COMPARE
Many of the risk scenarios critics predicted would happen in 1982 if the U.S. failed to ratify UNCLOS have not occurred and the U.S. is no worse off 30 years later for not having ratified the treaty.
Parent Arguments:
Supporting Arguments:
Counter Argument:
VERSUS
U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS has damaged U.S. national security and economic growth by forclosing valuable opportunities, increasing the costs for military operations, and crippling U.S. maritime leadership as our adversaries become more aggressive.
Related Quotes:
- U.S. non-participation in UNCLOS has tangible costs to our national security
- Both US and world losing out by US non-participation in UNCLOS
- As most prominent advocate of UNCLOS during negotiations, US has lost significant political capital by remaining outside the treaty
- It is not too late for the U.S. to join UNCLOS but there are and will continue to be real costs for delaying accession
- Serious consequences for U.S. by remaining outside the treaty
- U.S. critical security interests are continually harmed by its non party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. non-participation in UNCLOS and ceding of seabed to foreign parties could become greatest foreign policy failure
Supporting Arguments:
- U.S. is losing emerging Arctic race by not being party to UNCLOS
- Adversaries using U.S. absence from UNCLOS to modify martime law in ways adverse to U.S. interests
- U.S. position as a leader has been damaged by non-participation
- U.S. adversaries are using its absence from UNCLOS to push excessive maritime claims
- U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is undermining ability to conduct maritime interdiction operations
Counter Argument: