A broad coalition of American business, political and military leaders – including all living former U.S. Presidents and Secretaries of State, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, current and former Army, Marine and Air Force generals and Navy and Coast Guard admirals – support the Law of the Sea Treaty’s ratification. On this page you will find quotes from many of these advocates, voicing their support for the LOS treaty. Click on these section headers to skip down to support from specific stakeholders:
- Business & Labor Leaders
- National Security Officials & Experts
- Policymakers & Academics
- Non-Governmental Organizations
Business & Labor Leaders back to top
David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder, The Carlyle Group, 2012 Arctic Imperative Summit, August 26, 2012
“As I look at the (Arctic) opportunity, though, I think it is unfortunate that the United States is not developing this opportunity as quickly as it should. … I, as an investor, not just as an American, but as an investor, I’m looking for ways for my investors to get high rates of return on a reasonably prudent basis. So I will probably look to do more outside of the United States if I want to pursue the Arctic opportunity then in the United States until the Law of the Sea Treaty really is ratified.”
“No American company will make an investment in deep seabed mineral recovery without international legal recognition of its right to do so. Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June said, ‘Accession benefits the U.S. economically by providing American companies the legal certainty and stability to do what they do best: putting people to work by creating new and innovative goods and services.’ Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, testifying before the same committee said, ‘Other nations are actively seeking to knock us from our mantle of economic leadership, yet, too often, we remain on the sidelines. Manufacturers can't afford for the U.S. to sit on the sidelines when it comes to the Law of the Sea.’ ... But the U.S. Senate must act to secure all of these important economic and national security benefits for America. Without treaty ratification, America stands to lose out to claims from nations that are parties to the treaty and want to encroach upon the vast seabed mineral wealth off U.S. shores.”
“[E]normous oil and gas resources are estimated to lie in the U.S. ‘extended continental shelf,’ an area that begins at 200 miles from shore and runs out to the outer edge of the continental margin of the United States. The U.S. extended continental shelf off the coast of Alaska has been estimated by the U.S. Government to be at least one million square kilometers, or twice the size of California. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the area north of the Arctic Circle contains nearly a hundred billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, a vast untapped resource. ... [The Law of the Sea] establishes a process through which Parties to the treaty can establish internationally-recognized claims over the resources in their extended continental shelf.”
“Senate ratification of the Convention will provide confidence to U.S. companies that their undersea submarine cable investments are protected by more specific and reliable international law. The Convention provides tangible benefits to the United States through specific new protections for critical submarine cable infrastructure.”
“It is in our national interest to accede to the Convention, which would allow American companies to hire more people as they invest in exploring the resources of the sea. Accession benefits the U.S. economically by providing American companies the legal certainty and stability to do what they do best: putting people to work by creating new and innovative goods and services.”
“The American oil and natural gas industry is ready to step up to the plate, but in order for it to succeed, it must be allowed to play on a level international playing field. The Law of the Sea Convention will go a great distance to provide us that level playing field.”
“Other nations are actively seeking to knock us from our mantle of economic leadership, yet, too often, we remain on the sidelines. Manufacturers can’t afford for the U.S. to sit on the sidelines when it comes to the Law of the Sea Convention.”
“America needs greater access to rare earth materials to help strengthen national security and military defense and increase the availability and affordability of innovative technologies. Law of the Sea Treaty ratification would give U.S. companies the legal certainty they need to recover vast untapped rare earth mineral resources off America’s shores. Failure to ratify the treaty and secure this strategic resource puts America’s national security and economic interests at risk….”
“There is an urgent need to secure the rights to develop additional sources of valuable rare earth and other minerals located on the deep seabed in international waters. Other countries, including China and Russia, have already secured internationally recognized rights to deep seabed sites, and are moving aggressively to develop this important resource. Absent timely ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. will lose its ability to lead in this rapidly emerging strategic market.”
“Eight of the approximately 40 landing sites for undersea telecommunications cables in the United States are in Florida, making the state a vital telecommunications connection point for America with the rest of the world. Without Treaty ratification, U.S. cable owners have no legal framework to protect their rights and lay and maintain these critical communications links.”
