No basis to argument that UNCLOS infringes on U.S. sovereignty
[Question] How do the panelists respond to the objection that UNCLOS would infringe on U.S. sovereignty? Professor Caron answered that, if anything, UNCLOS represents a tremendous effort to preserve sovereignty in oceans, and expressed that he does not understand the argument that UNCLOS somehow diminishes sovereignty. Ambassador Balton agreed, adding that it is important to try and understand the objections to UNCLOS. He countered the notion the United States can depend on the Navy to assert sovereignty over the ocean, explaining that the Navy is a major advocate of UNCLOS because it is more effective and efficient to use the rule of law rather than military force. Commander Kraska also noted that most materiel moves by non-naval vessels, so it is important to have a regime that prevents other countries from blocking those materiel shipments.
The sovereignty costs associated with the Convention are grossly overstated primarily because many of these costs have already been accepted by the United States. In addition, the U.S. stands to gain sovereignty over 4.1 million square miles of territory by acceeding to the treaty.