[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 598 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 598

Calling upon the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to 
  the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 
                                  Sea.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2018

  Ms. Hirono (for herself and Ms. Murkowski) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Calling upon the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to 
  the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 
                                  Sea.

Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted 
        by Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in December 
        1982, and entered into force in November 1994 to establish a treaty 
        regime to govern activities on, over, and under the world's oceans;
Whereas UNCLOS builds on four 1958 law of the sea conventions to which the 
        United States is a party, including the Convention on the Territorial 
        Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the High Seas, the 
        Convention on the Continental Shelf, and the Convention on Fishing and 
        Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas;
Whereas the treaty and an associated 1994 agreement relating to implementation 
        of the treaty were transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994, and, in 
        the absence of Senate advice and consent to adherence, the United States 
        is not a party to the convention and the associated 1994 agreement;
Whereas the convention has been ratified by 167 parties, which includes 166 
        states and the European Union, but not the United States;
Whereas the United States, like most other countries, believes that coastal 
        states under UNCLOS have the right to regulate economic activities in 
        their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), but do not have the right to 
        regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs;
Whereas the treaty's provisions relating to navigational rights, including those 
        in EEZs, reflect the United States diplomatic position on the issue 
        dating back to UNCLOS's adoption in 1982;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would reinforce the United States 
        perspective into permanent international law;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would give the United States standing to 
        participate in discussions relating to the treaty and thereby improve 
        the United States ability to intervene as a full party to disputes 
        relating to navigational rights, and to defend United States 
        interpretations of the treaty's provisions, including those relating to 
        whether coastal states have a right under UNCLOS to regulate foreign 
        military activities in their EEZs;
Whereas relying on customary international norms to defend United States 
        interests in these issues is not sufficient, because it is not 
        universally accepted and is subject to change over time based on state 
        practice;
Whereas relying on other nations to assert claims on behalf of the United States 
        at the Hague Convention is woefully insufficient to defend and uphold 
        United States sovereign rights and interests;
Whereas the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in their July 12, 2016, ruling on 
        the case In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, stated that 
        ``the Tribunal forwarded to the Parties for their comment a Note Verbale 
        from the Embassy of the United States of America, requesting to send a 
        representative to observe the hearing'' and ``the Tribunal communicated 
        to the Parties and the U.S. Embassy that it had decided that `only 
        interested States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of 
        the Sea will be admitted as observers' and thus could not accede to the 
        U.S. request'';
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, stated 
        ``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'' on February 
        16, 2012, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, stated that ``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,'' and that 
        ``the convention has been approved by nearly every maritime power and 
        all the permanent members of the UN Security Council, except the United 
        States'' on February 16, 2012, before the Committee on Armed Services of 
        the Senate;
Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, further stated that 
        ``[o]ur 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,'' and 
        that ``the Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an 
        action consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties'' on 
        February 16, 2012, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the United States 
        Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donahue, stated that the Chamber 
        ``supports joining the Convention because it is in our national 
        interest--both in our national security and our economic interests,'' 
        that ``becoming a party to the Treaty benefits the U.S. economically by 
        providing American companies the legal certainty and stability they need 
        to hire and invest,'' and that ``companies will be hesitant to take on 
        the investment risk and cost to explore and develop the resources of the 
        sea--particularly on the extended continental shelf (ECS)--without the 
        legal certainty and stability accession to LOS provides'' on June 28, 
        2012, before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
Whereas Mr. Donahue further stated that ``the benefits of joining cut across 
        many important industries including telecommunications, mining, 
        shipping, and oil and natural gas,'' and ``joining the Convention will 
        provide the U.S. a critical voice on maritime issues--from mineral 
        claims in the Arctic to how International Seabed Authority (ISA) funds 
        are distributed'' on June 28, 2012, before the Committee on Foreign 
        Relations of the Senate;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel J. 
        Locklear, stated that UNCLOS is ``widely accepted after a lot of years 
        of deliberation by many, many countries, most countries in my Area of 
        Responsibility (AOR)'' and that ``when we're not a signatory, it reduces 
        our overall credibility when we bring it up as a choice of how you might 
        solve a dispute of any kind'' on April 16, 2015, before the Committee on 
        Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, 
        stated on February 12, 2016, that ``[w]ith the receding of the icepack, 
        the Arctic Ocean has become the focus of international interest,'' that 
        ``[a]ll Arctic states agree that the Law of the Sea Convention is the 
        governing legal regime for the Arctic Ocean . . . yet, we remain the 
        only Arctic nation that has not ratified the very instrument that 
        provides this accepted legal framework governing the Arctic Ocean and 
        its seabed,'' and that ``[r]atification of the Law of the Sea Convention 