“Now that new technologies and changed conditions have made it cheaper and easier to access the potential wealth beneath the oceans, the business community simply cannot afford to have the U.S. remain on the sidelines. Energy companies need the certainty the Convention provides in order to explore beyond 200 miles and to place experts on international bodies that will delineate claims in the Arctic. The telecommunications industry needs the Convention to expand the right to lay and maintain submarine cables in the oceans of the world and provide stronger protections for cables against damage by other parties. A wide range of domestic industries, including aerospace, defense, and consumer electronics, need the Convention to enable access to a new source of mineral resources, including rare earth minerals, which lie in massive deposits on and beneath the deep seabed floor.”
“With more than 160 other nations having already ratified the treaty, U.S. ratification is critical to ensuring the rule of law and the protection of America’s interests on the high seas. Ratification would also afford the United States an internationally recognized system for dispute resolution in foreign waters and would create order for the responsible development of resources in a globalized world.”
“As an American company engaged in the global market for energy development, Exxon Mobil is interested in exploring for oil and gas resources that may exist under the vast new areas that are recognized for sovereignty purposes under the UNCLOS. … Before undertaking such immense investments, legal certainty in the property rights being explored and developed is essential.”
“Ratification is now critical to the important U.S. economic and national security interests advanced by access to the vast mineral and rare earth metals resources on the ocean floor. These mineral resources are vital to a wide array of defense and high-tech manufacturing products and systems….”
“…[W]e believe it is in our national and economic interest to ensure an expanded source of rare earth elements, given the virtual monopoly that is widely reported as existing today for those resources. … And for a U.S.-based claim to be protected, the U.S. must be a party to the Law of the Sea ... and [we] therefore urge ratification of the Law of the Sea.”
“Ratification of the treaty will enhance U.S. businesses’ ability to compete internationally, putting us on a level playing field with many of our competitors who already have access to the benefits of the treaty.”
“Failure for the United States to approve the Law of the Sea Treaty will be a strategic disadvantage to not just American industry, but to the nation at large. … This is an essential action that’s needed to protect the interests of our American industry and the development and use of these [subsea] resources.”
“We’re now watching from the outside as the guidelines and protocols for conduct on the world’s oceans are developed and as certain provisions of the convention are implemented. We can’t allow this to continue. The Law of the Sea Convention is good for our nation, and we at API certainly urge the Senate to give its approval.”
“It is fair to say that circumstances now are significantly changed. The value of the minerals in the form of these polymetallic nodules that are literally just sitting on the seabed floor has increased quite dramatically. It is mainly by virtue of some very significant recent developments that Lockheed’s interest in this area has sharpened, and our commitment has become very clear, and very firm to ratification of the treaty as an essential factor for purposes of moving forward with the deep seabed exploration business.”
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Statement in U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet: "Why the United States Needs to Join the Law of the Sea Convention Now," March 21, 2012
“Timing is critically important if U.S. industry is to undertake exploitation of the deep seabed for valuable rare earth and other mineral resources. Other countries are already moving quickly and aggressively to secure internationally recognized rights to these resources. However, until the Senate approves the Law of the Sea Convention, as modified by the 1994 Agreement, U.S. companies cannot use this country's technological leadership to pursue, with the sponsorship of the United States Government, a leadership position in this strategically important emerging market.”
“… AT&T Inc. (‘AT&T’) supports U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. We do so because the Convention improves protections for international submarine cables, provides compulsory dispute resolution procedures concerning these cables, and expands the right to lay and maintain them. This is important to the U.S. economy given the rapid growth of global trade and the central role of telecommunications in today's global economy.”
“We believe that there are strong economic and strategic reasons for the United States to ratify it now. Not least of which is the current claims to extend the continental shelf up to 300 miles, which are being made by a number of countries. Being a State Party would enable the United States to make such claims and for us to be better placed to defend our economic interests.”
