The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Should the United States Accede?

The United States of America is of the primary state parties that contributed to the formulation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Since the signing in 1982, however, the United States has refused to ratify this international agreement, most often citing the relinquishment of national sovereignty as a primary concern. Over recent years, calls for US accession to the Convention have increased. My question is should the United States ratify the UNCLOS, becoming its most important and influential state party?

 

Absolutely not! this treaty is drafted specifically to screw the US private sector.

I'm sure Obama and dirty Harry Reid will fall all over themselves ratifying it.

 

Your post got me curious and I'll have to look at this some more. Apparently there is strong support for it in Alaska.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/law-sea-where-do-alaska-lawmakers-stand

Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been for years trying to muster up the Republican side of the 67 senate votes required for ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. The treaty deals with international waterways, marine boundaries, and access to sub-sea resources in the Arctic Ocean.

Democrats are by and large supportive. The problem since the 1980s has been with the GOP. Most recently, Republican senators, emboldened by tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint, blocked ratification of the treaty in July, citing sovereignty concerns. And in August, tea party factions in the party managed to insert the following language about the treaty in the national platform:

Because of our concern for American sovereignty, domestic management of our fisheries, and our country's long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty and congratulate Senate Republicans for blocking its ratification.

Not many people read party platforms, but the inclusion of the treaty does send a message to fellow Republicans and does somewhat undermine Murkowski’s efforts.

What might help move the treaty along, however, is Alaska’s involvement, said Jeff Pike, a long-time D.C. lobbyist who is working for the Pew Charitable Trusts on the treaty.

“Alaska has two senators and two votes like every other state,” he said. But because Alaska has a “compelling story to tell,” about the importance of the treaty, it would help if all state officials -- the governor, the lieutenant governor, and commissioners -- were involved in pushing for it, Pike said. “Telling Alaska’s story could help convince others that ratification is the right thing to do for Alaska,” he said.

Alaska’s governor, who might have a voice in the tea party debate on the issue, hasn’t been visible on the issue. Since 2009, Gov. Sean Parnell hasn’t written a letter in support of the treaty, nor has he testified on it, according to his spokeswoman. Instead, he appears to have ceded the whole issue to his lieutenant governor, Mead Treadwell.

What it means to Alaska
Formally called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the treaty sets the rules for ownership of the ocean and all of its bounty, both above and below the seabed. It has the potential to affect United States interests in the Gulf of Mexico, areas off the Pacific Northwest, and California.

But the largest spoils are guessed to be in the Arctic. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates as much as a third of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil, billions of barrels, may be in the offshore Arctic. Exploring for those hydrocarbons gets tricky when you don’t know where a country’s boundaries begin and end.

Supporters from all sides, from environmentalists to industry, say that if the U.S. doesn’t ratify the Law of the Sea, the country stands to lose out on both potential riches and environmental protections.

The thawing Arctic Ocean is opening up shipping, tourism and oil exploration, with the eight countries bordering it all vying to claim that natural resource-rich territory lies within their respective "economic zones." The big question is who has the right to the spoils. Enter the treaty, signatories to which are legally bound to the rules and regulations it creates.

Thanks in part to legislation passed by former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the United States routinely claims special rights -- particularly fishing and transportation rights -- within 200 nautical miles of its coast. These are called Exclusive Economic Zones. But the Law of the Sea treaty could extend those rights if a country can prove to the United Nations that the continental shelf -- the underwater portion of the continent -- extends beyond that limit.

The Arctic, to be sure, is not the only location where the U.S. might claim an extended continental shelf. Other places are in the Northwest and California coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico. But the Arctic's outer continental margin is believed to be the biggest, extending anywhere from 350 to 600 miles off the coast.

The Russians have mapped their ocean floor and have submitted Arctic claims, and Canada is preparing to. If the treaty is not ratified, the U.S. can't legally contest any resource disputes occurring in these waters, nor can it monitor shipping in the Arctic.

So far, the European Union and 160 nation-states have ratified treaty. The U.S. is one of 18 countries, and the only Arctic national, that have not done so.

What is Alaska doing to help?
Last year, Murkowski told the Alaska Dispatch, "I think we can get 67 votes needed. And I need to work Republican colleagues to do that."

More than 14 months later, however, the prospects look dim for passage anytime soon. In July, Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, planned to bring the treaty to a vote in July. Those plans were scuttled, however, when DeMint announced that he was able to get 34 Republican senators to vow to vote against the treaty, meaning it was all but dead.

This, even though the treaty has the support U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the military establishment, all former Secretaries of State, and nearly every powerful environmental group.

Murkowski remains hopeful. “She remains optimistic that the treaty’s benefits for the nation will become self-evident across party lines and that momentum on Capitol Hill will gravitate towards the long-term positive impacts,” her spokesperson said in an email.

The powerful Heritage Foundation, the tea party and Ron Paul supporters have other plans. They have vowed to keep the treaty off the table.

Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell is doing his part to keep it on the table. Although he says he has concerns about the treaty, Treadwell, who has a long history working for the treaty and for Arctic issues, has worked diligently toward passage. He has testified repeatedly in front of Congress, regularly partakes in the state department-chaired monthly Arctic Policy Group meeting, attends conferences where the treaty is discussed, and leads Alaska in its representation to the Arctic Council, where the Law of the Sea is the agreed-upon legal framework for resolving Arctic issues.

It’s less clear where Parnell stands on Law of the Sea. In 2009, shortly after he was handed the reins by Sarah Palin -- who supported the treaty -- Gov. Sean Parnell testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations.

“I strongly urge the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ... Without ratification, the U.S. cannot fully participate in adjudication of these claims,” he said.

Three years later, when asked about his support, his spokesperson Sharon Leighow said in a terse email that she knows the governor “has concerns regarding the U.S. maintaining its sovereignty in relation to other nations.”

She said that she was unaware of any letters he’s written or any other testimony he’s given on this issue.


In July, Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan was invited to testify in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the treaty. He declined however. His spokesperson, Elizabeth Bluemink, sent the Dispatch the following statement about why he did so:

“Commissioner Sullivan was informally asked in July to testify at a July hearing. We informed the Governor’s Office as we do with any request for State of Alaska Congressional testimony. Between issues of scheduling, determining who would be the most appropriate State of Alaska official on this issue, and being properly prepared, we ended up declining that informal invitation.”

Even former Gov. Sarah Palin, arguably the mother of the tea party, understood the importance of the treaty to Alaska. In 2007 Palin wrote a letter to the Senate to express her support:

... If the U.S. does not ratify the convention, the opportunity to pursue our own claims to offshore areas in the Arctic Ocean might well be lost. As a consequence, our rightful claim to hydrocarbons, minerals and other natural resources could be ignored..

In a March 2009 email, she wrote that Alaska "must speak louder on this." Less than four months later, she resigned.

Contact Amanda Coyne at amanda@alaskadispatch.com

 

Can you provide specific reasons as to how the UNCLOS would "screw the US private sector"? I am well versed on the legal jargon found in the Convention, and am currently doing extensive research on the prospects of United States accession.

 

The U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General supports it which is all I need to know.

http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/code_10_law_of_the_sea.htm

NAVY.MIL NAVY.COM NKO.NAVY.MIL

U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) supports implementation of the National Security Strategy, provides legal certainty in the world's largest maneuver space, and preserves essential navigation and overflight rights. One hundred and sixty nations and the European Union are Party to the Convention – but not the United States, the world's leading maritime nation.
Becoming a Party to the Law of the Sea Convention would help to ensure the Navy's ability to move forces on, over, and under the world's oceans, whenever and wherever needed, and is an important asset in the Global War on Terrorism.
The Convention is in the national interest of the United States because it establishes stable maritime zones, including a maximum outer limit for territorial seas; codifies innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes passage rights; works against "jurisdictional creep" by preventing coastal nations from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of warships, auxiliaries and government aircraft.
Specifically, the Convention recognizes and preserves for our ships and aircraft the freedom to conduct:
Innocent passage in territorial waters.
Transit passage through international straits (surface, air and subsurface), including the approaches to those straits.
Unrestricted military activities in high seas.
Military surveys.
Approach and visit of vessels suspected of engaging in piracy and stateless vessels.
Economically, accession to the Convention would support our national interests by enhancing the ability of the US to assert its sovereign rights over the resources of one of the largest continental shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the Sea Convention that first established the concept of a maritime Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and recognized the rights of coastal states to conserve and manage the natural resources in this Zone.
BACKGROUND / HISTORY
President Ronald Reagan supported the Convention, but objected to certain deep seabed mining provisions. After reviewing an early draft of the Convention he vowed to continue to participate in further Convention negotiations to address deficiencies in the Convention's deep seabed mining provisions.
In March 1983 President Reagan issued a statement indicating that he remained dissatisfied with the deep seabed mining provisions but proclaimed the U.S. would recognize all other provisions of the Convention relating to traditional uses of the oceans.
President Reagan's Secretary of State and key advisor regarding the Convention negotiations, Mr. George Shultz, now supports accession to the Convention and states the 1994 Agreement adequately addressed President Reagan's deep seabed mining concerns.
There has been bipartisan presidential support for joining the Convention since the 1994 Agreement addressed the objections raised by President Reagan in 1983.
Statement of Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations, before the Senate Armed Services Committee - 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). As the world's preeminent maritime power, the United States has much to gain from the legal certainty and global order brought by UNCLOS. The United States should not rely on customs and traditions for the legal basis of our military and commercial activity when we can instead use a formal mechanism such as UNCLOS. As a party to UNCLOS, we will be in a better position to counter the efforts of coastal nations to restrict freedom of the seas."
Statement of The Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of The Navy, before the Senate Armed Services Committee - March 2012:
"The traditional freedom of the seas for all nations developed over centuries, mostly by custom, have been encoded within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This important treaty continues to enjoy the strong support of the DoD and the DON. The UNCLOS 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. The Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an action consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties."
Excerpt from President Obama's National Security Strategy - 2010:
"We must work together to ensure the constant flow of commerce, facilitate safe and secure air travel, and prevent disruptions to critical communications. We must also safeguard the sea, air, and space domains from those who would deny access or use them for hostile purposes. This includes keeping strategic straits and vital sea lanes open, improving the early detection of emerging maritime threats, denying adversaries hostile use of the air domain, and ensuring the responsible use of space. As one key effort in the sea domain, for example, we will pursue ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."
THE FOLLOWING LINKS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON UNCLOS:
Why the United States Needs to Join the Law of the Sea Convention Now
Eight National Security Myths: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Also for more information on the UNCLOS, visit http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ or http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/oceans/index.html
Many of the publications available on this Web site are Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To view and print these documents, download and install the free Adobe Reader software.

 

The big problems are:
1. The Treaty is written nebulously and could be used to expand itself into actions including on the US Continental Shelf.
2. It gives the uber-corrupt UN a fairly large piece of the action on anything the US does underwater, including existing offshore oil drilling. Any US money going to the UN is unacceptable.

 

I myself have some issues with this.

For example, if a nation does not use all of it's fishing rights, they revert then to other nations. To me this screams "overfishing" all over it. Also it opens up the US to overseas lawsuits by organizationf from other countries, since the waters are now no longer "US waters", but "International waters".

ISA would be assessing it's own taxes for these new International Waters. What gives another body the right to tax companies in US waters?

Emminent Domain, because the UN now essentially controls these areas. There would be nothing from them declaring some deep water ocen drilling or mining rig is their possession due to emminant domain, then turn it over to somebody else.

And yes, this may be a lot of paranoia, but the fact that so much is left unanswered or unclear to me is troubling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-ratification_of_the_UNCLOS

 

For me, the lack of clarity in the legal language of the UNCLOS is one of the reasons to accede. The United States becomes one of the largest and by far the most influential party to the Convention. It possesses the largest portion of the seas under its jurisdiction, allowing it to maintain maritime hegemony. At the same time, any clarifications in the language of the treaty can be amended. Since 2004, state parties retain the right to do so. Therefore, with the right political will, the United States can shape the UNCLOS how it sees fit.

Like you, I do not like many of the provisions pertaining to the ISA. I particularly object to granting authority to the ISA to collect excess revenues from US companies engaging in seabed mining operations, and distributing them to other nations. That policy is from a bygone era of UN policy regarding the NIEO, a well-meaning yet infeasible and impractical development strategy. In addition, I also do not like the lack of concrete conflict resolution mechanisms, and vague organization of maritime jurisdictions. Filling these holes would make accession much more appealing.

 

That and the fishing are big parts of it for me.

The US really does run some very tightly controlled fishing areas. Quotas on different fish can change annually, depending on what they see the run as being that year. And sometimes, they will even restrict the fish caught even more, such as restricting the keeping on non-hatchery fish. And at times quotas are reduced to help preserve the stock.

Now, we are to simply make an allocation that will remain the same, and if we try to cut back the number of fish caught, foreign fisherman can then come in and continue to catch until it hits the "UN Approved" limits.

Also, any disputes are not handled legally, but by "UN Arbitrators". Sorry, but I am not willing to turn over control of US waters to some extrajudicial UN operation. If some foreign country objects to how we handle our own waters, then let them bring it up in the US in a US court. I do not really like or trust the UN anymore (no, I am not a "Get rid of the UN" paranoid type, I just see how incompetant and corrupt they are). And while I like many aspects of this treaty, many others give me the cold shakes because I can see how they can be abused.

 

I understand these concerns. I share them all. The main reason for my endorsement for US accession is based upon the existent benefits, as well as potential ones resulting from the amending power of the United States. As I said, if we accede, we become one of the largest and the most influential state party of the Convention. Unlike member states which agreed before 2004, we have the privilege of immediate access to amending the Convention for our own purposes. Of course, any change to the UNCLOS requires concurrence among all state parties, yet we maintain extensive leverage through our military and, albeit waning, economic hegemony. I expect that we could convince those who go against our will to come to our side.

Maybe I am too optimistic about US global power. Maybe I am too forgiving to the UN. Either way, I see the UNCLOS as a mechanism to provide mutual, positive-sum gains to the United States, our allies, and the international system.

 

The behavior of the UN over the last couple decades is not such as to instill confidence in them.

 

I accept your opinion, as I often find myself criticizing the UN. For me, I tend to look deeper into the way the IGO works, and examine its specific activities. Often I find instances where it ineffectively overreaches its authority. At other times, the UN may not do enough to aid on a particular issue. Some subsidiary bodies, such as the IMF and World Bank, are overwhelmingly favorable to developed states and their development approaches, whereas subsidiary bodies such as UNCTAD are overwhelmingly favorable to developing states and the NIEO. Nevertheless, it is never good to have unwavering support for an international organization, nor is it good to have unwavering opposition. The international system requires the use of institutions, formal and informal, to effectively handle arising matters through societies, and without them, we would still be in a world of unrestrained conflict and hardship; it is best that states acknowledge their existence, and use them in a wise manner.

 

I look at things like Oil For Food, the refusal to see what was going on in Darfur, the refusal to get involved when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the almost blindness to what was happening in what was Yugoslavia (so eventually NATO had to get involved). I see this as a pattern that is getting worse, and has changed my opinion in the last 20 years to that 180 degrees of what it once was.

