COMPARE
All of the objections to UNCLOS have been answered through the past two decades of debate and study or the significant modifications to the treaty the U.S. demanded and won in 1994. In addition, the worst fears of opponents have not come to pass as the U.S. has already accepted UNCLOS as both customary law and as a guideline for domestic policy and has affirmed its committment to UNCLOS through multiple subsequent multilateral agreements.
Related Quotes:
Supporting Arguments:
- 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
- Dispute resolution mechanisms in UNCLOS are not a reason to reject the treaty
- 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. ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations will not be curtailed by UNCLOS
- UNCLOS is not administered by the United Nations
Counter Argument:
VERSUS
Parent Arguments:
Supporting Arguments:
- Ratification of UNCLOS would expose U.S. to broad liability for environmental damage in international courts
- 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
- UNCLOS would subject U.S. to anti-competitive regime
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would damage national security
Counter Argument: