By ratifying UNCLOS, U.S. could still be outvoted in CLCS decisions but then be obligated to abide by the ruling
Since LOST explicitly declares that a country’s continental shelf does not include underwater ridges, the Commission’s readiness once again take up the Russian case begs the question: As so often happens in UN agencies, will political considerations influence the outcome?
The Commission currently has only two Arctic members, Russia and Norway. A simple majority vote by non-Arctic states – perhaps engineered by Russian pressure and/or bribes – could result in decisions that would be binding on all member nations. If the United States were a state party to LOST, it would likely still be outvoted, yet be obliged to accept the Commission’s unsatisfactory dictates.
In this case, the consequences of such a decision would be preposterous – even absurd: Russia would have sole economic rights to the vast natural resources of the central Arctic Ocean. This would essentially give Russia a virtual monopoly over the North Pole region.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
Even if U.S. had a seat on CLCS, they would have limited ability to influence the direction or decisions of the CLCS as members are required to act independently from their governments and in secrecy.Related Quotes:
- Should not overstate the impact that US will be able to have with a full seat on CLCS
- CLCS process flawed by its secretive nature that prevents thorough examination of claims
- Members of CLCS are bound by agreement not to act as agent of their respective governments, undermining "seat at the table" argument
- By ratifying UNCLOS, U.S. could still be outvoted in CLCS decisions but then be obligated to abide by the ruling