Strategy Notes
This is the Classic SS Aff to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS/LOST).
Most of the terminal impact work for this file exists in other files that have already been put out
(Multilat, Asia Pivot, Overfishing & China). Rather than reproduce cards/work that have already been
generated at this camp we are relying on you to paste in that work as applicable.
The topicality work is still in process and will come out in a supplemental file in the next day or two.
Plan
Plan – the United States federal government should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea
Inherency
No Ratification of UNCLOS now – GOP blocking
Block, 2014 – Staff Writer [Ben, Staff Writer for Worldwatch Institute, U.S. Leaders Support Law of the
Sea Treaty, Worldwatch Institute, July 15, 2014, Accessed July 15, 2014,
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993]
The treaty already has support from a diverse coalition of U.S. interest groups that represent national
security, industry, and the environment. Yet continued opposition from Republican lawmakers may stall
ratification, in a test for whether the Obama administration can galvanize support for international
environmental agreements, observers said. Newly appointed U.S. leadership is promising to join a
longstanding international agreement that oversees ocean resource and pollution disputes. During last
week's Cabinet confirmation hearings, leaders in both the U.S. Senate and the administration of newly
elected President Barack Obama conveyed support for the treaty, known as the United Nations Law of
the Sea Convention, suggesting an end to decades of dispute over U.S. accession. U.S. Presidents Bill
Clinton and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, but conservative members of
Congress repeatedly blocked its ratification due to concerns that it would limit commerce and allow
international bodies to wield greater control over U.S. interests.
The Law of the Sea has set international standards for fishing, deep sea mining, and navigation since the
majority of the world's countries signed it in 1982. It provides coastal nations with exclusive rights to
ocean resources within 200 nautical miles of their borders - areas known as "exclusive economic zones,"
or EEZs.
Russia Advantage
Russia is expanding into the Arctic now—leads to military conflict—empirics prove
O’Sullivan 14—student at the NYU-SCPS Center for Global Affairs [Conor, 2015 M.S. Candidate at NYU’s
Center for Global Affairs International Relations Concentration, “Arctic Development Could Ignite Next
Great-Game Competition”, Breaking Energy (Breaking Energy provides access to news, analysis, thought
leadership, reference materials and discussions about the day’s most important energy market trends),
April 28 2014, http://breakingenergy.com/2014/04/28/opinion-arctic-development-could-ignite-nextgreat-game-competition/, Accessed: 7/18/14] AW
The development of Arctic energy resources poses the potential for an energy security competition
between the Great Powers and Arctic stakeholders that will alter the geopolitical climate. The
hydrocarbon reserves – 25% of world deposits- available under the melting ice caps, and undiscovered
oil and gas will see states shifting their economic and foreign policy priorities. New shipping lanes could
alter the world economy as trade routes become faster and safer, but will also become a source of
conflict. As world populations and energy consumption increases and supplies decrease, states will seek
to maximize interests out of Arctic exploration. The United States and other Arctic Council members
must check the exploration and production ambitions of Russia and China to prevent a great power
game developing. A cohesive policy between member states and international institutions will be vital in
preventing a resource competition that could have severe economic, political, military and
environmental implications. The flag planting by a Russian submarine in August 2007 underneath the
Arctic seabed symbolized Russia’s intentions to use Arctic exploration as a means of securing its desired
imperial status – pursuing a zero-sum game. The Kremlin plans to establish a new international order in
which it becomes a regional hegemon. It is my opinion that Russia intends to end its role as an isolated
entity in international affairs, becoming closely integrated with the global economy and dictating policy.
Russian officials view the Arctic as securing its energy security ambitions for the next century. Dwindling
Russian gas and energy reserves, in the underdeveloped Siberian fields, and over-reliance on European
imports of its natural gas has led to a push towards the Arctic. Russia’s jurisdictional claim over the
Arctic seabed will challenge the existing international law criteria, the UNCLOS, which specifies
jurisdictional authority over international waters. Arctic stakeholders must be wary of Russian intentions
over Arctic development, considering the nationalistic rhetoric of the current government in power.
Russia’s nationalized energy companies maintain an influence in formulating Arctic Policy and
influencing the Russian government to their advantage. Russia will also use its energy security policy in
the Arctic to become a naval superpower as new shipping lanes for trade and energy production will run
along its extensive northern coastline. Russia’s actions in Crimea and the Ukraine emphasize their
willingness to revert to military action over issues of territorial sovereignty and that the U.S. requires an
assertive foreign policy with Russia. Ensuing competition over Arctic energy resources and shipping
lanes will increase geopolitical competition among the Great Powers. The Bering Sea provides the U.S.
with access to Arctic shipping lanes and can act as a strategic counterbalance to Russia. The U.S.
Geological Survey estimates that 13% and 30% of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas
respectively lies under the Arctic seabed. I believe that Arctic Council members, the Nordic States and
Canada, will align with the U.S. to impose strict restrictions over extraction and production in the Arctic
Ocean. International law and conventions can only be implemented if supported by U.S. diplomacy in
international institutions. Domestic and multi-national energy companies must continue their
innovation in technology to finance exploration in competition with foreign NOCs.
Increased expansion leads to new cold wars
Bender and Kelley 14 [Jeremy, writer for Business Insider, Michael, reporter for Business Insider
specializing in Military and Defense, “Militaries Know That The Arctic Is Melting -- Here's How They're
Taking Advantage”, Business Insider, Jun 4 2014, Accessed: 6/6/14,
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-competition-for-arctic-resources-2014-6]
Because of the Arctic’s potential resources and trade impact, countries are stepping up military
development in the region. For years, Norway has been conducting “Operation Cold Response.” This
year, the military exercise brought in more than 16,000 troops from 15 participating NATO members. A
U.S. Arctic Roadmap promotes naval security, the development of operational experience in an Arctic
environment, and the bolstering of naval readiness and capability. The Navy has accelerated its plan
after noting that it is “inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the
Arctic.”Russia, meanwhile, has reinvigorated its process of building its naval operations on its northern
coast. “Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic state, has made a military buildup in the Arctic a
strategic priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and marshaling naval assets,” the CFR
presentation explains. “In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military leadership to pay
particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed ‘every lever for the protection of its security and
national interests there.’ He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the
Russian Arctic by the end of 2014.” CFR notes that while most experts dismiss the prospects for armed
aggression in the Arctic, “some defence analysts and academics assert that territorial disputes and a
competition for resources have primed the Arctic for a new Cold War.”
Potential for conflict is high—no current forum for peace talks
Berkman 13 [Paul, biological oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Barbara and author of
“Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean: Promoting Co-operation and Preventing Conflict.”,
“Preventing an Arctic Cold War”, The New York Times, Mar 12 2013, Accessed: 5/7/14
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/opinion/preventing-an-arctic-cold-war.html?_r=0]
In 1996, eight countries — the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland and
Denmark (which manages the foreign affairs and defense of Greenland) — and groups representing
indigenous peoples established the Arctic Council to chart the region’s future. So far, this high-level
forum has identified sustainable development and environmental protection as “common Arctic issues.”
But another crucial concern — maintaining the peace — was shelved in the talks that led to the council’s
creation. The fear then, as now, was that peace implied demilitarization. It doesn’t. But if these nations
are still too timid to discuss peace in the region when tensions are low, how will they possibly cooperate
to ease conflicts if they arise? Since 2006, each of the Arctic nations has adopted its own security policy
to safeguard its sovereign rights. What they must do now is compare their separate security policies,
identify the ways in which those policies reinforce or conflict with one another, and then balance
national interests with common interests. How, for instance, will each nation position its military and
police its territory? How will the Arctic states deal with China and other nations that have no formal
jurisdictional claims but have strong interests in exploiting Arctic resources? How will Arctic and nonArctic states work together to manage those resources beyond national jurisdictions, on the high seas
and in the deep sea? Without ratifying the Convention on the Law of the Sea, a 1982 treaty governing
use of the world’s oceans, how can the United States cooperate with other nations to resolve territorial
disputes in the ocean? NATO’s top military commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis of the United States
Navy, warned in 2010 of an “icy slope toward a zone of competition, or worse, a zone of conflict” if the
world’s leaders failed to ensure Arctic peace. Whether it is through the Arctic Council or another entity,
there needs to be a forum for discussing peace and stability, not just environmental and economic
issues. We need “rules of the road” to take us safely into the Arctic’s future.
Arctic expansion leads to a new cold war—war games prove
Kramnik 12 [Ilya, RIA Novosti military commentator, “NATO, Russia stage Arctic war games”, The Voice
of Russia, Apr 19 2012, Accessed: 4/15/14, http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_04_19/72301024/]
As global warming is thawing permafrost around the Earth's poles, the Arctic is gradually emerging from
under the eternal ice as a new geopolitical arena, a focal point of interest and concern to the major
world powers. The conflict of economic interests is already on the horizon and won’t probably be
resolved any soon, although military clashes remain an equally hazy perspective. In the past, only
scientist and journalists seemed to be concerned about the “opening up” of the Arctic. Now, politicians
and the military are also turning their gaze to this region, which rising temperatures have made more
accessible than ever. The global media and especially local agencies are bristling with threats of a new
Cold War in the Arctic, while major northern states are meeting to discuss regional security. One of such
meetings was held by military chiefs of all Arctic powers in Canada on April 12, 13. It was attended,
among others, by Gen. Nikolai Makarov, Chief of Russia’s Armed Forces General Staff. The meeting took
place at a time when the icy region was buzzing with activity, with both Russia and NATO engaged in war
games beyond the Arctic Circle. In March, NATO wrapped up its Cold Response maneuvers on the
stretch from Sweden to Canada, with 16,300 troops engaged in this unprecedented military exercise.
The war game was only clouded by a crash, when a Norwegian C-130J plane rammed into the western
slope of the Swedish mountain, Kebnekaise, killing five servicemen. The Russian military kept apace,
staging their own maneuvers. Its 200th motor rifle brigade from Murmansk tested the T-80 tanks, which
are believed to be best-suited for the Arctic climate, with their gas turbine engines, which are much
easier to start in the cold weather than the traditional diesel ones. The Russian Northern Fleet, as well as
Air Defense planes, choppers and marine aviation participated in the drills. The Air Forces also trained in
Russia’s northern reaches. On April 9-15, Russia staged Ladoga 2012 maneuvers at the Karelian Besovets
air base with 50 choppers and aircraft, which engaged and shot down over 150 air targets. In their war
games, NATO and Russia are both pursuing one and the same goal. As rising temperatures are freeing
larger and larger areas of the Arctic from its icy shackles, all regional key players are flexing their military
muscle to score psychological points in the information battlespace, the main arena of modern
diplomatic conflicts. No one wants a “Hot War.” Even more so, the US, the potential northern leader, is
now focused on more pressing issues in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pacific, where it is engaged in a
standoff with China. However, Arctic’s natural riches, territorial disputes and expanding shipping lanes
have rendered it a very lucrative region – and thus potentially a “hot” one. The situation around
maritime traffic nodes has never been simple. Such was the case with the Mediterranean, the Horn of
Africa, or the Strait of Malacca. If the Arctic emerges as another junction of sea lanes it will spawn
conflicts among the world powers, depending on how determined they will be to protect their national
interests. Russia is one of such ambitious northern powers, currently planning on boosting its Arctic
infrastructure, for instance building twenty frontier posts to protect its polar reaches. Some of them will
be erected close to nine emergency and transport ministerial centers, set up to further the development
of Russia’s Northern Sea Route. The rest of the frontiers will be built on the islands. A satellite system
called Arktika will allow for their uninterrupted communication with the "mainland." These frontier
posts, which are to be erected in the upcoming years, will serve as Russia’s bulwark beyond the Arctic
Circle and will be secured by its Northern Fleet, air forces and the so-called “Arctic brigades,” specially
trained to operate in the polar region.
Global Nuclear War
Germanos 13 [Andrea, senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams, “Nuclear War Could Mean
'Extinction of the Human Race'”, Common Dreams (non-profit independent newscenter), Dec 10 2013,
Accessed: 4/15/14, https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/12/10-2]
"A nuclear war using only a fraction of existing arsenals would produce massive casualties on a global
scale—far more than we had previously believed," Dr. Ira Helfand, the report’s author and IPPNW copresident, said in a statement. As their previous report showed, years after even a limited nuclear war,
production of corn in the U.S. and China's middle season rice production would severely decline, and
fears over dwindling food supplies would lead to hoarding and increases in food prices, creating further
food insecurity for those already reliant on food imports. The updated report adds that Chinese winter
wheat production would plummet if such a war broke out. Based on information from new studies
combining reductions in wheat, corn and rice, this new edition doubles the number of people they
expect to be threatened by nuclear-war induced famine to over two billion. "The prospect of a decade of
widespread hunger and intense social and economic instability in the world’s largest country has
immense implications for the entire global community, as does the possibility that the huge declines in
Chinese wheat production will be matched by similar declines in other wheat producing countries,"
Helfand stated. The crops would be impacted, the report explains, citing previous studies, because of
the black carbon particles that would be released, causing widespread changes like cooling
temperatures, decreased precipitation and decline in solar radiation. In this scenario of famine,
epidemics of infectious diseases would be likely, the report states, and could lead to armed conflict.
From the report: Within nations where famine is widespread, there would almost certainly be food riots,
and competition for limited food resources might well exacerbate ethnic and regional animosities.
Among nations, armed conflict would be a very real possibility as states dependent on imports
attempted to maintain access to food supplies. While a limited nuclear war would bring dire
circumstances, the impacts if the world's biggest nuclear arms holders were involved would be even
worse. "With a large war between the United States and Russia, we are talking about the possible —not
certain, but possible—extinction of the human race," Helfand told Agence-France Presse. “In order to
eliminate this threat, we must eliminate nuclear weapons," Helfand stated. "In this kind of war,
biologically there are going to be people surviving somewhere on the planet but the chaos that would
result from this will dwarf anything we've ever seen," Helfand told the news agency.
Ratifying LOST solves new US-Russia cold wars—resource distribution
Langer 12-- president of the Institute for Liberty [Andrew, president of the Institute for Liberty (an
organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world through projects
focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the world’s most challenging problems), “The Case for Ratification of
the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer”, Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans (a committee
designed to bring insight and understanding to the debate within the United States over joining the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea), November 28 2012,
http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer, Accessed: 7/15/14]
AW
The Institute for Liberty (IFL) has come to the conclusion that ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is the
most important property rights and wealth building step that America can take to maintain our leading
superpower status and to exponentially grow our economy. There has been a tremendous amount of
disinformation about this treaty. In fact, just earlier this year, IFL thought we knew the truth about what
was termed “LOST” and we signed a letter opposing ratification. We, like so many other conservatives,
were given bad information. In light of the facts, IFL dropped our opposition to the treaty and we are
now leading the conservative charge for its ratification. I am meeting everyday with conservative
grassroots leaders to ask them to join me in this imperative course correction and we are making a great
deal of progress. Conservatives love to debate, but we hate to be misled. Given what we know now, the
treaty’s appropriate moniker should be LOTS. Trillions of dollars, global property rights for U.S. interests,
critical navigation rights, and veto power over an international fund that could end up in adversarial
hands is what is at stake. Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will grow the U.S. economy while
protecting our military and strategic interests around the world. I am tired of losing out to China and
Russia on the world stage. By not ratifying LOTS, the U.S. loses access to resources that lie in undersea
regions that are outside of the current U.S. sphere of legal access – much in the same way that China
and Russia are accessing oil that we have prevented ourselves from going after, now China and Russia
are accessing vast amounts of rare earth minerals, and other critical minerals, that are essential to our
economy and national security. There Is a New Cold War Russia and China, two of America’s most
powerful strategic foes, are actively exploring the Arctic and Pacific for oil, gas and seabed mineral
riches. The U.S. is not. Why? Because, Russia and China have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty and the
U.S. hasn’t. Without ratifying LOTS, the U.S. has no standing to apply for mining and drilling permits
under international law. Bottom line: there is a new Cold War taking place, and America is not winning.
The seabed holds trillions of dollars of mineral resources. According to RT, a Russian/English news
channel, Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander Gorban last month stated his hope that “there will
never be a “war for resources” – or an even “hotter” conflict – in the Arctic Region.” In the next breath,
he then went on to reiterate that Russia is indeed "…trying to fight for the Arctic shelf…” Gorban is a
close Putin ally and his acknowledgement that Arctic conflict is possible demonstrates the global stakes
in play. Russia is not alone in recognizing the value of the LOTS in the fight for global resource
dominance. Five countries border the Arctic: Russia, the U.S. (via Alaska), Canada, Norway and Denmark
(via Greenland). However, only one country is ineligible to mine or drill those resources -- the U.S. That’s
because the U.S. is not a member of the international body that grants title, or property rights, to
countries to engage in the exploration of seabed resources. That body is called the International Seabed
Authority (ISA). Admittance into that body is accomplished via ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Plan leads to more engagement—improves US-Russia relationships
Borgerson 13 (Scott, Writer for Foreign Affairs, Co-Founder of non-profit Arctic Circle, “The Coming
Arctic Boom: As the Ice Melts, the Region Heats Up “ 92 Foreign Aff. 85 (2013))
More engagement could even improve U.S.-Russian relations. According to the 1867 treaty by which the
Russian empire sold Alaska to the United States, the two countries were “desirous of strengthening, if
possible, the good understanding which exists between them,” and then U.S. Secretary of State William
Seward hoped the purchase would do just that. Good relations have eluded the United States and Russia
for many of the decades that followed, but today, the Arctic could become the source of the cooperation
that Seward foresaw. In the Bering Sea, Russia and the United States possess common objectives, and
there is ample room for cooperation on policing foreign fishing fleets, responding to oil spills, and aiding
navigation.
Russia Extensions - Miscalc
Militarized expansion into the arctic now—creates a new cold war—makes miscalculation likely
AP News 12 [Associated Press, An American multinational nonprofit news agency, “The new cold war:
Militaries eying Arctic resources”, Fox News, Apr 16 2012, Accessed: 5/8/14,
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/16/new-cold-war-as-ice-cap-melts-militaries-vie-for-arcticedge/
To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a
new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure
trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts. By Arctic standards, the
region is already buzzing with military activity, and experts believe that will increase significantly in the
years ahead. Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever -- Exercise Cold
Response -- with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the ice for everything from high intensity
warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when
their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain. The
U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the
military chiefs of the eight main Arctic powers -- Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden,
Norway and Finland -- gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional
security issues. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and
30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the
Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research
Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year. What countries should do about climate
change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving
ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue. Russia, Canada and the United States
have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and
more pressing issues elsewhere, the United States has been something of a reluctant northern power,
though its nuclear-powered submarine fleet, which can navigate for months underwater and below the
ice cap, remains second to none. Russia -- one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle -- has been the
most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower. Rob Huebert, an associate
political science professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from
its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a
key to the overall Cold War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and
submarine activity. He said that has in turn led other Arctic countries -- Norway, Denmark and Canada -to resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse.
Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their militaries to the Arctic.
"We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up,"
Huebert said. "There are numerous factors now coming together that are mutually reinforcing
themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only going to increase as time
goes on."
Miscalculation is high in the arctic—military will be used to protect claims
Yuferov 13 [Ivan, finalists of the RD student essay contest. Yuferov is currently pursuing a Master's
degree in Regional Studies from Moscow State Institute of International Relations. In 2013, he
graduated from MGIMO University's School of Political Science, receiving a diploma with honors. In June
2013, he defended a thesis on the topic: “Foreign policy planning in the Russian Federation: Russia’s
strategy in the Arctic.", “Is a real cold war possible in the Arctic?”, Russia Direct, Nov 28 2013, Accessed:
4/9/14, http://www.russia-direct.org/content/real-cold-war-possible-arctic]
However, the legal status of much of the Arctic is unclear, and all five Arctic powers (Russia, the USA,
Canada, Norway and Denmark) have different territorial claims. It seems important to focus on the
Arctic policy of the USA and Russia, as relations between these two countries will have a profound
impact on the future of the Arctic. According to Russia’s strategy in the Arctic, “in a competition for
resources, it cannot be ruled out that military force could be used for resolving emerging problems,”
with the Arctic shelf being regarded as a potential battleground. By undertaking flag-planting
expeditions and building up its military forces, Russia is making the point that large parts of the Arctic lie
within Russia’s natural sphere of influence. Moscow sends signals to other powers, most obviously the
U.S., to respect Russian natural interests there. Washington, as well as Moscow, has vital assets in the
region, including Prudhoe Bay and other oil and gas fields of the Alaskan coast. However, the U.S. Senate
has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, the basic international treaty on
maritime rights, and some American experts call for internationalization of the region. In order to
analyze future of the Arctic we should answer two questions Will the Arctic be a zone of cooperation or
competition (x-axis)? Will the USA and Russia conduct militarization or demilitarization policies (y-axis)?
This can be represented graphically, as shown here: With Future 4 being a unrealistic scenario, as no
state is likely to conduct a policy of demilitarization during confrontation in the region, it is possible to
elaborate on three possible scenarios for the Arctic. Military conflict can be provoked because of
significant economic and strategic stakes in an area where boundaries of maritime jurisdiction remain to
be settled. Diplomatic gridlock may lead the region to erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.
There are a number of driving factors of this scenario: growing military activity, inflammatory rhetoric,
and closer security coordination among the Western powers. Moreover, the Arctic countries are likely to
grab territory unilaterally and exert sovereign control over sea lanes by arming icebreakers and military
troops to guard their claims. This scenario of a real cold war is substantiated by some recent facts. The
Russians recently ordered strategic bomber flights over the Arctic Ocean for the first time since the Cold
War. Moreover, Russian armed forces have regularly tested air and sea defenses of NATO in the region.
Finally, the NATO alliance often organizes military exercises with warships and strategic bombers,
supported by tankers, reconnaissance aircraft and escort fighters.
Russia Extensions – Solvency - Credibility
US intervention key—credibility checks conflict
O’Sullivan 14—student at the NYU-SCPS Center for Global Affairs [Conor, 2015 M.S. Candidate at NYU’s
Center for Global Affairs International Relations Concentration, “Arctic Development Could Ignite Next
Great-Game Competition”, Breaking Energy (Breaking Energy provides access to news, analysis, thought
leadership, reference materials and discussions about the day’s most important energy market trends),
April 28 2014, http://breakingenergy.com/2014/04/28/opinion-arctic-development-could-ignite-nextgreat-game-competition/, Accessed: 7/18/14] AW
The U.S’s relatively superior military and economic resources and growing energy self-sufficiency means
it must implement policies that will satisfy world energy security demands through Arctic development.
The United States must use its clout within the Arctic Council to check the imperial ambitions of Russia
and the vast energy demands of China through effective State and Energy Department mandates. In my
opinion, an inability to do this will threaten a return to Cold War geopolitics, increasing the risk of
energy security competition and Great Power military conflict.
