Twenty six nations are using UNCLOS to justify excessive EEZ claims and U.S. accession won't change their minds
Of greatest concern, however, is the growing number of states that illegally claim the authority to restrict military activities out to 200 nm – 26 to be exact.26 These claims are not supported by a majority of states, the negotiating history of UNCLOS III or a plain reading of the Convention. These nations inaccurately and illegally cite various provisions of UNCLOS, such as the residual rights clause in Article 59 and the peaceful purposes provi- sions in Articles 88, 141 and 301, as their authority for their excessive claims. However, these provisions are entirely spurious and do not support restrictions on military activities in the EEZ.27 In fact, the plain reading and negotiating history of these provisions indicates the exact opposite conclusion. U.S. accession to the Convention isn’t going to change these nations’ self-serving and inaccurate views.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
The U.S. is currently tracking dozens of excessive claims by states, some of which are from states seeking to take advantage of perceived U.S. weakness due to its non-party status to UNCLOS. Regardless, the U.S. would be in a better position to contest these claims (and dissuade further claims) as a party to UNCLOS.Related Quotes:
Parent Arguments:Supporting Arguments:
- China and Iran challenging U.S. operations because of its non-party status to UNCLOS
- U.S. lacks standing to challenge Iranian and Chinese excessive claims as a non-party to UNCLOS
- U.S. ability to challenge excessive claims weakened by its non-party status to UNCLOS
- UNCLOS would help protect U.S. naval freedoms against growing number of excessive claims
- ... and 4 more quote(s)