```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 339 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 339

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 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2017

  Mr. Courtney (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs. 
 Davis of California, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Smith 
of Washington, Mr. Garamendi, and Mr. Langevin) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               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, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, stated, ``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, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, further stated, 
        ``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'', and, 
        ``the Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an action 
        consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties'', on 
        February 16, 2012, before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the United States 
        Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, stated, ``we support joining 
        the Convention because it is in our national interest--both in our 
        national security and our economic interests'', and, ``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 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations;
Whereas the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the United States 
        Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, further stated, ``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 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations;
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, ``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 Senate 
        Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, 
        stated on February 12, 2016, state that ``With the receding of the 
        icepack, the Arctic Ocean has become the focus of international 
        interest'', and ``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, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, further 
        stated, ``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, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, further 
        stated, ``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, 
        ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the United States Special Representative of State for the Arctic and 
        former Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., stated, 
        ``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'', and, ``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 House Subcommittee on 
        Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the Foreign Affairs Committee;
Whereas the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, 
        stated, ``The Convention provides legal certainty in the world's largest 
        maneuver space'', and, ``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, ``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 
        Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford, 
        further stated, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. Richardson, stated, 
        ``acceding to the Convention would strengthen our credibility and 
        strategic position'', and, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. 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, ``this provides a framework to 
        adjudicate disputes'', on July 30, 2015, before the Senate Armed 
        Services Committee;
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, ``our efforts would be greatly strengthened by Senate 
        ratification of UNCLOS'', on September 17, 2015, before the Senate Armed 
        Services Committee;
Whereas the Commander of 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, ``our efforts would be greatly 
        strengthened by Senate ratification of UNCLOS'', on September 17, 2015, 
        before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Commander of United States Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris, 
        stated ``I think that by not signing onto it that we lose the 
        creditability 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 Senate Armed Services Committee; and
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, retired Admiral 
        Dennis Blair, stated, ``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 ``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 Senate Subcommittee on East 
        Asia, the Pacific, and International Cyber Security: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (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 United States 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>
```