Joining UNCLOS key to freedom of navigation – keeps Russia in check
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
U.S. freedom of navigation interests in the Arctic would be bolstered by joining UNCLOS. Both Russia
and Canada have maritime claims in the Arctic that are inconsistent with the rules contained in the
Convention. Russia37 and Canada38 draw excessive straight baselines in the Arctic and restrict the right
of transit passage in various international straits in the Arctic, including the Northeast Passage, the
Northwest Passage and vari- ous straits located within Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR)—the Demitri,
Laptev and Sannikov Straits. Russia’s straight baselines closing the NSR straits and Canada’s straight
baselines around its Arctic Islands do not meet the legal criteria contained in Article 7 of the
Convention.39 Accord- ing to UNCLOS Article 5, the correct baseline for these areas is the low- water
line. UNCLOS Article 38 also provides that the right of transit pas- sage through international straits
cannot be suspended or impeded by the bordering States. Use of straight baselines by Russia and
Canada to close these international straits is therefore inconsistent with the Convention. Furthermore,
under UNCLOS Article 8(2), all nations enjoy at least the right of innocent passage in areas within newly
drawn straight baselines. The United States has diplomatically protested and operationally chal- lenged
these excessive straight baseline claims under the U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program, citing the
provisions of UNCLOS and customary in-ternational law.40 However, the U.S. legal position would be
on better foot- ing if the United States was a party to the Convention. Russia and Canada have also
enacted domestic laws and regulations to regulate maritime traffic in their Arctic waters, citing UNCLOS
Article 234 as their legal basis.41 Although Article 234 does allow coastal States to adopt and enforce
measures to prevent, reduce and control vessel-source pollution in ice-covered areas, such measures
must have “due regard to navigation.” Both the Russian and Canadian laws and regulations in ques- tion,
however, exceed what is permissible under international law, including the Safety of Life at Sea
Convention (SOLAS)42 and UNCLOS. They also exceed current International Maritime Organization
(IMO) construction, design, equipment and manning (CDEM) standards set out in the IMO Polar Code.43
Russia’s NSR regulations44 and Canada’s Northern Canada Vessel Traf- fic Service Zone Regulations
(NORDREGS)45 were unilaterally adopted without IMO approval. However, mandatory ship routing,46
mandatory ship reporting47 and mandatory vessel traffic services (VTS)48 that apply beyond the 12nm territorial sea of a coastal State must be submitted to and approved by the IMO under SOLAS
Chapter V. SOLAS Regulations V/10(9) and V/11(8) further provide that all routing and reporting “systems and actions taken to enforce compliance with those systems shall be consistent with international
law, including . . . [UNCLOS].” Coastal State maritime traffic regulations adopted by the IMO must al- so
be applied consistent with the right of transit passage guaranteed to all ships and aircraft by Part III of
UNCLOS.49 To the extent that the Russian and Canadian regulations require compulsory pilotage and
prior permission to transit international straits, they violate UNCLOS Articles 38 and 42, which prohibit
coastal States from adopting domestic measures that im- pede or “have the practical effect of denying,
hampering or impairing the right of transit passage.”50 Application of domestic environmental laws and
regulations adopted pursuant to Article 234 is also subordinate to UNCLOS Article 236, which exempts
all sovereign immune vessels from the environmental provisions of the Convention.51 NORDREGS
exempts warships from compliance; however, other government sovereign immune vessels are not
exempt. The NSR regulations do not exempt sovereign immune vessels from the duty to comply. To the
extent that the Russian and Canadian laws and regulations apply to sovereign immune vessels, they are
inconsistent with international law, including UNCLOS Article 236 and SOLAS, Regulation V/1.52 As a
party to UNCLOS, U.S. opposition to these unilateral laws and regulations would be strengthened to
include the possibility of compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention. Application
of these domestic measures in the EEZ and in international straits clearly interferes with U.S. high seas
freedoms of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the seas. Such actions also exceed IMOapproved rules and stand- ards for the protection of the marine environment in the EEZ. Moreover,
neither government has provided sufficient data to demonstrate that their domestic laws and
regulations are based on the best available scientific evi- dence, as required by UNCLOS Article 234. The
Convention’s compulsory dispute settlement procedures can be invoked by a State Party for a num- ber
of reasons, including interference with high seas freedoms of naviga- tion and overflight and other
lawful uses of the sea in the EEZ (Article 297(1)(a)) and contravention of international rules and
standards for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the EEZ (Article 297(1)(c)).
Russia Uniqueness Extensions
Russia is expanding into the arctic now—economic interests
RIA 13 [RIA Novosti, Russia's leading news agency in terms of multimedia technologies, website
audience reach and quoting by the Russian media, “Russia Needs Naval Buildup in Arctic – Deputy
Premier”, RIA Novosti, 12/20/13, Accessed: 5/16/14,
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131220/185772156.html]
Russia should beef up its naval presence in the Arctic to protect its economic interests in the region from
the encroachment of NATO nations, a senior minister said on Friday. “Obviously military efforts
safeguard economic ambitions. It would be strange for Russia, which has an enormous Arctic coastline,
not to begin energetic, firm action for exploiting the region,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin
said. "This is not an economic task, it's a geopolitical one. It's a question of national defense." Rogozin,
who oversees the defense industry, said Russia must synchronize its economic plans in the region with
its shipbuilding capacity as NATO countries had been discussing a stronger military presence in the
region since at least 2009. Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the military to increase
its presence in the Arctic next year.
Russia is expanding into the arctic now—leads to international miscalculation
Staalesen 4/7 [Atle, BarentsObserver staff writer and Adviser in the Norwegian Barents Secretariat,
“Putin readies Artic territorial claims”, BarentsObserver, Apr 7 2014, Accessed: 4/9/14,
http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2014/04/putin-readies-arctic-territorial-claims-07-04]
Meeting with President Vladimir Putin on Friday, Minister of Natural Resources Sergey Donskoy
confirmed that Russia will have its Arctic claims prepared after summer. The claims will be submitted to
the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in spring 2015, the minister said. Russia
this year successfully got the CLCS’s support for its expansion in the Sea of Okhotsk, and has high hopes
that the Commission will approve also the far bigger claims in the Arctic. According to Donskoy, the
application should be submitted to the UN commission in early 2015 before a planned change of
commission members. ”We have good and constructive interrelations with them, we know them and
they know us […] we understand which questions that will be address to us”, Donskoy told the
President. Russia has since 2007 actively studied the Arctic sea bed as part of its bid to the UN body. A
last Arctic expedition on the issue will be conducted this summer, the Kremlin informs. The country in
2001 submitted a first application to the CLCS. However the Commission demanded additional scientific
evidence, which would support the claims. The application included both the Lomososov and Medeleev
Ridges, as well as the North Pole point. With its claims, Russia will have conflicting claims with both
Canada and Denmark, the two other major Arctic territory contenders. In 2007, Russia planted a flag on
the sea bottom on the North Pole point and subsequently stirred controversy among the other Arctic
nations. After having flagged its territorial ambitions in the region, the Kremlin is unlikely to let go easily
with its self-proclaimed acquisitions. According to Minister Donskoy, Russia is now actively engaging its
foreign ministry, as well as its ministry of defence, in pursuing its objectives.
Russia is expanding militarily into the Arctic—looking for resources
Friedman 14 [Uri, senior associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Global Channel. He was
previously the deputy managing editor at Foreign Policy and a staff writer for The Atlantic Wire, “The
Arctic: Where the U.S. and Russia Could Square Off Next”, The Atlantic, Mar 28 2014, Accessed: 4/14/14,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/the-arctic-where-the-us-and-russia-couldsquare-off-next/359543/]
"Few countries have been as keen to invest in the Arctic as Russia, whose economy and federal budget
rely heavily on hydrocarbons," CFR writes. "Of the nearly sixty large oil and natural-gas fields discovered
in the Arctic, there are forty-three in Russia, eleven in Canada, six in Alaska, and one in Norway,
according to a 2009 U.S. Department of Energy report." "Russia, the only non-NATO littoral Arctic state,
has made a military buildup in the Arctic a strategic priority, restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports and
marshaling naval assets," the guide adds. "In late 2013, President Vladimir Putin instructed his military
leadership to pay particular attention to the Arctic, saying Russia needed 'every lever for the protection
of its security and national interests there.' He also ordered the creation of a new strategic military
command in the Russian Arctic by the end of 2014."
Overfishing Advantage
Overfishing on the brink --- new tech and high demand
DUJS 12, (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, member of the Directory of Open Access
Journals, an international group of science and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by
exercising peer review and editorial quality, “The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the
Commercial Level”, 3/11/12, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishingconsequences-at-the-commercial-level#.U8TgwmfjgwV) ADL
According to marine ecologists, overfishing is the greatest threat to ocean ecosystems today (1).
Overfishing occurs because fish are captured at a faster rate than they can reproduce (2). Advanced
fishing technology and an increased demand for fish have led to overfishing, causing several marine
species to become extinct or endangered as a result (3, 4). In the long-term, overfishing can have a
devastating impact on ocean communities as it destabilizes the food chain and destroys the natural
habitats of many aquatic species (2). In the past, fishing was more sustainable because fishermen could
not access every location and because they had a limited capacity for fish aboard their vessels. Today,
however, small trawlers and fishing boats have been replaced by giant factory ships that can capture
and process extremely large amounts of prey at a given time (2). These ships use sonar instruments and
global positioning systems (GPS) to rapidly locate large schools of fish (1). Fishing lines are deployed with
thousands of large hooks that can reach areas up to 120 kilometers deep. The trawling vessels and
machines can even reach depths of 170 kilometers and can store an extraordinarily large volume of fish.
Each year, these huge trawling ships comb an area twice the size of the United States. They use massive
nets 50 meters wide with the capacity to pull the weight of a medium-sized plane (2). They also have
several plants for processing and packing fish, large freezing systems, fishmeal processing plants, and
powerful engines that can carry this enormous fishing gear around the ocean. Because these ships have
all the equipment necessary to freeze and tin fish, they only need to return to their base once they are
full. Even when the ships are filled, however, the fish are often transferred to refrigerated vessels in the
middle of the ocean and are processed for consumption later (4). As such, industrial fishing has
expanded considerably and fishermen can now explore new shores and deeper waters to keep up with
the increased demand for seafood. In fact, it has been reported by the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) that over 70 percent of the world’s fisheries are either ‘fully exploited’,
‘over exploited’ or ‘significantly depleted’ (5). The annual total global catch of fish is 124 million metric
tons, which is equivalent in weight to 378 Empire State Buildings (2).
Modern fishing methods destroy ocean life --- bottom trawling and bycatch
DUJS 12, (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, member of the Directory of Open Access
Journals, an international group of science and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by
exercising peer review and editorial quality, “The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the
Commercial Level”, 3/11/12, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishingconsequences-at-the-commercial-level#.U8TgwmfjgwV) ADL
Fishing gear is often non-selective in the fish it targets. For example, any fish that are too big to get
through the mesh of a net are captured. Therefore, overfishing does not only threaten the species of
fish that is targeted for food, but also many non-target species. As a result, these other species,
including marine mammals and seabirds, are accidentally caught in the fishing gear and killed (6). For
example, for every ton of prawn caught, three tons of other fish are killed and thrown away. Those in
the trade refer to this practice of inadvertent catching of other species as bycatch (4). The FAO has
pointed out that about 25 percent of the world’s captured fish end up thrown overboard because they
are caught unintentionally, are illegal market species, or are of inferior quality and size. Many of the fish
caught this way include endangered and over exploited species, 95 percent of which are eventually
thrown away (2). Bycatch is not just limited to just unwanted fish, but rather affects all types of marine
life, including whales, dolphins, porpoises, fur seals, albatrosses, and turtles. For example, tuna fisheries
are indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated one million sharks annually due to bycatch.
Small cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, are also targets of bycatch as they are often caught in
fishing nets. In fact, hundreds of dolphin corpses are washed up on the beaches of Europe every year,
bringing attention to the growing scale of this problem (6). Many modern fishing methods are also
irreversibly destructive. For example, bottom trawling, a technique that uses extremely wide nets armed
with heavy metal rollers, can crush everything in the path of the gear, destroying fragile corals, smashing
rock formations, and killing several tons of fish and animals as bycatch (7). As such, these practices can
wreak havoc on delicate marine ecosystems. Not surprisingly, it has been reported that industrial fishing
takes between only 10 and 15 years to wipe out a tenth of whichever species it targets (2). In fact,
several marine species have already been fished to commercial extinction, and this number is rapidly
increasing (1). One of the reasons for this is that the regulation of fishing vessels and the fishing industry
is universally inadequate. Roughly two-thirds of the ocean is free of laws and fishing vessels only follow
the laws ratified by their country of origin. However, most fishing countries have not ratified any
international convention to protect the sea or marine life (2). Moreover, fishing factory ships and
companies are given access to fisheries before the long–term impact of their fishing practices is
understood (1).
<< Insert Overfishing Impact>>
Currently trends ensure oceans will be fishless by 2050 --- mitigating overfishing secures millions of
jobs
Mohammed 13, (Essam Yassin, Senior Researcher, Environmental Economics, International Institute for
Environment and Development; PhD in International Development, Graduate School of International
Development, Nagoya University, “Combating the Fisheries Crisis”, International Institute for
Environment and Development, 6/26/13, http://www.iied.org/combating-fisheries-crisis) ADL
If current trends continue, we are very likely to see ‘fishless oceans’ by 2050.
This would be a tragedy not just for the oceans’ ecosystems, but for the people that rely on them to
survive. Globally, some 43.5 million people work directly in the fisheries sector, with the great majority
in developing countries. Adding those who work in associated processing, marketing, distribution and
supply industries, the sector supports nearly 200 million livelihoods. Unless current trends are reversed,
millions of livelihoods could be lost.
<<Insert Industry Impact>>
UNCLOS provides a sustainable framework to limit overfishing --- legal and environmental guidelines
Soares 14, (Miguel de Serpa, Under-Secretary-General, Legal Affairs at the United Nations Legal Counsel,
“The Role of UNCLOS in Sustainable Development”, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, 2/3/14,
http://legal.un.org/ola/media/info_from_lc/mss/speeches/MSS_DOALOS_Side_event-3-Feb-2014.pdf)
ADL
In The future we want, States reiterated that international law, as reflected in UNCLOS, provides the
legal framework for the conservation and the sustainable use of the oceans and their resources and
urged all its parties to fully implement their obligations under the Convention. In Rio, parties to the
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement were also urged to implement their obligations under the
Agreement. More than thirty years after its opening for signature and twenty years after its entry into
force, UNCLOS continues to provide an effective, comprehensive and overarching international legal
framework for the oceans and seas. Indeed, the General Assembly has recognized the pre-eminent
contribution of the Convention to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly
relations among all nations, to the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples of
the world, as well as to the sustainable development of the oceans and seas. Because UNCLOS covers a
wide range of ocean issues, it also provides the legal framework for their sustainable development.
UNCLOS provides the global community with a carefully balanced and equitable package of rights and
duties in the various maritime zones. Central to the package is the balance of the enjoyment of rights
and benefits with the concomitant undertaking of duties and obligations. Moreover, implementation
cannot be effected in a piecemeal fashion since the provisions of UNCLOS are closely interrelated and
form an integral package. Thus, for example, States cannot benefit from the enjoyment of rights, e.g.
the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources, without also fulfilling their obligations. These
relate, inter alia, to the protection and preservation of the marine environment, the conservation of the
living resources and the rights of navigation of other States.
However, US UNCLOS ratification ENFORCES that framework --- tech and treaty enforcement
Tracy 14, (Sean, author of Environmental Literacy and Stewardship, staff writer for News Security Beat,
“State of the Oceans 2013: Acidification, Overfishing Major Threats to Ecosystem Health”, News Security
Beat, 2/3/14, http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/02/state-oceans-2013-acidification-overfishingmajor-threats-ecosystem-health/) ADL
Despite the overwhelming focus on changing ocean chemistry, the number one issue impacting the
health of the oceans is still overfishing, said Sack. There are currently 1.3 million commercial fishing
vessels worldwide that annually remove 87 million tons of fish and invertebrates essential to functioning
ecosystems, she continued; illegal and unreported fishing may make up as much as 20 percent of that
catch, with some vessels going as far as to change names and home flags to hunt under different names.
At current rates of take, some predict the global commercial fishing industry could collapse by 2050 – a
threat not only to biodiversity but global food security. The United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted by most developed nations and can provide a framework for addressing
fishing quotas, but has not been accepted by all (including the United States), and enforcement remains
a major challenge, regardless. Global Solutions for a Global Problem A global paradigm shift is in order,
the speakers agreed. Better multi-sector, regional and global ecosystems management is needed to
prevent collapse and reverse species declines. Sack suggested UNCLOS, originally drafted in 1982, should
be updated and for there to be a new push for global leaders to ratify the document. Improved
technology could strengthen monitoring and enforcement of treaties, the panel said, making them more
effective. Interpol, for example, has launched a new unit called Project Scale devoted to detecting and
preventing illegal fishing.
Overfishing Ext – Sharks Internal
Overfishing harms sharks --- sharks key to food chain --- collapses marine ecosystems
DUJS 12, (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, member of the Directory of Open Access
Journals, an international group of science and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by
exercising peer review and editorial quality, “The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the
Commercial Level”, 3/11/12, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishingconsequences-at-the-commercial-level#.U8TgwmfjgwV) ADL
As previously mentioned, shark populations have also been greatly affected by overfishing. There are
already more than 135 species of shark on the IUCN’s list of endangered animals and more are being
added each year. For example, the number of scalloped hammerhead shark has decreased by 99% over
the past 30 years. Other species recently added to the endangered list include the smooth hammerhead,
shortfin mako, common thresher, big-eye thresher, silky, tiger, bull, and dusky (10). Besides being
caught as bycatch, sharks are now also being targeted by commercial fishermen for their fins which can
fetch a substantial price on the Asian food market. Sharks are particularly vulnerable to exploitation
because they have long life spans, are exceptionally slow to mature (taking as long as 16 years in some
cases), and are relatively unprolific breeders (11). Recent reports suggest that over fishing has caused a
90% decline in shark populations across the world’s oceans and up to 99% along the US east coast,
which are some of the best managed waters in the world. Because sharks are at the top of the food
chain, a decline in their numbers has devastating consequences on marine ecosystems (10).
Overfishing Extension – Genetic Diversity
Overfishing destroys genetic diversity
DUJS 12, (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, member of the Directory of Open Access
Journals, an international group of science and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by
exercising peer review and editorial quality, “The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the
Commercial Level”, 3/11/12, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishingconsequences-at-the-commercial-level#.U8TgwmfjgwV) ADL
Overfishing impacts not just the particular species that is exploited, but also damages other species of
fish and disrupts local ecosystems. The stability of ecological communities depends largely on the
interactions between predators and prey (12). Thereby, the balance of the food chain is disturbed when
certain species are removed. As a result, many ocean species are disappearing and losing their habitats.
The evolutionary process of marine species is also being altered, causing cycles of premature
reproduction and relative decreases in the size of fish across generations. As predators diminish, the
populations of smaller fish escalate because they were previously the food source of the bigger fish. In
addition, the disappearance of these species affects many other species, like seabirds and sea mammals,
which are vulnerable to the lack of food (2). A recent study found that overfishing is also decreasing the
genetic diversity of fish worldwide. Diversity is projected to be reduced further if overfishing continues
at the same rate (13). This has serious effects on nutrient recycling in marine ecosystems because fish
species vary widely in their rates of nitrogen and phosphorus excretion. As such, altering fish
communities creates divergent nutrient recycling patterns and disrupts the functioning of the
ecosystem. Recently conducted studies in lakes affected by overfishing show that loss of species
contributes to a decline in nutrient recycling and destabilizes the ecosystem (14).
China Advantage
Scenario 1 – The South China Sea
Current US policy in the South China Sea has contradictory goals and will fail – Chinese aggressions
since 2012 and on the rise – a new focus on diplomacy and international law is necessary
Vu and Thao 7/1 [Truong-Minh, h.D. Candidate at the Centre for Global Studies, University of Bonn
(Germany) and a lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, College of Social Sciences and
Humanities, Vietnam National University, Nghiem Anh, graduate student in Political Science at VU
University Amsterdam/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Changing Power, Changing
Interests: Freedom of Navigation in South China Sea, RSIS Commentaries, 7/1/2014,
http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/20091/RSIS1232014.pdf?sequence=1, 7/15/2014]
IN ALL the official (and also semi-official) documents, American interests and standpoints in the South
China Sea disputes can be covered by four main principles: promote regional peace, prosperity, and
security; be neutral in the overlapping sovereignty claims; maintain freedom of navigation; and
encourage peaceful settlement through adhering to international law. Nonetheless, China’s
assertiveness has forced the United States into a situation whereby it has no other choice but to
redefine its interests. This process, in fact, is directed by three contradictory priorities. US’ three
contradictory priorities First of all, the US needs to focus on protecting freedom of navigation and
remain neutral over sovereignty issues. However, China’s increasingly assertive behaviour since 2012
has pointed out that these two items are inter-connected. The oil rig HD-981, for instance, is likely to
be used as a “mobile territory” coded as declaring Chinese actual sovereignty over the Paracel
archipelago and surrounding area. By withholding Triton Island and labeling it a qualified island
according to Article 121 of UNCLOS, China has employed a new way to expand its maritime claims.
Secondly, the US should safeguard its regional allies (which will strengthen America’s post-1945 alliance
system), but not provoke harmful damage to Sino-American strategic partnership (especially restraining
armed conflicts from occurring). The Scarborough Shoal clash in 2012 shows that these two targets
could only be achieved in case China maintains its “taoguangyanghui” (meaning “not to show off one’s
capability but to keep a low profile”) policy, the concept that has been partially or even totally decried
by recent signals. And thirdly, the US seeks to assure American hegemony in the Asia-Pacific and at the
same time has to deal with domestic economic challenges by cutting the defence budget and
concentrating on saving the economy (creating jobs and the federal government's debt as an example).
Consequently, the US is in need of a policy which does not heavily lean on hard power and require
massive defence expenditures, but can be employed through other channels such as diplomacy and
international law.
UNCLOS ratification is a prerequisite to solving disputes in the South China Sea
Vu and Thao 7/1 [Truong-Minh, h.D. Candidate at the Centre for Global Studies, University of Bonn
(Germany) and a lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, College of Social Sciences and
Humanities, Vietnam National University, Nghiem Anh, graduate student in Political Science at VU
University Amsterdam/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Changing Power, Changing
Interests: Freedom of Navigation in South China Sea, RSIS Commentaries, 7/1/2014,
http://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10220/20091/RSIS1232014.pdf?sequence=1, 7/15/2014]
Since 2011, US strategies in the South China Sea can be generalised through five different channels: (i)
to oppose, or even threaten China’s aggressive behaviours in multilateral forum; (ii) to urge involved
parties to find a pacific conflict settlement based on international law (in this case, to support the
formation of a full Code of Conduct, COC, and to call for utilisation of the 1982 UNCLOS); (iii) to assist
regional allies by providing warships and military facilities for naval defence; (iv) to support cooperation
amongst US allies and potential partners; (v) to communicate with China (regarding not only the South
China Sea but also the East China Sea’s associated issues) about the costs of their expansion policy.
These approaches do not seem to fully serve US interests. A more active policy, therefore, is needed.
If the US desires to establish a rules-based order in the South China Sea, it should prioritise its own
ratification of UNCLOS, the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. This spirit was shared by President
Obama’s commencement speech at the US Military Academy Graduation Ceremony at West Point on
May 28 2014: “We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make
sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our
top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security”. The treaty provides not only a legal
basis but also the moral credibility and “strategic weapon” of the US in the South China Sea.
Ratification of LOST solves dispute with China – trade and economic integration
Hachigian, 2012 – Editor [Nina, editor of Debating China: The U.S. – China Relationship in Ten
Conversations, China’s Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, American Progress,
June 12, 2012, accessed July 20, 2014,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-big-reasonto-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/]
China’s rise adds to a growing list of reasons to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Senate
ratification of the treaty, which sets out a legal framework for conduct in the world’s oceans, will put the
United States in an even stronger position to preserve our freedom of navigation in the South and East
China Seas against any potential Chinese attempts to restrict our access, now and in the future. It will
also allow us to be an even more forceful advocate for a rules-based process when it comes to territorial
disputes in those waters and will lend Washington more credibility as it pushes China to follow
international laws and norms. Let’s start with that final reason. Ratification puts the United States in a
stronger position as it works to integrate China into the international system If the United States ratifies
the Law of the Sea Convention, we will have more credibility when we argue that China needs to
become a “responsible stakeholder”—in the words of former President George W. Bush’s Deputy
Secretary of State Robert Zoellick—in the international system. America has been pressing Beijing to join
international frameworks of rules and norms to create a level, predictable playing field for all; to bring
China into the work of tackling shared threats across the world; and to ensure that China’s rise supports
rather than disrupts the global system that America and our allies created after World War II. These
rules and norms support international trade and economic integration across the world and helped
enable China’s astronomical economic growth in recent decades.
