Anilual Report 

to the 

President 

and the 

Congress 

William ] . Perry 

Secretary of Defense 

• March 1996 
AppendlxH 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION 

On October 7, 1994, the President transmitted the UN Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention, with its Deep 

Seabed Mining Implementing Agreement, to the Senate for advice and consent. DoD has long supported the United States becoming a party to the Convention, provided U.S. concerns with deep seabed 

mining provisions could be adequately addressed. The Deep Seabed Mining Implementing Agreement 

of July 1994 removed those concerns and cleared the way for U.S. acceptance of the entire Convention, 

which is of major strategic and economic importance to the United States. 

Clearly, the United States is and will continue to be a global power with global interests. Protecting these 

interests requires U.S. security commitments around the globe and, when U.S. interests are threatened, a 

willingness to use American military power. Key pillars in the effective use of this power are the mobility, 

presence, and readiness of U.S. armed forces. This is where the LOS Convention is so important. 

First, mobility. To be effective, U.S. armed forces must be where required, when required. They must be 

capable of moving within and between areas of operations in times of developing crises. To carry out 

assigned missions, U.S. naval units are continuing to experience a brisk operational tempo. For example, on any given day, about 50 percent of U.S. Navy ships are at sea; about 30 percent are deployed in 

the Adriatic, Mediterranean, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Western Pacific. 

As naval and air forces move within and between areas of operations, they must pass through critical 

choke points. Additionally, U.S. naval forces may have to pass through the territorial seas of one or 

more coastal States. The Convention plays a crucial role in enabling the United States to achieve the 

necessary mobility and operational flexibility by providing the assurance that key lines of communication 

and operating areas will remain open as a matter of international legal right, principally through the rights 

of transit passage and innocent passage. 

Under transit passage, ships and aircraft may transit through international straits freely in the normal 

mode, without prior notice or authorization. This means that submarines may transit submerged and aircraft may overfly without filing flight plans or obtaining diplomatic clearance. Units also may transit in a 

manner necessary for the security of the unit or the force, such as formation steaming, launch and 

recovery of aircraft, and flight operations, consistent with sound navigational practices. 

Also important for the Defense Department's operational needs is the right of innocent passage, 

which provides that all ships, including warships, regardless of cargo, armament or means of propulsion may, as a matter of right, pass through the territorial sea of a foreign sovereign, without prior 

notice or authorization. 

Second, presence. Under the National Security Strategy, a significant portion of U.S. forces are forward 

deployed or stationed in key overseas regions in peacetime. Their presence deters aggression, demonstrates U.S. commitment to allies and friends, underwrites regional stability, gains familiarity with overseas operating environments, promotes joint and combined training, and provides initial capabilities for 

timely response to crises. The importance of overseas presence was demonstrated in October 1994 

when Iraqi Republican Guard divisions began significant movements towards the border with Kuwait. 

U.S. forces deployed in the area, augmented by the timely arrival of additional air, naval, and land 

forces, combined to provide a credible deterrent to the threat of Iraqi aggression. The augmented forces 

' 

H-1 
AppendixH 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION 

included the USS George Washington battle group and embarked air wing, deployed in the Mediterranean, which entered the Red Sea enroute the Persian Gulf less than two days after the request for additional forces was made by Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command. Maritime Prepositioned Ships 

(MPS) based at Diego Garcia and U.S. Army prepositioning ships located in the Western Pacific and 

Indian Ocean proceeded to the Gulf as well. 

In addition to its provisions on passage, the Convention strengthens U.S. ability to operate in these forward areas by providing agreed rules on delimitation of maritime zones, by preserving high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight seaward of the 12 nautical mile territorial sea, and by recognizing the 

special nature of military ships and aircraft in reaffirming the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 

Third, readiness. The Department's first priority is to maintain U.S. military forces ready to fight. Forces 

ready to fight means an appropriate force structure, modern equipment, maintenance and logistics support, and trained and motivated personnel. In this regard, the LOS Convention is important because it 

provides a necessary condition to achieve readiness, that is, the right to conduct military activities, such 

as task force maneuvering, flight operations, military surveys and exercises, and ordnance testing and 

firing, in all ocean areas beyond other coastal States' territorial seas. Of course, these activities must be 

- and are - conducted with due regard for the rights of other nations, the safe conduct and operation 

of other ships and aircraft, and protecting the ocean environment. 

