Ratification of UNCLOS would remove risks inherent in unilateral enforcement of freedom of navigation rights
Myth: The United States can rely on use or threat of force to protect its navigational interests fully.
Reality: The United States has utilized diplomatic and operational challenges to resist the excessive maritime claims of other countries that interfere with U.S. navigational rights. But these operations entail a certain degree of risk, as well as resources. Being a party to the Convention would significantly enhance our efforts to roll back these claims by, among other things, putting the United States in a stronger position to assert our rights.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
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,Related Quotes:
- 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)