Signing UNCLOS directly solves conflict in the South China Sea – Legal Uncertainty and A Framework
for Settling Disputes
Rothwell 12—Professor of International Law [Donald, Professor of International Law at the Australian
International University, “Should the US ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?”, East Asia
Forum (a platform for analysis and research on politics, economics, business, law, security, international
relations and society relevant to public policy, centered on the Asia Pacific region.), September 5 2012,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/09/05/should-the-us-ratify-the-un-convention-on-the-law-of-thesea/, Accessed: 7/18/14] AW
While the United States remains the only true global naval superpower, its Navy may not always enjoy
the same freedom of navigation. Over the past decade a number of incidents have occurred in which the
US has been challenged over its interpretation of the law of the sea, principally by China. These issues
were highlighted in March 2009 when the USNS Impeccable was harassed by five Chinese vessels while
operating in China’s exclusive economic zone south of Hainan Island. Following US protests China
responded that the Impeccable was operating in violation of both Chinese and international law. This
incident highlighted the legal uncertainty arising from the fact the US remains outside of the global
legally agreed framework for the management of the world’s oceans: the 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While the US supported the Convention in the 1970s, in
1981 the Reagan administration withdrew that support based on objections to provisions dealing with
the deep seabed. Notwithstanding 1994 modifications designed to directly address some of those
concerns, the US has never acceded to the Convention. This is in spite of support for the Convention
from both the Bush and Obama administrations and efforts throughout 2012 to build momentum for a
US Senate vote on accession. The US position on the law of the sea in general, and on the 1982
Convention in particular, is creating tension in the South China Sea. That President Obama and Secretary
of State Clinton have referred over the past two years to respect for the freedom of navigation, and
called for settlement of South China Sea disputes consistently with international law, has only served to
highlight how equivocal the US position on the law of the sea is. A total of 162 states have now
endorsed the Convention, including all of the major Western powers except the US. The major East
Asian and ASEAN powers are also parties. Both Japan and China ratified in 1996. As China emerges as a
global power, and one with a significant maritime domain, it is perhaps inevitable that issues will arise
between its interpretation of the law of the sea and that of other states. This has already occurred in the
South China Sea, where China is at odds with maritime neighbours such as the Philippines and Vietnam.
But, with all three countries parties to UNCLOS, there remains a common legal framework for
confidence building and ultimately dispute resolution. With the US not a party to the Convention, there
remains considerable scope for disagreement as to precisely what obligations are binding upon each
country.
South China Sea Solvency Ext
LOST KT prevent resource wars—management of resources
Hachigian 12-- Senior Fellow at American Progress [Nina, Senior Fellow at American Progress and the
former director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, “China’s Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law
of the Sea Convention”, Center For American Progress (an independent nonpartisan educational
institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action), June 12
2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-bigreason-to-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/, Accessed: 7/16/12] AW
Huge food and energy resources are at stake. Fish stocks in the region are horribly depleted and badly
managed, but there is soaring demand for fish from growing populations in neighboring countries with
rising wealth and more appetite for animal protein. The South China Sea has nearly one-tenth of the
world’s fisheries used for human consumption, which is impressive considering its relatively small size.
Hostile incidents are on the rise, as fishing boats enter disputed waters more often in search of their
quarry, backed (tacitly or not) by their governments. The stakes go even higher in terms of energy
extraction. New technologies are now making it possible to explore and extract oil and natural gas from
the deep ocean. And according to a recent report, the South China Sea likely “holds about 15.6 billion
barrels of petroleum, of which about 1.6 billion barrels are recoverable.” Some Chinese estimates are
higher by a factor of 10. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the seabed also holds nearly 300
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These numbers are speculative, but even if they are partially accurate,
they make the South China Sea a significant potential source for energy resources. China claims as their
“historical waters” more than three-fourths of the South China Sea, delineated by the so-called nine–
dash line, pictured below.
UNCLOS key to preventing China from testing its power in Asia Pacific
Bower and Poling 12 (Ernest Z. Bower, Senior Adviser and Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies,
Gregory B. Poling, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, “Advancing
the National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea,”
http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea Accessed on
July 17, 2014)DM
The debate over ratifying of the treaty began in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan refused to send it
to Congress even for a discussion. The argument grew more heated following the renegotiation of the
treaty leading to its entering into force in 1994. Those renegotiations addressed most of Reagan’s
concerns and drew the active support of President Bill Clinton, though not of his opponents in the
Congress.¶ More recently, the treaty was vigorously advanced by President George W. Bush and
brought before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2007. That effort failed to reach the Senate
floor and the bill was shelved again.¶ This month, a new effort is under way amid a substantially
changed international context. Senator John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has
scheduled a series of hearings, led off by strong statements from both Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta
May 23. General Dempsey also testified, asking the Senate to act to support the national security
interests of the United States. Among other reasons given, Dempsey noted that “joining the convention
would provide us another way to stave off conflict with less risk of escalation.” That message of support
for ratification is consistent with the views of every chairman of the Joint Chiefs since 1994.¶ What sets
the upcoming hearings apart from those that preceded them is that the United States is entering an era
when leadership and credulity are earned by actions and influence sustained through consistency. A
rising China will continue to test the limits of its power in the Asia Pacific. History shows that nations,
including our own, have consistently explored converting economic power to political might. We do not
know what China wants or what it wants to be. So U.S. strategy involves convincing China and other
nations in the Asia-Pacific region that China’s interests will be most effectively and sustainably advanced
by engaging in regional frameworks in which it makes the rules along with others, by abiding by
international laws, and by promoting and investing in public goods. This process will take time, but it can
be successful only if other countries believe the United States is willing to commit itself to these
standards and norms.
UNCLOS can no longer be delayed – Asia Pacific credibility at risk
Bower and Powling ’12 senior adviser and director of the Southeast Asia Program [ Ernest Z. Bowzer,
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Gregory Poling is a
research assistant with the CSIS Southeast Asia Program. Gregory B. Powling, Sumitro Chair for
Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, Advancing the National Interests of the United
States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Center for Strategic International Studies,
http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea]
The credibility of the United States in the Asia Pacific is at stake on a decision whether to ratify the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While there are other compelling
arguments for ratification, none is as urgent as the requirement for the United States to solidify its
commitment to the rule of international law, including in the Asia Pacific. This is particularly true in
regard to one of the world’s most important foreign policy and security challenges: resolving disputes in
the South China Sea.
This week, the Obama administration went all in on UNCLOS and sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, to
testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of ratification. The ball is now in the
Senate’s court.
A decision to anchor the United States in UNCLOS is one that cannot be delayed. The president has
wisely refocused the country on Asia to advance U.S. interests, from economic recovery and growth to
regional peace and security to developing new sources of innovation. Countries around the Asia Pacific
are assessing whether the United States has the political will, the pocketbook, and the commitment to
further institutionalize its presence in the region. UNCLOS ratification is necessary to answer those
important questions in the affirmative.
LOST KT US prevent South Asia conflict
Hachigian 12-- Senior Fellow at American Progress [Nina, Senior Fellow at American Progress and the
former director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, “China’s Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law
of the Sea Convention”, Center For American Progress (an independent nonpartisan educational
institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action), June 12
2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-bigreason-to-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/, Accessed: 7/16/12] AW
These claims are generally considered outrageous by everyone except the Chinese, who have kept the
justification for them (and the nature of the claims themselves) ambiguous. The Obama administration
has done an admirable job of standing with other Southeast Asian countries trying to resist China’s
pressure in these territorial disputes. The administration has called for a multilateral process based on
the rule of law, rather than the bilateral approach Beijing prefers. But the U.S. position would be much
stronger if the United States could simply say that, “The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention should govern
this dispute.” As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained in her recent testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee: I’m sure you have followed the claims countries are making in the South
China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital interests, particularly freedom of
navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the convention, we would
have greater credibility in invoking the convention’s rules and a greater ability to enforce them.
LOST KT solve South Asia War—credibility and navy access
Burt 12--national security reporter [Andrew, former political reporter on national security for
InsideDefense.com , “Why U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty”, The Hill, May 25 2012,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/229559-why-us-senate-should-ratify-law-of-thesea-treaty, Accessed: 7/16/14] AW
Over 160 countries have ratified the treaty, which the United States helped to create, but the U.S. still
has not – significantly impeding its ability to handle a range of pressing issues. As one senior government
official told me, “This is America’s black eye.” And that black eye is only getting worse. But first, some
background: The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea was finalized in 1982 after a decade’s worth of
work. The treaty sought to define common international norms for use of the seas, hoping to settle
longstanding maritime disputes through an international regulatory authority – a main point of
contention for the treaty’s critics. Subjecting the U.S. to international laws, they say, would diminish U.S.
sovereignty on the high seas. Fast-forward three decades and you find an Obama Administration with its
hands tied behind its back – unlike any administration before it – for two reasons. The first reason:
China. Over the last few years, the Chinese government has grown more assertive over its territorial
claims to the South China Sea, attempting to enforce ownership of long- disputed islands in the region
and seeking to keep U.S. Navy ships from surveying those waters. The U.S. government, along with
China’s neighbors, has pushed back, conducting naval exercises and publicly strengthening regional ties.
The problem, however, is that the heart of the conflict between China and the U.S. boils down to
different interpretations over UNCLOS and the rights the treaty provides. It’s those same officials who,
in the course of negotiating with the Chinese, are calling UNCLOS Uncle Sam’s black eye. As John Norton
Moore, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School and the head of the Center for Oceans Law
and Policy, told me: “It’s very difficult for the United States to protect its interests when we’re not a
party.” There’s only so much officials can say when the Chinese point out that the U.S. is attempting to
enforce its interpretations of laws it hasn’t even ratified. As long as the U.S. remains on the list of
countries that have yet to pass the treaty – keeping company with such notables as Burundi, Iran and
Ethiopia – the Chinese have a point. The second reason the treaty’s importance is increasing is the
Arctic. Last summer saw the lowest total volume of Arctic ice in recorded history, and the U.S. Navy
estimates the region will be ice free one month out of the year by 2040. As the ice melts, the Arctic is
changing, opening up new shipping routes and new opportunities to reach vast resources on the seabed.
So long as the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, it will not have access to the international body created by
UNCLOS to delegate rights in these waters – rights that other Arctic countries are already in the process
of shoring up. The good news is that, as of last week, the administration appears to have taken up the
cause. “Accession to this treaty is absolutely essential,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. “We believe that it is imperative to act now,” said Hillary
Clinton. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that the treaty might even
help prevent future wars by providing new venues to “stave off conflict with less risk of escalation.” But
doubts over finding the 67 votes needed in the Senate remain. The last time UNCLOS made it to the
floor was under the George W. Bush Administration’s backing. Mark Helmke, a spokesman for Senator
Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), a key supporter of the treaty, explained that effort to me in a conversation last year:
“It’s a classic case where a well-organized minority can stop something that is supported by the broad
majority.” Far-right groups used the “internationalist” threat they saw in the treaty for fundraising, and
Lugar’s office was berated with phone calls from constituents who sincerely worried “that the law of the
sea meant the U.N. could take over every single fishing pond in the state.” UNCLOS died on the Senate
floor. The Obama Administration deserves credit for tackling a long-ignored but pressing issue,
especially in an election year. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to take note: the longer it waits to ratify the
treaty, the blacker Uncle Sam’s eye will be.
Negotiations about the South China Sea stalled until we ratify the treaty – U.S is more
credible
Hachigian, 2012 – Editor [Nina, editor of Debating China: The U.S. – China Relationship in Ten
Conversations, China’s Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, American Progress,
June 12, 2012, accessed July 20, 2014,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-big-reasonto-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/]
China has a different—and hard to justify—interpretation of the convention. It asserts that it has
jurisdiction over all foreign military activity in its exclusive economic zone. Unfortunately, in debates
with China and others, the United States is forced to advance our arguments about these issues from a
position of weakness. Our encounters with the Chinese on this subject go something like this: Chinese
official: Your Navy ships have no right to be in our exclusive economic zone without our permission.
American official: Yes they do. The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention, which reflects customary
international law, provides that other states have freedom of navigation in exclusive economic zones.
Chinese official: You are not a party to convention, so it doesn’t matter what it says—you have no
standing to make that argument. As you can see, our discussions get sidetracked from the real issues
into our inexplicable nonparty status. If America ratified the convention, we’d be in a much stronger
position to assert our rights and contest China’s anomalous position—that America needs China’s
permission for our military assets to travel in, above, and below China’s (substantial) exclusive economic
zone, up to 200 miles from its shores.
Ratifying LOST key to credibility – solves conflicts in the South China Seas
Hachigian, 2012 – Editor [Nina, editor of Debating China: The U.S. – China Relationship in Ten
Conversations, China’s Rise Is A Big R;’eason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention, American Progress,
June 12, 2012, accessed July 20, 2014,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-big-reasonto-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/]
The tables are turned on the Law of the Sea: Because of our failure to ratify the convention, the United
States stands outside the international system that we champion. China, 161 other nations, and the
European Union have all ratified the convention. The United States remains a “nonparty” to the
convention, along with a handful of other nations, including some political pariahs such as Syria, North
Korea, and Iran. It is difficult for America to be a credible champion of rules and norms in the
international system when we have not signed on to the international law that governs what can
happen in the oceans that cover nearly three-fourths of the planet. Ratification gives us a stronger
position as we navigate issues in the South China Sea
More specifically, ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention will lock in the terms that are extremely
favorable to America in our disputes with China over freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. We
currently have regular disagreements with the Chinese over where America’s military assets can travel
in the oceans near China’s shores. The Law of the Sea would address these issues because it explicitly
lays out rules and definitions in ways that the United States helped shape when the convention was
written.
South China Sea – Tensions High Now – Ext
Tensions in the South China sea are high—territorial disputes
Denmark 14-- Vice President for Political and Security Affairs [Abraham, Vice President for Political and
Security Affairs at The National Bureau of Asian Research, “Could Tensions in the South China Sea Spark
a War?”, The National Interest (A quarterly journal of international affairs and diplomacy), May 31,
2014, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-tensions-the-south-china-sea-spark-war-10572,
Accessed: 7/19/14] AW
In the South China Sea, where China’s ambitious “nine-dash line” claim of sovereignty has been disputed
by several other claimants, relations have in recent weeks turned remarkably chillier. Vietnam and the
Philippines are facing the brunt of Beijing’s ire, and the potential for crisis and conflict is significant.
Positions are hardening, willingness to compromise is low, and the fact that the Philippines is an ally of
the United States raises the potential for a disastrous crisis and potential conflict between the U.S. and
China. The clash between China and Vietnam has attracted more attention in recent days. Just a few
days after President Obama’s visit to the region, a Chinese mobile oil rig took position in a carefully
selected site that, while closer to the Vietnam mainland than China’s Hainan Island, is just fourteen
nautical miles from Chinese-occupied island, a part of the Paracel Island group that is claimed by both
China and Vietnam. China sent a large flotilla of ships to escort the derrick; a group that included several
armed Naval vessels. After Hanoi expressed outrage at this action and violence against Chinese nationals
across Vietnam, Beijing expanded the escort flotilla to over 100 ships. Most recently, Chinese ships
interdicted, rammed, and sunk a Vietnamese fishing vessel that was challenging the derrick. Vietnam
claims that four ships were attacked in all, and now there are reportedly 113 ships standing off against
sixty Vietnamese vessels. Similar incidents have played out in recent months between China and the
Philippines. After China took effective control over the Scarborough Shoal in 2012, Beijing seemed to set
its sights on the Second Thomas Shoal—a small land formation about 105 nautical miles from the
Philippines but is claimed by both countries. To buttress its claim, the Philippines in 1999 intentionally
beached the hospital ship Sierra Madre on the reef and has maintained a small crew on the beached
craft ever since (see an exceptional piece about the sailors on the ship and the broader dispute by the
New York Times here). Most recently, the Philippines arrested a group of Chinese fishermen found 70
miles from the Philippines near Half Moon Shoal with a ship filled with endangered (and valuable)
turtles. To an outsider, all this hyperbole and saber rattling about small rocks, oil derricks, fishermen,
and turtles must seem like much ado about nothing. Yet it is deadly serious—these seemingly trivial
issues are used as avatars for deadly serious questions about history, power, ambition, and national
sovereignty. An examination of how countries see these issues and how they have behaved in the past
provides a window for how they are likely to act in the future. It’s not a comforting thought. The
common denominator in all of the South China Sea’s existing disputes is China. Beijing serves as the
primary catalyst for tension and crisis in these disputes. Its declaration of a nine-dash line claim of
sovereignty that covers almost the entire Sea is stunning in its ambition and audaciousness: in April,
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific Daniel Russel described the claim as lacking any
“apparent basis under international law regarding the scope of the claim itself.” That’s because China
has justified its claim by asserting its historical control over those waters, yet the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—which sets standards for defining territorial waters, exclusive economic
zones, and the land features that generate them—does not allow for claims based on history. Moreover,
while various Chinese dynasties have at various times controlled various islands within the South China
Sea, China has never controlled all of them at the same time.
South China Sea tensions rising – Chinese base building and territorial disputes
Carlson 14-- GlobalPost’s senior correspondent [Benjamin, GlobalPost’s senior correspondent covering
China, “China is playing chicken with the US military in the South China Sea”, Global Post (American,
web-based news organization to provide daily international news coverage by its own correspondents
all over the world), January 30 2014, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asiapacific/china/140127/china-US-military-confrontation-south-china-sea-chicken, Accessed: 7/19/14] AW
HONG KONG — As anyone who has seen “Rebel Without a Cause” knows, playing chicken is dangerous
for California teenagers in hot-rods. But playing chicken with warships, cruisers, and fighter jets — well,
that’s just another level of crazy. Unfortunately, vessels from the US military and from other countries
increasingly find themselves in such high-stakes confrontations on the East Asian seas, where China has
adopted a strategy of making rivals flinch or risk collision. Just this week, Chinese sailors parked three
ships on a disputed reef 50 miles from the Malaysian coast and performed a ceremony in which they
swore an oath “to safeguard [China’s] sovereignty and territorial interests.” Malaysia also claims the
reef, and is building a naval base nearby to protect it against China’s claim. That’s just the latest in an
escalating series of incidents. In November, China declared its right to patrol and regulate a large swath
of airspace, including a zone controlled by Japan and areas regularly used by the US military. Since then,
China says it has repeatedly dispatched surveillance planes to tail, monitor, and identify foreign fighters.
In December, a Chinese ship halted in the path of the USS Cowpens, in international waters, forcing it to
change course or risk a crash. The American cruiser complied. Then in January, China’s southernmost
province of Hainan announced that police vessels had begun enforcing a law requiring “all foreigners or
foreign ships” to get approval before they could fish in 2 million square kilometers of sea — an area five
times the size of California. The claimed territory encompasses waters long plied by fisherman from
Vietnam and the Philippines. While none of those incidents has yet led to bloodshed or to any formal
cession of territory, they have yielded de-facto results. And collectively, they show the genius and risks
in China’s plan to wrest control of the South China Sea, one provocation at a time.
Scenario 2 – Rare Earth Minerals
No US production of rare earth minerals now
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Until a decade ago, the United States was 100 percent self-reliant for rare earth production, with
domestic companies producing enough to supply U.S. manufacturers. Over time, however, U.S.
production was halted as it became economically and environmentally cost prohibitive.
Companies in various countries including the United States are looking at reopening closed mines and
developing new deposits, but these efforts could take a number of years to fully come on line.
The military is dependent on China for Rare Earth Minerals – key to tech and national security
Parsons 12—defense reporter [Dan, Senior Editor at National Defense Magazine, “U.S. Remains
Dependent on China for Rare Earth Elements “, National Defense Magazine (an association for the
United States government and the defense industry), June 2012,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/June/Pages/USRemainsDependentonChinaforR
areEarthElements.aspx, Accessed: 7/17/14] AW
The U.S. military is almost completely dependent on China for the rare earth elements that go into
everything from batteries to precision-guided bombs, according to a report by the Congressional
Research Service. U.S. materials manufacturers recognize the Chinese near-monopoly as a national
security issue and are encouraging a debate over how to regain the nation’s ability to create these
valuable substances, said Vijendra Sahi, vice president of government affairs for Palo Alto, Calif.-based
Nanosys. “China is right on our heels. We still have a slight lead, but it’s not a very large lead,” Sahi said
of battery manufacturing technology. “While we make a lot of the finished cells for batteries here, a lot,
if not most, of the chemistry is sourced from China.” China produces 97 percent of the world’s rare
earth oxides, said a Congressional Research Service report published in April. It is also the only exporter
of commercial quantities of refined rare earth elements, the report concluded. “There may be
repercussions if these materials are not available for commercial and defense applications,” the CRS
report said. “The rare earths supply chain vulnerability question may adversely affect the ability of the
United States to plan strategically for its national security needs.”
Rare earth metals are key to overall US tech dominance
Halley 13-- policy analyst [Anthony, former policy analyst at the Trade and Agriculture Directorate of the
OECD (an international economic organization of 34 countries founded in 1961 to stimulate economic
progress and world trade), “US lobby warns Pentagon against further dependence on Chinese rare
earths”, MINING.com (the premier digital publication covering the global mining sector), March 28 2013,
http://www.mining.com/us-lobby-warns-pentagon-against-further-dependence-on-chinese-rare-earths65002/, Accessed: 7/17/14] AW
The Strategic Materials Advisory Council, a US lobby group, has called the Department of Defense's
(DoD) decision to stockpile $120.43 million of heavy rare earth elements (HREEs) a "risky mitigation
strategy" and urges "the creation and nurturing of a US-based rare earth supply chain", reported
Resource Investing News earlier today. Rare earth metals are crucial to the production of a number
high-tech and energy-related goods like smart phones, flat-screen TVs, drills, wind turbines, and electric
cars. And without heavy rare earths, fighter jets, drones, and most computer-controlled equipment
would have to undertake a lengthy process of redevelopment. The council points out that the US has
become far too dependent on China, which currently produces 90% of global rare earth metals.
Manufacturing high now but on the brink – a current Chinese monopoly on rare earth minerals
threatens national security and US competitiveness
Perry 12—professor of economics[Mark, a scholar at AEI, “Dangerous dependence: US increasingly
beholden to imported raw material”, American Enterprise Institute, April 5 2012,
http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/natural-resources/dangerous-dependence-usincreasingly-beholden-to-imported-raw-material/, Accessed: 7/17/14] AW
Despite China's emergence as an economic power and all the talk about how America has become a
service economy, U.S. manufacturing is alive and well. Judging by impressive gains in productivity and
America's high-tech advantage, manufacturing in the United States has shown surprising resiliency.
While the nation's overall economy grew only 1.7 percent last year, the manufacturing sector of U.S.
industrial production increased at almost three times that rate, rising 4.7 percent. And manufacturing
output in the Midwest rose by a robust 8.4 percent last year, indicating that America's manufacturing
heartland is leading the industrial comeback. But there is a fly in the ointment. In recent years, the
United States has become dangerously dependent on imports of raw materials that are needed to
keep our economy moving. U.S. manufacturers are now more than 40 percent dependent on imports
of many commodity and rare earth metals. For example, import reliance on gallium is at 94 percent,
cobalt and titanium 81 percent, chromium 56 percent, silicon 44 percent and nickel 43 percent. These
minerals are critical for defense and energy technologies and many high-tech consumer products.
Consider nickel, which is needed in the manufacture of stainless steel and electricity storage batteries,
among other things. Oregon has the only U.S. mine producing nickel. Almost all of the domestic nickel
comes from recycling alloys containing nickel. Now, thanks to a $100-million-plus investment by Rio
Tinto, the Eagle nickel mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula is expected to open in 2014, producing
16,000 tons of nickel and 10,000 tons of copper. Rio Tinto's investment is a promising and important
start toward mineral security for U.S. manufacturers. But we are also heavily dependent on foreign
countries for 19 minerals, mainly rare earth minerals. Few of us are familiar with rare earth minerals,
such as neodymium, samarium and dysprosium, but they are crucial in the manufacture of jet fighter
engines, antimissile defense systems, night vision goggles and smart bombs, among other advanced
military systems. And they have many other high-tech applications — computers, cell phones and flatpanel televisions, for example. Additionally, they are essential to petroleum refining, automotive
catalytic converters, wind turbines and electric vehicles. Fortunately, a rare earth mine in California is
now producing some minerals. But it alone can't meet the fast-growing demand for the metals. This
foreign dependency presents a conundrum for policymakers, because unlike the 12-member
multinational OPEC cartel that supplies much of our oil, the foreign production of rare earth minerals is
concentrated almost entirely in a single country with its own rising industrial demand: China. China's
leverage on the global market for rare earth minerals has unnerved many of its neighbors and trading
partners: American manufacturers — including many in Michigan — are understandably worried about
supply disruptions like the one in 2007 when China halted shipments of rare earth metals to a U.S.
petroleum refining company for so long that it led to concerns that the cutoff might cause a nationwide
gasoline shortage. In 2010, following a skirmish over fishing rights in the East China Sea, China cut off
shipments of certain rare earth minerals to Japan. And our industries pay a steep price for China's near
monopoly position on many critical resources. Costs soared two years ago after China reduced its export
quotas for the minerals. For example, the price of lanthanium oxide, a mineral used in refining
petroleum, rose from $5 per kilogram in early 2010 to $35 per kilogram by mid-year and $140 per
kilogram in June 2011. Such market power, if not addressed soon and effectively, could harm the U.S.
economy and national security.