So no, I can't see anything good out of turning anything over to them. With that kind of track record, do you really think I want to turn over soveregnity of the shores of my own country over to them? Not hardly. We could do that, then soon find oil rigs popping up off the California coast, since if they can permit other countries to fish to fulfill a UN set quota, what is to stop them from claiming that goes for all resources, such as oil?

And all it would take I bet is a majority in the General Council. And do you wanna bet that that would not have much trouble passing?

 

I think the change in opinion among many people is due to the end of the Cold War. As the bipolar world order is removed due to the fall of the USSR, the United States no longer maintains as powerful a hegemony as it once did. Globalization exacerbates this even more, moving the world towards an increasingly non-polar setup where the struggle for power, security, standing, and voice becomes much more ubiquitous. Neither the United States, nor international institutions possesses the tools to handle such drastic changes. We see with Oil for Food, a US-endorsed UN initiative, that the increased complexity of development assistance in the post-Cold War era, coming from the state apparatus, and the transnational apparatus, makes simplistic efforts such as providing humanitarian aid in exchange for a valuable commodity a rather arduous task.

Darfur, Iraq, and Yugoslavia are good examples of the weakness of the UN. It is a testament to the lack of flexibility given to peacekeeping operations. In humanitarian crisis, the UN must use R2P in order to intervene, requiring the services of another party such as NATO. Due to Article 2, Clause 7 of the UN Charter, which ensures the sovereign equality of all states, the UN's peacekeeping forces cannot act. The US, who contributes over one quarter to the UN peacekeeping budget, never sees optimal results of such an investment. Amending the UN Charter to include an R2P clause could help resolve this issue.

 

Sadly, in most instances the UN forces tend to sit in the middle of both sides of a conflict, trying to act like cops and thinking that will end the conflict. And as we saw all to often, that simply results in them getting shot up by both sides.

And too many times, this results in them just sitting on the sidelines even when they are in the area, watching helplessly as their own relief efforts are attacked and "humanitarian" supplies looted by the very people they claim they are trying to put down (Somalia anybody?).

To me, over the last 20 years or so the UN has become more and more trivial, kind of like a modern League of Nations. I see them pass meaningless studies and reports, and then try to act like a "World Government" against some nations, while completely ignoring others. For example, look at their history of ignoring almost any conflicts in Africa.

 

The weakness of the UN reaffirms a lot of the calls by organizations such as the World Federalist Movement that seek a global federalist system. It is obvious that since the end of the Cold War, the UN is losing efficiency, effectiveness, and decisiveness, namely due to the fact that the IGO was set up at the San Francisco Conference starting in 1942 as a mechanism by and for the allied powers, and eventually, for the major players of the Post-WWII Era. The age of globalization poses challenges that the current mold of formal international institutions are slow to adapt to. The state of anarchy, defined as the absence of central authority, is expanding. Society is increasingly becoming transnational. Just as Former ISAF General Stanley McChrystal states in a Foreign Policy articles that it takes a network to defeat a terrorist network, it will take a supranational system of governance capable of transcending the constraints of state rights and duties to address the issues of humanitarian crises, all of which transcend the constraints of state rights and duties.

 

I haven't seen a UN treaty beneficial to the US in a quarter century.

Example: The Montreal Protocol (Ozone hole CFC)
The vast bulk of the pain from this treaty fell on the US. Simply nobody else in the world uses as much mechanical refrigeration as the US. A vast swath of the country is untenable without air conditioning. US consumers paid billions for replacement refrigerants and the compressors that use them. the replacement refrigerants require more HP per ton of refrigeration, increasing US energy consumption. the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, and Indonesians are merrily producing CFCs under license. And what did America get in return? Absolutely nothing.

The Kyoto Protocol (Global Warming) is even worse.

I say tell the UN to go to blazes.

 

And that is another good point. At this time, China is probably the worst poluter on the planet, yet because they have and plant a lot of bamboo and trees, they are given "credits" to offset their polution levels under these treaties. So the message really is just "who cares if you are a poluter, just plant lots of trees". And meanwhile, they can simply plant even more trees and sell the "carbon credits".

