U.S. to broad liability for environmental damage in international courts
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will be used as a "backdoor" by environmental groups to force regulations on the U.S.
U.S. participation in UNCLOS will undermine national sovereignty
U.S. would be obligated to transfer technology under UNCLOS
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would further advance collectivist idea of "common heritage of mankind"
UNCLOS would give far-reaching regulatory powers to international and national bureacracies
The 1994 Agreement did not resolve serious problems with UNCLOS
U.S. should reject UNCLOS because of its revenue sharing agreements
Under UNCLOS, U.S. revenues from offshore resource extraction would be redistributed to non-desirable state actors
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would give United Nations ability to impose tax on U.S. citizens
UNCLOS participation would require U.S. to transfer significant royalties to International Seabed Authority
UNCLOS would subject U.S. to anti-competitive regime
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would damage national security
Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS threaten U.S. national security
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would subject U.S. military to rulings by third-party tribunals
U.S. ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations would be curtailed by UNCLOS
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would complicate counter-piracy efforts
U.S. adherence to UNCLOS would jeopardize maritime intelligence gathering operations
Arguments
Authors
Cases
Citations
Evidence
News
Organizations
Positions
About
—
Contact
—
Updates
Terms of Use
—
Privacy Policy
Site powered by the
Open Debate Engine
.