<<Insert Heg Impact>>
<<Insert Competitiveness Impact>>
LOST solves US dependence on China— access to rare earth materials
AFP 12-- an international news agency [Agence France-Presse, The international news agency
headquartered in Paris and It is the oldest news agency in the world and one of the largest, “Businesses
push U.S. to ratify Law of the Sea treaty”, Raw Story (a progressive news site that focuses on stories
often ignored in the mainstream media), June 28 2012, Accessed: 7/16/12,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/28/businesses-push-us-to-ratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty/] AW
American businesses are urging the United States to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, saying it is
needed to boost crucial domestic energy production and end China’s near-monopoly on rare earths.
Stepping up pressure on legislators to sign off on the 30-year-old pact, a broad alliance of
manufacturers, miners, shippers and oil explorers said doing so would guarantee their exclusive access
to economic resources reaching up to 600 miles (1,000 km) from the US shoreline. With China
controlling 95 percent of the world’s rare earths production, ratification of the treaty “offers the best
path to break China’s dominance,” Roger Ballantine, a board member of The Association for Rare Earth
(RARE), said Wednesday. Ballantine, speaking at a news forum on the eve of a Senate hearing on the
treaty, said that failure to ratify the treaty “will only worsen a very troubling disadvantage America has.”
His comments came against the backdrop of an escalating trade dispute with China over restrictions on
its rare earths exports. On Wednesday, the US, European Union and Japan ratcheted up their complaint
at the World Trade Organization by asking for a dispute settlement committee after consultations failed.
The United States is the only industrialized power which has yet to ratify the treaty. RARE has joined a
broad coalition of the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, the
Chamber of Shipping of America, defense contractors, energy industry and other groups to press for
ratification. Supporters argue that ratification will give US businesses the legal framework for
investment in costly, high-tech exploration and development. Key among its advantages, they say,
would be to legitimize US claims to vast areas of the energy-rich Arctic, and unfettered access to lay and
maintain undersea communications cables. It would also give greater access to undersea rare earth
minerals, which are widely used in smartphones, flat-screen TVs, medical equipment and US defense
systems. Opponents say the treaty could actually limit US businesses’ access to undersea mineral
wealth, by giving power to the International Seabed Authority to decide access rights; they also say the
treaty could impinge on the movements around the world of the US Navy. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin
Dempsey have all argued in favor of the treaty. Jeff Pike, who leads The American Sovereignty
Campaign, the lobby in favor of the treaty, said ratification was now more than ever urgent, citing the
importance of global communications links and also the melting ice in the Arctic that was opening up
shipping.
Manufacturing Scenario
LOST needed to access rare earth minerals—key to manufacturing competitiveness
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Rare Earth Minerals are Vital to Manufacturing Manufacturers in the United States require access to
basic inputs for the production process in order to become and remain competitive in the global
economy. As manufacturing grows more high tech, "rare earth" minerals are becoming increasingly
important to manufacturers and their supply chains. Rare earth minerals consist of 17 elements that are
important for numerous manufacturing applications, including in the production of chemicals, defense
products, consumer electronics, wind turbines, hybrid car batteries and other renewable energy
products. They are also used as catalysts for petroleum refining. Until a decade ago, the United States
was 100 percent self-reliant for rare earth production, with domestic companies producing enough to
supply U.S. manufacturers. Over time, however, U.S. production was halted as it became economically
and environmentally cost prohibitive. Companies in various countries including the United States are
looking at reopening closed mines and developing new deposits, but these efforts could take a number
of years to fully come on line. The deep seabed offers a new opportunity for the United States to gain
steady access to these vital rare earth minerals. Polymetallic nodules are located on the deep ocean
floor. These nodules typically contain manganese, nickel, copper, cobalt and rare earth minerals.
However, U.S. companies cannot actively pursue claims in the areas where these nodules are dense
unless the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty.
US rare earth mineral production key to the economy—China holds virtual monopoly now and only
LOST solves
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Our nation's ability to access rare earth minerals may be the most pressing economic security issue we
face. Today, a single country China holds a virtual monopoly on the mining and production of rare earth
elements. China produces more than 90 percent of the world's supply and also consumes roughly 60
percent of that supply. Brazil, India, Malaysia and Canada are the other sources of the remaining paltry
supply of rare earths. China recently imposed significant export restrictions on its rare earth production.
In 2010, it announced it would cut exports of rare earth minerals by 40 percent by 2012. Just last week,
Chinese officials released a white paper defending the country's export control restrictions on rare
earths. Earlier this year, the U.S. joined with Japan and the European Union to file complaints with the
World Trade Organization (WTO) over China's export policies on rare earths. Experts believe China may
eventually consume 100 percent of the rare earth minerals that it produces, jeopardizing U.S.
manufacturers' access to these materials and, at the very least, significantly driving up costs for
companies that use these minerals. These increased costs would impose significant and detrimental
costs on the many millions of consumers who use these products and could have a profound negative
impact on U.S. national security. At the same time, the Chinese are accelerating their own deep seabed
mining efforts. They have increased government funding for seabed mining, and the government
announced a $75 million national deep sea technology base in 2010. China is also expanding its
engagement with the ISA, where it secured one of the four ISA exploration licenses issued in 2011. The
Chinese can boast more than 20 years of sustained technical and political efforts to develop the deep
seabed, funded by the government. A close look at the map of claims in the Clarion Clipperton Zone
(CCZ), a location in the Pacific Ocean that is rich with rare earths, shows active claims by China, Japan
and Russia "planting their flags," so to speak. Recently published reports have indicated that the Chinese
are actively surveying other claim areas in the CCZ, including those of the U.S. Russia, Tonga and Nauru
were also granted deep seabed mining licenses by the ISA last year. At last count, the ISA has 17 pending
or completed applications for exploration up from just eight in 2010. Only ratification of the Law of the
Sea Convention and engagement with the ISA will provide a sufficient mechanism to secure
international recognition of U.S.-based claims and rights. Manufacturers and consumers will benefit
from a more diverse and competitive market for rare earths, and deep seabed mining is an opportunity
for the U.S. to quickly diversify its rare earth sources.
Companies reluctant to invest in deep seabed mining—US can’t represent their interests without
ratifying LOST
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Deep seabed mining is an emerging global industry and, indeed, a key ingredient to economic growth
and competitiveness. We have companies in the United States with the means to explore and develop
the resources and minerals on and in the seabeds of international waters, but they will only do so if
there is a structure that contains internationally recognized agreements in place. This treaty will
institute that legal framework upon which companies and countries can rely. U.S. multinational
companies expect other countries to abide by international standards and rules in other areas, such as
intellectual property, counterfeiting, dumping, and international financing. So do we. It, therefore, is
logical that we would expect the same when determining our ability to access the resources of the
seabed. The Law of the Sea Convention provides the only internationally recognized legal regime for
extracting mineral resources from the ocean floor in the deep seabed, an area over which no country
has sovereign rights. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) develops the rules, regulations and
procedures relating to the deep seabed. The Convention guarantees the United States, and only the
United States, a permanent seat on the decision-making Council of the ISA with an effective veto over
decisions impacting U.S. interests. The development of deep seabed claims is incredibly expensive.
Companies in the U.S. are reluctant to invest heavily in deep seabed mining because of the risk that their
activities would not withstand a legal challenge since the U.S. is not a party to the Convention.
Conversely, foreign companies, because their governments have joined the Convention, have access to
the international bodies that grant the legal claims to operate in the deep seabed area. The U.S. cannot
represent the interests of its companies in those bodies. Lockheed Martin, for example, has two deep
seabed claims that pre-date the Law of the Sea Convention. It has continued to extend its licenses
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These claims will be instantly
recognized by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) if the U.S. joins the Convention. However,
without the U.S. becoming a party to the Convention, Lockheed Martin is unable to secure U.S.
sponsorship of these claims at the ISA.
Manufacturing Uniqueness
US Manufacturing on decline now—recent rapid loss
Baily et. al 14 (Martin Neil Baily, Barry Bosworth, Bernard Schwartz, economist at Brookings Institute
and former Cabinet member, CEO of Loral Space and Communications, economist at Brookings Institute,
respectively, “US Manufacturing: Understanding Its Past and Its Potential Future The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Volume 28, Number 1, Winter 2014, pp. 3-25(23) )
On the other hand, there are some potential causes for concern. First, though manufacturing’s output
share of GDP has remained stable over 50 years, and manufacturing retains a reputation as a sector of
rapid productivity improvements, this is largely due to the spectacular performance of one subsector of
manufacturing: computers and electronics. Meanwhile, the 90 percent of manufacturing that lies
outside the computer and electronics industry has seen its share of real GDP fall substantially, while its
productivity growth has been fairly slow. Complicating the matter, the data on output and purchased
inputs suffers special measurement issues, raising questions about whether real output and productivity
growth are overstated. Second, although manufacturing’s share of total US employment has declined
steadily over the last 50 years (see Figure 1), recently there has been a large drop in the absolute level of
manufacturing employment that many find alarming. After holding steady at about 17 million jobs
through the 1990s, manufacturing payroll employment dropped by 5.7 million between 2000 and 2010.
In large measure, the explanation lies with the equally striking decline of employment in the economy as
a whole during the Great Recession and its aftermath, but the size of the absolute job loss deserves
further examination. Third, the US manufacturing sector runs an enormous trade deficit that had
already reached $316 billion by 2000, hit $542 billion in 2005, and remains very high despite the
recession, equaling $460 billion in 2012; the manufacturing deficit is also very concentrated in trade
with Asia, which represented over three-quarters of the deficit in 2000 and more than 100 percent in
2012. In 2000, only about one-third of the large deficit with Asia was accounted for by trade with China,
but since then China has greatly increased its share, rising to 72 percent by 2012.
Manufacturing Rare Earths Uniqueness Ext
No US production of rare earth minerals now
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Until a decade ago, the United States was 100 percent self-reliant for rare earth production, with
domestic companies producing enough to supply U.S. manufacturers. Over time, however, U.S.
production was halted as it became economically and environmentally cost prohibitive.
Companies in various countries including the United States are looking at reopening closed mines and
developing new deposits, but these efforts could take a number of years to fully come on line.
Current US supply of rare earth minerals is unsustainable—risks economic and security
collapse
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Our nation's ability to access rare earth minerals may be the most pressing economic security issue we
face. Today, a single country China holds a virtual monopoly on the mining and production of rare earth
elements. China produces more than 90 percent of the world's supply and also consumes roughly 60
percent of that supply. Brazil, India, Malaysia and Canada are the other sources of the remaining paltry
supply of rare earths. China recently imposed significant export restrictions on its rare earth production.
In 2010, it announced it would cut exports of rare earth minerals by 40 percent by 2012. Just last week,
Chinese officials released a white paper defending the country's export control restrictions on rare
earths. Earlier this year, the U.S. joined with Japan and the European Union to file complaints with the
World Trade Organization (WTO) over China's export policies on rare earths. Experts believe China may
eventually consume 100 percent of the rare earth minerals that it produces, jeopardizing U.S.
manufacturers' access to these materials and, at the very least, significantly driving up costs for
companies that use these minerals. These increased costs would impose significant and detrimental
costs on the many millions of consumers who use these products and could have a profound negative
impact on U.S. national security. At the same time, the Chinese are accelerating their own deep seabed
mining efforts. They have increased government funding for seabed mining, and the government
announced a $75 million national deep sea technology base in 2010. China is also expanding its
engagement with the ISA, where it secured one of the four ISA exploration licenses issued in 2011. The
Chinese can boast more than 20 years of sustained technical and political efforts to develop the deep
seabed, funded by the government. A close look at the map of claims in the Clarion Clipperton Zone
(CCZ), a location in the Pacific Ocean that is rich with rare earths, shows active claims by China, Japan
and Russia "planting their flags," so to speak. Recently published reports have indicated that the Chinese
are actively surveying other claim areas in the CCZ, including those of the U.S. Russia, Tonga and Nauru
were also granted deep seabed mining licenses by the ISA last year. At last count, the ISA has 17 pending
or completed applications for exploration up from just eight in 2010. Only ratification of the Law of the
Sea Convention and engagement with the ISA will provide a sufficient mechanism to secure
international recognition of U.S.-based claims and rights. Manufacturers and consumers will benefit
from a more diverse and competitive market for rare earths, and deep seabed mining is an opportunity
for the U.S. to quickly diversify its rare earth sources.
Manufacturing Rare Earths Solvency - Mining
Deep seabed mining solves—but US companies will only invest with ratification of
LOST
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
The deep seabed offers a new opportunity for the United States to gain steady access to these vital rare
earth minerals. Polymetallic nodules are located on the deep ocean floor. These nodules typically
contain manganese, nickel, copper, cobalt and rare earth minerals. However, U.S. companies cannot
actively pursue claims in the areas where these nodules are dense unless the U.S. ratifies the Law of the
Sea Treaty. Deep Seabed Development There is no doubt the world is very different today. We are a
global economy, and countries are working feverishly to take our mantle of economic leadership away
from us. Deep seabed mining is an emerging global industry and, indeed, a key ingredient to economic
growth and competitiveness. We have companies in the United States with the means to explore and
develop the resources and minerals on and in the seabeds of international waters, but they will only do
so if there is a structure that contains internationally recognized agreements in place. This treaty will
institute that legal framework upon which companies and countries can rely. U.S. multinational
companies expect other countries to abide by international standards and rules in other areas, such as
intellectual property, counterfeiting, dumping, and international financing. So do we. It, therefore, is
logical that we would expect the same when determining our ability to access the resources of the
seabed. The Law of the Sea Convention provides the only internationally recognized legal regime for
extracting mineral resources from the ocean floor in the deep seabed, an area over which no country
has sovereign rights. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) develops the rules, regulations and
procedures relating to the deep seabed. The Convention guarantees the United States, and only the
United States, a permanent seat on the decision-making Council of the ISA with an effective veto over
decisions impacting U.S. interests. The development of deep seabed claims is incredibly expensive.
Companies in the U.S. are reluctant to invest heavily in deep seabed mining because of the risk that their
activities would not withstand a legal challenge since the U.S. is not a party to the Convention.
Conversely, foreign companies, because their governments have joined the Convention, have access to
the international bodies that grant the legal claims to operate in the deep seabed area. The U.S. cannot
represent the interests of its companies in those bodies. Lockheed Martin, for example, has two deep
seabed claims that pre-date the Law of the Sea Convention. It has continued to extend its licenses
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These claims will be instantly
recognized by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) if the U.S. joins the Convention. However,
without the U.S. becoming a party to the Convention, Lockheed Martin is unable to secure U.S.
sponsorship of these claims at the ISA.
Rare Earths K2 Tech Ext
Rare earth minerals key to all industry – defense, high tech & renewables (possible alternate 1AC
card)
Farris 14—editor at WCL National Security Law Brief [Amy, editor at WCL National Security Law Brief,
“Balancing Benefit and Burden in National Security: Rare Earth Metal Export Restrictions”, American
University National Security Law Brief (the nation’s first student-run law school publication to focus on
the rapidly evolving field of national security law), March 27 2014,
http://www.nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/balancing-benefit-and-burden-in-national-security-rareearth-metal-export-restrictions/, Accessed: 7/18/14] AW
International trade has become a crucial variable of our nation’s national security.[1] By monitoring
international trade regulations and implications, for example, the United States can accurately assess
certain risks to economic national security.[2] Due to low environmental and safety standards, China
currently monopolizes the rare earth metal (REM) market, exporting approximately 90% of the
international supply.[3] REMs are comprised of twelve metals that line the bottom of the periodic table,
and the elements have a wide variety of industrial and commercial usage.[4] When China cutback on
REM exports in late 2010, the Obama Administration – predictably – wanted to formally address
whether Chinese export policies complied with international fair trade guidelines.[5] On March 13, 2012,
the United States, in conjunction with Japan and the European Union, filed Requests for Consultations
with the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the REM matter.[6] In late October 2013, the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body held that China had violated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994),
and were enjoined from continuing in current export restrictions.[7] Using the WTO’s ruling as a lens,
this article will briefly discuss how REM export restrictions impact more than just U.S. economic national
security, but rather a variety of U.S. national security platforms. REM supply and demand intimately
affects national defense mechanisms. From missile guidance control to mine detection, REMs play an
intricate role in modern warfare.[8] REM availability contributes significantly to the U.S. military’s
continuing stability.[9] Nevertheless, the United States depends almost entirely on China for its supply
of REMs.[10] Therefore, Chinese export restrictions create a defense vulnerability.[11] Some scholars
suggest that China’s monopolizing of the REM market can be likened to the Middle East’s manipulation
of oil into a political weapon.[12] By flexing its [export] muscle, China sent a wake-up call: you are all
REM dependents. In order to diminish this dominance, however, the United States may be inclined to
increase its independence through legislation favoring domestic preference.[13] If the country produced
an abundance of a high-valued item, access to the item would be inherently quicker and more efficient.
Additionally, access to the item would not be threatened due to political power plays. Through domestic
preference, the country tightens its grasp on national defense. Alike domestic defense protections, REM
export restrictions also commingle with environmental national security. REMs’ multifaceted usage
enhances clean energy potential in the global “green” movement.[14] China’s coveted export has the
additional environmental benefit of being mined outside of the United States;[15] however,
environmental interests must be weighed against REMs likely scarcity.[16] The WTO’s ruling in the U.S.China REM dispute demonstrates the tension between these two objectives.[17] On the one side, REM
harvesting and maintenance procedures contradict the environmentally friendly principle underscoring
the green movement.[18] Conversely, if REM procedures may be conducted in a manner that does not
substantially pollute the environment, then the United States should practically consider the benefits of
self-reliance.[19] Despite environmental vulnerabilities, national security agencies seem to anticipate
pro-mining legislature.[20] United States national security additionally depends on the country’s
cumulative employment prospects, which are affected by trade policies. Trade encompasses both goods
and services, thus job security rests on the amount of services imported to and exported from the
United States. Particularly in the realm of REM, Chinese export restrictions tighten the noose on
employment opportunities.[21] In light of export restrictions’ ripple effect on labor restrictions, labor
unions are inclined to strengthen worker rights within trade policies.[22] In short, current U.S. trade
policies seem to present unfair competition for U.S. workers, creating an unstable employment
environment.[23] Overall, China’s restrictions on REM exports negatively impact our country’s
economic, defensive, environmental, and employment security. While China employs its REM market
dominance as a political tool,[24] the United States has taken a remedial stance rather than a proactive
approach. Due to national security interests, China chooses to maintain restrictive in terms of foreign
investment,[25] and simultaneously taunts the United States’ obvious vulnerability. In order to
demonstrate authority and resistance, Congress must reconcile all national security interests and
balance self-reliance with foreign reliance. One solution, possibly, may entail cutting back on REM
exports from China, without fully taking on the burden of production. Still, the United States then strikes
a fine line with WTO importing regulations: domestic favoritism violates the GATT 1994. Nevertheless, if
Congress does not find a legislative solution soon, the United States may soon find itself stuck between
a rock and a hard place.
China dominance over REM risks great power wars—able to suffocate US tech—empirics prove
Washington Post 12—American newspaper [The Washington Post, an American daily newspaper,
“Loosening China’s grip on rare-earth metals”, The Washington Post, March 15 2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/loosening-chinas-grip-on-rare-earthmetals/2012/03/15/gIQAQ5g2ES_story.html, Accessed: 7/17/14] AW
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC of China controls 97 percent of the world’s supply of rare-earth metals. Lucky
for China — but not so lucky for the rest of the world, because these 17 minerals, with names like
europium and neodymium, are used in the manufacture of everything from clean-energy devices to the
U.S. military’s precision-guided munitions. That gives China more market power in more critical areas
than the United States, Europe and Japan can comfortably afford. The risks became all too evident in
2010 when Beijing suddenly cut off rare-earth exports to Japan during a flare-up of the two countries’
long-standing dispute over maritime boundaries. That de facto embargo lasted only a short while, but
China still maintains production limits and export quotas on rare earths.
REM KT US security—technological innovations
Brown 13—Chief political analyst [Floyd, President of the Western Center for Journalism, “China’s
Dangerous Rare Earths Monopoly”, Capitol Hill Daily (an independent publisher of news and opinions
regarding politics in the United States), July 5 2013, http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/07/chinarare-earth/, Accessed: 7/17/14] AW
Of all the power that China wields in the world today, its monopoly over rare earth minerals could have
the most frightening impact. You see, rare earth resources are essential for producing high-tech
products, renewable energy technologies and advanced weapons systems. In fact, without rare earth
minerals, the United States would face a full-blown national security crisis. It was only a few decades
ago, during the Cold War, that the United States was an undisputed leader in the field. Yet as vital as
these minerals are to our future, Barack Obama’s administration has no plan for re-building America’s
capacity to produce and refine them. How quickly the mighty have fallen… Our supreme leader has no
idea, or even any desire, to get us back in the game. In fact, Team Obama doesn’t have a clue how to
develop a domestic rare earth supply. Even beyond our ability to build arms, the rare earth shortages
prevent us from building a sustainable, green energy future. Rare earth minerals are indispensable for
building wind turbines and hybrid/electric vehicles.
Rare Earth’s Solvency Ext
Failure to ratify will cost U.S superpower status and underwater resources outside of U.S EEZ
Langer 12 (Andrew Langer, well-recognized analyst of politics and public policy, “The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_se
a_treaty_116272.html Accessed July 16, 2014) DM
The Institute for Liberty (IFL) has come to the conclusion that ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is the
most important property rights and wealth building step that America can take to maintain our
leading superpower status and to exponentially grow our economy.¶ There has been a tremendous
amount of disinformation about this treaty. In fact, just earlier this year, IFL thought we knew the truth
about what was termed “LOST” and we signed a letter opposing ratification. We, like so many other
conservatives, were given bad information.¶ In light of the facts, IFL dropped our opposition to the
treaty and we are now leading the conservative charge for its ratification. I am meeting everyday with
conservative grassroots leaders to ask them to join me in this imperative course correction and we are
making a great deal of progress. Conservatives love to debate, but we hate to be misled. Given what we
know now, the treaty’s appropriate moniker should be LOTS.¶ Trillions of dollars, global property rights
for U.S. interests, critical navigation rights, and veto power over an international fund that could end up
in adversarial hands is what is at stake. Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will grow the U.S. economy
while protecting our military and strategic interests around the world.¶ I am tired of losing out to China
and Russia on the world stage. By not ratifying LOTS, the U.S. loses access to resources that lie in
undersea regions that are outside of the current U.S. sphere of legal access – much in the same way that
China and Russia are accessing oil that we have prevented ourselves from going after, now China and
Russia are accessing vast amounts of rare earth minerals, and other critical minerals, that are essential
to our economy and national security.
LOST solves US dependence on China— access to rare earth materials
AFP 12-- an international news agency [Agence France-Presse, The international news agency
headquartered in Paris and It is the oldest news agency in the world and one of the largest, “Businesses
push U.S. to ratify Law of the Sea treaty”, Raw Story (a progressive news site that focuses on stories
often ignored in the mainstream media), June 28 2012, Accessed: 7/16/12,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/28/businesses-push-us-to-ratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty/] AW
American businesses are urging the United States to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, saying it is
needed to boost crucial domestic energy production and end China’s near-monopoly on rare earths.
Stepping up pressure on legislators to sign off on the 30-year-old pact, a broad alliance of
manufacturers, miners, shippers and oil explorers said doing so would guarantee their exclusive access
to economic resources reaching up to 600 miles (1,000 km) from the US shoreline. With China
controlling 95 percent of the world’s rare earths production, ratification of the treaty “offers the best
path to break China’s dominance,” Roger Ballantine, a board member of The Association for Rare Earth
(RARE), said Wednesday. Ballantine, speaking at a news forum on the eve of a Senate hearing on the
treaty, said that failure to ratify the treaty “will only worsen a very troubling disadvantage America has.”
His comments came against the backdrop of an escalating trade dispute with China over restrictions on
its rare earths exports. On Wednesday, the US, European Union and Japan ratcheted up their complaint
at the World Trade Organization by asking for a dispute settlement committee after consultations failed.