So China, which has an increase of emissions averaging 10%+ a year is not under strong sanctions, while the US is. Meanwhile, the UN ignores the "Asian Brown Cloud".



And this is an increasing sight in China. No, it is not fog or overcast, this is smog. I have lived in LA off and on for over 40 years, and I have never ever seen anything like this:

 

Of course carbon trading and finance is a failure. The way in which it operates allows companies and countries to shift the burden of pollution onto others. In others words, it creates a vicious cycle of proliferating negative externalities. Henceforth, not only is the practice environmentally worthless, but economically ineffective.

 

And the gross irony of it is that the worst poluting nation on the planet is also the leading seller of these "Carbon Credits".

All set up by the UN.

Sorry, but I just don't trust the UN. Remember, the UN is essentially a giant committee. And a "committee is the only creature with more then 4 legs and no brains". I see the UN fussing over pointless and stupid things like "Carbon Credits", while totally ignoring genocide and complete takeovers and annexations of one nation by another because of politics. One of the reasons why NATO has been able to gain so much power in recent decades is that it has shown that it has been willing to actually step in and do something while the UN just sits on it's rear and wrings it's hands and whines.

And trust me, this has not always been my viewpoint. 25-30 years ago, I thought the UN was a great organization, and offered the world stability and a chance at peace. But first watching the kidnapping and execution of Colonel Higgens (USMC) while operating as a UN Peacekeeper in Lebanon. This man was working for the UN, was kidnapped, held as a hostage, and all the UN did was pass a resolution.

There, that's it. Of course that meant nothing, a year and a half later Hezbollah released videotape of his execution.



Then a few years later, the invasion of Kuwait. Once again, the UN passes a condemnation, and that is pretty much where it ended. The Kuwaiti UN delegation pleaded with the organization to authorize force to liberate his homeland. And they did - pretty much nothing. They passed another resolution, and placed economic sanctions on them, that was all. Finally after 3 months the UNSC passed a resolution authorizing other states (not a "UN Force") to attack Iraq if they did not comply - within a month and a half.

I watched all that going on with increasing dread. It took the UN 3 months to decide to do anything, and all it did was give permission for the buck to be passed elsewhere, 45 days later. At that point I began to realize that the UN was broken. And in the years since, that feeling has only increased.

 

We need to kick the UN out and withdraw from it.

 

In shipyard parlance, the UN is a "constructive total loss." You can't practically fix it so you should scrap it.

There may be bits and pieces worth salvaging, but I can't think of any right now.

 

For me, I see ample opportunity to reform the UN. However, it requires the willingness of the US to mobilize the international community to follow suit. Changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN are actually quite practical. Most require a reaffirmation and/or amending of the provisions found in the IGO's charter. Many of the changes are already based in international norms and customary law. By authorizing these in an international statute, it simply holds all countries responsible, thereby forming a more conducive rules-based international system.

By the way, I think it is clear that I do not have unwavering support for the UN. In fact, there are only two subsidiary bodies I praise with little to no criticism. These are the UNESCO and the WHO. The former does an excellent job of promoting a diverse, multicultural, and educated international society. The latter, as most know, plays a crucial role in eradicating small pox. Besides these two subsidiary, I maintain ample scrutiny with regards to all other UN agencies.

 

thediplomat2, et al,

Yes!

(QUESTIONs)

• What in UNCLOS conflicts to US interests?
• What is the real reason the US does not ratify?

If the US is actually an honest broker in world leadership, and a promoter of the Rule of Law, then the US should be working to an advancement of the Law, and improving those facets of the LOS through the UN representative process.

But there is something in US Policy that prevents this. What is it? And, whatever the objection, does it effect only this treaty? Or, is the US opposed to other treaties for a similar reason?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

It seems most of the UN treaties proposed over the last thirty years have been drafted and interpreted to adversely affect US interests.