Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Navigating the High Seas: Why the U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty

a(broad) perspective

Today’s post is the last in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties.  Each month, this series will discuss one of these treaties.  Previous posts are here.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention Adopted and Opened for Signature on December 10, 1982. Agreement on Part XI Adopted on July 28, 1994.

Entered into Force on November 16, 1994 (UNCLOS) and July 28, 1996 (Part XI) Number of Parties: 162 (UNCLOS) and 141 (Part XI)

Signed by the United States on July 29, 1994. Sent to the Senate on October 7, 1994. Reported favorably by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 25, 2004, and October 31, 2007

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) establishes a comprehensive framework for using and protecting the world’s oceans, which cover roughly 70 percent of the planet and contain a variety of natural resources vital to nearly every nation. New technologies have made it possible to reach farther and deeper into the ocean to extract and harvest resources, resulting in increased pollution and a clear impetus to establish a legal framework to govern activities in the high seas.  

The Convention is one of the most important treaties in the history of international relations, addressing almost every aspect of the law of the sea from navigation to environmental protection to mining. For example, the environmental provisions require states to take steps against a variety of threats to the marine environment, including pollution from vessels, dumping of waste, and over-fishing.

The Convention is also one of the most widely ratified treaties in the world, with more than 160 Parties.  For the most part, non-Parties are developing countries that have no maritime interests.  The United States is the only developed coastal state, the only large economy, and the only naval power that does not belong to the Convention. 

The United States took the lead in negotiating the LOS Convention, but disagreement with one portion of the Convention prevented the United States from ratifying the Convention.  Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan announced that the United States would abide by most of the provisions of the Convention, treating them as customary international law. An additional agreement, completed in 1994 and drafted with significant U.S. involvement, allayed the concerns that had prevented the United States and other developed nations from joining the LOS Convention.  As a result, President Bill Clinton signed the LOS Convention and, together with the additional agreement, submitted it to the Senate in 1994.  The Convention has since received support from Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Joining the Convention would protect and advance a wide array of U.S. security, economic and environmental interests. It has the broadest range of support of any of the treaties covered in this blog series. The nation’s security leadership, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the oil and gas industry, ocean policy experts, and environmental groups have all urged the Senate to approve the Convention. These supporters emphasize the importance of ensuring that the United States has a seat at the table when the Convention Parties make crucial decisions affecting U.S. national interests.   

Ratifying the LOS Convention would require no changes to U.S. law.  Indeed, since 1983, the United States has voluntarily complied with the Convention’s substantive provisions. Yet, voluntary compliance is not enough.  The United State’s failure to join the Convention directly jeopardizes many significant U.S. interests. Specifically:

  • Global freedom of navigation. By failing to join the Convention, the United States compromises its ability to assert navigational rights and freedoms essential to our armed forces.
  • Biodiversity in the oceans. The United States has an enormous stake in the health of the world’s oceans and the living resources they contain.  The LOS Convention establishes state obligations to manage these resources sustainably.
  • Rules for additional territorial claims over marine resources. Other countries, such as Russia, are eagerly pursing claims to the resource-rich outer continental shelf, especially in the Arctic. As a non-Party, the United States cannot assert its own claim and cannot appoint commissioners to the international body that reviews these claims. 

Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has spearheaded another push for ratification. In May and June the Committee again held hearings on the LOS Convention, featuring testimony in support from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and the heads of the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute. The reasons to become a Party to the Convention are stronger now than ever. The Senate should act quickly to provide its advice and consent to ratification.

Showing 2,834 results

Rebecca Bratspies | September 18, 2012

Navigating the High Seas: Why the U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty

a(broad) perspective Today’s post is the last in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties.  Each month, this series will discuss one of these treaties.  Previous posts are here. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and […]

Robert Verchick | September 17, 2012

What Does The Indian Public Think About Climate Change?

I had been wondering what ordinary people in India think about climate change. So last week on my ride home from the office, I asked my auto-rickshaw driver. He was a talkative guy, bearded, with black spectacles and a navy blue turban. He had been keen on identifying for me the many troubles a man […]

Ben Somberg | September 15, 2012

Key EPA Air Pollution Rule Runs Past 120 Day Deadline at White House

The Administration has just missed another deadline on issuing the final revised “boiler MACT” rule. The revised version of the rule will provide less pollution reduction than the original version, but is still expected to prevent thousands of deaths each year. The EPA had pledged for many months that the rule would be finalized in April. It […]

Yee Huang | September 14, 2012

New CPR White Paper: How Agricultural Secrecy Gives Agribusiness a Federally Funded Free Ride

Agricultural producers in the United States receive billions of dollars in federal subsidies, crop insurance, conservation payments, and other grants.  Defying fundamental principles of transparency and openness in a democracy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized to keep secret much of the basic information that farmers provide to qualify for this public funding.  […]

Rena Steinzor | September 14, 2012

The Unpopularity of Cost-Benefit Analysis

If cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is really part of the furniture, you wouldn’t think recently departed OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein would need to dedicate a column to convincing us it’s so. But there it is, and though Sunstein is now but a private citizen like the rest of us, the claims merit a response. We’re told […]

Emily Hammond | September 13, 2012

Keeping the Independent Agencies Independent

The proposed Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act, S. 3468, is a troubling idea. As Rena Steinzor explained here when the bill was introduced, it would authorize the President to bring independent agencies under the purview of OIRA.  This proposal is worrisome given the persistent flaws inherent in OIRA’s cost-benefit approach; extending the reach of a […]

Ben Somberg | September 12, 2012

Bill Clinton: After Oklahoma City Bombing, I Promised Myself I Would Never Bash Government Bureaucrats

Former President Bill Clinton, campaigning for President Obama in Florida on Tuesday, the 9/11 anniversary, offered a passionate defense of government employees, the AP noted. I was curious about the whole quote, so I watched and wrote it out (via C-SPAN, at 34:55): On this day, of all days, we should know that there are […]

Mary Jane Angelo | September 7, 2012

Everywhere, All the Time: Why the U.S. Should Ratify 3 International Agreements on Persistent Organic Pollutants

a(broad) perspective Today’s post is the seventh in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties.  Each month, this series will discuss one of these treaties. Previous posts are here. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are toxic substances that remain in the […]

| September 6, 2012

TSCA Reform and the Presidential Election

When Barack Obama took office, reform of U.S. chemical regulation appeared to be an area of some bipartisan agreement, especially when compared to climate change, where it was clear a contentious fight would loom on Capitol Hill.  Prominent Members of Congress had called for reform of the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, […]