The United States is the only industrialized power which has yet to ratify the treaty. RARE has joined a
broad coalition of the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, the
Chamber of Shipping of America, defense contractors, energy industry and other groups to press for
ratification. Supporters argue that ratification will give US businesses the legal framework for
investment in costly, high-tech exploration and development. Key among its advantages, they say,
would be to legitimize US claims to vast areas of the energy-rich Arctic, and unfettered access to lay and
maintain undersea communications cables. It would also give greater access to undersea rare earth
minerals, which are widely used in smartphones, flat-screen TVs, medical equipment and US defense
systems. Opponents say the treaty could actually limit US businesses’ access to undersea mineral
wealth, by giving power to the International Seabed Authority to decide access rights; they also say the
treaty could impinge on the movements around the world of the US Navy. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin
Dempsey have all argued in favor of the treaty. Jeff Pike, who leads The American Sovereignty
Campaign, the lobby in favor of the treaty, said ratification was now more than ever urgent, citing the
importance of global communications links and also the melting ice in the Arctic that was opening up
shipping.
Unclos key to U.S. mineral independence
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Another concern about Russia and China centers on rare earth minerals which are found in abundance
in the seabed. The U.S. requires an incredible number of military products for which rare earth minerals
are essential. Those products have historically been manufactured here in the U.S., and ought to be. The
U.S. also faces a serious munitions problem: today, a tremendous number of our bullets are
manufactured in China…meaning that if we find ourselves cross-wise with the Chinese, they can cut off
our supply of bullets. When it comes to high-end military hardware, it is essential that America be selfreliant, not reliant on China and Russia for the minerals needed for our own defense products and
national security.
Rare Earths Ext – Offshoring Internal
US dependence on China hurts US competitiveness—offshoring and costs
Brown 13—Chief political analyst [Floyd, President of the Western Center for Journalism, “China’s
Dangerous Rare Earths Monopoly”, Capitol Hill Daily (an independent publisher of news and opinions
regarding politics in the United States), July 5 2013, http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/07/chinarare-earth/, Accessed: 7/17/14] AW
Deng Xiaoping made a cryptic statement all the way back in 1992 about his designs for the future:
“There is oil in the Middle East; there is rare earth in China.” With huge rare earth deposits and world
power – rather than profit – in mind, China began supplying our need for rare earths at dirt-cheap
prices, which our own companies couldn’t match. Part of the Chinese strategy is to force American and
Japanese manufacturers to relocate to China. Industries that depend on rare earth minerals also have
the added benefit of having access to China’s supply at a lower cost. So medical device makers,
automotive parts firms and green energy firms have pulled up stakes around the world and relocated to
China. America needs a plan to restore our leadership. We need the capability to mine and process the
minerals here. Sadly, even the ores mined here by our domestic producer, MolyCorp Inc., are sent to
China for processing. Once our American ore is processed in China, it becomes subject to the Chinese
export restrictions.
Scenario 3 China Navy
China is denying US access to the pacific
UPI 13 [United Press International, a leading provider of critical information to media
outlets/businesses/governments and researchers worldwide, “Congressional advisory panel warns of
Chinese naval buildup”, UPI, November 20 2013,
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/20/Congressional-advisory-panel-warns-of-Chinese-navalbuildup/UPI-91161385009364/, Accessed: 7/19/14] AW
WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- A U.S. congressional advisory panel on China, citing Beijing's military
buildup, warned its naval forces could dominate the western Pacific by 2020. In its annual report to
Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said China wants to challenge U.S.
dominance in the Pacific. The panel asked U.S. lawmakers to increase defense funding so more military
resources can be concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region, The Hill reported. The panel wants the Navy to
add at least 60 more ships in the region. Major elements of China's military modernization "are really
designed to restrict U.S. freedom of action throughout the western Pacific," Commissioner Larry
Wortzel said in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, The Hill reported.
Commission Vice Chairman Dennis Shea said his biggest concern about China's military buildup is that it
appeared to be aimed at asserting Chinese influence over the western Pacific. China already has
territorial disputes with U.S. allies in the region such as Japan and the Philippines. "They're trying to
deny access to the western Pacific for U.S. forces ... and basically remove the United States as the
predominant military force in that region of the world," Shea said. China is pushing the US out of Asia—
political arm twisting Gertz 14—reporter for The Washington Times [Bill, an American editor, columnist
and reporter for The Washington Free Beacon and The Washington Times, “Inside China’s secret threefront war vs. the U.S.”, The Washington Times, March 26 2014,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/26/chinas-three-front-war-against-us/?page=all,
Accessed: 7/19/14] AW China is waging political warfare against the United States as part of a strategy
to drive the U.S. military out of Asia and control seas near its coasts, according to a Pentagon-sponsored
study. A defense contractor report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, the Pentagon’s think tank
on future warfare, describes in detail China’s “Three Warfares” as psychological, media, and legal
operations. They represent an asymmetric “military technology” that is a surrogate for conflict involving
nuclear and conventional weapons. The unclassified 566-page report warns that the U.S. government
and the military lack effective tools for countering the non-kinetic warfare methods, and notes that U.S.
military academies do not teach future military leaders about the Chinese use of unconventional
warfare. It urges greater efforts to understand the threat and adopt steps to counter it. The report
highlights China’s use of the Three Warfares in various disputes, including dangerous encounters
between U.S. and Chinese warships; the crisis over the 2001 mid-air collision between a U.S. EP-3E
surveillance plane and a Chinese jet; and China’s growing aggressiveness in various maritime disputes in
the South China and East China Seas. “The Three Warfares is a dynamic three dimensional war-fighting
process that constitutes war by other means,” said Cambridge University professor Stefan Halper, who
directed the study. “It is China’s weapon of choice in the South China Sea.” Seven other China
specialists, including former Reagan Pentagon policymaker Michael Pillsbury, contributed to the study. A
copy of the assessment was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Disclosure of the report is
unusual as most studies produced for the Office of Net Assessment are withheld from public release.
The May 2013 report was written before the dangerous near collision in the South China Sea last
December between the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens and a Chinese naval vessel. Senior defense
officials said the incident could have led to a larger military “miscalculation” between the two nations.
Chinese state media falsely blamed the United States for the incident and falsely asserted that it had
declared a no-sail zone prior to the Dec. 5 encounter. The zone was imposed after that date. According
to the final Pentagon report, China’s use of Three Warfares is based on the notion that the modern
information age has rendered nuclear weapons unusable and conventional conflict too problematic for
achieving political goals. China’s goals are to acquire resources, influence, and territory and to project
national will. “China’s Three Warfares [are] designed to counter U.S. power projection,” the report says.
“The United States is one of four key audiences targeted by the campaign, as part of China’s broader
military strategy of ‘anti-access/area denial’ in the South China Sea.” The Pentagon regards China’s hightechnology arms, such as anti-satellite missiles and cyber warfare capabilities, as arms designed to
prevent the U.S. military from entering the region or operating freely there. The study concludes that in
the decade ahead China will employ unconventional warfare techniques on issues ranging from the
Senkaku Islands dispute in northeast Asia to the disputed Paracels in the South China Sea. For the United
States, the Three Warfares seek to curtail U.S. power projection in Asia that is needed to support allies,
such as Japan and South Korea, and to assure freedom of navigation by attempting to set terms for
allowing U.S. access to the region. The use of psychological, media, and legal attacks by China is part of
an effort to raise “doubts about the legitimacy of the U.S. presence.” The use of the techniques
threatens to limit U.S. power projection in the region through influence operations that “diminish or
rupture U.S. ties with the South China Sea littoral states and deter governments from providing forward
basing facilities or other support,” the report says.
LOST KT US naval navigation in the South China Sea—legal legitimacy
Hachigian 12-- Senior Fellow at American Progress [Nina, Senior Fellow at American Progress and the
former director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, “China’s Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law
of the Sea Convention”, Center For American Progress (an independent nonpartisan educational
institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action), June 12
2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-bigreason-to-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/, Accessed: 7/16/12] AW
Chances are that any new version of the convention called for by Brazil, China, and other emerging
coastal powers would push in favor of a more “Chinese” definition of exclusive economic zone transit
rights. They might call for a larger zone with more limited rights for noncoastal states. That would be a
disaster for the United States. America, with the most powerful Navy in the world and trade links that
span the globe, needs full freedom of navigation in the world’s oceans. If we do not ratify the Law of the
Sea, we will have a very hard time stopping that kind of change, and the longer we wait, the weaker our
position will be. We should lock in the beneficial rules—the ones that we helped draft—now. As it is the
United States follows customary maritime law. But customary law can also change over time in ways we
cannot control. If the world’s other coastal states such as China start claiming that U.S. military assets
can’t transit their exclusive economic zones without permission, that practice could enter customary
maritime law. Then the United States would have a hard time arguing that it was going to ignore
customary maritime law and instead follow the terms of a treaty that it had never ratified. Finally, the
United States will have a stronger hand when it comes to the other issues at play in the South China Sea
if it ratifies Law of the Sea. The United States has strong interests there in freedom of navigation and the
maintenance of peace and stability.
Navy strength key to prevent wars
Roughead et al. 7 – chief of naval operations (Gary, James T. Conway, Thad W. Allen, admiral in the U.S.
Navy, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Commandant of the Coast Guard, A Cooperative Strategy for
21st Century Seapower, U.S. Navy, October 2007, http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf,
7-18-14)
Introduction The security, prosperity, and vital interests of the United States are increasingly coupled to
those of other nations. Our Nation’s interests are best served by fostering a peaceful global system
comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance. We
prosper because of this system of exchange among nations, yet recognize it is vulnerable to a range of
disruptions that can produce cascading and harmful effects far from their sources. Major power war,
regional conflict, terrorism, lawlessness and natural disasters—all have the potential to threaten U.S.
national security and world prosperity. The oceans connect the nations of the world, even those
countries that are landlocked. Because the maritime domain—the world’s oceans, seas, bays, estuaries,
islands, coastal areas, littorals, and the airspace above them—supports 90% of the world’s trade, it
carries the lifeblood of a global system that links every country on earth. Covering three-quarters of the
planet, the oceans make neighbors of people around the world. They enable us to help friends in need
and to confront and defeat aggression far from our shores. Today, the United States and its partners
find themselves competing for global influence in an era in which they are unlikely to be fully at war or
fully at peace. Our challenge is to apply seapower in a manner that protects U.S. vital interests even as it
promotes greater collective security, stability, and trust. While defending our homeland and defeating
adversaries in war remain the indisputable ends of seapower, it must be applied more broadly if it is to
serve the national interest. We believe that preventing wars is as important as winning wars . There is a
tension, however, between the requirements for continued peacetime engagement and maintaining
proficiency in the critical skills necessary a cooporative strategy for a 21st century seapower 3 to fighting
and winning in combat. Maritime forces must contribute to winning wars decisively while enhancing our
ability to prevent war, win the long struggle against terrorist networks, positively influence events, and
ease the impact of disasters. As it has always been, these critical tasks will be carried out by our
people—the key to success in any military strategy. Accordingly, we will provide our people—our Sailors,
Marines, and Coast Guardsmen—with the training, education and tools necessary to promote peace and
prevail in conflict. Guided by the objectives articulated in the National Security Strategy, National
Defense Strategy , National Military Strategy and the National Strategy for Maritime Security, the United
States Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard will act across the full range of military operations to secure
the United States from direct attack; secure strategic access and retain global freedom of action;
strengthen existing and emerging alliances and partnerships and establish favorable security conditions.
Additionally, maritime forces will be employed to build confidence and trust among nations through
collective security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests in an open, multi-polar
world. To do so will require an unprecedented level of integration among our maritime forces and
enhanced cooperation with the other instruments of national power, as well as the capabilities of our
international partners. Seapower will be a unifying force for building a better tomorrow. Challenges of a
New Era The world economy is tightly interconnected. Over the past four decades, total sea borne trade
has more than quadrupled: 90% of world trade and two-thirds of its petroleum are transported by sea.
The sea-lanes and supporting shore infrastructure are the lifelines of the modern global economy,
visible and vulnerable symbols of the modern distribution system Because the maritime domain—the
world’s oceans, seas, bays, estuaries, islands, coastal areas, littorals, and the airspace above them—
supports 90% of the world’s trade, it carries the lifeblood of a global system that links every country on
earth. 4 that relies on free transit through increasingly urbanized littoral regions. Expansion of the global
system has increased the prosperity of many nations. Yet their continued growth may create increasing
competition for resources and capital with other economic powers, transnational corporations and
international organizations. Heightened popular expectations and increased competition for resources,
coupled with scarcity, may encourage nations to exert wider claims of sovereignty over greater expanses
of ocean, waterways, and natural resources—potentially resulting in conflict. Technology is rapidly
expanding marine activities such as energy development, resource extraction, and other commercial
activity in and under the oceans. Climate change is gradually opening up the waters of the Arctic, not
only to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshape the global
transport system. While these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potential sources
of competition and conflict for access and natural resources. Globalization is also shaping human
migration patterns, health, education, culture, and the conduct of conflict. Conflicts are increasingly
characterized by a hybrid blend of traditional and irregular tactics, de- centralized planning and
execution, and non-state actors using both simple and sophisticated technologies in innovative ways.
Weak or corrupt governments, growing dissatisfaction among the disenfranchised, religious extremism,
ethnic nationalism, and changing demographics—often spurred on by the uneven and sometimes
unwelcome advances of globalization—exacerbate tensions and are contributors to conflict.
Concurrently, a rising number of transnational actors and rogue states, emboldened and enabled with
unprecedented access to the global stage, can cause systemic disruptions in an effort to increase their
power and influence. Their actions, often designed to purposely incite conflict between other parties,
will complicate attempts to defuse and allay regional conflict. Proliferation of weapons technology and
information has increased the capacity of nation-states and transnational actors to challenge United
States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from direct attack and to
advance our interests around the world. a cooporative strategy for a 21st century seapower 5 maritime
access, evade accountability for attacks, and manipulate public perception. Asymmetric use of
technology will pose a range of threats to the United States and its partners. Even more worrisome, the
appetite for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is growing among nations and non-state
antagonists. At the same time, attacks on legal, financial, and cyber systems can be equally, if not more,
disruptive than kinetic weapons. The vast majority of the world’s population lives within a few hundred
miles of the oceans. Social instability in increasingly crowded cities, many of which exist in already
unstable parts of the world, has the potential to create significant disruptions. The effects of climate
change may also amplify human suffering through catastrophic storms, loss of arable lands, and coastal
flooding, could lead to loss of life, involuntary migration, social instability, and regional crises. Mass
communications will highlight the drama of human suffering, and disadvantaged populations will be
ever more painfully aware and less tolerant of their conditions. Extremist ideologies will become
increasingly attractive to those in despair and bereft of opportunity. Criminal elements will also exploit
this social instability. These conditions combine to create an uncertain future and cause us to think anew
about how we view seapower. No one nation has the resources required to provide safety and security
throughout the entire maritime domain. Increasingly, governments, non-governmental organizations,
international organizations, and the private sector will form partnerships of common interest to counter
these emerging threats. 6 Maritime Strategic Concept This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to
influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The expeditionary character and versatility of
maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of enlarging or contracting its military
footprint in areas where access is denied or limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military
forces overseas often has unintended economic, social or political repercussions. The sea is a vast
maneuver space, where the presence of maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable
flexible approaches to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility
and scalability of maritime forces provide joint or combined force commanders a range of options for
responding to crises. Additionally, integrated maritime operations, either within formal alliance
structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more informal arrangements (such as the
Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to would-be aggressors that we will act
with others to ensure collective security and prosperity. United States seapower will be globally
postured to secure our homeland and citizens from direct attack and to advance our interests around
the world . As our security and prosperity are inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime
forces will be deployed to protect and sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent
networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach,
persistent presence, and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or
strategic imperatives . Where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and
allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will be characterized by regionally
concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the combat power to limit regional conflict, deter
major power war, and should deterrence fail, win our Nation’s wars as part of a joint or combined
campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be globally distributed in order to
contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative relationships with an
expanding set of international partners, and prevent or mitigate disruptions and crises. a cooporative
strategy for a 21st century seapower 7 Regionally Concentrated, Credible Combat Power Credible
combat power will be continuously postured in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean
to protect our vital interests, assure our friends and allies of our continuing commitment to regional
security, and deter and dissuade potential adversaries and peer competitors. This combat power can be
selectively and rapidly repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces will
be sized and postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward
deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the area of
conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders, pandemics, and the interruption of vital
resources are all possible when regional crises erupt. While this strategy advocates a wide dispersal of
networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we cannot act to mitigate all regional
conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our national interests, maritime forces will be
ready to respond alongside other elements of national and multi-national power, to give political
leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are
persistently present and combat-ready provide the Nation’s primary forcible entry option in an era of
declining access, even as they provide the means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises.
Whether over the horizon or powerfully arrayed in plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions
of regional aggressors, assure friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while
working to sustain the global order. Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleet—ships,
aircraft, Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activities—capable of selectively controlling the seas,
projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly forces and civilian populations from attack. 8 Deter
major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability as war among major
powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nation’s comparative seapower advantage is a key
component of deterring major power war. While war with another great power strikes many as
improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be actively deterred using all
elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime forces—our lethality, global reach,
speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and operational agility—provide the joint
commander with a range of deterrent options. We will pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a
credible and scalable ability to retaliate against aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with
nuclear forces. Win our Nation’s wars. In times of war, our ability to impose local sea control, overcome
challenges to access, force entry, and project and sustain power ashore, makes our maritime forces an
indispensable element of the joint or combined force. This expeditionary advantage must be maintained
because it provides joint and combined force commanders with freedom of maneuver. Reinforced by a
robust sealift capability that can concentrate and sustain forces, sea control and power projection
enable extended campaigns ashore. Globally Distributed, Mission-Tailored Maritime Forces The Sea
Services will establish a persistent global presence using distributed forces that are organized by mission
and comprised of integrated Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard capabilities. This global distribution
must extend beyond traditional deployment areas and reflect missions ranging from humanitarian
operations to an increased emphasis on counter-terrorism and irregular warfare. Our maritime forces
will be tailored to meet the unique and evolving requirements particular to each geographic region,
often in conjunction with special operations forces and other interagency partners. In particular, this
strategy recognizes the rising importance and need for increased peacetime activities in Africa and the
Western Hemisphere. Contribute to homeland defense in depth. Maritime forces will defend the
homeland by identifying and neutralizing threats as far from our shores as possible. From fostering
critical relationships overseas, to screening ships bound for our ports, or rapidly responding to any
threats Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation
cannot be surged. a cooporative strategy for a 21st century seapower 9 approaching our coastline, our
homeland defense effort will integrate across the maritime services, the joint force, the interagency
community, our international partners and the private sector to provide the highest level of security
possible. When directed, maritime forces will promptly support civil authorities in the event of an attack
or natural disaster on our shores. Foster and sustain cooperative relationships with more international
partners. Expanded cooperative relationships with other nations will contribute to the security and
stability of the maritime domain for the benefit of all. Although our forces can surge when necessary to
respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged. They must be built over time so that the
strategic interests of the participants are continuously considered while mutual understanding and
respect are promoted. A key to fostering such relationships is development of sufficient cultural,
historical, and linguistic expertise among our Sailors, Marines and Coast Guardsmen to nurture effective
interaction with diverse international partners. Building and reinvigorating these relationships through
Theater Security Cooperation requires an increased focus on capacity-building, humanitarian assistance,
regional frameworks for improving maritime governance, and cooperation in enforcing the rule of law in
the maritime domain. Additionally, the Sea Services must become adept at forging international
partnerships in coordination with the other U.S. services and government departments. To this end, the
Global Maritime Partnerships initiative seeks a cooperative approach to maritime security, promoting
the rule of law by countering piracy, terrorism, weapons proliferation, drug trafficking, and other illicit
activities. Prevent or contain local disruptions before they impact the global system. Maritime forces will
work with others to ensure an adequate level of 10 security and awareness in the maritime domain. In
doing so, transnational threats—terrorists and extremists; proliferators of weapons of mass destruction;
pirates; traffickers in persons, drugs, and conventional weapons; and other criminals—will be
constrained. By being there, forward deployed and engaged in mutually beneficial relationships with
regional and global partners, maritime forces will promote frameworks that enhance security. When
natural or manmade disasters strike, our maritime forces can provide humanitarian assistance and
relief, joining with interagency and non-governmental partners. By participating routinely and
predictably in cooperative activities, maritime forces will be postured to support other joint or
combined forces to mitigate and localize disruptions. Implementing the Strategy To successfully
implement this strategy, the Sea Services must collectively expand the core capabilities of U.S. seapower
to achieve a blend of peacetime engagement and major combat operations capabilities. Expanded Core
Capabilities Although the Sea Services conduct many missions, the following six capabilities comprise
the core of U.S. maritime power and reflect an increase in emphasis on those activities that prevent war
and build partnerships. Forward Presence. Maritime forces will be forward deployed, especially in an era
of diverse threats to the homeland. Operating forward enables familiarity with the environment, as well
as the personalities and behavior patterns of regional actors. Mindful of the sovereignty of other
nations, this influence and understanding contributes to effective responses a cooporative strategy for a
21st century seapower 11 in the event of crisis. Should peacetime operations transition to war, maritime
forces will have already developed the environmental and operational understanding and experience to
quickly engage in combat operations. Forward presence also allows us to combat terrorism as far from
our shores as possible. Where and when applicable, forward- deployed maritime forces will isolate,
capture, or destroy terrorists, their infrastructure, resources and sanctuaries, preferably in conjunction
with coalition partners. Deterrence. Preventing war is preferable to fighting wars. Deterring aggression
must be viewed in global, regional, and transnational terms via conventional, unconventional, and
nuclear means. Effective Theater Security Cooperation activities are a form of extended deterrence,
creating security and removing conditions for conflict. Maritime ballistic missile defense will enhance
deterrence by providing an umbrella of protection to forward-deployed forces and friends and allies,
while contributing to the larger architecture planned for defense of the United States. Our advantage in
space—upon which much of our ability to operate in a networked, dispersed fashion depends—must be
protected and extended. We will use forward based and forward deployed forces, space-based assets,
sea-based strategic deterrence and other initiatives to deter those who wish us harm. Sea Control. The
ability to operate freely at sea is one of the most important enablers of joint and interagency
operations, and sea control requires capabilities in all aspects of the maritime domain, including space
and cyberspace. There are many challenges to our ability to exercise sea control, perhaps none as
significant as the growing number of nations operating submarines, both advanced diesel-electric and
nuclear propelled. We will continue to hone the tactics, training and technologies needed to neutralize
this threat. We will not permit conditions under which our maritime forces would be impeded from
freedom of maneuver and freedom of access, nor will we permit an adversary to disrupt the global
supply chain by attempting to block vital sea-lines of communication and commerce. We will be able to
impose local sea control wherever necessary, ideally in concert with friends and allies, but by ourselves
if we must. As a declaratory strategy, this document challenges the sea services to evolve an expanded
range of integrated capabilities to achieve enduring national strategic objectives. 12 Power Projection.
Our ability to overcome challenges to access and to project and sustain power ashore is the basis of our
combat credibility. Our advantages will be sustained through properly sized forces, innovative
technologies, understanding of adversary capabilities, adaptive joint planning processes and the
proficiency and ingenuity of our Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. We will maintain a robust
strategic sealift capability to rapidly concentrate and sustain forces, and to enable joint and/or
combined campaigns. This capability relies on the maintenance of a strong U.S. commercial maritime
transportation industry and its critical intermodal assets. Maritime Security. The creation and
maintenance of security at sea is essential to mitigating threats short of war, including piracy, terrorism,
weapons proliferation, drug trafficking, and other illicit activities. Countering these irregular and
transnational threats protects our homeland, enhances global stability, and secures freedom of
navigation for the benefit of all nations. Our maritime forces enforce domestic and international law at
sea through established protocols such as the Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan (MOTR). We
also join navies and coast guards around the world to police the global commons and suppress common
threats. Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response. Building on relationships forged in times of
calm, we will continue to mitigate human suffering as the vanguard of interagency and multinational
efforts, both in a deliberate, proactive fashion and in response to crises. Human suffering moves us to
act, and the expeditionary character of maritime forces uniquely positions them to provide assistance.
Our ability to conduct rapid and sustained non-combatant evacuation operations is critical to relieving
the plight of our citizens and others when their safety is in jeopardy. Implementation Priorities
Implementation of this strategy will require that the Sea Services demonstrate flexibility, adaptability
and unity of effort in evolving to meet the enduring and emerging challenges and opportunities ahead.
