Revision of U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would bolster homeland security and counterterrorism efforts from Fri, 07/04/2014 - 19:57
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would bolster homeland security efforts in two significant ways. First, it would provide a stable legal basis for U.S. freedom of navigation rights, preserving the right of the U.S. military to use the world’s oceans to meet national security requirements. Secondly, it would provide stronger legal basis for the U.S. to conduct necessary counter-terrorism interdiction operations and challenge excessive claims.
Quicktabs: Arguments
[MYTH]: The Convention was drafted before—and without regard to—the war on terror and what the United States must do to wage it successfully.16 This is an irrelevant canard. It is true that the Convention was drafted before the war on terror. However, it enhances rather than undermines our ability to wage the war on terror. The robust maritime naval and air mobility assured by the Convention is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. The Convention provides the necessary stability and framework for U.S. forces, weapons, and materiel to get to the fight without hindrance—and ensures that they will not be hindered in the future.
Thus, the Convention supports the war on terror by providing important stability for navigational freedoms and overflight. It preserves the right of the U.S. military to use the world’s oceans to meet national security requirements. It is essential that key sea and air lanes remain open as an international legal right and not as a matter of approval from nations along the routes. A stable legal regime for the world’s oceans will support global mobility for our armed forces.
- It is true that the Convention was drafted before the war on terror. However, the Convention enhances, rather than undermines, our ability to successfully wage the war on terror.
- Maximum maritime naval and air mobility that is assured by the Convention is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. The Convention provides the necessary stability and framework for our forces, weapons, and materiel to get to the fight without hindrance – and ensures that our forces will not be hindered in the future.
- Thus, the Convention supports our war on terrorism by providing important stability for navigational freedoms and overflight. It preserves the right of the U.S. military to use the world’s oceans to meet national security requirements. It is essential that key sea and air lanes remain open as an international legal right and not be contingent upon approval from nations along the routes. A stable legal regime for the world’s oceans will support global mobility for our Armed Forces.
The Coast Guard needs a comprehensive legal framework that addresses activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans to further its statutory missions. We also need a solid legal framework that customary international law cannot provide as it remains subject to change based on state practice— whether at the local, regional or global level. The Convention is this certain framework. The Convention was, and still is, a resounding success for U.S. diplomacy. Acceding to the Convention will strengthen the Coast Guard’s ability to protect U.S. maritime interests. The Convention is widely accepted; there are currently 162 parties. Of the eight Arctic nations, only the U.S. is not a party to the Convention.
I can see no downside to the Coast Guard in the United States acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention. To the contrary, joining the Law of the Sea Convention will immensely enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to address emerging threats that challenge our Nation and safeguard the American people, our environment, and ocean resources that benefit all Americans.
The navigation principles contained in UNCLOS would allow United States and allied forces to use the world's oceans to meet challenging national security requirements, including those necessary to fight the Global War on Terrorism and to project military power overseas. Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's National Security Advisor, wrote the Senate in February 2007 to request that it take positive action on UNCLOS as soon as possible, arguing, among other things, that "the Convention protects navigational rights critical to military operations and essential to the formulation and implementation of the President's National Security Strategy, as well as the National Strategy for Maritime Security."'17 The Convention provides the most effective means to exercise U.S. leadership in the management and development of the law of the sea. UNCLOS facilitates combined operations with our coalition partners-all the rest of whom are parties to the Convention-through a commitment to a common set of rules, such as those governing the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).18"Statement of John D. Negroponte: On Accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Ratification of the 1994 Agreement regarding Part XI of the Convention ." Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, September 27, 2007. [ More (13 quotes) ]
From the homeland security perspective, “public order of the oceans is best established and maintained by a stable, universally accepted law of the sea treaty reflective of U.S. national interest.”62 This testimony also alluded to the importance of being part of a global law-of-the-sea rule-making process. The Convention’s navigation freedoms and protections, noted the Department of Homeland Security’s representative, “allow the use of the world’s oceans to meet changing national security requirements,” suggesting that a non–state party would be at a disadvantage in fashioning what might be considered new ocean-borne security efforts.63
Another significant benefit in becoming a state party to the Treaty, noted the Homeland Security Department, would be the enhanced “ability to conduct interdiction operations and to refute excessive maritime claims.”64 Some U.S. efforts in the past had been questioned by states contending that certain treaty-based rights were not reflections of customary law. The Department also cited Convention Article 108 (requiring interna- tional cooperation in the suppression of illegal drugs) as a means by which the United States could hasten the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs and Psychotic Substances.65 Finally, the Department support for accession highlighted the wide-ranging responsibilities charged to one of its core functional components, the United States Coast Guard. Accession, noted the statement, would augment the Coast Guard’s ability to prevent, reduce, and control maritime pollution; purge U.S. waters of substandard ships; and preserve high seas fisheries.66
Mr. Chairman, becoming party to the Convention will facilitate the prosecution of the war on terrorism in general, and the implementation of the President’s proliferation security initiative in particular. President Bush has emphasized that we cannot wait for the terrorists and their weapons to reach us. What is, or should be, clear from this is that we must exercise our global navigation and overflight rights and freedoms at sea anywhere in the world in order to reach our operational destinations. Not every government of the numerous countries past whose coasts our forces must travel to reach their destinations would necessarily wish to associate itself with every one of our operations. When we become party to the Convention, those governments will have an easier time explaining their acquiescence in our activities to domestic or foreign critics on the grounds of their treaty obligations to the United States, and we will have an easier time persuading them to do so without the need to expend our political or economic capital. Those who have expressed concerns in this respect seem to overlook the fact that the rules of high seas law set forth in the Law of the Sea Convention are copied from the 1958 High Seas Convention. Similarly, they overlook the fact that the rules of the Law of the Sea Convention regarding navigation and overflight and other high seas freedoms were expressly embraced by President Reagan in his 1983 statement on oceans policy, and constitute the bedrock of the legal foundation for our operations at sea around the world. The Administration has made it clear that it is able to and intends to carry out the proliferation security initiative in a manner consistent with high seas law as set forth in the Law of the Sea Convention, and that doing so is in our interests.
Myth: The Convention was drafted before – and without regard to – the war on terror and what the United States must do to wage it successfully.
Reality: The Convention enhances, rather than undermines, our ability to wage the war on terror. Maximum maritime naval and air mobility is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. The Convention provides the necessary stability and framework for our forces, weapons, and materiel to get to the fight without hindrance. It is essential that key sea and air lanes remain open as a matter of international legal right and not be contingent upon approval from nations along those routes. The senior U.S. military leadership – the Joint Chiefs of Staff – has recently confirmed the continuing importance of U.S. accession to the Convention in a letter to the Committee.
[MYTH] The Convention was drafted before – and without regard to – the war on terror and what the United States must do to wage it successfully.
- It is true that the Convention was drafted before the war on terror. However, the Convention does not prevent the United States from waging a successful war on terror.
- On the contrary, maximum maritime naval and air mobility that is currently assured by the Convention is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. The Convention provides the necessary stability and framework for our forces, weapons, and materiel to get to the fight without hindrance – and is the best guarantee that our forces will not be hindered in the future.
- Thus, the Convention supports our war on terrorism by providing important stability for navigational freedoms and overflight. It preserves the right of the U.S. military to use the world’s oceans to meet national security requirements. It is essential that key sea and air lanes remain open as an international legal right and not be contingent upon approval from nations along the routes. A stable legal regime for the world’s oceans will help guarantee global mobility for our Armed Forces.