[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 190 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5551-S5552]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SENATE RESOLUTION 466--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

  Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Van Hollen, 
Ms. Rosen, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. King, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations:

                              S. Res. 466

       Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 
     (UNCLOS) was adopted by the 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 the UNCLOS builds on four 1958 Law of the Sea 
     conventions to which the United States is a party, namely 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 UNCLOS 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 ratification, the United States is not 
     a party to the treaty or the associated 1994 agreement;
       Whereas the treaty has been ratified by 169 parties, which 
     includes 168 countries and the European Union, but not the 
     United States;
       Whereas the United States, like most other countries, 
     maintains that coastal States under the 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 navigational rights in EEZs, reflect the 
     diplomatic position of the United States on the issue dating 
     back to the adoption of the UNCLOS in 1982;
       Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would codify the 
     current position of the United States, which recognizes the 
     provisions within the UNCLOS as customary 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 ability of the United 
     States 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 the 
     UNCLOS to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs;
       Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would allow the 
     United States to be a member of the International Seabed 
     Authority and thereby participate directly in setting and 
     voting on the policies organizing and controlling mineral-
     related activities in the international seabed area as global 
     demand for critical minerals increases;
       Whereas more than 97 percent of the global internet traffic 
     relies on infrastructure located on the international seabed 
     compared to space-based infrastructure;
       Whereas lack of full-party membership to UNCLOS limits the 
     access and influence of the United States to critical 
     territorial dispute management, including matters involving 
     pursuit and competition of extended outer continental shelf 
     submissions, facilitated primarily by Article 76, which 
     represents the main tool assisting sovereign authority 
     delimitation agreements;
       Whereas relying on customary international norms to defend 
     United States interests in those issues is not sufficient, 
     because customary international law is not universally 
     accepted and is subject to change over time based on state 
     practice;
       Whereas relying on other countries to assert claims on 
     behalf of the United States at the Permanent Court of 
     Arbitration at The Hague is woefully insufficient to defend 
     and uphold United States sovereign rights and interests;
       Whereas the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in the July 12, 
     2016, ruling on the case In the Matter of the South China Sea 
     Arbitration, stated that ``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'' to ``send a 
     representative to observe the hearing'';
       Whereas, on November 25, 2018, the Russian Federation 
     violated international norms and binding agreements, 
     including the UNCLOS, in firing upon, ramming, and seizing 
     Ukrainian vessels and crews attempting to pass through the 
     Kerch Strait;
       Whereas, on May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for 
     the Law of the Sea ruled in a vote of 19-1 that ``[t]he 
     Russian Federation shall immediately release the Ukrainian 
     naval vessels Berdyansk, Nikopol and Yani Kapu, and return 
     them to the custody of Ukraine'' and that ``[t]he Russian 
     Federation shall immediately release the 24 detained 
     Ukrainian servicemen and allow them to return to Ukraine'', 
     demonstrating the Tribunal's rejection of the Russian 
     Federation's arguments in that matter in relation to the Law 
     of the Sea;
       Whereas, despite the Tribunal's ruling aligning with the 
     position of the United States Government on the November 25, 
     2018, incident, the continued nonparticipation of the United 
     States in the UNCLOS limits the ability of the United States 
     to effectively respond to the Russian Federation's actions 
     and to any potential future violations by the Russian 
     Federation and any other signatory of UNCLOS;
       Whereas the Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Lloyd 
     Austin, stated that ``the United States has long treated the 
     UNCLOS's provisions related to navigation and overflight as 
     reflective of longstanding and customary international law. 
     Our military already acts in a manner consistent with these 
     rights and freedoms, so accession to the Convention will not 
     impact the manner in which we conduct our operations'', in 
     response to a question for the record from Senator Hirono on 
     January 21, 2021;
       Whereas the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa 
     Franchetti, stated that ``the United States played a major 
     role in drafting the Convention, and it is favorable to U.S. 
     interests on all significant issues as a result. Further, our 
     Navy already acts in a manner consistent with the 
     Convention's navigational and overflight provisions. 
     Accession would not impose any additional constraints on the 
     Navy's ability to fly, sail, and operate wherever 
     international law allows'', in response to advance policy 
     questions on September 14, 2023, before the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate;
       Whereas Admiral Franchetti further stated that ``the United 
     Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would give our 
     objections to excessive maritime claims a stronger legal 
     foundation that does not rely exclusively on customary 
     international law. When protesting excessive maritime claims 
     asserted by the People's Republic of China in the South China 
     Sea, the Russian Federation in the Arctic region, and others, 
     the United States would come from a position of increased 
     authority and influence'', in response to advance policy 
     questions on September 14, 2023, before the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate;
       Whereas the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific 
     Command, Admiral John C. Aquilino, stated that ``there's 
     really two main reasons [to ratify the UNCLOS]: as the group 
     gets together, it would be certainly beneficial if we had a 
     seat at the table when there were discussions occurring as it 
     applied to potential adjustments and the interpretations of 
     those international laws and the second reason is it puts us 
     in an increased position of credibility . . . we adhere to 
     the UNCLOS treaty in our operations, and it would make our 
     position much stronger if we were signatories'', on March 23, 
     2021, at his nomination hearing before the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate;
       Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense 
     Command and United States Northern Command, General Gregory 
     M. Guillot, stated, ``I support U.S. accession to the Law of 
     the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). UNCLOS provides a comprehensive 
     regime for the governance of the world's oceans, including 
     the Arctic, and U.S. accession would further demonstrate our 
     commitment to an international rules-based order. Acceding to 
     the treaty would enable U.S. representation during critical 
     international negotiations that impact the maritime domain, 
     provide an additional mechanism to counter countries like 
     Russia and China that continue to

