REJECT

The author criticizes efforts to bring the Law of the Sea up for vote finding that the treaty is based in "an assumption that the free-market system is selfish; that capitalism benefits only capitalists and cannot be controlled to make it benefit society in general."

The authors argue that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea "is likely to have unintended negative consequences for U.S. interests" and that "[n]othing has occurred since 2004 that should lead the Senate to reverse its earlier decision to decline to take up the treaty."

"This analysis of the Law of the Sea Treaty will focus on the threats to political independence, particularly as they relate to environmental policy, and to threats to security."

The authors, senior researchers at the American Enterprise Institute, argue that China's aggressive behavior in the South China Seas will not be resolved by U.S. ratification of UNCLOS, but will only lead to "endless legal and diplomatic wrangling."

"The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)—signed by the U.S. in 1994 but never ratified by the Senate—is showing some signs of life on Capitol Hill, even as new circumstances make it less attractive than ever. With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims."

The authors offer five reasons why the Law of the Sea treaty "remains a threat to American interests."

Doug Bandow argues against ratifying the Law of the Sea, arguing that the treaty "is a flawed document, and there would be serious costs from accepting it."

Law professor Jeremy Rabkin argues that the Senate should "think long and hard before making the U.S. Navy answer to the U.N version of the Law of the Sea."