“In addition to its benefits to our nation’s economy, being aboard the Law of the Sea Convention helps our national security interests by providing substantive rules that would ensure worldwide access for U.S. military and commercial vessels.”
AT&T, Statement on U.S. Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention, January 2011
“Because of the central role of telecommunications and the global Internet in today’s economy, it has never been more important to strengthen the protection and reliability of international submarine cables. The Law of the Sea Convention is a critical element of this protection. AT&T therefore supports U.S. Senate ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention at the earliest opportunity.”
National Security Officials & Experts back to top
“For our part, we can strengthen our hand in engaging disputes in the South China Sea by joining the Law of the Sea Convention. As the Secretary emphasized when she testified before the full Committee in May, ‘[O]ur navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries’ behavior should stand on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing available, including in critical areas such as the South China Sea. . . . [A]s a party to the convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the convention’s rules and a greater ability to enforce them.’"
“[The South China Sea territorial disputes] could become a very vexatious issue if it’s not carefully handled. But I believe that we can handle it carefully, and that we will handle it carefully. Of course it would be helpful if the U.S. Senate would ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, because we have no standing right now.”
“The Law of the Sea Convention provides the comprehensive and stable legal regime for the exercise of navigational rights and the most solid legal footing possible to the men and women who serve our country around the world every day. In addition to enhancing our security and protecting our Sailors, the Treaty is critical for business growth and U.S. job creation, providing a solid foundation for America to assert its sovereign rights to the natural resources of the sea floor on the extended continental shelf. I urge the Senate to stand up for the best interests of our nation and our Navy and support immediate ratification of the Treaty.”
James A. Baker III, Former Secretary of State, 2012 Arctic Imperative Summit, August 26, 2012
“[L]ack of participation in the [Treaty] jeopardizes our ability to secure economic opportunities associated with commercial deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones … [O]ur leaders in Washington should not be afraid to do what is right and ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.”
Thomas R. Nides, Deputy Secretary of State, 2012 Arctic Imperative Summit, August 26, 2012
“Nobody is better positioned to benefit from this Treaty than the United States. … I hope the Senate will take advantage of the opportunity to take necessary steps to protect American interests, security and prosperity.”
“The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or Law of the Sea Treaty, currently being debated in the U.S. Senate and across the United States, offers a critical opportunity to protect America’s pre-eminent maritime worldwide position. ...The Senate has a historic opportunity to follow the path of sovereign expansion started by Thomas Jefferson, by securing exclusive access to the full U.S. extended continental shelf, which, in the case of Alaska, extends up to 600 miles or more beyond the coast. No act of government would do more to invigorate America’s commercial maritime presence than joining the Law of the Sea Convention, granting U.S. commercial entities exclusive access to the vast undersea resources on our extended continental shelf and obtaining under the treaty leased areas of the international seabeds containing strategic minerals, including rare earths. This combined would unleash an investment boom, new jobs and secure U.S. leadership in strategic subsea mineral recovery for our future. Thanks to President Ronald Reagan, who did more than anyone to strengthen the Convention for the United States, the deep seabed mining provisions are extremely favorable to U.S. interests. Reagan’s determination to secure a better treaty led to specific changes that granted the United States a permanent seat — and permanent veto authority — on the council that governs seabed mining. Reagan forced the elimination of mandatory technology sharing and revision of the revenue provisions, making them more favorable to the United States. ... The United States has a critical opportunity to ensure continued U.S. maritime leadership by joining the Law of the Sea Convention.”
“Currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, [the Law of the Sea treaty] would help drive investment, economic growth and job creation in New Hampshire and across America. ... The Law of the Sea would guarantee international legal recognition of the right of America's armed forces to move unencumbered throughout the world's oceans. Moreover, ratifying the treaty would give the United States access to an internationally recognized system for resolving commercial disputes in foreign waters while protecting America's exclusive right to address military disputes directly and on its own terms. ... The treaty strengthens our military posture and offers additional protections to our armed forces overseas. That is why all living former U.S. presidents and secretaries of state, as well as current and former Army, Marine and Air Force generals and Navy and Coast Guard admirals, have endorsed ratification. ... But the U.S. Senate must act to secure all of these important economic and national security benefits for America. Without treaty ratification, America stands to lose out to claims from nations that are parties to the treaty and want to encroach upon the vast seabed mineral wealth off U.S. shores.”
