UNCLOS won't impact the way U.S. conducts maritime interdiction operations
Proponents of UNCLOS assert that the treaty does not significantly impact the way the United States military conducts MIOs.53 During peacetime, UNCLOS permits the following: the boarding of vessels that are flying the flag of the boarding state, the boarding of vessels that consent to boarding, the boarding of vessels that are entering coastal state ports, and the boarding of stateless vessels.54 During wartime or armed conflict, UNCLOS allows boardings in self-defense if under attack or threat of attack and in accordance with other established maritime law and laws of armed conflict.55 These provisions are sufficient for the United States to continue to carryout MIO missions as currently employed.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
The U.S. conducts a wide range of maritime interdiction and related operations with its allies and partners, virtually all of whom are parties to the Convention. If the U.S. were to ratify UNCLOS, it would only strengthen its ability to conduct such operations by eliminating any question of its right to avail ourselves of the legal authorities contained in the Convention.Related Quotes:
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments:
- UNCLOS does not require U.S. to ask permission before boarding a ship, thats already ruled out by 1958 convention
- UNCLOS won't impact the way U.S. conducts maritime interdiction operations
- US ratification of UNCLOS would strengthen and preserve our authority for conducting maritime interdiction operations
- 1958 Convention already regulates U.S. naval rights to board ships and submarines
- ... and 7 more quote(s)