Specific initiatives in support of this strategy must be vetted and tested over At all echelons of
command, we must enhance our ability to conduct integrated planning, execution, and assessment. a
cooporative strategy for a 21st century seapower 13 time through experimentation, wargaming, and
continued operational experience, with periodic oversight and unified guidance provided by the senior
leaders of the Sea Services. While many initiatives must come to fruition to enable this strategy, three
areas will receive priority attention: Improve Integration and Interoperability. The combatant
commanders’ increased demand for mission-tailored force packages requires a more integrated
approach to how maritime forces are employed. Marines will continue to be employed as air-ground
task forces operating from amphibious ships to conduct a variety of missions, such as power projection,
but they will also be employed as detachments aboard a wider variety of ships and cutters for maritime
security missions. Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen, teamed in various combinations of security
forces, mobile training teams, construction battalions, health services, law enforcement, and civil affairs
units to conduct security cooperation and humanitarian assistance missions, illustrate adaptive force
packaging. Homeland defense is the most obvious example of the requirement for greater integration. It
is not sufficient to speak of homeland defense in terms of splitting the responsibilities and authorities
between the Navy and the Coast Guard along some undefined geographic boundary. Rather, the Sea
Services must—and will—work as one wherever they operate in order to defend the United States.
Consistent with the National Fleet Policy, Coast Guard forces must be able to operate as part of a joint
task force thousands of miles from our shores, and naval forces must be able to respond to operational
tasking close to home when necessary to secure our Nation and support civil authorities. Integration and
interoperability are key to success in these activities, particularly where diverse forces of varying
capability and mission must work together seamlessly in support of defense, security, and humanitarian
operations. 14 Expanded cooperation with the maritime forces of other nations requires more
interoperability with multinational partners possessing varying levels of technology. The Global
Maritime Partnership initiative will serve as a catalyst for increased international interoperability in
support of cooperative maritime security. Achieving the requisite level of integration and
interoperability will demand a high degree of coordination among service headquarters staffs to fulfill
their responsibilities of providing, training, and equipping forces. Furthermore, Navy and Marine Corps
component commanders and Coast Guard functional commanders will play a central role in determining
how maritime forces are organized, deployed, and employed. This role involves identification of
combatant commander requirements and articulation of how their respective service capabilities can be
integrated in innovative ways to meet those requirements. Close coordination among, if not outright
integration of, maritime components may be required to do this effectively. At all echelons of command,
we must enhance our ability to conduct integrated planning, execution, and assessment. Enhance
Awareness. To be effective, there must be a significantly increased commitment to advance maritime
domain awareness (MDA) and expand intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability and
capacity. New partnerships with the world’s maritime commercial interests and the maritime forces of
participating nations will reduce the dangerous anonymity of sea borne transport of people and cargoes.
Great strides have already been taken in that direction, and the National Strategy for Maritime Security
has mandated an even higher level of interagency cooperation in pursuit of effective MDA. Maritime
forces will contribute to enhance information sharing, underpinning and energizing our capability to
neutralize threats to our Nation as far from our shores as possible. Critical to realizing the benefits of
increased awareness is our ability to protect information from compromise through robust information
a cooporative strategy for a 21st century seapower 15 assurance measures. Such measures will increase
international partner confidence that information provided will be shared only with those entities for
which it is intended. Adversaries are unlikely to attempt conventional force-on-force conflict and, to the
extent that maritime forces could be openly challenged, their plans will almost certainly rely on
asymmetric attack and surprise, achieved through stealth, deception, or ambiguity. Our ISR capabilities
must include innovative ways to penetrate the designs of adversaries, and discern their capabilities and
vulnerabilities while supporting the full range of military operations. We must remove the possibility of
an adversary gaining the initiative over forward-deployed forces and ensure we provide decision makers
with the information they need to deter aggression and consider escalatory measures in advance of
such gambits. Prepare Our People. Given the distributed nature of the forces executing this strategy, we
must properly prepare Sailors, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen for the challenges and opportunities
ahead. We are creating a dispersed force under decentralized authority in a world of rapid information
exchange. Maritime forces will normally operate in a less concentrated manner than they do today, and
junior leaders will be entrusted with a higher level of responsibility and authority for carrying out
important aspects of strategically important missions. Junior personnel will be required to interact with
a far greater variety of U.S. and multinational partners and indigenous populations than their
predecessors. Professional development and unit training must be refined accordingly. Operations as an
integrated team require improved mutual understanding of respective service or agency capabilities and
cultures, which can be achieved through expanded interagency teaming of students and instructors
throughout training, education, and staff assignments. Similarly, if we are to successfully partner with
the international community, we must improve regional and cultural expertise through expanded
training, education, and exchange initiatives. Significantly, this strategy requires new ways of thinking—
about both empowering individual commanders and understanding the net effects of dispersed
operations. Such operations require a broadly shared responsibility among: the on-scene commander
responsible for ensuring As it has always been, these critical tasks will be carried out by our people— the
key to success in any military strategy. 16 actions are in accordance with the commander’s intent; the
higher commander responsible for providing intent and guidance to subordinates; the parent service of
dispersed forces responsible for ensuring that units are trained, equipped, and culturally prepared for
the missions they will undertake; and, finally, the regional commanders responsible for determining
appropriate force levels and readiness postures. Conclusion This strategy is derived from a thorough
assessment of the Nation’s security requirements. It does not presume conflict but instead
acknowledges the historical fact that peace does not preserve itself. Looking across the wide maritime
domain, it calls for a broad portfolio of core capabilities to support our vital interests, realized by welltrained, highly motivated and ably-led people. The strategy focuses on opportunities —not threats; on
optimism —not fear; and on confidence —not doubt. It recognizes the challenges imposed by the
uncertain conditions in a time of rapid change and makes the case for the necessity of U.S. seapower in
the 21 st Century. As a declaratory strategy, this document challenges the Sea Services to evolve an
expanded range of integrated capabilities to achieve enduring national strategic objectives. Further
experimentation, operational experience, and analysis are necessary, as is sea service commitment to
building upon the ideas that this document puts forward. However, the Sea Services cannot do this
alone. The diverse elements of the greater maritime community must be inspired and supported as they
invest to secure peace and prosperity across the maritime domain. The Sea Services commit to
continuing the process of collaborative strategy implementation in the years ahead. United States
seapower is a force for good, protecting this Nation’s vital interests even as it joins with others to
promote security and prosperity across the globe.
Asia Pivot Uniqueness - Ext
US turning to Asia now—Chinese pursuit of naval power and the South China Sea
Terada, March 14 [Takashi, Professor, Faculty of Law, Doshisha University, Japan’s Asian Policy Strategy:
Evolution of and Prospects for Multilateralism in Security, Trade and Financial Cooperation, March 2014,
https://www.mof.go.jp/english/pri/publication/pp_review/ppr024/ppr024h.pdf, 7/19/14]
In 2006, new political concepts , such as sovereignty and security, began to be embedded into the
discourse on China’s national interests in which the economic development remained a top priority. As
Aoyama (2011) points out, the former President Hu Jintao’s proclamation that “Chinese diplomacy
should play a role in protecting the country’s sovereignty, security, and developmental interests” at the
Central Meeting on Foreign Affairs Work held in Beijing in August 2006 led to a new slogan of China’s
national goal, “protecting the country’s sovereignty, security, and developmental interests”, adopted by
the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in the following year. However, what was
more striking to its neighbours was that the military budget compensating for military capabilities
necessary for the “protection” increased even before. China’s military expenditure has continued to
grew at a double-digit base for the last 20 years, and the veiled parts of the expenditure was also
considered to surpass the announced values. This trend could not be curbed, as seen by the boost of the
defence budget by 11.2%, reaching 670.2 billion yuan (approximately 8.7 trillion yen) in 2012 (Nihon
Keizai Shimbun, 5 March 2012). Furthermore, as Ross (2009) points out, China’s military rise and its
interest in strengthening its capabilities of deploying attacking forces into the sea in East Asia were
symbolized by the equipment of an aircraft carrier. This increase of military capabilities influenced the
US security posture and regional balance of power. According to Khoo (2011), the extremely high level
of precaution against China’s military rise exists as fait accompli in Northeast Asia based on public polls
gleaned in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, and he concludes that the regional countries’ anxieties on
how China would use its growing military capabilities encouraged their support for US continued
presence in the region.
These concerns have further multiplied by the South China Sea issue. While China, the Philippines,
Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brunei claim their sovereignty over waters and islands across the Sea,
China demands the so-called “9-dashed line”, an area encompassing virtually 90%of the entire South
China Sea, based on its historical legitimacy. China has disclosed its intention of neither making a
compromise on the territorial disputes related to sovereignty nor following the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The area in question includes the wide overlapping zones
with other claimants’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
China Uniqueness – China wants to Push US Out
China is forcing the US out of the pacific—escalates to South Asia conflict—competing regional
intrests
Keck 14-- Managing Editor of The Diplomat.[Zachary, Managing Editor of The Diplomat where he
authors The Pacific Realist blog and writes a monthly column for The National Interest, “China’s Growing
Hegemonic Bent”, The Diplomat (the premier international current-affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific
region), June 26 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/chinas-growing-hegemonic-bent/, Accessed:
7/19/14] AW
None more so than Beijing’s New Security Concept, which President Xi Jinping announced last month at
the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) summit in Shanghai.
David Cohen reminds us that the New Security Concept is likely more multi-faceted than it may appear
at first glance. Nonetheless, at its core, the New Security Concept is that “security in Asia should be
maintained by Asians themselves.” As the Global Times reported about Xi’s speech, it “stressed the role
played by Asians themselves in building security, viewed as a rejection of interference from outside the
region.” During the speech, Xi also denounced alliances in the region. It makes good sense that China
would want a U.S.-free Asia-Pacific — as China’s rise has proceeded, the U.S. has increasingly become
the only viable counterbalance to Beijing in the region. China’s relative influence would therefore be
greatly enhanced by America’s exit from the region. The same goes for an end to alliances to the region
— not only does China lack any formal allies, but its size ensures it will dominate any bilateral
interactions with Asian nations. At the same time, the New Security Concept is transparently hegemonic.
To begin with, the realization of the primary goals of the New Security Concept — namely, the exit of
the U.S. from Asia and the end of alliances — would ensure China’s hegemony over the region. Equally
important, these goals are at odds with the views of the overwhelming majority of Asian nations.
Specifically, China is alone in wanting the U.S. out of the strategic order in Asia. Every other Asia-Pacific
nation — with the exception of North Korea — wants the U.S. to maintain a strong presence in the
regional security architecture. In fact, most states want the U.S. to get its head out of the sand and play
a bigger role in Asian security. Similarly, other Asian nations are strongly in favor of alliances in the
region as evidenced by the fact that they are strengthening their ties to the U.S. and with each other.
South China Sea Ext - Credibility
Ratification of UNCLOS key to the credibility of the US in Asia solves EAS disputes
Terada, March 14 [Takashi, Professor, Faculty of Law, Doshisha University, Japan’s Asian Policy Strategy:
Evolution of and Prospects for Multilateralism in Security, Trade and Financial Cooperation, March 2014,
https://www.mof.go.jp/english/pri/publication/pp_review/ppr024/ppr024h.pdf, 7/19/14]
In short, one of the important implications is that China’s rise, as symbolised by its forceful claims on the
South China Sea, has urged the US to show its serious interest in multilateral security fora such the EAS
for the first time in history. As discussed so far, the function the EAS has been newly granted with a
strong American push, however, has yet to fully sustain American interest of collectively compelling
China to accept the legal approach to the dispute. This experience surely encourages the US to maintain
the hub-and-spoke bilateralism-centred alliance system in the region whose functions include the joint
military exercises with its allies as another but more aggressive way of pressuring China. 4.Japan’s
Choices Table 1 shows that when China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea became more
unilateral and forceful, the US became more proactively engaged in Asian multilateral institutions. Japan
has also been interested in the South China Sea issues lest it could affect the East China Sea issue,
including the Senkaku Islands, if no restrictions were imposed on China’s claims, which rely on a vague
legal basis and assertiveness. Japan’s keener interest in the South China Sea was revealed in a statement
issued by a senior official of its Ministry of Defense.He said that the Japanese Self-Defense Force would
take joint steps with the US army, advocating freedom of navigation in the South China Sea (Asahi
Shimbun, 8 July 2011). This interest was echoed in a proposal by Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
establish the East Asia Maritime Forum to discuss maritime security among experts. In the meantime,
Japan actively worked to incorporate the three principles the US had established in the Joint Declaration
of EAS in 2011: 1) freedom of navigation, 2) respect for international law, and 3) settlement of
differences and disputes by peaceful means (Asahi Shimbun, 6 November 2011). Furthermore, in a
keynote speech at the ASEAN Maritime Forum held in 234 T Terada / Public Policy Review October 2012,
the then deputy foreign minister, Tsuruoka Koji, conveyed his anxiety over China’s aggressive maritime
behaviour by stating that “‘might is right’ should not be justified” (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 6 October
2012). China, however, criticised these Japannese approaches, especially its proposal for the
establishment of a new maritime forum as “its own advance southward” and cautioned that “Japan
would find it annoying if China got involved in a row between Japan and South Korea over the issue of
the Takeshima Islets and backed Seoul at an international meeting...Parties not in the dispute should
remain quiet” (Asahi Shimbun, 6 November 2011). ASEAN eventually became reluctant to support
Japan’s proposal which would replace the existing ASEAN Maritime Forum due to its fear of losing its
voice in this area, disproving Japan’s attempt to build a coalition with some ASEAN states within a
multilateral forum against China over maritime disputes including its own Senkaku Islets issue. This was
due partly to China’s successful tactics of making some ASEAN members like Laos and Cambodia more
susceptible to China’s interest through offering them massive economic assistance. As mentioned
above, even though the South China Sea issue was introduced to the EAS as an official agenda following
American interest, the legally-binding norm, which the US hopes to bring in as an approach to
constraining China’s aggressive actions, has yet to be established. As touched earlier, Laos, the 2015
ASEAN chair, has received massive economic assistance from China. If Laos organizes and chairs ASEAN
meetings, including the EAS, under the strong influence of China, as had happened in Phnom Penh in
2012, China would hardly be motivated to moderate its unlegalistic territorial claims in all ASEAN-related
meetings. What Japan should do is demonstrate its strong willingness to contribute to the development
of Laos through economic assistance and technical cooperation, following the policy the US pursued in
the case of Myanmar, the ASEAN chair in 2014, as it was gradually deregulating economic sanctions
against the nation and fostering good political relations through Obama and Clinton’s official visit. One
of the serious US shortcomings in terms of ways of pressuring China to abide by legal solutions as
stipulated in the UNCLOS, is that the US Senate has not yet ratified UNCLOS, thereby reducing
UNCLOS’ credibility as an international norm which China might be interested in. Thus it is imperative
for Japan to encourage the US to ratify UNCLOS as soon as possible to create a pathway whereby
Japan and the US could perhaps coordinate a joint action concerning territorial disputes in East Asia
Furthermore, a large amount of aid entering Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar from China has greatly
affected the operation of ASEAN. For example, At the Asia-Europe Meeting held in October in 2012 in
Laos, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, sat beside the Laotian Prime Minister, the chairperson of the
meeting. This was an anomalous case in terms of the custom which ASEAN has nurtured, indicating an
exceptionally friendly relations both nations have established. After Cambodia and Brunei, the ASEAN
chair is taken over by Myanmar in 2014 and Laos in 2015. Thus, there is a possibility that the ASEAN
meetings will be run in a manner that is in accordance with China’s wishes. This should be noted as a
emerging problem for the ASEAN centrality in terms of providing dialogue and opportunities on the
equal footing among participants, and this is an area to which Japan should take a careful policy
approach.
Joining UNCLOS key to ocean heg. – checks rising China
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
The United States has historically been the world leader in protecting the common interest in
navigational freedom and the rule of the law in the oceans. However, America has temporarily lost that
leadership by its con-tinued non-adherence to UNCLOS. U.S. accession to the Convention will restore
that role and advance U.S. leadership in Arctic Ocean issues. Joining UNCLOS will put the United States on an
even footing with the other Arctic nations, as America assumes the chairmanship of the Arc- tic Council from Canada in 2015. All of
the Council’s member States (ex- cept the United States) and its 12 observer States are parties to the Conven- tion. Moreover, in 2008, the five
Arctic coastal States (Canada, Denmark, Russia, Norway and the United States) declared at Ilulissat that the law of the sea, as reflected in
UNCLOS, is the legal framework that governs the Arctic Ocean, and there is no need for a new legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean.53
Therefore, U.S. participation in the Arctic Council recog- nizes UNCLOS as the governing framework in the Arctic. The Arctic Council provides a
forum for promoting cooperation, co- ordination and interaction among the Arctic States on common Arctic is- sues, in particular issues of
sustainable development and environmental protection. The Council adopted an Arctic Search and Rescue (SAR) agreement in 201154 and an
Arctic oil response agreement in 2013,55 both of which take into account the relevant provisions of UNCLOS. The member States of the Arctic
Council are also leading the way for the devel- opment of a mandatory Polar Code at the IMO that will give context to UNCLOS Article 234,
while giving due regard to navigation. Similarly, the Council will have an increasing role in developing man- agement regimes for Arctic fisheries
beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Although there are currently no commercial fisheries in the Arctic, salmon and other fish are expected to
move north as global warming alters sea ice conditions.56 This northern migration will result in a concomitant increase in the number of fishing
vessels operating further north of their traditional fishing grounds. Increased fishing activities in the region could lead to in- creased foreign
incursions into the U.S. EEZ, as well as overfishing in areas beyond the EEZs of the other Arctic States. As a result, in 2009, the Unit- ed States
imposed a moratorium on commercial fishing in the Arctic Man- agement Area—U.S. Federal waters north of the Bering Strait in the Chuk- chi
and Beaufort Seas—until more information is available to support sus- tainable fisheries management.57 Nevertheless, the United States
cannot “go it alone” in the Arctic—it will need the cooperation of the other member States of the Arctic Council to ensure that U.S.
conservation efforts initiated with the Arctic Fisheries Management Plan are not put in jeopardy. The Council’s work in this re- gard will be
informed by the provisions of UNCLOS relating to the con- servation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks
(Articles 63 and 64), as well as the 1995 Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement, which elaborates on the
fundamental principles of conservation and management established in UNCLOS Articles 116-120. U.S. leadership in evaluating other nations
ECS claims in the Arctic is also lacking. As a non-Party to UNCLOS, the United States is not only precluded from filing an ECS claim with the CLCS,
it also cannot partici- pate in the CLCS process to evaluate and make recommendations on other States’ ECS claims in the Arctic and elsewhere.
Russia submitted an Arctic ECS claim to the CLCS in 2001 (partially revised in February 2013).58 In February 2002, the United States filed a
notification with the United Na- tions regarding the Russian submission, indicating that it lacks sufficient scientific data to support Russia’s ECS
The U.S. noti- fication also invoked UNCLOS, stressing “the importance of promoting
stability of relations in the oceans, and of complying with the provisions of Article 76 of . . . [UNCLOS].”
However, as a non-Party to UNCLOS, the United States lacks standing to challenge other nations’
excessive claims in the Arctic citing the provi- sions of the Convention. The same is true in other regions
of the world. China, for example, continues to pursue an aggressive posture in the South China Sea and
routinely criticizes the United States for not being a Party to UNCLOS—“the U.S. insists that China must
base its [South China Sea] claims solely on the 1982 UNCLOS although the U.S. itself has not ratified
it.”60 Similarly, when Iran signed UNCLOS in 1982, it filed a declaration indicating, inter alia, that “only
states parties to the Law of the Sea Conven- tion shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights
created therein, [including] the right of Transit passage through straits used for internation- al
navigation.”61 Thus, Iran argues that the United States does not enjoy a right of transit passage through
the Strait of Hormuz because that right is contractual in nature. Joining the Convention would put the
United States on solid legal ground to conclusively “put to bed” these assertions.
claim in the Arctic.59
Asia Pivot
Asia Pivot Uniqueness
U.S. pursuit of the Asia pivot’s inevitable – only a question of effectiveness
C. Raja Mohan 13, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi,
March 2013, Emerging Geopolitical Trends and Security in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,
the People’s Republic of China, and India (ACI) Region,” background paper for the Asian Development
Bank Institute study on the Role of Key Emerging Economies,
http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2013/10737.pdf
the US defense secretary explained the details of the country’s military rebalancing towards
Asia. Addressing skeptics, Panetta underlined Washington’s political determination ,
technological edge , and the enduring capacity to maintain its primacy in Asia despite
the constraints of fiscal austerity at home: “over the next five years we will retire older navy ships, but we will replace them
A few months later,
with more than 40 far more capable and technologically advanced ships. Over the next few years we will increase the number and the size of our exercises in the
Pacific. We will also increase and more widely distribute our port visits, including in the important Indian Ocean region. And by 2020 the Navy will re-posture its
forces from today’s roughly 50/50% split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60/40 split between those oceans. That will include six aircraft carriers
Our forward-deployed forces are the
core of our commitment to this region and we will, as I said, sharpen the technological edge of our forces. These forces are
also backed up by our ability to rapidly project military power if needed to meet our security
commitments.”24 Besides declaring the US’s political will to devote sufficient resources to the
defense of its strategic objectives in Asia, Washington is also debating a new military strategy
called the air-sea battle that can cope with growing Chinese military capabilities and
Beijing’s new ability to constrain American military movements along the PRC’s coast
line. The PRC’s political assertiveness in Asia and America’s strategic response have begun to end a prolonged period of great power peace in the ACI region.
in this region, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships, and submarines.
If this peace provided the basis for the region’s economic growth and prosperity, the unfolding rivalry between Beijing and Washington makes much of Asia a
contested zone between the two in the coming decades.25 This contest in turn will pose significant challenges to Asian regionalism, which has made
considerable progress in the last few decades.
China Solvency – General
Heart of the U.S-China conflict is the different interpretations of the L.O.S.T – ratification solves
Burt 12 (Andrew Burt, former national security reporter and attended Yale Law School, “Why U.S.
Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty,” http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/15557.htm Accessed
on July 15, 2014) DM
The first reason: China. ¶ Over the last few years, the Chinese government has grown more assertive
over its territorial claims to the South China Sea, attempting to enforce ownership of long- disputed
islands in the region and seeking to keep U.S. Navy ships from surveying those waters. The U.S.
government, along with China’s neighbors, has pushed back, conducting naval exercises and publicly
strengthening regional ties. ¶ The problem, however, is that the heart of the conflict between China and
the U.S. boils down to different interpretations over UNCLOS and the rights the treaty provides. It’s
those same officials who, in the course of negotiating with the Chinese, are calling UNCLOS Uncle Sam’s
black eye. ¶ As John Norton Moore, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School and the head of
the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, told me: “It’s very difficult for the United States to protect its
interests when we’re not a party.” There’s only so much officials can say when the Chinese point out
that the U.S. is attempting to enforce its interpretations of laws it hasn’t even ratified. As long as the
U.S. remains on the list of countries that have yet to pass the treaty – keeping company with such
notables as Burundi, Iran and Ethiopia – the Chinese have a point.
Drilling Advantage
UNCLOS Increases Drilling
Ratifying Law of The Sea drastically expands drilling rights
OT 12 – news on offshore technology (http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/featureamericaratify-law-of-sea-treaty-risk-losing-oil/ offshoretechonolgy.com, offshore technology, 9/11/12,
“Americans need to ratify the law of the sea treaty – or risk losing oil.” 7/18/14)mc
The President, the military and offshore oil and gas industries are all in favour of ratifying the treaty
because it offers many home advantages. For example, LOST outlines clear maritime borders - which are
set at 200 nautical miles from the edge of the territorial sea - that are embedded into an established
international law. "In Obama's first term as President the treaty was first raised by Hilary Clinton, who
said it was a priority for her." Due to this, maritime border disputes, which can frustrate US military
action, delay offshore mining and hinder business arrangements, can be more easily settled by
addressing what is laid out in the treaty and is therefore law; ultimately harmonising business
arrangements, protecting national security and resulting in undisputed, uninterrupted offshore mining
and navel pursuits. The United States would have no powers over foreign shipping but absolute rights
over petroleum resources. According to the treaty's maritime border mapping, America has the biggest
share of the treaties scope, with 3.36 million square miles that would be legally protected. Furthermore,
the treaty allows governments to exercise sovereign rights over natural resources within the extended
continental shelf area but also beyond its territory, for which US companies could apply for operating
licenses.