“The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea — the instrument that created the overarching governance framework for nearly three-quarters of the Earth’s surface and what lies above and beneath it — has been signed and ratified by 161 countries, but not by the United States. The convention and the 1994 agreement on its implementation have been in force for 18 years, yet the United States, a nation with over 12,000 miles of coastline and the dominant world maritime power by any measure, joins an embarrassing short list of holdouts that includes North Korea, Syria and Iran. This is true despite the fact that a bipartisan coalition of American business, environmental and military leaders agree that it is in our national interests to formally become a state party to this lynchpin of ocean governance. Per our constitution, the Senate must give its “advice and consent” to treaties submitted by the president for its review. Of these currently in the queue, for national-security reasons, the Law of the Sea is one of the most urgent.”
“MOAA joins many others – organizations and individual alike – who recognize the critical national-defense implications that are addressed by the [Law of the Sea] Convention. The Convention has been strongly endorsed by the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the current serving senior military leadership of all services.”
“The wisdom of Reagan’s objections was recognized and Convention parties fixed those objectionable articles. In fact, much earlier in 1982, President Reagan directed that our naval forces operate in conformance with all of navigational provisions of the Convention and advised other countries that if their maritime claims were in conformance with the Convention’s provisions, the U.S. would honor those claims.
“Why is it imperative for the United States to join the convention now? … U.S. firms would be able to obtain essential internationally recognized exclusive rights to explore and exploit deposits of critical and strategic minerals on the ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction and secure recognized title to the recovered resources. The convention, as revised by the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, provides the commercial regime needed for private industry in full compliance with the criteria articulated in 1982 by President Reagan when he laid out his conditions for a convention he would sign.”
“…[T]he [Bush] Administration concluded that the Convention was in the U.S. commercial and economic interests because it codified U.S. rights to exploit the vast and valuable resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone -- the largest in the world -- and on its substantial extended continental shelf (ECS), to lay and service submarine telecommunications cables, and to engage in mining in the deep seabed outside the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. Later, as the melting Arctic ice opened up new commercial opportunities on the U.S. extended continental shelf off of Alaska, the Administration concluded that codifying U.S. rights in the Arctic and participating on the Continental Shelf Commission created by the Convention was even more important than before.”
“Joining this treaty will strengthen our posture and operations across the maritime domain, including in the Arctic, the Asia-Pacific region, the Strait of Hormuz, and the global shipping lanes at the heart of our military sealift capabilities. Joining will solidify our global maritime leadership, enhance our credibility, and, as the world's foremost naval power, allow us to bring to bear the full force of our influence on maritime disputes.”
“LOSC provides a formal and consistent framework for the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes. It defines the extent of control nations can legally assert at sea and prescribes procedures to counter excessive maritime claims. Acceding to LOSC will increase our credibility in invoking and enforcing the treaty’s provisions and maximize our influence in the interpretation and application of the law of the sea. Recent interference with our operations in the Western Pacific and rhetoric by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz underscore the need to use the Convention to clearly identify and respond to violations of international law that seek to constrain access to international waters. As a party to the Convention, we will bolster our position to press the rule of law and maintain the freedom to conduct military activities in these areas.”
“The Coast Guard needs a comprehensive legal framework that addresses activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans to further its statutory missions. We also need a solid legal framework that customary international law cannot provide as it remains subject to change based on state practice — whether at the local, regional or global level. The Convention is this certain framework. The Convention was, and still is, a resounding success for U.S. diplomacy. Acceding to the Convention will strengthen the Coast Guard’s ability to protect U.S. maritime interests. The Convention is widely accepted; there are currently 162 parties. Of the eight Arctic nations, only the U.S. is not a party to the Convention. I can see no downside to the Coast Guard in the United States acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention. To the contrary, joining the Law of the Sea Convention will immensely enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to address emerging threats that challenge our Nation and safeguard the American people, our environment, and ocean resources that benefit all Americans.”