[[Page S5552]]

     exploit our absence from key ocean governance diplomatic 
     forums, and ultimately help protect our nation's rights and 
     interests in this critical sphere of operations'', in 
     response to advance policy questions on July 23, 2023, before 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
       Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense 
     Command and United States Northern Command, General Gregory 
     M. Guillot, further stated in regard to United States 
     ratification of the UNCLOS that ``I believe accession to the 
     Law of the Sea Convention would help the U.S. protect its 
     interests in the Arctic. Accession would demonstrate our 
     commitment to a rules-based order, ensure our best interests 
     are represented during international negotiations regarding 
     territorial disputes and challenges to longstanding maritime 
     customs and practices, and improve our ability to advocate 
     for our ocean governance interests around the globe, 
     including in the Arctic. Engagement through UNCLOS is 
     particularly critical today as multiple nations vie for 
     access and control in the Arctic and seek to modify 
     international norms to accommodate expansionist ambitions 
     around the globe in general, and in the Arctic in particular. 
     Finally, accession would preclude Russia and China from 
     exploiting U.S. absence in forums'', in response to advance 
     policy questions on July 23, 2023, before the Committee on 
     Armed Services of the Senate;
       Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, Honorable Carlos Del 
     Toro, stated ``accession would `lock in' the customary rights 
     and freedoms reflected in the UNCLOS, and would give the U.S. 
     a seat at the table to set the course for future law of the 
     sea discussions on a coequal level with member states like 
     China and Russia. China continues a more aggressive posture 
     in the South China Sea. As widely reported, Chinese warships, 
     law enforcement vessels, and other PRC-flagged vessels have 
     failed to respect the rights of maritime nations under the 
     Convention. As a party to the Convention, U.S. objections to 
     these violations would have more force and credibility, and 
     would enhance its ability to respond to excessive maritime 
     claims, land reclamation, and militarization efforts by China 
     in the South China Sea'', in response to a question for the 
     record from Senator Hirono on July 13, 2021;
       Whereas the past Commander of United States Indo-Pacific 
     Command, retired Admiral Philip S. Davidson, stated that 
     ``our accession to the UNCLOS would help our position legally 
     across the globe and would do nothing to limit our military 
     operations in the manner in which we're conducting them 
     now'', on April 17, 2018, before the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate;
       Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific 
     Command, retired Admiral Harry B. Harris, stated ``I believe 
     that UNCLOS gives Russia the potential to, quote, unquote 
     `own' almost half of the Arctic Circle, and we will not have 
     that opportunity because of, we're not a signatory to 
     UNCLOS'', on March 15, 2018, before the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate;
       Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific 
     Command, retired Admiral Harry B. Harris, stated ``I think 
     that by not signing onto it that we lose the credibility for 
     the very same thing that we're arguing for'', and ``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;
       Whereas the past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
     retired General Joseph F. Dunford, stated that ``by remaining 
     outside the Convention, the United States remains in scarce 
     company with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Syria'' and 
     ``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 past President and Chief Executive Officer of 
     the United States Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, 
     stated that ``we support joining the Convention because it is 
     in our national interest--both in our national security and 
     our economic interests'', ``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 ``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 the past President and Chief Executive Officer of 
     the United States Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. 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 Commandant of the United States Coast 
     Guard, retired Admiral Paul Zukunft, stated on February 12, 
     2016, ``With the receding of the icepack, the Arctic Ocean 
     has become the focus of international interest.'', ``All 
     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 
     ``Ratification 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 the past Chief of Naval Operations, retired Admiral 
     Michael Gilday, stated that ``acceding to the Convention 
     would strengthen our strategic position on issues pertaining 
     to the [South China Sea and the Arctic]. The United States 
     would have increased credibility when responding to excessive 
     maritime claims and militarization efforts in the South China 
     Sea. With respect to the Arctic, becoming a party to the 
     Convention would allow the U.S. to position itself to 
     safeguard access for the purposes of maritime traffic, 
     resource exploitation, and other human activities, while 
     ensuring other states comply with the law of the sea'', in 
     response to advance policy questions on July 30, 2019, before 
     the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
       Whereas the past United States Special Representative of 
     State for the Arctic and former Commandant of the Coast 
     Guard, retired 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'', ``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 ``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: 
     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 on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), done at 
     Montego Bay December 10, 1982;
       (2) urges the United States Senate to give its advice and 
     consent to the ratification of the UNCLOS; and
       (3) recommends the ratification of the UNCLOS remain a top 
     priority for the Federal Government, the importance of which 
     was most recently underscored by the strategic challenges the 
     United States faces in the Indo-Pacific, the Arctic, and the 
     Black Sea regions.

                          ____________________