Recently Added
It is not essential or even necessary for the United States to accede to UNCLOS to benefit from the certainty and stability provided by its navigational provisions. Those provisions either codify customary international law that existed well before the convention was adopted in 1982 or “refine and elaborate” navigational rights that are now almost universally accepted as binding international law.
- US does not need to ratify UNCLOS to lock in freedom of navigation rights
- International law has been less effective at preventing nations from making excessive claims than U.S. naval supremacy
- U.S. does not need the Law of the Sea treaty to guarantee navigation rights
- US can enjoy all navigational freedoms ensured by UNCLOS without acceding to it
- ... and 7 more quote(s)
The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument for public order in the world’s oceans. It codifies, in a manner that only binding treaty law can, the navigation and overflight rights, and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global strategic mobility of U.S. Armed Forces, including:
- UNCLOS promotes U.S. freedom of navigation in three ways
- On balance, gains from freedom of navigation rights outweigh costs of UNCLOS
- Defense department has endorsed passage of UNCLOS because it secures global access to the oceans
- U.S. should join UNCLOS to protect four critical rights that ensure freedom of navigation
- ... and 23 more quote(s)
- U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation is continually challenged by excessive claims
- Freedom of Navigation program is not a long-term viable solution to address excessive claims
- Freedom of navigation is critical to U.S. leadership and economy
- U.S. will be able to challenge excessive claims more effectively as a party to UNCLOS
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will boost efforts to manage fishing populations in multiple ways. First, UNCLOS provides a clear legal framework for resolving disputes between countries over fishing rights, as for example the disputes between the U.S. and Canada. Secondly, becoming a party to UNCLOS gives the U.S. Coast Guard more legal tools to enforce existing regulations within the U.S. EEZ. Finally, by aceeding to UNCLOS the U.S. will be able to better lead on cooperative solutions to the global problem of overfishing.
- Widespread acceptance of UNCLOS is necessary for it to be successful in resolving current overfishing disputes
- US interest in controlling overfishing is best served by becoming a party to UNCLOS
- US and Canadian ratification of UNCLOS necessary for its provisions on overfishing to be fully effective
- The Bering Sea "Donut Hole" convention to resolve overfishing disputes was based on and supported by UNCLOS
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
- Principle of the common heritage of mankind enshrined in UNCLOS makes no moral or practical sense
- US ratification of UNCLOS would amount to endorsement of flawed common heritage of mankind principles
- UNCLOS treaty based on collectivist agenda to create global socialist entity
- Libertarians should be concerned by the collectivist and redistributionist origins of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS based on outdated and discredited redistributionist ideas from the 1970s
- Original collectivist and redistributionist framework UNCLOS was built on remains in place
Undersea cables are a valuable commodity in the 21st century global communication environment. The undersea consortium is owned by various international companies such as ATT, and these companies provide high-speed broadband connectivity and capacity for large geographic areas that are important entities of trade and communications around the globe. If undersea cables were cut or disrupted outside of the U.S.
- Empirically, disruption of undersea cables cost millions of dollars an hour in lost revenue
- Underseas cables handle trillions of dollars of transactions a day and help sustain global banking industry
- U.S. banking and military command systems rely on underseas cables
- Recent underseas cable attacks show the impact of their disruption
- ... and 11 more quote(s)
The United States actively protects its Freedom of Navigation rights by protesting excessive maritime claims made by other nations and by conducting operational assertions with U.S. naval forces to physically dispute such claims. These diplomatic and military protests were formally operationalized as the Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program in March 1979 during the Carter Administration.
The United States can assert its navigational rights at any point on the globe, but it cannot be assured of a local superiority of forces simultaneously at every location of potential maritime dispute. Moreover, obvious practicality compels restraint—against both allies and potential adversaries—over maritime disputes. Even the peaceful and non-confrontational Freedom of Navigation (FON) program may present diplomatic costs and pose risks inherent in physical challenges,
- Attempting to enforce navigational rights outside of UNCLOS framework would be an expensive undertaking and waste of resources
- U.S. efforts to address excessive claims outside of UNCLOS framework are unsustainable
- Dangerous precedent to assume U.S. can continue to assert its navigational rights
- Ratifying convention would significantly reduce costs U.S. military incurs to protect navigation rights
- ... and 16 more quote(s)
- Coastal states are increasingly challenging US freedom of navigation rights as it remains outside of the UNCLOS framework
- U.S. dealing with over 100 threats to our navigational freedoms that could be resolved under UNCLOS
- Currently, over 100 excessive and illegal claims threaten U.S. FON
- Over a hundred excessive claims currently, some of which are directly complicating counter narcotics operations
- ... and 8 more quote(s)
U.S. does not need to ratify UNCLOS to develop hydrocarbon resources beneath the ECS -- development is actively underway already and further development can occur thrigh bilateral agreements with neightboring countries.
- Empirically, US companies have leased and developed oil development claims on ECS since 2001 without needing UNCLOS framework
- Legal certainty provided by UNCLOS is not a necessary condition for development of oil and gas resources with US EEZ
- US actively surveying extended continental shelf and can negotiate bilateral agreements with nations regarding boundaries outside UNCLOS framework
- US within its rights according to international law to develop on extended continental shelf
- U.S. resource extraction industries realize they have more to lose being outside of the treaty and have lined up in favor of it
Offshore operations are capital-intensive, requiring significant financing and insurance. Oil and natural gas companies do not want to undertake these massive expenditures if their lease sites may be subject to territorial dispute. They operate transnationally, and need to know that the title to the petroleum resources will be respected worldwide and not just in the United States.
- Oil, gas, and mining interests have made it clear that they won't operate without legal protection from UNCLOS
- Oil and gas companies not willing to undertake extensive capital investments required to develop offshore without legal stability provided by UNCLOS
- Oil and gas industry unwilling to rely solely on rights outlined in 1958 convention
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS will leave U.S. commercial mining and energy interests without legal protection
- ... and 11 more quote(s)
Pages
Terms of Use — Privacy Policy