UNCLOS creates multiple institutions that would abrogate U.S. sovereignty
Problem #1: Loss of Sovereignty. Traditionally, treaties, with only narrow exceptions, have been defined as formal agreements between and among sovereign states that help define their relations to each other as sovereign states. They are inherently political agreements. The option to change such relations and the concomitant power to discontinue adhering to the terms of a treaty is solely the prerogative of the sovereign.
First and foremost, the Convention represents a departure from that tradition. It establishes institutions with executive and judicial powers that in some instances are compulsory. For example, Section 4 of the Treaty establishes the International Sea-Bed Authority. The authority basically is given the power to administer to the “area” under the jurisdiction of the treaty, which includes all the world’s oceans and seabed outside national jurisdiction. This is a granting of executive powers to the authority that supersedes the sovereign power of the participating states. Of even greater concern, Part XV of the Convention establishes dispute settlement procedures that are quasi-judicial and mandatory. Once drawn into this dispute settlement process, it will be very difficult for the U.S. extricate itself from it.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
Parent Arguments:Counter Argument:
- Benefits to U.S. from UNCLOS support for freedom of navigation rights is outweighed by loss of sovereignty
- Ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty will undermine U.S. sovereignty
- UNCLOS represents a subjugation of American foreign policy to United Nations
- UNCLOS creates multiple institutions that would abrogate U.S. sovereignty
- UNCLOS would establish global rule of law over states subordinating their powers to a new authority