U.S. national interest harmed by remaining outside UNCLOS regime and unable to take advantage of Arctic boom
The good news is that it’s not too late to play catch-up. The first and most obvious place for the United States to start is to finally join the 164 other countries that have acceded to unclos. Ironically, Washing- ton had a hand in drafting the original treaty, but Senate Republicans, making misguided arguments about the supposed threat the treaty poses to U.S. sovereignty, have managed to block its ratification for decades. The result has been real harm to the national interest.
UNCLOS allows countries to claim exclusive jurisdiction over the por- tions of their continental shelves that extend beyond the 200-nautical- mile exclusive economic zones prescribed by the treaty. In the United States’ case, this means that the country would gain special rights over an extra 350,000 square miles of ocean—an area roughly half the size of the entire Louisiana Purchase. Because the country is not a party to unclos, however, its claims to the extended continental shelf in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas (and elsewhere) cannot be recognized by other states, and the lack of a clear legal title has discouraged private firms from exploring for oil and gas or mining the deep seabed. The failure to ratify unclos has also relegated the United States to the back row when it comes to establishing new rules for the Arctic. Just as traffic through the Bering Strait is growing, Washington lacks the best tool to influence regulations governing sea-lanes and protecting fisheries and sensitive habitats. The treaty also enshrines the international legal principle of freedom of navi- gation, which the U.S. Navy relies on to project power globally.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
By remaining outside of UNCLOS, the U.S. is ceding its leadership role in the region in a number of ways. First, and most importantly for the U.S. strategic and economic interests, by remaining outside of the treaty the U.S. is not able to submit its claims for the extended continental shelf in the Arctic to the CLCS, preventing U.S. industries from claiming mineral rights. Secondly, existing Arctic governance regimes are based on and rely on UNCLOS and the U.S. non-party status prevents it from contributing as a full partner, weakening the overall Arctic governance regime. Finally, U.S.Related Quotes:
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments:
- U.S. is being left behind in race for the Arctic as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. has limited time to ratify convention to secure access to Arctic resources
- U.S. national interest harmed by remaining outside UNCLOS regime and unable to take advantage of Arctic boom
- U.S. should make ratification of UNCLOS a top priority to ensure it doesn't lose out on opening of Arctic
- ... and 36 more quote(s)
- U.S. has significant interests in untapped mineral wealth in Arctic
- Other nations are pursuing Arctic claims to the detriment of the U.S.
- U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS complicates U.S. naval operations in the Arctic
- UNCLOS is best regime for Arctic Governance
- U.S. can't secure claims to Arctic resources through CLCS as a non-party to UNCLOS
- Russia poses a strategic threat to the U.S. in the Arctic