Participation in CLCS through framework of UNCLOS is not necessary to secure claims in Arctic
Those in favor of UNCLOS ratification have asserted that, unless the United States becomes a party to the treaty, it will not be able to adequately protect its interests. Proponents argue that the United States will be left without a voice when the Arctic region is being divided amongst other nations. They suggest that unless the United States is able to participate in the formal processes codified in UNCLOS, Russia and the other relevant nations who may go before the CLCS will have a substantial advantage in claiming Arctic territory. But, as discussed above, the CLCS is a semi-secretive process where a nation, whether it is a party to UNCLOS or not, will not be able to contest another nation's scientific findings to the Commission." Moreover, if the matter is indeed settled through multiparty negotiations, the status of UNCLOS in the United States will likely be irrelevant because the matter will be settled outside of the treaty.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
The U.S. can exercise its rights under the 1958 Convention on the High Seas to assert that it is permitted to mine and navigate in its Extended Continental Shelf. Ratifying UNCLOS would constrict the ability of the U.S. to respond to challenges to these rights by forcing all further negotiation to occur through the CLCS.Related Quotes:
- U.S. should assert its rights to develop in the Arctic by invoking the existing convention on the high seas
- US can still legally assert a claim in the Arctic without being party to UNCLOS
- U.S. scuttling of Russia's initial Arctic claim shows it can still influence CLCS as a non member
- US successful experience with challenging Russia's claim shows that even as a non party to UNCLOS the US is not a helpless bystander to CLCS
- ... and 9 more quote(s)