Myths and Facts
MYTH:
Lawyers and security experts say the Law of the Sea Treaty will cede U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.
FACT:
Most experts believe the Law of the Sea will not compromise U.S. sovereignty. The American Bar Association, the Maritime Law Association of the United States, the U.S. Arctic Research Commission and many other leading organizations support ratification.1 The Treaty would protect U.S. sovereignty by requiring other nations to respect U.S. rights and maritime boundaries. By ratifying the Treaty, the United States will enjoy greater influence in future decisions regarding the Law of the Sea, including rights to Arctic seabed resources. Above all, U.S. sovereignty over its waters will be codified and further legitimized through international recognition.2
MYTH:
Ratification of the Treaty would weaken national security and hinder military operations in international waters.
FACT:
The Law of the Sea protects and guarantees the rights of U.S. military and commercial vessels to innocent (non-hostile) passage through foreign waters. It is particularly important today to ensure the continuation of maritime activities that bolster U.S. security and to prevent unfriendly nations from legally challenging U.S. rights. The overwhelming support for U.S. ratification among security and military officials demonstrates the importance of the Treaty to national security.3 Experts who have called for ratification include the U.S. Vice President, former Secretaries of State, Senate Foreign Relations Committee members, Air Force generals, admirals of the Navy and the Coast Guard, and former U.S. Presidents of both parties.4 Finally, ratification would demonstrate to our allies that the U.S. values peace and international cooperation.
MYTH:
The United States can simply continue to rely on customary law to ensure its rights, without signing the Treaty.
FACT:
Customary law refers to rules and norms that have developed from traditions and prior accepted actions.5 While the U.S. could continue to follow provisions of the Treaty voluntarily by operating under customary law, other nations would not be obliged to allow U.S. navigation in international waters because customary law is not binding. On the other hand, ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would give strong legal recourse to the United States to maintain its rights in international waters such as the Arctic. As global warming rapidly melts Arctic sea ice, important commercial activities such as shipping, fishing and oil and gas development will increase. Ratification would ensure that the United States has an influential voice in making new decisions about Arctic resources and laws in a warming world. Although customary law now works in our favor, the Law of the Sea Treaty affords us the opportunity to solidify our current situation, while providing exclusive rights to manage the resources in are as near our coasts. The American Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), 3.36 million square miles of open seas, is larger than that of any other nation in the world. The Treaty would also enable the U.S. to claim additional territory extending beyond the EEZ to the edge of the continental shelf.6
MYTH:
The Treaty would be damaging to U.S. business interests because it could impose taxes and grant licenses.
FACT:
Major energy and business organizations such as the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the National Marine Manufacturers Association and the American Petroleum Institute agree that the Treaty is good for American business interests. They support U.S. ratification because it is the best way to ensure that the U.S. has fair access to its international territory.7 At the same time, the Treaty ensures international recognition and codifies U.S. rights to all the resources in the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and beyond.8 No country has sovereign rights over the high seas, but the Treaty would give the United States the opportunity to apply for licenses to explore for and develop resources in the deep seabed beyond our EEZ. If the U.S. does not ratify the Treaty, nations that have done so will have more legitimate claims to resources in the sea. Finally, ratification gives the United States a permanent seat on the International Seabed Authority, which supervises deep seabed claims.9
MYTH:
U.S. ratification will make it easier for environmental groups to advance their agenda at the expense of U.S. business interests.
FACT:
If ratified, the Treaty will provide the U.S. with greater, not less, access to ocean resources, travel routes and passage rights to facilitate the operations of many U.S. business interests. At the same time, it will help ensure that the U.S. has strong legal recourse if its waters and coastal areas are adversely affected by pollution from foreign countries.
MYTH:
Ronald Reagan did not sign the Treaty when he was president, so he wouldn’t sign it now.
FACT:
Ronald Reagan publically stated that he agreed with the provisions of the Treaty, except for Part XI.10 That part of the Treaty, which outlines the management of deep-sea mining claims, has since been changed and is now favorable to the U.S. The 1994 revisions of Part XI included giving the U.S. a permanent seat on the International Seabed Authority, which means the U.S. will have a permanent say in who gets access to deep seabed claims.
MYTH:
The United States will have very little influence in the Treaty, and will be subject to the International Court of Justice in the event of a dispute.
FACT:
The United States would not be required to refer disputes to the International Court of Justice. In fact, should a disagreement arise, parties to the Treaty can choose from various methods of arbitration. Additionally, U.S. military operations are excluded from the dispute resolution requirements, so no nation could force the United States into an international tribunal for such activities.11 Ratification of the Treaty will give the United States a significant voice in any future decisions regarding the Law of the Sea, as well as considerable influence in interpretations of the law and licensing rights. By refusing to ratify the Treaty, the U.S. could lose the opportunity to secure its territorial waters.
1 Citizens for Global Solutions, “In The Beltway: What U.S. Officials Are Saying About LOS,” October 29, 2007, www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/united_states_and_law_sea_time_join.
2 Daniel Gorelick, “Law of the Sea Convention Enjoys Broad U.S. Support: Secretary of State’s legal adviser urges Senate to ratify treaty,” U.S. Department of State, November 20, 2008, www.america.gov/st/env-english/2008/November/20081120164958adkcilerog0.3376581.html.
3 Ibid.
4 Citizens for Global Solutions, op. cit.
5 University of California, Berkeley, Law Library, “International & Foreign Legal Research Researching Customary International Law and Generally Recognized Principles,” Spring 2007, www.law.berkeley.edu/library/classes/iflr/customary.html.
6 United States Coast Guard, “Missions: Maritime Security,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, March 5, 2009, www.uscg.mil/top/missions/M_Security.asp.
7 Citizens for Global Solutions, op. cit.
8 John B. Bellinger III, “Remarks at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law’s Law of the Sea Institute,” November 3, 2008, www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=83.
9 Bellinger, op. cit.
10 President Ronald Reagan, “Statement on United States Oceans Policy,” March 10, 1983, www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=73.
11 United National Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part XV, Section 3, Article 298.
