US can still legally assert a claim in the Arctic without being party to UNCLOS
While I agree completely with Cartner and GoldJournal of Maritime Law & Commerce. Vol. 42, No. 1 (January 2011): 49-70. [ More (6 quotes) ] that UNCLOS “reduces uncertainty and confusion for all states parties” claiming an extended continental shelf, the United States must be prepared to act unilaterally if the Senate does not give advice and consent in the near future. Clearly, as indicated in the NWC Global Shipping Game report, accession to UNCLOS would provide greater certainty and predictability “of the future security and political environment that industry desires in order to invest in economic development of the Arctic region.” However, even without U.S. accession, if there is money to be made, U.S. industry will invest in the region if the U.S. Navy is there to guarantee and protect access. Therefore, while unilateral action may not be the “best” option, it remains a viable (and perhaps the only) option and we should not undercut our ability to claim an extended continental shelf based on the 1958 Continental Shelf Convention by allowing Administration officials to incorrectly state that the United States can only claim an extended continental shelf if we join UNCLOS. Fortunately, not all Administration officials are misinformed on the law. While recognizing the importance of UNCLOS, Margaret Hayes, the chair of the Department of State Extended Continental Shelf Interagency Task Force, acknowledged that “the existence of an extended continental shelf does not depend on a coastal nation having joined the convention” and “that there are other ways to establish what the outer limits might be (emphasis added).” "Commentary in Reply to “Is it Time for the United States to Join the Law of the Sea Convention”."
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)