Background

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a legal regime governing commercial, navigational, and environmental aspects of the world’s oceans. As a leading maritime power with one of the world's longest coastlines and some of the earth’s richest waters, the United States stands to benefit perhaps more than any other country from the protections provided by the treaty. 

Indeed, the US has long sought the establishment of such a comprehensive, widely accepted legal framework that regulates all uses of the world’s oceans. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, with 158 states parties, including every permanent member of the Security Council except the United States, and all other major industrialized nations, provides just such a framework. United States accession to the treaty would provide vital security, economic, and environmental benefits, and would greatly enhance our influence in the development and interpretation of maritime law.

The treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1982 and entered into force in 1994. Although the United States played a lead role in drafting the treaty, the Reagan Administration did not sign it due to concerns relating to certain deep seabed mining provisions. However, since negotiations began in 1973, every US administration has supported the treaty in its entirety except for the deep seabed mining provisions, and the United States has accepted and complied with all other provisions of the treaty. 

On July 28, 1994, a legally-binding agreement amending the treaty, and addressing all US concerns regarding deep seabed mining, was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly. The US signed the agreement the next day and later that year President Clinton submitted the agreement and the treaty as a package to the Senate for its advice and consent.

There is widespread support for the treaty within the United States. The treaty has been endorsed by President Obama; the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security; the US Navy; the US Coast Guard; congressional leaders from both parties; and a large and diverse collection of civil society and business groups, including environmental organizations and associations representing the shipping, fishing, telecommunications, oil and gas, and other oceans industries. 

Latest Developments

Despite being reported out of committe twice since 2004, the treaty has never received a vote on the Senate floor. However, both the chairman and ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee support ratification of the treaty, as does the Obama administration.  

Environmental Benefits

The treaty provides a comprehensive framework for marine conservation, defining rights, obligations, and principles upon which other international environmental treaties are based. All states parties are obligated by the treaty to cooperate in the conservation of marine life through technical assistance and monitoring, among other measures. Coastal states are specifically required to conserve living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), which extend up to 200 miles from shore. The treaty also contains provisions addressing marine pollution originating from land, dumping, seabed activities, and ocean-going vessels. In addition, the treaty promotes scientific research and protects the right to conduct it. 

US Leadership

Becoming a party to the treaty would strengthen US influence over the development and interpretation of ocean law and policy. As a state party, the United States will be able to enjoy full membership in institutions created by the treaty that make crucial decisions on oceans issues, such as the International Seabed Authority, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. 

For example, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf considers coastal state claims of national jurisdiction over continental shelf resources beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. Several states parties have already submitted claims to parts of the resource-rich Arctic Ocean, an area where the United States has significant jurisdictional interests and where ocean resources are becoming increasingly accessible as polar ice melts. Failure to ratify the treaty, enabling full participation in treaty-based decisions, hinders US efforts to safeguard important legal protections, such as navigation and overflight rights and economic control over valuable resources.

Economic Benefits

The treaty grants coastal states sovereignty over living and non-living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zones, extending up to 200 miles from shore. The United States’ EEZ is the largest in the world and contains large oil and gas reserves and fisheries (about 90 percent of all marine life is harvested within 200 miles from shore). The treaty also protects the right of coastal states to explore and develop continental shelf resources beyond 200 miles from shore, up to the outer continental margin—a very large and resource-rich area for the United States. 

The legal protections provided by the treaty are vital to attracting the investments necessary for resource development in this area. For those regions that do not come under any country’s jurisdiction, the treaty establishes regulations for accessing non-living resources and created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to govern their development. Finally, the treaty protects freedoms of navigation for commercial vessels and the right to deploy and maintain submarine cables and pipelines.