        supports our economic interests, environmental protection, and safety of 
        life at sea, especially in the Arctic Ocean'';
Whereas former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, further 
        stated that ``remaining outside Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) is 
        inconsistent with our principles, our national security strategy and our 
        leadership in commerce and trade'' and that ``virtually every major ally 
        of the U.S. is a party to LOSC, as are all other permanent members of 
        the U.N. Security Council and all other Arctic nations'' on June 14, 
        2012, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas Admiral Greenert further stated that ``our absence [from LOSC] could 
        provide an excuse for nations to selectively choose among Convention 
        provisions or abandon it altogether, thereby eroding the navigational 
        freedoms we enjoy today'' and that ``accession would enhance 
        multilateral operations with our partners and demonstrate a clear 
        commitment to the rule of law for the oceans'' on June 14, 2012, before 
        the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the United States Special Representative of State for the Arctic and 
        former Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., stated 
        that ``as a non-party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the U.S. is at a 
        significant disadvantage relative to the other Arctic Ocean coastal 
        States,'' that ``those States are parties to the Convention, and are 
        well along the path to obtaining legal certainty and international 
        recognition of their Arctic extended continental shelf,'' and that 
        ``becoming a Party to the Law of the Sea Convention would allow the 
        United States to fully secure its rights to the continental shelf off 
        the coast of Alaska, which is likely to extend out to more than 600 
        nautical miles'' on December 10, 2014, before the Subcommittee on 
        Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
        of the House of Representatives;
Whereas the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, 
        stated that ``[t]he Convention provides legal certainty in the world's 
        largest maneuver space,'' that ``access would strengthen the legal 
        foundation for our ability to transit through international straits and 
        archipelagic waters; preserve our right to conduct military activities 
        in other countries' Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) without notice or 
        permission; reaffirm the sovereign immunity of warships; provide a 
        framework to counter excessive maritime claims; and preserve or 
        operations and intelligence-collection activities,'' and that ``joining 
        the Convention would also demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law, 
        strengthen our credibility among those nations that are already party to 
        the Convention, and allow us to bring the full force of our influence in 
        challenging excessive maritime claims'' on July 9, 2015, before the 
        Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff General Dunford further stated 
        that ``by remaining outside the Convention, the United States remains in 
        scarce company with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria'' and that 
        ``by failing to join the Convention, some countries may come to doubt 
        our commitment to act in accordance with international law'' on July 9, 
        2015, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. Richardson, stated that 
        ``acceding to the Convention would strengthen our credibility and 
        strategic position'' and that ``we undermine our leverage by not signing 
        up to the same rule book by which we are asking other countries to 
        accept'' on July 30, 2015, before the Committee on Armed Services of the 
        Senate;
Whereas Admiral Richardson further stated that ``becoming a part of [UNCLOS] 
        would give us a great deal of credibility, and particularly as it 
        pertains to the unfolding opportunities in the Arctic'' and that ``this 
        provides a framework to adjudicate disputes'' on July 30, 2015, before 
        the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security 
        Affairs, the Honorable David Shear, stated that ``while the United 
        States operates consistent with the United Nations convention on the law 
        of the sea, we've seen positive momentum in promoting shared rules of 
        the road'' and that ``our efforts would be greatly strengthened by 
        Senate ratification of UNCLOS'' on September 17, 2015, before the 
        Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander of the United States Pacific Command, Admiral Harry B. 
        Harris, stated that ``all maritime claims must be derived from land 
        features in accordance with international law as reflected in the Law of 
        the Sea Convention, and any disputes should be settled peacefully and in 
        accordance with international law'' and that ``our efforts would be 
        greatly strengthened by Senate ratification of UNCLOS'' on September 17, 
        2015, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas Admiral Harris further stated that ``I think that by not signing onto it 
        that we lose the creditability for the very same thing that we're 
        arguing for . . . which is the following--accepting rules and norms in 
        the international arena. The United States is a beacon--we're a beacon 
        on a hill but I think that light is brighter if we sign on to UNCLOS'' 
        on February 23, 2016, at a hearing before the Committee on Armed 
        Services of the Senate; and
Whereas former Commander of United States Pacific Command, retired Admiral 
        Dennis Blair, stated that ``if we want to focus on the Asia-Pacific 
        going forward, we're going to have to find a way to pass the Law of the 
        Sea because it does hurt us and it is striking to us that the Chinese 
        have signed and they're obligated but don't want to do it,'' and that 
        ``we have not signed but want them to do it, right? So it's ironical to 
        many in the region'' on July 13, 2016, before the Subcommittee on East 
        Asia, the Pacific, and International Cyber Security of the Committee on 
        Foreign Services of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) affirms that it is in the national interest for the 
        United States to become a formal signatory of the United 
        Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea;
            (2) urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to the 
        ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the 
        Sea (UNCLOS); and
            (3) recommends the ratification of UNCLOS remain a top 
        priority for the administration, having received bipartisan 
        support from every President since 1994, and having most 
        recently been underscored by the strategic challenges the 
        United States faces in the Asia-Pacific region and more 
        specifically in the South China Sea.
                                 <all>