Even if U.S. had a seat on CLCS, they would have limited ability to influence the direction or decisions of the CLCS as members are required to act independently from their governments and in secrecy.
- Should not overstate the impact that US will be able to have with a full seat on CLCS
- CLCS process flawed by its secretive nature that prevents thorough examination of claims
- Members of CLCS are bound by agreement not to act as agent of their respective governments, undermining "seat at the table" argument
- By ratifying UNCLOS, U.S. could still be outvoted in CLCS decisions but then be obligated to abide by the ruling
The United States cannot currently participate in the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which oversees ocean delineation on the outer limits of the extended continental shelf (outer continental shelf). Even though it is collecting scientific evidence to support eventual claims off its Atlantic, Gulf, and Alaskan coasts, the United States, without becoming party to the convention, has no standing in the CLCS.
- Assertions of legal rights to arctic resources have dubious legal standing while us remains outside of UNCLOS
- US will have no capacity to challenge CLCS claims unless it is a full member of UNCLOS
- Seat on CLCS council valuable in that it allows US to take part in discussions and engage other participants
- By remaining outside of convention, US is unable to engage in disputes over Arctic claims within framework
- ... and 5 more quote(s)