“Joining this Convention would codify several important recognized rights of navigation into a binding legal foundation. It supports our national security interests by defining the rights of U.S. military and civilian vessels as they meet our mission requirements, reaffirms the sovereign immunity of our warships and other vessels owned by the United States and used for government noncommercial service, and preserves our right to conduct military activities and operations in exclusive economic zones. As the defense strategy places greater demands on our ability to mobilize forces, guaranteed access to shipping and overflight lanes becomes increasingly important to support our forces overseas.”
“… [T]he United States is the only Arctic nation that has not acceded to the Convention, which could impede international cooperation and eventually limit the development of cooperative partnerships with the other members of the Arctic Council…. Future defense and civil support scenarios in the Arctic maritime domain will require closely coordinated, multinational operations in this expansive and resource rich region. Therefore, U.S. accession to the Convention will set the conditions for partnership and cooperation, resulting in more efficient and effective multinational command and control and operations in the maritime domain. … Joining the Convention will protect and advance a broad range of significant economic and national security interests, and ultimately contribute to the peaceful opening of the Arctic in a manner that strengthens the United States and international cooperation.”
“It is critical for the United States to maintain its leadership role in the Pacific in order to best protect our vital security interests. As the Secretary of Defense stated in his testimony, a key component of our strategy is to re-energize and strengthen our network of defense and security partnerships throughout the Asia Pacific region. An area of universal interest among our allies and partners is protections of the rights and freedoms that underpin all nations’ access to and uses of the world’s oceans. Joining the Convention will ensure seamless integration of international legal authorities between our forces and those of our partners and will place the United States in the best possible position to continue to lead international efforts in the maritime domain.”
“The Coast Guard's role is to protect the safety and security of the American maritime public. Acceding to the Law of the Sea Convention will help the men and women of the Coast Guard to do just that, in a much more effective way.”
“The Convention supports our efforts in the United States Central Command region by ensuring transit rights under, through and over international waters and airspace as well as through critical choke points like the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block. I agree with Secretary Panetta that acceding to the Convention strengthens our transit passage rights under international law and helps isolate Iran as one of the few remaining non-parties to the Convention. The Convention also ensures the right to board stateless vessels on the high seas which is a critically important element of maritime security operations. The Convention does not in any way restrict our operations or limit our intelligence collection activities.”
“… If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests. The convention's primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation, allocate resource rights, establish the certainty necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea, and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deep-seabed mining, which prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, because it is in the best interest of our nation. … The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation's authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our national and economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy. … Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving disputes. We have been on the sidelines long enough. Now is the time to get on the field and lead.”
“By finally acceding to the Convention, we help make our nation more secure and more prosperous for generations to come. America is the strongest power in the world. We are strong precisely because we play by the rules. For too long, the United States has failed to act on this treaty. For too long, we have undermined our moral and diplomatic authority to fight for our rights and our maritime interests. For too long, we have allowed our inability to act to impair our national security.”
“As the world’s foremost maritime power, our security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. We have more to gain from legal certainty and public order in the world’s oceans than any other country. Our forces are deployed throughout the world and need guaranteed mobility on, over and under the world’s oceans. U.S. Armed Forces rely on the navigational rights and freedoms reflected in the Convention for worldwide access to get to combat areas, sustain our forces during conflict, and return home safely, without permission from other countries.”
“Joining the Convention would provide legal certainty to our navigational freedoms and legitimacy to our maritime operations that customary law simply cannot. It would affirm critical navigational freedoms and reinforce the sovereign immunity of our warships as they conduct these operations. These include the right of transit through international straits, the right to exercise high seas freedoms in foreign exclusive economic zones, and the right of innocent passage through foreign territorial seas. The Convention would also provide a stronger legal basis for some important activities such as stopping and boarding stateless vessels—ships often used by pirates, traffickers, and terrorists.”
