The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) clearly outlines rules that govern the utilization of global seas by nations. It is also referred to as the Law of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Ever since it was adopted, about 167 countries have entered the treaty; however, the US has not yet joined (Richardson, 1982).
The US has not yet agreed to sign the convention arguing that the treaty is highly flawed thus unnecessary treaty that might threaten the US sovereignty. Because of massive flaws associated with the convention, it was believed that it might detract from US interest through ceding sovereignty to the international organization and tribunals. It has further been argued that the agreement is not necessary because the customary international law provides an international maritime law legal basis (Richardson, 1982). For example, the current agreement grants the Navy ship the ultimate sovereignty to navigate through the high seas and further, no country would try to prevent the route of the US ships as a result of the US naval primacy. Therefore, ratifying the treaty would signal to the rest of the states that the US can protect their rights only at the worldwide stage through appealing to the institution that is favored by other countries of the world hence in the process diminish the sovereignty of the US (Richardson, 1982).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Richardson (1982), critics has argued that US must not bind themselves to the intercontinental bureaucracy, for instance, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) that is established by UNCLOS to control mining on the deep seabed past the control of every state. In most instances, the bureaucracies are believed to be highly wasteful and at the same time hostile to the interest of the US. For example, the ISA is highly intimidating because there exists no veto for the US implying that ISA Assembly would amend the treaty without any US consent.
In addition to this, unification to the treaty would further expose the US to the frolicsome lawsuits for marine activities because it obliges members to present all their disagreements to a third party for potential negotiation. It has also been argued that this treaty to a larger extent might be a weapon for the green activists to convey the legal alleges against the US firms. For instance, Article 296 of the treaty offers judgment delivered in line with the treaty are believed to be obligatory on the members involved hence can never be appealed at all cost which will further infringe the sovereignty of the US (Richardson, 1982).
The senate’s concerns are primarily expressed by those senators who seem to oppose any multi-lateral agreement. They also believe that the convention will give UN control over the oceans because it does provide a decision-making role for UN. Senate also holds the belief that the treaty entails production limits on the seabed and US intelligence gathering will also be hindered greatly (Lugar, 2004). The Senate has not yet voted to confirm the treaty because they believe that the treaty clearly reflects the political, economic and even ideological assumptions that are highly inconsistent with the US values and sovereignty. Therefore affecting the convention’s governance broad regime, the Senate seems concerned that the sovereignty of the US could be substantially subjugated in several areas to supranational government chartered within the UN under the 1982 convention (Lugar, 2004). The Senate also seems concerned and troubled with the compulsory dispute resolution such as maritime security and business operation carried out aboard military vessels.
References
Lugar, R. (2004). The Law of the Sea Convention: The Case for Senate Action | Brookings Institution . Brookings . Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/on- the-record/the-law-of-the-sea-convention-the-case-for-senate-action/
Richardson, E. L. (1982). Superpowers Need Law: A Response to the United States Rejection of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Geo. Wash. J. Int'l L. & Econ. , 17 , 1.
