U.S. absence from UNCLOS hurts our leadership consistency and encourages others to flout existing standards
Remaining outside LOSC is inconsistent with our principles, our national security strategy and our leadership in commerce and trade. Virtually every major ally of the U.S. is a party to LOSC, as are all other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and all other Arctic nations. Our absence could provide an excuse for nations to selectively choose among Convention provisions or abandon it altogether, thereby eroding the navigational freedoms we enjoy today. Accession would enhance multilateral operations with our partners and demonstrate a clear commitment to the rule of law for the oceans. For example, under the Convention, warships are authorized to stop and board vessels if they are suspected to be without nationality or engaged in piracy. By joining LOSC, we would “lock in” these authorities as a matter of treaty law and thus strengthen our ability to conduct counter-piracy operations across the globe and provides an important tool to support counter-proliferation efforts, and maritime interdiction of terrorists and illegal traffickers tied to terrorism.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
The U.S. relies on maritime interdiction operations for homeland security, counter-piracy, and crime control. However, during bi-lateral negotiations, several nations have, in the past, questioned our authority to contest certain of their excessive maritime claims simply because we have yet to ratify the treaty. Becoming a party to the Convention will enhance our ability to conduct such interdiction operations and to refute excessive maritime claims.Related Quotes:
- Remaining outside of UNCLOS regime restricts U.S. counter-piracy options
- US naval capacity to conduct maritime interdiction or intelligence operations at risk from excessive claims and lawfare
- U.S. absence from UNCLOS hurts our leadership consistency and encourages others to flout existing standards
- Over a hundred excessive claims currently, some of which are directly complicating counter narcotics operations
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would support U.S. rights to conduct maritime interdiction operations
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. efforts to get other nations to cooperate on anti-piracy initiatives
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to protecting existing counter-piracy operations
U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS raises fundamental questions regarding not only the future of legal regimes applicable to the world’s oceans, but also U.S. leadership in promoting international law and order.
Additionally, our partners lose confidence in the ability of the United States to make good on its word when we negotiate and sign treaties but don’t ultimately become party to them, especially as in the case of UNCLOS where the U.S. negotiated aggressively to win valuable concessions and won them.Related Quotes:
- US failure to ratify UNCLOS is impeding the international cooperation necessary to address multinational threats like terrorism
- U.S. rejection of international agreements like UNCLOS only emboldens our adversaries to challenge our leadership
- US being excluded from international maritime policy￼ because it has failed to ratify UNCLOS
- US credibility and legitimacy suffers when it pushes for treaties like UNCLOS but then declines to ratify them
- ... and 22 more quote(s)