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
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.
Contrary to the belief that UNCLOS “discourage[s] U.S. companies from participating in such [mining] activities,” there has been a call by U.S. companies and business leaders to ratify the treaty as soon as possible.201 At the 2012 Forum on the Law of the Sea held in Washington, Jennifer Warren, Vice President of Lockheed Martin, expressed the company’s high interest in deep seabed exploration and continued support of UNCLOS.202 Warren declared, “[r]ecent developments in deep seabed resources have really sharpened our interest in seeing the law of the Sea ratified as soon as possible.”203
Lockheed Martin currently benefits from UNCLOS and the ISA by acting through its British subsidiary.204 Despite this workaround, the company’s actions are symbolic of how important accession to the treaty is to the economic interests of the U.S.205 First, Lockheed’s workaround shows a lack of confidence in the current deep seabed mining regime provided by DSHMRA and the U.S.’s multilateral and bilateral agreements with a select group of nations.206 Second, it demonstrates the value U.S. companies place in security and predictability, both of which are provided by the ISA and UNCLOS.207 Lastly, it validates the significance of deep seabed resources.208 Warren’s statement summarized it best:
The importance of these resources is well understood internationally. Other countries are moving forward quickly and aggressively to access them. As the only U.S.-based claimant, our view is pretty straightforward. Business initiatives to exploit deep seabed mineral resources will only be able to secure the necessary financial investments if done pursuant to the existing international framework.209
In addition, John Ryan, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3 Communications,210 stated, “that any uncertainty inhibits economic growth and investment” when the protection of infrastructure in international waters is not guaranteed.211 While the rest of the world enjoys the benefits of UNCLOS and the ISA, the U.S. idly stands by, watching other nations like China and Russia claim prime locations for deep seabed mining activities.212