In addition to supporting mobility, presence, and readiness objectives, the Convention addresses other 

important interests that impact U.S. national security. First, the Convention provides a comprehensive 

approach to marine environmental protection. Importantly, it recognizes the delicate balance that exists 

between protecting and preserving the marine environment and other competing interests, and provides 

a balanced framework for addressing issues essential to promoting improvement in the health of the 

world's oceans. Second, the Convention recognizes sovereign rights for the purpose of conserving and 

managing marine resources within the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZs). These provisions result in a most substantial benefit to the United States because the United States has one of the 

largest and richest EEZs in the world. Thus, the Convention will enable the United States to explore, 

exploit, conserve, and manage these important resources. 

The negotiation of the Convention was a decade-long effort that meets the competing interests of 

coastal States and maritime States. The United States, having both coastal and maritime interests, has 

long felt that the balance struck by the Convention is a most favorable one. The Convention will serve 

as a benchmark for the United States and other maritime powers to convince states to roll back excessive claims, provide an unequivocal basis for U.S. assertion of freedom of navigation rights that could be 

compromised by such excessive claims and, perhaps more importantly, to keep in check the natural 

desire by coastal States to extend their sovereignty over offshore areas through the type of increased 

regulation which would be inimical to U.S. navigation and overflight rights. 

The Law of the Sea Convention is gaining more and more importance in maintaining the balance 

between coastal State and maritime State interests. This presents many opportunities for the United 

States, if it participates in the process to make sure its interests are protected. More <;1nd more work in 

this arena will be done at international fora, such as the International Maritime Organization, where 

national delegations will consider proposed international regulations implementing parts of the LOS 

Convention that impact U.S. security and vital commercial interests. In the past, the United States has 

been effective in representing and gaining support for policies that are in its best interest. However, the 

United States risks losing its ability to speak with authority in the international arena if it fails to join the 

Convention. 

H-2 
FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION 

Appendix I 

FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION 

Despite favorable developments in the law of the sea, including the entry into force of the UN Law of the 

Sea (LOS) Convention, the adoption of the Part XI agreement which reforms the LOS Convention, and 

the recent negotiation of the 1995 UN Convention on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, anumber of states continue to assert excessive maritime claims inconsistent with international law in waters off 

their coasts. Many of these claims impair the freedoms of navigation and overflight guaranteed in the 

LOS Convention. Although not yet a party to the Convention, the United States views the navigational 

provisions of the Convention as reflective of customary international law and, as such, available for all 

nations to enjoy. The United States also believes that unchallenged excessive maritime claims may, in 

time, become valid through acquiescence. Accordingly, it is necessary for maritime nations to protest 

excessive coastal claims through diplomatic channels and to exercise their navigation and overflight 

rights in disputed regions. The United States has accepted this responsibility by establishing and preserving the Freedom of Navigation Program. Since its inception in 1979, over 100 diplomatic protests 

have been filed and over 300 operational assertions have been conducted. During FY 1995, operational 

assertions were conducted by the U.S. armed forces against the following countries that maintained 

claims contrary to international law: 

Country Excessive Claims Challenged 

Banglld88ll }~ -~ Claimed eecurity zone; claimed territofW alrepac:e beyond 12 nautical milea (nm) . ~· 

'," 

Cambodia* Claimed security zone; claimed territorial airspace beyond 12 nm; prior permission for warship to enter 

territorial sea 

~ ,3;, ,.,, a;: • Emllllve straight baHHnes ' <• .... :·.~ 

:.~ . ~:, ('·: ··"i;;__~.;:~1;t'M{;-t: .. • -.. J \< •. #, : 

Iran Prior permission to enter territorial sea 

-~-

Pilot permis8ion for wafllhlp to enter ten11Drialsea; claimed territorial airspace beyond 12 nm ·"'-' .... Ualdves. ·~ ~ : . .:.~-

Oman Excessive straight baselines; prior permission to enter territorial sea 

-::;;- ,. 

Phlllppinea* 'f. 

EllolsaiYe atralghl ~; claims arc:hlpelaglc ....... intemat watlml . .. 

Somalia* 200 nm territorial sea; prior permission to enter territorial sea 

SudM" ··" ;~· Prior permi8liOn for warship to enter teniOrlat ... ~ : .. ' ~ ' ~ -~ ' ... " 

Thailand Excessive straight baselines 

' ' ...,.. '·•. IJnlld An/!1 Enliralle Prior perrnls8lon for warship to enter terrltoMI sea ,.;_ • F.,, \ ·" ''1, 'i. i. 

Yemen Prior permission for warship to enter territorial sea 

*Denotea, 1bl!l Freedom d NllvftaliOn aaeertton was al&o oonducted In FY 191M. · .... ~' 

' 

In addition, military ships and aircraft frequently conducted routine transits on, over, and under international straits, such as the Straits of Gibraltar, Hormuz, and Malacca, and through normal archipelagic 

routes through Indonesia and the Philippines. 

l-1