“As the world's premier military power, the United States depends upon global access. The Convention codifies customary international law, providing an enduring legal basis for the freedom of movement at sea and in the air necessary to sustain our forward deployed forces, to project power around the globe, to deter our potential enemies, and to assure our allies.”
“Freedom of navigation is a cornerstone of U.S. naval and economic strategy. Our prosperity and national strength, the source of our power, depend on the oceans and our activities upon them. The maritime global commons are important to the U.S. and to our Allies and friend around the world. The Law of the Sea Convention helps to provide for order in these vital global commons.”
Captain Gail Harris (ret.), U.S. Navy, Op-ed in The Diplomat, March 23, 2012
“Critics say the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea infringes U.S. sovereignty. Actually, it would save the U.S. money, help counter China and make the Pacific safer. … The costs of not ratifying it are growing by the day. Until the U.S. Congress ratifies the treaty, we lack the international legitimacy to prevent Beijing from bullying Asia and bending economic and security laws in its favor. … What’s more, approving the treaty is similar to the best kind of business decision: it reduces expenses and puts money in our pocket. It provides for Economic Exclusion Zones, or exclusive privileges to manage the natural resources near our coast. No country stands to benefit more from these zones than the United States.”
Admiral Robert F. Willard (ret.), U.S. Navy, Remarks Before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, February 28, 2012
“I do think that not being a signator disadvantages the United States in a particular way. I would offer that since 1994 the United States Armed Forces have been adhering to the legal framework that is consistent with UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and we continue to. And we continue to share UNCLOS issues and debate UNCLOS legal definitions with our counterparts across the Asia Pacific.
“What the United States doesn’t have as a non-signator is a seat at the table when the Convention is debated or as the Convention evolves by the various countries that have ratified it. And I think it’s important that the United States has a seat at that table. At the end of the day, we believe that the elements that caused the Convention to be set aside in the 1980s—generally in the area of the commercially related articles in it—have all been corrected and should at this point be candidate for ratification. And we believe—again because UNCLOS is so important as a framework for determining the actions that all nations take in the maritime domain around the world—we believe strongly that the US must have a seat at the table when we debate UNCLOS in the future.”
“The [treaty] guarantees rights such as innocent passage through territorial seas; transit passage through, under and over international straits; and the laying and maintaining of submarine cables. The convention has been approved by nearly every maritime power and all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, except the United States. Our notable absence as a signatory weakens our position with other nations, allowing the introduction of expansive definitions of sovereignty on the high seas that undermine our ability to defend our mineral rights along our own continental shelf and in the Arctic.”
“… [J]oining the Law of the Sea Convention is a top priority for the United States. The Convention, which sets forth a comprehensive legal framework governing uses of the oceans, protects and advances a broad range of U.S. interests, including U.S. national security and economic interests. U.S. accession is a matter of geostrategic importance in the South China Sea.”
“To advance U.S. economic and security interests and avert potential environmental and human disasters, the United States should ratify the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), take the lead in developing mandatory international standards for operating in Arctic waters, and acquire icebreakers, aircraft, and infrastructure for Arctic operations. … Critics argue that the LOSC cedes American sovereignty to the United Nations. But the failure to ratify it has the opposite effect: it leaves the United States less able to protect its interests in the Arctic and elsewhere.”
“…[T]he Law of the Sea treaty has no more ardent supporter in the US government than the US Navy. Our senior naval officers repeatedly have made themselves available on Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of the treaty, because we do believe that it provides the kind of predictability and set of rules that clarify the rules of the road, if you will. Our position from the Department of Defense, and especially, I would say, from the Navy, is that the sooner we accede, the better off we and this region will be. I will say that I first started with Law of the Sea issues 35 years ago, and shall we say progress has been slow?”
Policymakers & Academics back to top
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), U.S. Senate, Associated Press, August 17, 2012
“… This is a treaty that I believe very strongly will contribute not only to our national security, but will allow us a level of certainly in accessing our resources in the north. … Anybody with a star on their shoulder has sat before the Foreign Relations Committee and testified about why it’s so important, so critical, to this nation. … There are some colleagues – if the United Nations is in the title of any treaty, it’s an automatic no. But the reality is the treaty has been amended or adapted from the time President Reagan was in office, and had concerns about it, to address some of the issues that have been raised.”