UNCLOS key to US offshore drilling efforts
Burt and Añorve 13 [Sally, PhD from Australian National University, specializes in US diplomatic history
and foreign policy, Daniel Añorve, Full-time Research Professor of Political Studies at the
Division of Law, Politics and Government, University of Guanajuato, Mexico, Doctor in Political Science
with a concentration in International Relations: Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico,
Master in Political Science from York University, Toronto, Canada, Global Perspectives on US Foreign
Policy: From the Outside In, 2013,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RejRAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22unclos%22+us
+hegemony&ots=BUjvf5DQ5H&sig=ylgLXWfJnVrFqoBrXzMk281yU8Y#v=onepage&q&f=false, 7/15/14]
Moore believes that the treaty allows “the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in United States’
history.” Lawrence S. Eagleburger agrees with Moore and suggests that the treaty gives the United
States “far greater jurisdiction than we got in the Louisiana purchase and the acquisition of Alaska
combined.”126 To support this point Moore uses the example of American oil companies that are
reluctant to invest in projects beyond the 200-mile EEZ before the United States signs the treaty giving
them the protection and rights it provides.127 According to Maywa Montenegro, there may be “a
potential 600-mile area off Alaska and the Continental Shelf for oil and gas, and there may be billions of
dollars in access that will not be developed if we do not go forward.”128 Moore argues that
nonadherence to UNCLOS only reduces US influence, which means risking, if combining the value of the
minerals in the mine sites, about one trillion dollars.129
Signing UNCLOS is key to US drilling
Burt and Añorve ’13 Visiting Fellow at UNSW & professor (Sally Burt & Daniel Añorve, PhD & professor
of Political Studies at Universidad de Guanajuato, Mexico, “Global Perspectives on US Foreign Policy”,
October 2013, 7/15/14, Pal grave connect,
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/internationalrelations2014/browse/inside/inline/chapter/978113
7357663/9781137357663.0001.pdf?chapterDoi=9781137357663.0001 )
Moore believes that the treaty allows “the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in United States’
history.” Lawrence S. Eagleburger agrees with Moore and suggests that the treaty gives the United
States “far greater jurisdiction than we got in the Louisiana purchase and the acquisition of Alaska
combined.” To support this point Moore uses the example of American oil companies that are reluctant
to invest in projects beyond the 200-mile EEZ before the United States signs the treaty giving them the
protection and rights it provides. According to Myawa Montenegro, there may be “a potential 600-mile
area off Alaska and the Continental Shelf for oil and gas and there may be billions of dollars in access
that will not be developed if we do not go forward.” Moore argues that no adherence to UNCLOS only
reduces US influence, which means risking, if combining the value of the minerals in the mine sites,
about one trillion dollars.
Arctic Drilling
US Ratifying UNCLOS ensures Arctic Rights – Now Key – Oil
Hollan ’12—Scholar at Johns Hopkins( Andrew Holland, writer at energy trends and scholar of Johns
Hopkins, Energy Trend Insider, “Race for Arctic Eneergy Resources Shoes Need for U.S. to Ratify Law of
the Sea Treaty”, May 14th 2012, Date acsessed: 7/15/14
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/05/14/race-for-arctic-energy-resources-shows-need-for-us-to-ratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty/ )
In the Arctic Sea, where there has been very little economic, social, or military activity, borders are not
clearly defined and tested by international law. That is changing swiftly, as Shell prepares to move
significant personnel and drilling equipment to the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas north of Alaska this
summer for the first time. Other countries to are joining a “Race for the Arctic“ as countries and
companies to seek access to newly available oil and gas. As countries compete for these resources, the
U.S. needs to become a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to define American
exclusive rights. Under customary maritime law, the U.S. has access to its exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
out to 200 nautical miles from shore. That means that the U.S. can allow, regulate, tax, or prohibit any
economic activity in this area. The most obvious economic activities are offshore drilling and fishing. The
EEZ is different from territorial waters in that the EEZ is considered international waters, but territorial
waters — through which states must still allow ‘innocent passage’ of ships — are considered fully part of
sovereign territory. Under UNCLOS, the EEZ for resources on or under the seabed can be extended a
further 150 nautical miles (for a total of 350 nautical miles from shore) if it can be proved that the
continental shelf extends that far. In the Arctic, all the other littoral states — Canada, Denmark (for
Greenland), Norway, Iceland, and Russia — have put their claim for extended seabed EEZs into the
UNCLOS secretariat for the purposes of claiming the seabed rights to the undiscovered resources, but
because the U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS, the U.S. has not submitted any claim. The map, provided in
the IISS’ (my former employer) 2012 Military Balance, shows how some of those claims overlap. Because
the U.S. has not ratified the Convention, American diplomats are not at the table when those territorial
claims are arbitrated.
Now is the key time to ratify the Law of the sea treaty – Arctic access
OT 12 – news on offshore technology (http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/featureamericaratify-law-of-sea-treaty-risk-losing-oil/ offshoretechonolgy.com, offshore technology, 9/11/12,
“Americans need to ratify the law of the sea treaty – or risk losing oil.” 7/18/14)mc
Now is the key time to ratify the Law of the sea treaty OT 12 – news on offshore technology
(http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/featureamerica-ratify-law-of-sea-treaty-risk-losing-oil/
offshoretechonolgy.com, offshore technology, 9/11/12, ““America needs to ratify the law of the sea
treaty – or risk losing oil.” 7/18/14)mc If the US has managed for the past 30-odd years without ratifying
the treaty - why is it so important now? Because, if the US does not ratify LOST soon its right to drill
certain areas of the Arctic Ocean could be disputed. All other countries in the Arctic have ratified the
law. If any possible border disputes should occur, then other countries would have the clarity of the
treaty to fall back on whereas the United States would have no legal rights whatsoever. "The United
States would have no powers over foreign shipping but absolute rights over petroleum resources."
Hilary Clinton, a supporter of the treaty, put it simply: "If people start drilling in areas that are now icefree most of the year, and we don't know where they can or can't drill or whether we can, we're going
to be disadvantaged." Earlier in the month former Senator John Kerry offered his opinion: "By joining
the treaty we could lock in a favourable set of navigational freedoms and maximize US influence in
treaty bodies. "Law of the Sea is fundamentally a conservative and modest treaty that supports the
military and the economic interest of our nation." Not only will the treaty help to quickly resolve any
possible disputes in the Arctic - which according to a US Geological Survey has an estimated 44 to 157
billion barrels of oil and 299 to 1,547 trillion cubic feet of gas - it will also assist and insist on protection
of the marine environment, freedom for scientific research on the high seas and offer a legal regime for
controlling mineral resource exploitation. If America continues to shun LOST it faces being well and truly
left out in the cold.
Signing UNCLOS will allow US to claim rights in Arctic for drilling
Dwyer ’13 Department of Mathematics at University of Notre Dame (William G. Dwyer, Ph. D.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The evoloving Arctic: current state of U.S. Arctic policy”, 9/13,
Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School, 7/16/14, SM
http://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/37620/13Sep_Dwyer_William.pdf?sequence=1)
The National Strategy for the Arctic Region as mentioned in the literature review is the basis for U.S.
Arctic policy. It is a framework built generally around the dual goals of meeting homeland security and
national security needs, while strengthening ties among the Arctic nations. The strategy defines specific
lines of effort to include advancing U.S. security interests, practicing responsible Arctic stewardships,
and building international cooperation in the region.44 The lines of effort will be guided by the following
principles; safeguarding peace and stability, making decisions based on the best available information,
pursuit of innovative arrangements, and consultation with Alaska Natives.45 As with NSPD-66/HSPD-25,
the latest U.S. strategy states that the U.S. must project sea power in order to meet the developing
missions, due to increased human activity, as well as to ensure lawful sovereign claims and rights in the
Arctic. Because freedom of navigation is a top national priority, the U.S. must establish a strong
presence to preserve rights and duties for overflight and navigation within the region (NWP and NSR).46
The strategy calls upon the Secretaries of Homeland Security, State, and Defense to increase capabilities
for operating in the region without specific direction, additional funding, or authority. The directives
support the specific lines of effort called out in the strategy. In order to advance security interests the
U.S. must enhance Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), preserve Arctic freedom of navigation, “evolve”
the current infrastructure, and provide for U.S. energy security.47 With respect to the second line of
effort of pursuing responsible Arctic region stewardship the U.S. must conserve natural resources and
protect the Arctic environment, work in close coordination with the Native populations, and accurately
chart the Arctic shoreline and waters.48 The third line of effort is strengthening international
cooperation, which is accomplished through seeking opportunities to promote sustainable
development, utilizing the Arctic Council to advance U.S. accession of UNCLOS, and cooperating with
other interested non-Arctic and non-state parties to advance common objectives in the Arctic.49
Recent arctic melting opens oil drilling that boosts U.S. economy and reduces oil
dependence – signing UNCLOS key
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
As a result of melting sea ice, access to sizeable and lucrative offshore hy- drocarbon and other mineral
reserves in the Arctic Ocean will occur soon- er than projected. Many of these resources are located
beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) off the coast. According to a 2008 assessment by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), “the
total mean undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources in the Arctic are estimated to be
approximately 90 billion barrels of oil, 1,669 tril- lion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of
natural gas liquids.”17 The overwhelming majority of these resources—84 percent—is expected to occur
in offshore areas. Over 70 percent “of the mean undiscovered oil resources is estimated to occur in five provinces: Arctic Alaska,
Amerasia Basin, East Greenland Rift Basins, East Barents Basins, and West Green- land-East Canada.”18 Similarly, over 70 percent “of the
undiscovered natu- ral gas is estimated to occur in three provinces: the West Siberian Basin, the East Barents Basins, and Arctic Alaska.”19
Arctic Alaska, the Amerasia Ba- sin, and the North Chukchi-Wrangel Foreland Basin provinces, portions of which could be claimed by the United
States, account for over 40 million barrels of oil, 284 billion cubic feet of natural gas, 6.5 million barrels of natural gas liquids and 94 million
barrels of oil and oil-equivalent natural gas.20 The value of these resources is estimated to be in the trillions of dol- lars.21
All states may
claim a 200 nm continental shelf. In addition, States Par- ties to UNCLOS may file claims with the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction
over the seabed resources of an Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) extend- ing hundreds of miles
offshore.22 If the United States becomes a party to UNCLOS, it has strong ECS claims over the resources
of the Beaufort shelf and the Chukchi shelf.23 Offshore oil and gas exploitation could generate
thousands of U.S. jobs and billions of dollars in new government revenues, as well as extend the life of
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). A 2010 study conducted by Northern Economics and the
University of Alaska Institute for Social and Economic Research found that developing oil and gas
resources off Alaska would create an average of 54,700 new jobs per year, result in a total of $145
billion in new payroll nationwide, and generate a total of $193 bil- lion in new government revenue.24
Between 1977 and 2010, TAPS supplied U.S. refineries with over 17 billion barrels of oil. However, due to the fall in production of oil in Prudhoe Bay over the past 20 years, the
amount of oil flowing through the pipeline has fallen from 2.1 million to
600,000 barrels per day. According to Peter Slaiby (Vice President of Shell Alaska), “[i[f the throughput in
the pipeline continues to decline and no new supplies are developed, TAPS will eventually be shut down,
cutting access to one of the largest sources of domestically produced oil in the country” and increasing
U.S. dependence on foreign oil imports.25 Offshore oil deposits in U.S. Arctic waters would breathe new
life into TAPS. Granted, as UNCLOS critics are quick to point out, access to the ECS under UNCLOS is contingent upon payment of royalties
to the Interna- tional Seabed Authority (ISBA) for oil and gas development beyond 200 nautical miles (nm).26 However, the royalty framework
is relatively insignifi- cant compared to the fee-sharing arrangements for overseas oil and gas development and the enormous economic
benefits anticipated from off- shore resource development. Revenue sharing does not begin until the 6th year of production of a particular well
or site, starts at 1% of the value of production and increases 1% per year. By the 12th year and remaining years thereafter, the royalty is 7% of
the value of production, paid either in kind or in dollars.27 During the 1970s, these revenue sharing provisions were negotiated in consultation
with the U.S. oil and gas industry. Payments are to be distributed by the ISBA to States Parties of UN- CLOS in accordance with Article 82(4) on
the basis of equitable criteria that take into account economic development factors. Of note, this distri- bution is distinct from the distribution
of revenues generated from deep seabed mining operations under Part XI of the Convention. As a State Par- ty to UNCLOS, the United States
would have a permanent seat in the ISBA to ensure both kinds of distributions are made in ways acceptable to the United States—Section 3(15)
of the Annex to the IA guarantees the United States a seat on the ISBA Council in perpetuity.28 Any ISBA deci- sion regarding revenue sharing
must be approved by the Council.29 Addi- tionally, if distributions are made to a country that is already receiving U.S. foreign aid, the United
States could offset aid to that country by the amount of distributions paid by the ISBA, in essence eliminating any in- crease financial burden to
the American taxpayers. Critics suggest accession to UNCLOS is not required in order for the United States to claim an ECS, since the 1958
Continental Shelf Conven- tion and the 1945 Truman Proclamation already support a unilateral U.S. claim. Although that may be true, the
metric for determining the outer ex- tent of the ECS is more generous in UNCLOS than in the 1958 Conven- tion or the Truman Proclamation,
More importantly, the U.S. oil and gas
industry believes that unilaterally claiming an ECS outside UNCLOS may be challenged by other nations
in courts throughout the world, and has therefore repeatedly argued that legal certainty/security of
tenure to explore and exploit the resources of the ECS can be obtained only through UNCLOS.31 The
bottom line is that U.S. industry will not invest in offshore oil and gas production in the ECS unless the
United States is a party to UNCLOS.32
both of which rely on an “exploitability criterion” to identify the outer limit of the ECS.30
AT: Drilling Unsafe
Drilling safety solved – sensors, tech and computers
Weber ’13-BA in political science and energy reporter (Harry R. Weber, vertern reporter and previous
editor for AP, “New technology boosts efficiency, safety of offshore drilling”, Houston Chronicle, May
4th 2013, http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/conferences/article/New-technologyboosts-efficiency-safety-of-4489110.php, 7/18/14
Better computers, sensors and automation tools are allowing the search for oil to go deeper, farther and
faster with fewer workers in harm's way. The technology advancements on rigs and platforms, some of
which will be on display this week during the Offshore Technology Conference at Reliant Park, have put
the industry on track to extend the life of subsea reservoirs with equipment on the ocean floor and
remote monitors on rigs and on shore. New sensors can gather information that wasn't available in the
past, and engineers reading it in digital form can make real-time decisions that help improve the
operations. "It's not rocket science," said David Eyton, BP's head of technology. "Other industries use all
of the information available to them in order to do better to improve. What is difficult about our
industry is some of these environments are particularly harsh." Byproducts of the technology can
include more oil and gas, fewer accidents, less downtime on rigs and in drilling operations, and smaller
crews to accomplish the same amount of work.
Drilling - Economy Internal Link
Drilling solves the economy – jobs and energy
Gonzalez ’12- Houston Bureau Chief at Dow Jones Newswires (Angel Gonzalez, Buisness reporter at
Seattle Times and works for Wall Street Journal, Wall street Jourmal, “ Expanding Oil Drilling Helps U.S.
Wean Itself From Mideast”,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441404577480952719124264, June 27th
2012, 7/15/14, SM)
Oil companies are not only eager to drill off America’s coasts—they are enthusiastic about creating jobs
and bringing more oil to the world (and the American) market, which, in turn, will help lower gas prices.
Indeed, for evidence of oil companies’ appetite for economic growth, one need look no further than the
Department of the Interior’s recent $1.7 billion lease sale in the central Gulf of Mexico. But while this
sale was a positive development for American energy production, the Obama Administration is doing
everything in its power to prevent companies that obtain offshore leases from actually drilling and
producing oil—a fact evidenced by a new lawsuit recently filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by an
independent U.S. oil and gas company. Preparing for Growth By March 2010, ATP Oil & Gas Corporation
had obtained oil leases and necessary permits to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, after installing stateof-the art drilling and processing equipment, ATP was poised to double its oil production. This massive
increase in production was made possible, in part, by the ATP Titan—a platform in 4,000 feet of water in
the Gulf of Mexico that was designed to allow ATP to safely drill deeper into already-penetrated oil
reservoirs. The first, and only, deepwater platform built entirely in America by a U.S. labor force, the
Titan was constructed over the course of three years, creating a number of much-needed jobs in the
process. And while the Titan’s price tag was steep—ATP secured $1.5 billion in financing from J.P.
Morgan—the ability to safely and securely drill into already-penetrated oil reservoirs promised to
produce a steady stream of oil and revenue for the company, thereby allowing ATP to pay back this
enormous investment.
Multilat Advantage
U.S Hegemony is declining now
Robinson 13 (Jerry Robinson, director of economic research at ftmdaily.com, “The Twighlight of
American Hegemony,” http://ftmdaily.com/daily-briefing/the-twilight-of-american-hegemony/
Accessed on July 15, 2014) DM
Since 1945, America has been the world’s supreme political and economic power. Throughout the
second half of the twentieth century, the U.S. implemented its domestic and foreign policies with little
regard for other countries. In our vast power, none dared to directly challenge America. Today, those
days are nearing their end as the age of American hegemony slips into its twilight years.¶ For far too
long, the American people have operated under the assumption that the economic good times would
never come to an end. The reality, however, is that this assumption is nothing more than a
manufactured illusion that somehow still holds our nation spellbound.¶ The great noise created from
America’s long economic boom has fully awakened a host of emerging nations. As technological
advances have leveled the global economic playing field, many of these emerging nations are now eager
— and, more importantly, able — to walk the path of mass consumption, Western-style. Ironically, it is
not just America’s own overconsumption that will bring it to its knees, economically. America’s
economic failure will also be deeply aggravated by the attempts of emerging nations to emulate the
consumption patterns of the West. We are living at the end of an empire. Accordingly, America will be
forced to watch from afar as more nimble nations rise in economic dominance. These nations will rise
unfettered by the crushing weight of unpayable debts, unsustainable monetary policies, and an
entitlement-minded population.¶ Those who continue to believe in the perpetual resilience of the
American empire must face facts. And facts are stubborn things. America is waging a trillion dollar global
war on “terror” with virtually no end in sight. America has a weakening currency with no clear strategy
on how to revive it. America’s debt-based monetary system requires exponential growth, debt, and
production in order to expand. This is clearly unsustainable. America’s massive consumer debt levels are
placing heavy constraints on the general economy. America is faced with trillions of dollars in
government debts — growing by the millions every single minute — that can never be repaid without
completely debauching its currency, wiping out vital social safety nets, or taxing the American
population into oblivion. Like a racecar heading straight toward a brick wall with the driver asleep at the
wheel, the collapse of American hegemony will not be a pretty sight.
<<INSERT Multilateralism Transition/Peaceful Card>>
UNCLOS key to US multilateral leadership
Houck 12 [James W., Vice Admiral, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Navy, Alone on a
Wide Wide Sea: A National Security Rationale for Joining the Law of the Sea Convention, The Penn State
Journal of Law & International Affairs, April 2012,
http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jlia, 7/15/14]
Formal membership prerogatives aside, given the conflation of UNCLOS and current customary law, U.S.
membership in UNCLOS will reinforce customary law and give the U.S. a stronger basis to affect its
development in the future. Ironically, U.S. isolationism from UNCLOS serves as the leading example for
others who would selectively choose among UNCLOS provisions or even abandon it altogether, thereby
eroding customary law. The U.S.’ current posture undermines the very legal principles the U.S. professes
to support. Today, not surprisingly, some find inconsistency and even hypocrisy in the U.S. practice of
referring others to the Convention’s obligations without incurring reciprocal treaty obligations.97 U.S.
arguments on substantive issues are burdened with the stigma of unilateralism,98 making it more
difficult for states committed to the Convention’s processes and multilateral framework to support
underlying U.S. arguments even where there may be basis for substantive agreement.99 As an UNCLOS
party, the U.S. would assume a natural leadership role, facilitating coalitions and eliciting support from
nations inclined to support the legal prerequisites for military maritime mobility. The U.S. relies on this
support in a variety of contexts, ranging from the International Maritime Organization and regular
bilateral interactions with partners and allies, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative,100 where
there is direct evidence that non-party status has inhibited U.S. counter-proliferation efforts.101
UNCLOS membership would also enhance the U.S.’ influence with other states as they continue to
evaluate their own practices and legal positions.102
LOST solves US international credibility
Hachigian 12-- Senior Fellow at American Progress [Nina, Senior Fellow at American Progress and the
former director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Policy, “China’s Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law
of the Sea Convention”, Center For American Progress (an independent nonpartisan educational
institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action), June 12
2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-bigreason-to-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/, Accessed: 7/16/12] AW
China’s rise adds to a growing list of reasons to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Senate
ratification of the treaty, which sets out a legal framework for conduct in the world’s oceans, will put the
United States in an even stronger position to preserve our freedom of navigation in the South and East
China Seas against any potential Chinese attempts to restrict our access, now and in the future. It will
also allow us to be an even more forceful advocate for a rules-based process when it comes to territorial
disputes in those waters and will lend Washington more credibility as it pushes China to follow
international laws and norms. Let’s start with that final reason. If the United States ratifies the Law of
the Sea Convention, we will have more credibility when we argue that China needs to become a
“responsible stakeholder”—in the words of former President George W. Bush’s Deputy Secretary of
State Robert Zoellick—in the international system. America has been pressing Beijing to join
international frameworks of rules and norms to create a level, predictable playing field for all; to bring
China into the work of tackling shared threats across the world; and to ensure that China’s rise supports
rather than disrupts the global system that America and our allies created after World War II. These
rules and norms support international trade and economic integration across the world and helped
enable China’s astronomical economic growth in recent decades. It’s true the People’s Republic of China
has come a long way since its early days when it totally shunned the international community—and vice
versa. Today China is deeply engaged in the international system on a number of levels. In international
venues such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the G-20, the Chinese show
up, they are serious, and they often contribute constructively to policy questions. Yet China still falls far
short of its international commitments when it comes to World Trade Organization rules, international
intellectual property standards, International Monetary Fund guidelines on its currency, and the U.N.
Declaration on Human Rights, to name a few important areas. The tables are turned on the Law of the
Sea: Because of our failure to ratify the convention, the United States stands outside the international
system that we champion. China, 161 other nations, and the European Union have all ratified the
convention. The United States remains a “nonparty” to the convention, along with a handful of other
nations, including some political pariahs such as Syria, North Korea, and Iran. It is difficult for America to
be a credible champion of rules and norms in the international system when we have not signed on to
the international law that governs what can happen in the oceans that cover nearly three-fourths of the
planet. More specifically, ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention will lock in the terms that are
extremely favorable to America in our disputes with China over freedom of navigation in the South
China Sea. We currently have regular disagreements with the Chinese over where America’s military
assets can travel in the oceans near China’s shores. The Law of the Sea would address these issues
because it explicitly lays out rules and definitions in ways that the United States helped shape when the
convention was written.
Hegemony Low Now – Uniqueness Ext
U.S Hegemony is low now; Syria proves
Huihou 14(An,
The author is formerly Chinese Ambassador to Algeria, Tunisia and Palestine,Lebanon and Egypt and is n
ow a distinguished research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, US frustration as its
hegemony declines, English people, June 5, 2014 http://english.people.com.cn/n/2014/0605/c986498737275.html, June 15, 2014)
The Syrian authorities opted to hold a presidential election on June 3. Bashar al-Assad isone of the three
candidates. The international media generally assume that there is nodoubt that Bashar al-Assad will
win re-election. In spite of public discontent with thecurrent situation and a desire for change, the
essence of the Syria crisis is that foreignforces have tried to interfere in Syria's internal affairs, provoking
a civil war in an attemptto overthrow the Syrian government. The US President Barack Obama
announced on August: "The rule of Bashar al-Assad haslost its legitimacy and he must step down."
However, far from falling, Bashar al-Assad hassecured another three years in power, for many reasons.
Most importantly, the United States has made no direct military strikes against Syria. Why did the U.S.
military decidenot to wield the big stick this time? Boogged down by its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
the peak of the United Stateshegemony is past. The U.S. economy crashed during the 2008 financial
crisis, triggeringfurther domestic issues. Coupled with the rise of the emerging economies, it is
anindisputable fact that the dominance of the U.S.A. is in decline. Increasingly powerless tohalt this
decline, the United States is at a loss.Through his implementation of the "Asia-Pacific rebalancing
strategy" in 2011, Obama adjusted his Middle East policy by reducinginvestment in the Middle East,
slowing down the implementation of the "newinterventionism” and seeking shelter in stability. A war in
Syria is now contrary to its global strategy, and it would leave the U.S. facing too many associated
difficulties. In August 2013, the West contrived the Syrian 'chemicalweapons' crisis. The United States
schemed with the United Kingdom to threaten Syria, declaring its intention to carry out a limited
military strike. But 59% of Americans wereopposed to aiding the Syrian opposition. The UK Parliament
forced their government to abandon its war plans. Obama had to accept a Russian proposal to turn over
control of Syria's chemical weapons in exchange forpeace as an "acceptable" conclusion to the crisis.
