US has always resolved maritime disputes with voluntary, bilateral diplomacy -- accession to UNCLOS would compel legally binding dispute resolution
The United States and other nations are free to resolve their maritime disputes in a number of ways outside of UNCLOS, including bilateral negotiations, fact-finding and conciliation commissions, and proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, to name a few.8 The United States may also submit a dispute by special agreement to the International Court of Justice, as it did in 1981 to resolve a dispute with Canada over maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Maine.
Bilateral negotiations, special agreements, arbitration, and conciliation commissions have in com- mon the fact that they are voluntary means of resolving maritime disputes. The United States may choose to engage in such voluntary pro- ceedings depending on whether the predicted outcome would advance its national interests. However, if the U.S. accedes to UNCLOS, it will be compelled to submit itself to legally binding dispute resolution whenever another member state brings a lawsuit against it.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
Mandatory dispute resolution mechanism could be used by states unsympathetic to the U.S. to curtail its military operations even though such operations are supposed to be exempt from the mechanism. This is because it is unclear by the terms of the treaty what activities will be defined as military.Related Quotes:
- Risks of national security damage due to a adverse dispute settlement ruling are under appreciated
- Interpretation of "military activities" clause left up to external courts and possibly unfriendly panel
- US has always resolved maritime disputes with voluntary, bilateral diplomacy -- accession to UNCLOS would compel legally binding dispute resolution
- Should recognize that U.S. will be bigger target for ITLOS because of its status as the sole global naval superpower
- ... and 4 more quote(s)