Evidence: Alphabetical
- Current U.S. implementation plan for the Arctic recognizes the Law of the Sea as the governing framework
- Current U.S. policy emphasizes international cooperation in the Arctic because it still requires a multinational effort
- Customary international law is inferior to UNCLOS a for protecting U.S. Naval rights for a number of reasons
- Conflict in Arctic more likely due to perceived U.S. policy weakness and leadership on Arctic affairs
- Conflict amongst Arctic powers especially concerning because it involves nuclear weapon states and carries risks of nuclear war
- Customary Law of the Sea is under great stress worldwide and needs U.S. support
- China's aggression in South China Sea may have made U.S. ratification of UNCLOS politically viable
- China recoils against U.S. stance on rule of law in South China Seas while U.S. hypocritically remains outside of UNCLOS
- Costs of remaining outside of the treaty continue to rise, overwhelming risks of joining
- CLCS has limited powers of enforcement and would not provide an adequate check on Arctic conflict
- China and the U.S. should consider a new agreement to establish guidelines for military passage in South China Seas
- China is well-prepared to challenge U.S. naval power to defend its claims in South China Seas
- China conducts military activities in foreign EEZs in contradiction to its stance against U.S. activities