User Tools
Sidebar
Resolved: The United States ought to become party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and/or the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In this debate, I affirm the part of the resolution regarding the Law of the Sea, with no position taken regarding the International Criminal Court.
Since the purpose of any treaty is to advance the national interest of the participants, the value that is central to this debate is the United States' national interest.
We will judge whether signing the UN Convention by focusing on sustainability. Since any temporary advantage could well be outweighed by the long-term negative consequences of that one advantage, we should be looking at the long-term interests in the United States. David B. Sandalow, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and a former assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment, and science, writes in 2004, “The United States has vital interests in the oceans.” and he identifies three in particular: “U.S. national security depends on naval mobility. U.S. prosperity depends on underwater energy resources. Ocean fisheries help feed the United States and much of the world.” It is not in the long-term interests of the United States to threaten its naval mobility, sustainable energy resources, or sustainable fisheries. As Deb Haaland, US Sectretary of the Interior says, “We must shift our thinking away from short-term gain toward long-term investment and sustainability, and always have the next generations in mind with every decision we make.”
We will measure progress toward these goals using cost-benefit analysis.
By refusing to sign the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (or UNCLOS), the United States is threatening its own national interests for this and future generations.
Contention 1: The UNCLOS Improves US Naval Effectiveness
Sandalow writes “Historically, the U.S. Navy was required to contend with widely varying and excessive claims by coastal nations concerning access to the oceans. … These claims and many others are effectively resolved by the Convention, which recognizes navigational and overflight freedoms within 200-mile exclusive economic zones and through key international straits and archipelagoes. The Convention also recognizes rights of passage through territorial seas, without notice and regardless of means of propulsion, as well as navigational and overflight freedoms on the high seas.”
Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2012, “The Navy's ability to retain access to international waters and airspace as well as critical chokepoints throughout the world would be enhanced by accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).”
Given the potential for the US to face military conflicts on the Korean Peninsula, the Middle East, and the Strait of Taiwan, clear international recognition of naval access the the world's oceans is essential.
Contention 2: The UNCLOS protects fisheries
Sandalow writes, “…the [UNCLOS] promotes the United States’ substantial commercial interests in ocean fisheries. The recognition of our 200-mile exclusive economic zone by other nations is fundamental to gaining full value from our rich fisheries.”
He continues: “The ocean environment is under enormous stress. Many fisheries are depleted or collapsing. Pollution plagues highly populated coastal regions. Non- native species threaten ocean ecosystems around the globe. The Law of the Sea Convention provides a comprehensive framework for international cooperation to protect the marine environment. It imposes minimum requirements—all of which are already being met by the United States—to protect and preserve the marine environment. Under the Convention, states are required to take measures to address pollution from vessels and land- based sources, to prevent the introduction of alien or invasive species, and to conserve and manage coastal fisheries.”
The long-term health of the world's fisheries would be protected by US ratification of the UNCLOS.
Contention 3: The UNCLOS makes the most of ocean energy reserves.
Sandalow explains, “Under the Convention, coastal nations have exclusive authority over all resources within two hundred miles of shore. In addition, coastal nations have authority over the ocean floor beyond this 200-mile zone, to the edge of the continental shelf.” While some have expressed concern over provisions over revenue-sharing under UNCLOS, the the U.S. oil and gas industry, which would likely make these payments, “Paul Kelly of Rowan Industries, representing the American Petroleum Institute and other major industry groups, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in October 2003 that “on balance the package contained in the Convention, including the modest revenue sharing provision, clearly serves U.S. interests.” “(from Sandilow)
For these reasons, the US ought to become party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and I urge you to affirm the resolution.
