Title: A 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.
Policy area: International Affairs

Summary:
This resolution expresses support for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as a priority for the United States and urges the U.S. Senate to consent to its ratification.

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 284 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>






116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 284

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

                             July 25, 2019

  Ms. Hirono (for herself and Ms. Murkowski) 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 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 
        countries 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 countries 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, on November 25, 2018, the Russian Federation violated international 
        norms and binding agreements, including the United Nations Convention on 
        the Law of the Sea, 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 ``the Russian Federation shall immediately 
        release the Ukrainian naval vessels Berdyansk, Nikopol and Yani Kapu, 
        and return them to the custody of Ukraine,'' and that ``the Russian 
        Federation shall immediately release the 24 detained Ukrainian 
        servicemen and allow them to return to Ukraine,'' demonstrating the 
        Tribunal's rejection of Russia's arguments in this matter in relation to 
        the Law of the Sea;
Whereas, despite the Tribunal's ruling aligning with the United States 
        Government's position on the incident, the United States continued 
        nonparticipation in UNCLOS limits the United States ability to 
        effectively respond to Russia's actions in the November 25, 2018, 
        incident, as well as to any potential future violations by the Russian 
        Federation and any other signatory of UNCLOS;
Whereas the confirmed nominee and future Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Bill 
        Moran, 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 April 30, 2019, before the Committee on 
        Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past 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 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 
        ``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 President and current 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 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
Whereas the past President and current 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 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
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 Committee 
        on Armed Services 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.'', 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 Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
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 Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
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 Subcommittee on 
        Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign 
        Affairs of the House of Representatives;
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 
        Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Chairman of the Joints Chief 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 Committee on Armed Services of the 
        Senate;
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, in his nomination hearing before the 
        Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
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, in his nomination hearing 
        before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past 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 Committee on 
        Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Philip S. 
        Davidson, stated ``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; and
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 
        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 Committee on Armed Services of the Senate: 
        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;
            (2) urges the United States Senate to give its advice and 
        consent to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on 
        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, the Arctic, and the 
        Black Sea regions.
                                 <all>