Statement of Bernard H. Oxman: Hearing on the Law of the Sea Convention (October 4, 2007)
Quicktabs: Citation
The Continental Shelf: There is an extensive continental margin beyond 200 miles off the coast of Alaska and elsewhere off the coast of the United States. As a party to the Convention, we will be able to submit the results of our scientific studies regarding the seaward limits of the continental margin to the Commission of experts established by the Convention. Once we are satisfied with the outcome of our exchanges with the Commission, we can exercise the right to declare limits that are final and binding on all parties to the Convention. This will increase the certainty of our control and the willingness of private capital to make the substantial investment required to explore and exploit areas as deemed suitable for development.
Moreover, as a party to the Convention, we acquire the right to nominate and participate in the election of members of the Commission, as well as the right to comment on both the procedure and the substance of the Commission’s work. These rights are important because we have a major interest in influencing the review of continental margin claims around the world before they become final and binding, in order to ensure that reasonable claims are confirmed and made more secure, and that excessive claims do not limit our own access to the areas in question for economic, scientific, or other purposes. Mr. Chairman, the Canadian and Russian Governments have every right to seek to use the Commission to advance their interests. But Alaska is caught in the middle, and our capacity to protect our interests off Alaska and in the Arctic generally will be enhanced by getting on the inside and making sure our concerns are heeded.
Judicial and arbitral bodies: Interpretations rendered by judicial and arbitral tribunals established under the Convention will also influence the perceptions and behavior of lawyers and governments around the world and the future understanding of the law. While the actual judgment may be binding only on the parties to a case, the effect of a judicial or arbitral decision on perceptions of the law is not limited to parties to a case or even to parties to the Convention. By joining the Convention the United States would have the right to nominate and participate in the election of judges to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) that sits in Hamburg, as well the right to add names to the lists from which arbitrators are selected under the Convention. Moreover, by joining the Convention, the United States would enhance the likelihood that judges and arbitrators would pay serious attention to its views regarding the interpretation and application of the Convention, even in cases where the United States is not a party to the dispute and has not exercised its right to intervene under the Convention.
Thus, even though the United States opts for arbitration under the Convention rather than accepting the jurisdiction of ITLOS, by joining the Convention our influence will extend well beyond any arbitration to which we may be a party. Moreover, we gain the right to seek urgent temporary provisional measures from ITLOS pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. As the Senate recognized when it approved the existing Implementing Agreement regarding fisheries to which we are already party, this enhances our leverage over foreign fishing on the high seas adjacent to our exclusive economic zone. Becoming party to the Convention extends that leverage to fishing vessels flying the flag of any country that is party to the Law of the Sea Convention.
The real question is: What are the additional rights and opportunities that we would enjoy as a party to the Convention? In this connection, we might ask ourselves: What is it that we want other countries to do and not do?
The answer has long been quite simple. We want maximum freedom to navigate and operate off foreign coasts without interference.
We want that freedom for security purposes. If we mean to deter and confront threats to our security in the far corners of the globe, then we need to be able to get there and to operate there. The precise nature of the threats may change. But so long as our interests demand that we operate far from our shores, we want to minimize the cost and uncertainty of getting there and operating there.
We also want that freedom for economic purposes. Our economy is dependent on international trade. Much of that trade moves by sea. Our trading partners may change, but so long as our interests demand that we move raw materials and products to and from the far corners of the globe, we want to minimize the cost and uncertainty of the trip for any ship that carries our trade. We want security of supply and the lowest possible cost for delivering both our imports and our exports. And many sectors of our economy are increasingly dependent on the use of undersea telecommunications cables and accordingly on the freedom to lay and maintain them throughout the world.
Protecting American Interests: Because we are the main global maritime power, our interests demand that we consider the global effect of the Convention’s rules and their interpretations; there are a number of issues that are of greater concern to us than to most other countries. It is not prudent for us to sit idly by on the sidelines and rely on others to protect our global interests from the inside. For example, despite our close security relationship with most of its member states, there are disturbing signs that the European Community may try to shift the Convention’s balance in a sharply coastal direction in derogation of the freedom of navigation beyond the territorial sea and free transit of international straits.
The United States has long been party to the four 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea, many of whose provisions are copied and elaborated upon in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. It is puzzling that a few commentators maintain that dire consequences would flow from Senate acceptance of texts that are no different from those already contained in the Geneva Conventions and other treaties to which we are party.
It is also puzzling that a few commentators maintain that dire consequences would flow from Senate acceptance of texts that President Reagan publicly committed the United States to respect. President Reagan formally declared that “the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states.” 2
On the other hand, the United States can also find itself in the position of a defendant. That is the risk that comes with the benefit. The United States successfully endeavored to minimize that risk by supporting both mandatory and optional exceptions to the obligation to arbitrate or adjudicate disputes. Let me highlight a few:
First, the obligation applies only to disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Law of the Sea Convention that have not been settled by other means.
Second, the obligation does not apply to disputes that are also subject to arbitration or adjudication under some other agreement.
Third, the obligation does not apply where there is an agreement between the parties to settle the dispute by some other means, and that agreement excludes any further procedure.
Fourth, only a very limited category of cases may be brought against coastal states with regard to their exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction. The most important of these, central to the objectives of the United States with respect to the Convention as a whole, involves alleged violation by the coastal state of the provisions of the Convention regarding rights and freedoms of navigation, overflight, submarine cables and pipelines, and related uses.
Fifth, a state may file a declaration excluding disputes concerning maritime boundaries between neighboring coastal states, concerning military activities, and concerning matters before the UN Security Council. A declaration excluding all such disputes is contained in the resolution of advice and consent contained in the Committee’s 2004 report.
The record of dispute settlement tribunals under the Law of the Sea Convention to date is certainly reassuring. Very few cases have been brought since 1994. All have been handled with considerable caution and prudence, especially in terms of the operative provisions of the judgments and awards.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the probable costs and risks are small, that the magnitude of the probable benefits is very high, and accordingly that America’s interests are best served becoming party to the Convention. To put it differently, the risks of damage to America’s long-term security, economic, and environmental interests by not becoming party to the Convention are far greater than the risks of becoming a party.