Revision of U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to a number of maritime industries from Sun, 06/29/2014 - 11:37
Without the universally recognized legal regime governing the exploitation of the mineral resources of the deep-sea beyond the zones of national jurisdictions that UNCLOS provides, US companies will not assume the investment rights associated with such projects until it was clear who had “clear legal title” to the resources extracted.
- Offshore oil and gas development dependent on legal protection of UNCLOS
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS key to development of deep seabed mining industry
- Success of offshore wind power industry depends on U.S. ratification of UNCLOS
- Marine biotechnology industry would benefit from UNCLOS legal regime
- U.S. underseas cable industry needs UNCLOS protection
- U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is key to sustaining competitiveness of U.S. shipping industry
- Other states will challenge U.S. unilateral claims outside UNCLOS
Quicktabs: Arguments
From an economic perspective, the United States emerges a clear winner under the convention’s provisions on the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf, due to its lengthy coastline and island possessions that border on several particularly productive ocean areas such as the Bering Sea. The United States has the largest and richest EEZ in the world. Also, our extended continental shelf has enormous potential due to oil and gas reserves, particularly in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas west and north of Alaska.
Discoveries by the crew aboard the USCG icebreaker Healy reveal that the U.S. continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean is much more extensive than originally thought. Nevertheless, only by becoming party to the convention and participating in its processes can the United States obtain secure title to these vast resources, adding an area twice the size of the Louisiana Purchase (some 290,000 square miles) for U.S. sovereign resource exploitation.5Climate Right for U.S. Joining Law of Sea Convention — Scott G. Borgerson and Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering. — Council on Foreign Relations — Dec 23, 2009 [ More ]
Despite claims from critics of the convention that the United States could and should develop its continental shelf resources beyond 200 miles without becoming a party to UNCLOS, it stands to reason that any oil, gas, or mining company would want the legal certainty of the convention before investing billions of dollars to develop an offshore feld, no matter how rich it might be.6To Rule the Arctic’s Waves, U.S. Can’t Waive the Rules — Editorial. — Business Week — Oct 05, 2011 [ More ] In addition, the convention’s deep seabed mining provisions, as amended in 1994, would permit and encourage American businesses to pursue free-market-oriented approaches to deep ocean mining, including in the Arctic Ocean.
At issue, in light of China’s emergence as an economic power, technology leader and a nation with a defined oceans strategy, and the activity of Russia and others in the Arctic region, are serious concerns that the United States is falling behind by not securing its sovereign rights to the vast resources of its continental shelf beyond 200 miles from shore — and to explore for more around the world — matters that encompass economic losses as well as national security threats.
Proponents, largely within industry, are anxious to see the United States accede to the Convention. In doing so, the country gains the legal authority to sponsor U.S. companies eager to secure rights to oil and gas reserves, and to leverage investments upwards of $2 billion for mining deep seabeds for valuable metals and rare earth elements. More than 40 countries have begun the process of securing their own continental shelf rights, according to State Depart- ment data.
“Chinese, Indian and Russian companies are exploring deep seabeds for rare earth elements and valuable metals, but the United States cannot sponsor our companies to do the same,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a videotaped statement last December to the Pew Business Roundtable. “Joining the Convention will level the playing field for American companies so they have the same rights and opportunities as their competitors.”
Third, U.S. companies have been unwilling to begin costly exploration and extraction activities in reliance on theoretical and untested legal arguments that have not been accepted by other countries and that are flatly contrary to the terms of Law of the Sea Convention. Companies instead want the clear legal certainty provided by the Convention before making investments that could run into the billions of dollars. Critics of the Convention who are concerned about the possibility of international litigation should be much more concerned about the possibility of lawsuits against the United States or U.S. companies if the United States were to engage in resource extraction on the U.S. extended continental shelf or on the deep seabed contrary to the terms of the Convention, than about possible environmental claims against the United States if the U.S. were to join the Convention. Moreover, a U.S. company that initiates deep seabed mining outside the Convention risks having a foreign company sponsored by a country that is party to the Convention jump on its claim after it has proven to be profitable. No U.S. company would want to take that legal risk.