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), U.S. Senate, Portsmouth Herald, August 6, 2012
“... I am an unequivocal supporter of [the Law of the Sea] treaty, which will strengthen our national security and our economy. Endorsed by every living Secretary of State and every Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since it was first sent to the Senate in 1994, the Law of the Sea Treaty would strengthen legal protections for our Navy's ships and sailors as they operate in ports around the world. ... Already, the treaty has been ratified by 162 other nations, including China, and the United States risks being left behind as other nations take advantage of their own offshore resources. It's no wonder the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one voice among many calling for ratification. Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is in the best interest of our economy and national security, and I encourage other senators to join me in support.”
“There’s a reason every living Chief of Naval Operations supports U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea. They know the United States needs the Treaty’s ‘navigational bill of rights’ for worldwide access to get our troops to the fight, to sustain them during the fight, and to get back home without the permission of other countries.”
“Every year that goes by without the U.S. joining the Convention results in deepening our country’s submission to ocean laws and practices determined by foreign governments without U.S. input. Our Navy and our ocean industries operate every day in a maritime environment that is increasingly dominated by foreign decision-making. In almost any other context, the Senate would be outraged at subjecting Americans to foreign controls without U.S. input.”
“The Law of the Sea is key to ensuring Alaska’s Arctic future. Unless the U.S. ratifies the treaty, our oil and gas companies won’t be able to develop resources on our extended continental shelf beyond 200 miles. We’d leave hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and gas resources on the table and miss a chance to make Alaska bigger.”
“The United States is perhaps the most significant player in Maritime security and economic activities. Yet our interests are not being represented as other member countries debate changes to sea lane and mineral rights because we have not ratified the Convention. Our absence gives other countries an economic and legal advantage when disputes arise. This negatively impacts U.S. companies who have significant commercial interests, but also can potentially harm our national security as more countries vie for scarce resources at sea.”
“[The Treaty] advances our economic and environmental interests by enabling the United States to fully secure its continental shelf, resulting in an exclusive economic zone larger than that of any other country in the world. The ability to development (sic) new resources could benefit our energy security, industrial development, and overall economic well-being.”
“We support ratification of the Convention because we believe it will advance the interests of the United States as a global maritime power and will preserve and strengthen our rights, on which our military depends, to use the world’s oceans to meet U.S. national security requirements. … U.S. accession to the Convention will enhance the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to protect and advance U.S. national security interests, and demonstrate continued U.S. leadership in maritime affairs.”
“Another important factor in Arctic governance is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In 2011, the Alaska Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 19, urging the United States Senate to ratify UNCLOS. International cooperation in the Arctic must be strengthened with the force of law recognized by all Arctic countries. Ratification will allow the United States to peacefully legitimize its Extended Continental Shelf claims in the Arctic and gain access to potential major oil and gas reserves, notably in the Chukchi Sea. Failure to ratify jeopardizes the United States' effectiveness in shaping future ocean policies and risks losing any strategic initiative in the Arctic. This issue is gaining additional traction as our nation's citizens become more aware of it. During Senator Murkowski's address to the Legislature February 23rd, she said there may soon be ‘a window of opportunity to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, before election year politics take over in Washington.’”
“Currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate, this U.S.-initiated treaty would help drive investment, economic growth and job creation in New Hampshire and across America. By ratifying the treaty, America would gain exclusive sovereign commercial rights to the full U.S. outer continental shelf, which, in some areas, extends up to 600 miles beyond the coast — three times the current 200-mile limit. The University of New Hampshire's own Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping has been deeply involved in mapping unexplored regions of the Arctic seafloor in support of potential U.S. claims under the Law of the Sea Treaty. UNH is home to some of the world's leading experts in hydrographic and seafloor mapping and they've spent months at sea in support of expanded U.S. claims that can only be realized if the United States becomes a party to the Treaty. Former Sen. Judd Gregg was instrumental in ensuring UNH researchers had the resources they needed to pursue their ambitious exploration. With ratification, U.S. companies would gain exclusive access to vast oil, gas and mineral resources in the deep seabed off America's shores — including rare earth minerals that New Hampshire's high-tech manufacturing businesses depend on. These minerals are used in a wide spectrum of high-tech products that will be increasingly important to the Granite State's economy.”
