```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 220 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 220

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

                              May 18, 2021

 Ms. Hirono (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Kaine) 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 167 parties, which includes 166 
        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 United States current 
        position of recognizing 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 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 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, 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 current 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 current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, stated 
        that ``becoming a party to the Convention would reinforce freedom of the 
        seas and the navigational rights vital to our global force posture in 
        the world's largest maneuver space. Joining the Convention would also 
        demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law, and strengthen our 
        credibility with other Convention parties'', in response to advance 
        policy questions on July 30, 2019, before the Committee on Armed 
        Services of the Senate;
Whereas the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, further 
        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;
Whereas the current 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 Glen VanHerck, stated, ``It would be 
        [in the interests of the United States to accede to the UNCLOS because] 
        it gives us a better posture, a seat at the table, more credibility when 
        we work many of the issues that we have to work around the globe with 
        allies, partners, and potential competitors'', on March 16, 2021, before 
        the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United 
        States Northern Command, General Glen VanHerck, further stated in regard 
        to United States ratification of the UNCLOS that ``as Russia takes over 
        the Arctic Council in May [2021], it's never been more crucial for us 
        with our like-minded nations and allies and partners that we come to 
        agreement to not allow Russia and China to exploit any seams and gaps'', 
        on March 16, 2021, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United 
        States Northern Command, General Glen VanHerck, stated ``I support the 
        accession to UNCLOS. I think it puts us in a more strategic position 
        when we address these issues internationally, globally, with competitors 
        or our allies and partners as well'', on April 14, 2021, before the 
        Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives;
Whereas the Commander, United States European Command, General Tod Wolters, 
        answered in the affirmative under questioning from Congressman Joe 
        Courtney on whether General Wolters supported the United States becoming 
        a full participant to the UNCLOS, on April 15, 2021, before the 
        Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, 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 Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Philip 
        S. Davidson, further stated, ``I'm on record saying that [ratification 
        of the UNCLOS] would be good for us, I think we would be hard-pressed to 
        find a Navy Admiral that's said otherwise'', on March 9, 2021, 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, 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 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 ``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 past 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 
        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 past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. 
        Dunford, stated, ``The 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 ``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 the past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. 
        Dunford, further 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, Admiral John M. Richardson, stated 
        that ``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, in his nomination hearing before the 
        Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. Richardson, further 
        stated that ``becoming a part of [the 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, in his nomination hearing 
        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, 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 Asia-Pacific, the Arctic, and the 
        Black Sea regions.
                                 <all>
```