```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 466 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 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.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2023

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               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 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 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.
                                 <all>
```