“The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, an international treaty to which the United States is not a party, holds a key to critical economic and national security interests of the country. ... Although the ‘extended continental shelf’ of the U.S. extends more than 600 miles into the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska and covers an area twice the size of California, the U.S. sits on the sideline while other countries are staking their claims to vast resources. ... The treaty established firm rules for freedom of navigation and overflight, and with the U.S. being the dominant naval power, the convention gives it the advantage ‘to freely navigate on, over, and under the world's oceans.’”
“All of the Reagan conditions for [the deep seabed mining provisions in ‘Law of the Sea’] were met in a 1994 renegotiation. … [I]t met all U.S. objectives, including vital navigational provisions for the Navy, especially submerged transit through international straits for our nuclear submarines. The treaty also extends U.S. resource jurisdiction into the oceans in an area larger than the entire land territory of the nation. And it assures access for U.S. deep-seabed mining companies to mid-Pacific mine sites containing over a trillion dollars in strategic minerals. The treaty, favorably reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 and 2007, was on President Bush's priority list but has never been put to a vote. It is now once again before the Senate, with overwhelming support from military and business leaders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Financial Services Roundtable. … The treaty provides property rights for miners in an area of the ocean not under the sovereignty of any nation. Absent U.S. adherence, U.S. firms cannot mine the deep seabed – as they will not have the security of tenure necessary to expend the $2 billion to $3 billion for a deep-seabed mining operation. These operations are of utmost importance for the U.S. – at stake is U.S. access to strategic minerals of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earths worth about $1 trillion.”
“For the Arctic, in a continuation of American leadership in this region, the answer begins with the Law of the Sea Treaty. … [W]ith each passing day that we do not ratify, we place America’s national security in the north and our economic vitality at risk.”
“Ratifying the Law of the Sea will put America on a path of continued maritime pre-eminence for the decades ahead. ... We owe ourselves and the nation nothing less.”
Caitlyn Antrim, executive director, Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans, CG Blog, March 11, 2012
“While simplicity is a virtue in an ideological view of the world, it is a weak foundation upon which to rest the interests of the United States at sea. The Law of the Sea Convention has provided relative stability for the past 30 years, but the free ride that stability has provided for the United States cannot be taken for granted. That is why the people on the front lines of ocean law and policy are so adamant in their support for US accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.”
Craig Allen, Professor of Law at the University of Washington, FOX News, April 19, 2012
“The arguments in favor of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention have never been stronger. That is nowhere more evident than in the resource-rich yet highly vulnerable Arctic waters. … The time is ripe for senators from both sides of the aisle to take up that charge and act to protect and advance U.S. maritime interests.”
“We cannot fight piracy with our fleet alone. Fortunately, on this issue, the world is on our side, and one of the most powerful weapons available is within our reach. That weapon is the Law of the Sea Convention, which makes piracy a universal crime, and subjects pirates to arrest and prosecution by any nation. The good news is that the Convention is supported by countries around the world. The bad news is that the United States has yet to ratify it.”
Non-Governmental Organizations back to top
“U.S. accession to the Convention is important to ensure effective participation and leadership by the United States in key discussions and decisions affecting the marine environment, including those related to fisheries, biodiversity conservation, marine science and mining. As you well know, accession also has critical implications for our national security interests and maritime mobility and will provide the United States with a mechanism to protect our sovereign rights over our extensive continental shelf and its resources. Only through accession and full participation in the bodies established under the Convention can the United States fully enjoy rights that would allow us to work for the conservation and management of the marine environment in areas that may soon be subject to international attention or discord.”
