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

U.S. can't secure claims to Arctic resources through CLCS as a non-party to UNCLOS

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.

Keywords: 
CLCS
Related Quotes:
  • 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)
Parent Arguments: 
  • U.S. is losing emerging Arctic race by not being party to UNCLOS
Counter Argument: 
  • U.S. is not losing out by not having a seat on CLCS
  • U.S. can make claim to Arctic resources without being party to UNCLOS

VERSUS

U.S. is not losing out by not having a seat on CLCS

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.

Keywords: 
CLCS
Related Quotes: 
  • 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
Parent Arguments: 
  • U.S. is not losing out in Arctic by not being party to UNCLOS
Counter Argument: 
  • U.S. can't secure claims to Arctic resources through CLCS as a non-party to UNCLOS

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.