National Security Benefits

Joining the Law of the Sea Treaty would advance US national security by strengthening the global mobility of our armed forces, a key requirement in the war on terrorism. The treaty guarantees extensive navigation and overflight rights to important sea and air lanes that are crucial to our military. It also protects the right of vessels to use normal modes of travel through key international straits, enabling, for instance, submarines to remain submerged and air-capable ships to operate their aircraft. This would allow US forces to hold defensive postures and assume a sufficient level of readiness while traversing some of the world’s most strategic and congested waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, the treaty requires states parties to cooperate in the suppression of illegal narcotics trafficking and strengthens our ability to interdict suspicious foreign vessels.

Response to Critics

As is the case with every international agreement, some Americans oppose US accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty. One of the most common criticisms of the treaty is that ratification will lead to the largest transfer of sovereignty and wealth in US history. The fact is, however, that the treaty, as altered by the 1994 agreement, requires no transfer of wealth or sovereignty. Instead, the treaty strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources. 

Although the original treaty included provisions for mandatory technology transfers, these were eliminated by the 1994 agreement. It is also claimed that the treaty will give the UN the ability to levy taxes. In reality, the treaty does not allow for the taxation of either individuals or corporations, but does allow for the payment of royalties to the ISA from revenues generated by deep seabed mining (which, in any case, will be economically unfeasible for the foreseeable future), in order to cover ISA operating expenses. None of these royalty payments would be controlled by the UN, and the US would have an absolute veto over their distribution. Furthermore, the US negotiated the revenue sharing provisions in close cooperation with the US oil and gas industry, which supports the provisions. 

Another common criticism of the treaty is that it would give the International Seabed Authority the power to govern seven-tenths of the earth’s surface. In reality, the International Seabed Authority’s sole function is to administer mineral development in those parts of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. A final argument against ratification is that it would hinder the war on terrorism, especially the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). However, national security officials, both civilian and military, have testified that the treaty would enhance counterterrorism efforts and the PSI by assuring maximum naval and air mobility and by strengthening legal protections for the interdiction of suspect vessels and aircraft. All other countries participating in the PSI are parties to the treaty.

June 2009

For more information, including the text of the treaty, visit: www.un.org/Depts/los.  

Background

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes a legal regime governing commercial, navigational, and environmental aspects of the world’s oceans. As a leading maritime power with one of the world's longest coastlines and some of the earth’s richest waters, the United States stands to benefit perhaps more than any other country from the protections provided by the treaty. 

Indeed, the US has long sought the establishment of such a comprehensive, widely accepted legal framework that regulates all uses of the world’s oceans. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, with 158 states parties, including every permanent member of the Security Council except the United States, and all other major industrialized nations, provides just such a framework. United States accession to the treaty would provide vital security, economic, and environmental benefits, and would greatly enhance our influence in the development and interpretation of maritime law.

The treaty was adopted by the United Nations in 1982 and entered into force in 1994. Although the United States played a lead role in drafting the treaty, the Reagan Administration did not sign it due to concerns relating to certain deep seabed mining provisions. However, since negotiations began in 1973, every US administration has supported the treaty in its entirety except for the deep seabed mining provisions, and the United States has accepted and complied with all other provisions of the treaty. 

On July 28, 1994, a legally-binding agreement amending the treaty, and addressing all US concerns regarding deep seabed mining, was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly. The US signed the agreement the next day and later that year President Clinton submitted the agreement and the treaty as a package to the Senate for its advice and consent.

There is widespread support for the treaty within the United States. The treaty has been endorsed by President Obama; the Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security; the US Navy; the US Coast Guard; congressional leaders from both parties; and a large and diverse collection of civil society and business groups, including environmental organizations and associations representing the shipping, fishing, telecommunications, oil and gas, and other oceans industries. 

Latest Developments

Despite being reported out of committe twice since 2004, the treaty has never received a vote on the Senate floor. However, both the chairman and ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee support ratification of the treaty, as does the Obama administration.  

Environmental Benefits

The treaty provides a comprehensive framework for marine conservation, defining rights, obligations, and principles upon which other international environmental treaties are based. All states parties are obligated by the treaty to cooperate in the conservation of marine life through technical assistance and monitoring, among other measures. Coastal states are specifically required to conserve living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), which extend up to 200 miles from shore. The treaty also contains provisions addressing marine pollution originating from land, dumping, seabed activities, and ocean-going vessels. In addition, the treaty promotes scientific research and protects the right to conduct it. 

