Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Debate
    • Overview
    • Positions
    • Arguments
    • Evidence
  • Resources
    • News
    • Bibliography
    • Authors
    • Organizations
  • About
    • Blog
  • Contact
Login     Register for an account
ARGUMENTS
  • Recent
  • Alphabetical List
  • Most Active
  • Random

COMPARE

Adversaries using U.S. absence from UNCLOS to modify martime law in ways adverse to U.S. interests

As the pre-eminent global maritime power, the U.S. has significant interests in the global effect of the Convention’s rules and their interpretation with many issues that of greater concern to us than to most other countries (for example, preserving freedom of navigation rights). Our adversaries view this as a weakness they can exploit and are shaping the course of the convention in ways adverse to U.S. interests while the U.S. remains on the sidelines, unable to participate in the discussion as a non-party.

Keywords: 
U.S. Leadership
Related Quotes:
  • U.S. adversaries are taking advantage of U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS to shape international laws in ways inimical to U.S. interests
  • U.S. adversaries are using U.S. absence from UNCLOS to shape treaty in way adverse to U.S. interests
  • U.S. interests are threatened by international NGOs and other actors that are shaping the future of UNCLOS without U.S. input
  • U.S. has permanent veto over new amendments to the treaty but only after it has ratified it
  • ... and 25 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments: 
  • U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has been detrimental
  • U.S. ratification of UNCLOS treaty necessary to restore maritime leadership role
Counter Argument: 
  • U.S. not losing ability to guide maritime law by not being party to UNCLOS

VERSUS

U.S. not losing ability to guide maritime law by not being party to UNCLOS

Even as a non-party to UNCLOS, the U.S. will still retain its maritime leadership role and can influence the future of the law of the sea through the International Maritime Organization.

Related Quotes: 
  • Any changes to UNCLOS are more likely to occur at the International Maritime Organization, not through United Nations
  • US not losing opportunity to guide development of UNCLOS, it can always make accession dependent on amendment
  • International Maritime Organization is more important to global ocean policy than UNCLOS and U.S. remains leader in IMO
Parent Arguments: 
  • U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has not been detrimental
Counter Argument: 
  • Adversaries using U.S. absence from UNCLOS to modify martime law in ways adverse to U.S. interests

Open Debate Engine Status Block

There are currently:
  • 2 positions
  • 129 arguments
  • 1312 quotes
  • 220 citations
  • 590 news articles

There are 166 orphaned quotes, or 13% of existing quotes.

  • Arguments
  • Authors
  • Cases
  • Citations
  • Evidence
  • News
  • Organizations
  • Positions
About  —  Contact  —  Updates
Terms of Use  —  Privacy Policy
Site powered by the Open Debate Engine.