US Leadership

Becoming a party to the treaty would strengthen US influence over the development and interpretation of ocean law and policy. As a state party, the United States will be able to enjoy full membership in institutions created by the treaty that make crucial decisions on oceans issues, such as the International Seabed Authority, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. 

For example, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf considers coastal state claims of national jurisdiction over continental shelf resources beyond 200 nautical miles from shore. Several states parties have already submitted claims to parts of the resource-rich Arctic Ocean, an area where the United States has significant jurisdictional interests and where ocean resources are becoming increasingly accessible as polar ice melts. Failure to ratify the treaty, enabling full participation in treaty-based decisions, hinders US efforts to safeguard important legal protections, such as navigation and overflight rights and economic control over valuable resources.

Economic Benefits

The treaty grants coastal states sovereignty over living and non-living resources in their Exclusive Economic Zones, extending up to 200 miles from shore. The United States’ EEZ is the largest in the world and contains large oil and gas reserves and fisheries (about 90 percent of all marine life is harvested within 200 miles from shore). The treaty also protects the right of coastal states to explore and develop continental shelf resources beyond 200 miles from shore, up to the outer continental margin—a very large and resource-rich area for the United States. 

The legal protections provided by the treaty are vital to attracting the investments necessary for resource development in this area. For those regions that do not come under any country’s jurisdiction, the treaty establishes regulations for accessing non-living resources and created the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to govern their development. Finally, the treaty protects freedoms of navigation for commercial vessels and the right to deploy and maintain submarine cables and pipelines.

National Security Benefits

Joining the Law of the Sea Treaty would advance US national security by strengthening the global mobility of our armed forces, a key requirement in the war on terrorism. The treaty guarantees extensive navigation and overflight rights to important sea and air lanes that are crucial to our military. It also protects the right of vessels to use normal modes of travel through key international straits, enabling, for instance, submarines to remain submerged and air-capable ships to operate their aircraft. This would allow US forces to hold defensive postures and assume a sufficient level of readiness while traversing some of the world’s most strategic and congested waters, such as the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, the treaty requires states parties to cooperate in the suppression of illegal narcotics trafficking and strengthens our ability to interdict suspicious foreign vessels.

Response to Critics

As is the case with every international agreement, some Americans oppose US accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty. One of the most common criticisms of the treaty is that ratification will lead to the largest transfer of sovereignty and wealth in US history. The fact is, however, that the treaty, as altered by the 1994 agreement, requires no transfer of wealth or sovereignty. Instead, the treaty strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources. 

Although the original treaty included provisions for mandatory technology transfers, these were eliminated by the 1994 agreement. It is also claimed that the treaty will give the UN the ability to levy taxes. In reality, the treaty does not allow for the taxation of either individuals or corporations, but does allow for the payment of royalties to the ISA from revenues generated by deep seabed mining (which, in any case, will be economically unfeasible for the foreseeable future), in order to cover ISA operating expenses. None of these royalty payments would be controlled by the UN, and the US would have an absolute veto over their distribution. Furthermore, the US negotiated the revenue sharing provisions in close cooperation with the US oil and gas industry, which supports the provisions. 

Another common criticism of the treaty is that it would give the International Seabed Authority the power to govern seven-tenths of the earth’s surface. In reality, the International Seabed Authority’s sole function is to administer mineral development in those parts of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. A final argument against ratification is that it would hinder the war on terrorism, especially the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). However, national security officials, both civilian and military, have testified that the treaty would enhance counterterrorism efforts and the PSI by assuring maximum naval and air mobility and by strengthening legal protections for the interdiction of suspect vessels and aircraft. All other countries participating in the PSI are parties to the treaty.

June 2009

For more information, including the text of the treaty, visit: www.un.org/Depts/los.