Mr. Qian Wenrong, a reputable Chinese scholar, points out that after World War II and the Cold War,
the United States has always been ready to make war, and has always been ableto assemble a group of
willing helpers. As a result, the U.S. suffers from the illusion that itcan do whatever it wants. This time
round, Obama’s compromises on the Syrian "Chemical Weapons crisis" testify to the declining strength
of the United States. The U.S. is weaker than before. The prime of U.S. hegemony has passed, and is
perhaps fated to disappear forever. Some commentators suggest that Bashar al-Assad’s participation in
the 2014 presidential election will become an excuse for the U.S. to use military force. However, the U.S.
response to date has been firstly to claim that the elections are not legitimate and the U.S. will not
accept the results, secondly to grant diplomatic status tothe Syrian anti-government organization office
in the U.S.A., and thirdly to provide $ 27million in aid to the Syrian opposition. The United States and its
allies may have plans for further actions, but so far there is nosign of any military strike against Syria. On
May 28 Obama delivered a speech at West Point in which he stated that as far as Syria is concerned,
while military action is not asolution, the United States will support the opposition against the
authorities. The speech suggests that the option of direct military intervention has been ruled out. A
political solution to the Syrian crisis repressents the international consensus. But Western countries, led
by the U.S., and some of the countries of the Middle East, still insist on supporting the Syrian opposition
and on demanding that Bashar al-Assad should step downas a prerequisite to any talks. Only a political
solution will resolve this impasse . As long as the U.S. continues to support the opposition, it will be
difficult to end the Syrian civil war; as long as the United States does not launch direct military strikes,
Bashar al-Assad’s regime will not be overthrown. Efforts are still being made to find a political solution
to the crisis, but if neither side iswilling to change its attitude, any such efforts will be in vain. The Syrian
crisis could dragon.The crisis has not evolved in the way that the U.S wished. Not only has Bashar alAssadrefused to step down, he will be re-elected as a president. His continuance in power is a
frustrating reminder to the U.S. of its declining hegemony.
UNCLOS Ratification K2 US influence on Ocean
Policy
Joining convention allows U.S to help shape future ocean and coastal region policy
Meyers 12 (David Ross Meyers, former speech writer in Senate and is political consultant and
commentator, “The Law of the Sea Treaty could strengthen our national security, not harm it,”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/29/law-sea-treaty-could-strengthen-our-national-securitynot-harm-it/ Accessed on July 16, 2014) DM
Joining the Convention will also provide some new benefits to the United States. ¶ First, it will give us a
legal forum to turn to if other countries violate our existing rights on the high seas. ¶ Second, it will give
us a seat at the bargaining table to shape future ocean and coastal region policy. China is already a party
to the Convention, and it will have an oversized impact on shaping future policy if the United States
doesn’t serve as a counterbalance. ¶ Finally, the Convention provides us with a legal forum to thwart
China’s policy of territorial expansion in Asia. ¶ Critics of the Convention, including numerous
Republican Senators and legal scholars such as Jack Goldsmith, fear that submitting our actions to the
review of an international tribunal will weaken our national security, our military, and our sovereignty.
These arguments are not convincing.
Ratification secures US global maritime influence
Kerry 12, (John, Secretary of State, presidential runner-up, former chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, “Law of the Sea: A National Security Issue that Unites”, 6/14/12, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/a-national-security-issue_b_1596414.html) ADL
Just listen to General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At our first hearing on Law
of the Sea, General Dempsey put it plainly: "Joining the convention would give our day-to-day maritime
operations a firmer, codified legal foundation. It would enable and strengthen our military efforts, not
limit them." I couldn't agree more. He's not alone. Ask Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and he'll tell
you the same thing. Here's what he said in his testimony a couple weeks ago: "The Law of the Sea
Convention is the bedrock legal instrument underpinning public order across the maritime domain. We
are the only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that is not a party to it. This puts us at a
distinct disadvantage when it comes to disputes over maritime rights and responsibilities with the 162
parties to the convention, several of which are rising powers." These are strong arguments. And today
we'll hear from four admirals and two generals -- 24 stars in all, in military parlance -- who will advocate
for it without hesitation. Some will question why we're doing this now -- why pour so much energy into
a treaty that's been untouched by the Senate for the last five years and collecting dust for more than
25? Well, I think the real question is -- why wait? We've effectively lived by the terms of the treaty, even
as a nonparty and a holdout. But we've deprived ourselves of its benefits! We live by the rules, but we
don't shape the rules, we don't take our seat at the table and grab the veto that's awaiting us there to
protect our interests against China and Russia. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it best: "Joining the
convention would secure our navigational rights and our ability to challenge other countries' behavior
on the firmest and most persuasive legal footing, including in critical areas such as the South China Sea
and the Arctic."
Joining UNCLOS will send a multilateral signal for cooperation
Burt ’14 – Former national security reporter [Andrew Burt, a former national security reporter, attends
Yale Law School, Why U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty, Originally published on “The Hill”
May 25th, 2012 http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/15557.htm )
What do Somali pirates, polar bears and the Chinese government have in common? Aside from reasons
to resent the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, not a whole lot. The treaty, also known as UNCLOS,
forms the legal foundation under which Somali pirates are prosecuted, regulates activity in the polar
bear’s habitat as it melts, and undercuts the territorial claims behind the Chinese government’s growing
assertiveness in the South China Sea. And with the heads of the Defense and State Departments, along
with the U.S.’s highest-ranking military officer, lobbying the Senate on Wednesday to take up the treaty,
this week marked the beginning of the Obama Administration’s official push to ratify the treaty once
and for all. Over 160 countries have ratified the treaty, which the United States helped to create, but the
U.S. still has not – significantly impeding its ability to handle a range of pressing issues. As one senior
government official told me, “This is America’s black eye.” And that black eye is only getting worse. But
first, some background: The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea was finalized in 1982 after a
decade’s worth of work. The treaty sought to define common international norms for use of the seas,
hoping to settle longstanding maritime disputes through an international regulatory authority – a main
point of contention for the treaty’s critics. Subjecting the U.S. to international laws, they say, would
diminish U.S. sovereignty on the high seas. Fast-forward three decades and you find an Obama
Administration with its hands tied behind its back – unlike any administration before it – for two
reasons.
Convention is low risk opportunity to show commitment to global leadership
Meyers 12 (David Ross Meyers, former speech writer in Senate and is political consultant and
commentator, “The Law of the Sea Treaty could strengthen our national security, not harm it,”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/29/law-sea-treaty-could-strengthen-our-national-securitynot-harm-it/ Accessed on July 16, 2014) DM
These national security concerns are legitimate, but mostly unfounded. Joining the Law of the Sea
Convention is a rare opportunity to sign onto an international agreement that has numerous benefits
and very few liabilities. And that's why numerous Democrats and Republicans continue to support it. ¶
President George W. Bush was a strong advocate for signing the treaty. Many of his top diplomatic and
military officials, including Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England, stated that joining the Convention would have little practical effect on the rights we
currently enjoy. For example, our ships already have the right of free transit, our government has
control over our coastal economic zones, and we have the right to enact environmental protections over
our maritime zones. The Convention is a low-risk opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to global
leadership, international law, and multilateralism without altering many of our current practices. Joining
the Convention will give us credibility when we call on other nations to follow international legal
standards. And it will blunt the negative reaction we receive for taking actions opposed by the
international community. ¶ For example, joining the Convention could lessen the negative impact of our
repudiation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States was correct in refusing to submit
to the ICC's jurisdiction. But our opposition to the Court has perpetuated our image as a country that
rejects international standards while calling for other countries to adhere to them.
Joining UNCLOS critical to U.S. ocean policy
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
The United States has basic and enduring national interests in the oceans. These diverse interests—
security, economic, scientific, dispute settlement, environmental, and leadership—are best protected
through a comprehen- sive, widely accepted international agreement that governs the varying (and
sometimes competing) uses of the sea. Although the United States has lived outside the Convention for
30 years, climate change in the Arctic provides the current Administration with a new and urgent
incentive to re- engage the Senate and urge that body to provide its advice and consent to U.S.
accession to the treaty at the earliest opportunity. As a nation with both coastal and maritime interests,
the United States would benefit im- mensely from becoming a party to UNCLOS—accession will restore
U.S. oceans leadership, protect U.S. ocean interests and enhance U.S. foreign policy objectives, not only
in the Arctic, but globally.
International Law Key To Cred
Abiding by ILAW will give US leadership and credulity
Bower and Powling ’12 [ Ernest Z. Bowzer, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in
Washington, D.C. Gregory Poling is a research assistant with the CSIS Southeast Asia Program. Gregory
B. Powling, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, Advancing the
National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Center for Strategic
International Studies, http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratificationlaw-sea]
What sets the upcoming hearings apart from those that preceded them is that the United States is
entering an era when leadership and credulity are earned by actions and influence sustained through
consistency. A rising China will continue to test the limits of its power in the Asia Pacific. History shows
that nations, including our own, have consistently explored converting economic power to political
might. We do not know what China wants or what it wants to be. So U.S. strategy involves convincing
China and other nations in the Asia-Pacific region that China’s interests will be most effectively and
sustainably advanced by engaging in regional frameworks in which it makes the rules along with others,
by abiding by international laws, and by promoting and investing in public goods. This process will take
time, but it can be successful only if other countries believe the United States is willing to commit itself
to these standards and norms.
Leadership Solves Poverty
U.S heg decline would increase global poverty- countries rely on America’s foreign aid
Palm 12 (Justin T. Palm, experienced writer on American politics, “A World Without the United States:
Who Would Fill the Void?” http://realtruth.org/articles/120416-001.html Accessed on July 18, 2014) DM
Next, a world without America would lead to a huge increase in global poverty. Recall from earlier, “…in
you shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), and “…in your seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed” (26:4).¶ America has typically given the largest amounts of foreign aid. This has been a
way through which it has been able to act as a type of blessing to other nations. The disappearance of
America would mean that already struggling nations would be on their own. The seemingly unending
reservoir of Western funds distributed around the globe would dry up.¶ A world without America would
also be a dangerous one for democracies. Think of the common slogan used to describe the role of the
United States, “Making the World Safe for Democracy.” No U.S. means there would be no great power
reinforcing, sustaining and protecting democratic governments across the world. Non-democratic,
totalitarian forms of government would fill the power vacuum.¶ A report by The Economist titled
“Democracy Index 2011 – Democracy Under Stress” shows this transition has already begun: “Global
backsliding in democracy has been evident for some time and strengthened in the wake of the 2008-09
global economic crisis. Between 2006 and 2008 there was stagnation; between 2008 and 2010 there
was regression across the world. In 2011 the decline was concentrated in Europe…There has been a
decline in democracy across the world in recent years. The decades-long global trend in democratisation
has come to a halt in what [has been] called a ‘democratic recession’.¶ “The dominant pattern globally
over the past five years has been backsliding on previously attained progress in democratisation.Ӧ
Finally, and most important, return to the idea of America acting as a world policeman. What becomes
of a city with no police? Thieves, murderers and criminals freely roam neighborhoods. Lawlessness
abounds, and the consequences for wrongdoing disappear.¶ A world without America holding back
aggressive nations is the same. Rogue regimes can act with impunity. In fact, with the United States
military severely overcommitted, other nations have already been pushing the limits. Communist North
Korea recently announced plans to test-fire a long-range missile. Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad routinely rails against America and Israel in front of the United Nations General Assembly,
all while evidence indicates his country is developing nuclear weapons. Washington’s solution?
Economic sanctions.¶ A United States exit from the world scene could increase the likelihood that
nations will attack each other. Its dwindling influence in foreign relations and diminished power of
deterrence—which has prevented offensive attacks by the threat or power of retaliation—could
eventually lead to World War III. Order could quickly be replaced by chaos, as occurred in the past when
there was a shift in the balance of power.
Treaties – Warming – Ocean Acid/Bio-D
Ocean Acidification on the Brink--- destroys ocean ecology and effects billions reliant on oceans
Tracy 14, (Sean, author of Environmental Literacy and Stewardship, staff writer for News Security Beat,
“State of the Oceans 2013: Acidification, Overfishing Major Threats to Ecosystem Health”, News Security
Beat, 2/3/14, http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/02/state-oceans-2013-acidification-overfishingmajor-threats-ecosystem-health/) ADL
Not only has the ocean absorbed an estimated 93 percent of the heat generated by climate change, but
according to the report, it is absorbing a significant portion of atmospheric CO2. Between 1750 and
2011, 545 gigatons of CO2 were released into the atmosphere, said Jewett. About one third of that (155
gigatons) have gone into the oceans. But the ocean can no longer be relied on to buffer CO2 emissions,
she said, having already increased in acidity by 30 percent, a level beyond any measured in recent
history. Higher concentrations of atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide interfere with the carbonate
systems of the ocean life, primarily with organisms that use carbonate ions to build their shells, like
shellfish. The immediate effect will be decreased species diversity, but the long-term impact on marine
wildlife is unknown. One recent study even suggests high CO2 levels could have neurological and
behavioral effects on fish. The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 focused
U.S. government efforts on interdisciplinary research, long-term monitoring, and outreach opportunities
around ocean acidification. Jewett said a combination of regional and local factors, such as runoff, can
exacerbate conditions, and sampling along coastlines can be highly variable and difficult to monitor due
to seasonal variations, but there is a global need to improve on such efforts. NOAA has focused on
monitoring federally managed species, such as Alaskan king crab and summer flounder. Many western
U.S. fisheries have been better at monitoring acidification effects on fisheries, and NOAA is currently in
the process of putting together a northeast coastal acidification network for monitoring in the Atlantic.
Unknown Consequences Karen Sack complimented these efforts, saying we are in a race to safeguard
the ocean and need to continue to look for ways to mitigate immediate stressors to ocean ecology. She
pointed to not only increased acidity and temperature, but also decreased O2, more particulate plastics,
and the spread of so-called “dead zones,” areas where hazardous pollutants have been carried
downstream killing off or damaging aquatic communities in the process. Acidification, warming, and
deoxygenation all yield cascading consequences, such as inhibited productivity, altered food chains,
changes in nutrient supply, and secondary and tertiary changes to ocean chemistry. These consequences
will, in turn, be passed on to the billions of people that rely on the sea for their food and livelihoods.
Solves Env’t – Negotiating Framework Modeled
UNCLOS establishes environmental leadership to stop emissions
Carlson et al 13(Jon D. Carlson, Christopher Hubach, Joseph Long, Kellen Minteer, Shane Young, Political
Journalists, “Scramble for the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Competing Maritime Territorial
Claims”. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 33 Number 2, Summer-Fall 2013)
Apart from territorial delimitations, UNCLOS also creates a framework for handling other issue areas.
For example, environmental management was addressed in the convention, and all signatories to the
convention have fundamental obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment: Coastal
States are empowered to enforce their national standards and antipollution measures within their
territorial sea. Every coastal State is granted jurisdiction for the protection and preservation of the
marine environment of its EEZ.14 The port state may enforce any type of international environmental
rule or national environmental regulation, which are in accordance with the convention, as a condition
for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports, internal waters or offshore terminals. Thus, port states
have tremendous regulatory power within their territorial seas, such that these seas are best viewed as
extensions of sovereign territory.
Solves Territorial Disputes (General) – Framework
Modeled
UNCLOS solves disputes
Carlson et al 13(Jon D. Carlson, Christopher Hubach, Joseph Long, Kellen Minteer, Shane Young, Political
Journalists, “Scramble for the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Competing Maritime Territorial
Claims”. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 33 Number 2, Summer-Fall 2013)
Typically, the mechanisms for resolving disputes resulting from an international treaty are contained in a
separate protocol. UNCLOS is unique in that the dispute-settlement mechanism is incorporated into the
treaty, making it obligatory for parties to the convention to go through the settlement procedure in case
of a dispute with another party. Thus, inherent in the convention is the vision that it is a disputeresolution mechanism. During the convention's negotiations, many countries opposed the idea of a
binding settlement being decided by third party judges, and insisted that issues could be resolved by
way of direct negotiations between claimant. Others pointed to failed negotiations and long-standing
disputes leading to armed conflict, and argued that the only way to ensure peaceful settlements was to
require states in advance to accept the rulings of judicial bodies. Finally, a compromise was reached. If
direct negotiations fail, a choice of four other procedures are available: "submission of the dispute to
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, adjudication by the International Court of Justice,
submission to binding international arbitration procedures or submission to special arbitration with
expertise in specific types of disputes."15
UNCLOS sets a global precedent for resolving territorial disputes
Carlson et al 13(Jon D. Carlson, Christopher Hubach, Joseph Long, Kellen Minteer, Shane Young, Political
Journalists, “Scramble for the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Competing Maritime Territorial
Claims”. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 33 Number 2, Summer-Fall 2013)
Fifth and finally, it does seem that UNCLOS reflects a larger sea-change in how the international
community, and legitimate international governing bodies, can create frameworks for cooperative
action, or at least limit the damage of non-cooperative action. As such, by including dispute-resolution
mechanisms in future framework agreements, IGOs like the United Nations can produc tively expand
into new or emerging areas of global governance. Accordingly, it does appear that the Arctic Scramble,
and maritime disputes elsewhere, need not recall the imperial division of Africa. Rather, there appears
to be widespread recognition and acceptance of UNCLOS as the legitimate framework for establishing,
defining, deciding, and resolving disputes on maritime territorial issues. Merely by existing and coming
into legal standing with ratification, UNCLOS delegitimizes the traditional power-politics methods of
settling the disputes. Instead, UNCLOS is overtly designed to handle these events. By defining the rules
of the road, and by defining where the road begins and ends, UNCLOS is the discursive legislator, judge
and policeman on the maritime highway. And no one, as yet, is seriously challenging that role.
Key to Military Success
Risk of war is increased without UNCLOS—no access to legal processes in the treaty weakens
diplomacy
Hartmann 13 [Michael W., Lieutenant Commander, US Navy, PREVENTION OF US-CHINA ARMED
CONFLICT OVER SOUTH CHINA SEA TERRITORIAL DISPUTES, 6/17/13,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA581251, 7/16/14]
As of November 2012, 164 of the 193 member states of the United Nations have ratified the UNCLOS.1
The United States is the only nation on the United Nations Security Council, the only member of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the only arctic nation, and the only member of ASEAN other than
Cambodia, to have not ratified the UNCLOS. Although the United States asserts that it operates in
accordance with the UNCLOS, our lack of formal support weakens our position when trying to influence
the behavior of other nations in the maritime environment. As a non-party member to the treaty, the
United States’ efforts to enforce freedom of navigation diplomatically are severely hampered. Without
access to the legal resolution processes codified in the treaty, military forces are compelled to dispute
excessive claims physically which increases the risk of conflict. For these reasons, the Indonesian
ambassador to the United States called ratification of the UNCLOS “a strategic necessity.”2 Another
reason for ratification is to protect the current language within it. If enough countries lobbied to change
or clarify the treaty, it is uncertain if non-signatories would be able to participate. Finally, although not
applicable to the United States in the South China Sea, ratification of the UNCLOS would allow
exploitation of a significant amount of additional continental shelf beyond the 200 nm EEZ.
Key to Military Success - Arctic
Power in the Arctic does not stem from the military
Sebastian 13 (Ciara, political writer for The Polar Journal, 5/13, “New power, new priorities: the effects
of UNCLOS on Canadian Arctic foreign policy”, Lexis Nexis)
The accession of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by Canada, Denmark
(Greenland), Norway and Russia has led to a geopolitical shift that has resulted in the five Arctic Ocean
coastal states becoming major powers in the Arctic region. Typically, states are major powers as a result
of military, economic and political power and influence in the world. At present, however, in the case of
the Arctic region, the Arctic Ocean coastal states are major powers because of their ability
under UNCLOS to determine the rules in the region. The coastal states possess this power regardless of
whether or not they possess any of these trappings of a traditional major power. Canada is an Arctic
Ocean coastal state and despite many commitments from various governments over the years, it does
not have a high degree of military power in the Arctic. However, due to Canada’s physical geography
and the application of UNCLOS to the Arctic region, it finds itself in a position of significant power. The
position of power in the Arctic region in which Canada finds itself has led to changes in Canadian Arctic
foreign policy. In recent years, Canada has placed a much greater emphasis on military security and the
defence of Canadian Arctic sovereignty and has engaged in multilateral discussions on Arctic issues
outside the Arctic Council. In the 2010 Statement on Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy, the Government of
Canada indicated that it considers the Arctic Council “the primary forum for collaboration among the
eight Arctic states”, however, it is also clear that Canada has pursued and intends to continue to pursue
other multilateral Arctic fora. As Canada continues to diversify Canadian Arctic multilateralism and
emphasize traditional military security at the expense of other “low” forms of security, it will be
interesting to observe what effect this will have on Canada’s contribution to the Arctic Council. This
article will examine how these changes in Canadian Arctic foreign policy have taken place. It will also
assess what implications a new Canadian Arctic foreign policy will have for the Arctic Council as Canada
is set to assume Chairmanship of the Council for the second time in 2013.
Trade Solves Manufacturing
UNCLOS gives means of trade and peacefully manages resource conflicts and EEZs
Borgerson 2013 International affairs writer [ Scott G. Borgerson, is International Affairs Fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations and a former Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, Publisher
Council on Foreign Relations Press, Free news pos, May 31st, 2013,
http://www.freenewspos.com/news/article/a/348307/air%20travel/overview]
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an international treaty that regulates all aspects
of the oceans, preserving the seas as "commons" for all humanity and bringing a stable order to 70% of
the world's surface. The Convention serves as a critical instrument for preventing violent conflict and
protecting the earth's resources. It is sometimes described as a "constitution for the oceans," governing
activities on, over, and under the world's oceans. The U.N. explains: The 1982 United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea provides, for the first time, a universal legal framework for the
rational management of marine resources and their conservation for future generations. Rarely has such
radical change been achieved peacefully, by consensus of the world community. It has thus been hailed
as the most important international achievement since the approval of the United Nations Charter in
1945. The treaty defines the territory of countries 200 miles from the coastline as the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and includes provisions concerning: navigational rights, territorial sea limits,
economic jurisdiction, protection of the marine environment, a marine research institution, and a
binding procedure for settlement of disputes between states. Also included is an important international
dispute resolution tool to manage conflicts on the high seas peacefully. Global climate change and
increasing competition for natural resources in and under the seas are increasing the potential for both
violent conflict over and permanent damage to the oceans. The oceans serve as a vital source of food
and fuel, means of trade and commerce, and regulator of global climates. In order to preserve and
restore the oceans, safeguard international trade, and peacefully manage conflicts that may arise, a
comprehensive framework for governing humanity's use of the seas is vitally important.
LOST is key to manufacturing competitiveness in the US—shipping lanes, communication, and cost
Timmons 12 [Jay, President and CEO of National Association of Manufacturers, UNCLOS Critical for US
Manufacturing Competitiveness, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
It's no surprise then that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is a priority for many of the NAM's
members. Its adoption is critical for manufacturing competitiveness in the United States. While my
testimony will focus primarily on mineral development on the deep seabed, that is not the only reason
for the urgency in adopting this treaty. In today's global economy, exports are more important than
ever. Ninety-five percent of the world's consumers live outside the United States, so reaching these
potential customers is critical for manufacturing competitiveness. This treaty will secure international
lanes of commerce and ensure that manufacturers can export their products efficiently. It protects our
sovereign interests and promotes international commerce. Secure shipping lanes are a priority for NAM
members. Last year, cargo ships and other ocean liners carried $570 billion of U.S. exports. Discounting
our exports to Mexico and Canada, which travel by rail and truck, this total accounts for more than 50
percent of our exports by value and more than 90 percent of our exports by weight. And, with global
commerce comes the need for global communication. The telecommunications industry needs the
Convention to expand the right to lay and maintain submarine cables in the oceans of the world and
provide stronger protections for cables against damage by other parties. We can also strengthen
manufacturing by ensuring that manufacturing in the United States is cost competitive. Currently, it is 20
percent more expensive to manufacture in the United States than it is among our major trading
partners. This treaty will help reduce the cost of manufacturing in two important ways. First, it will
provide new opportunities for energy exploration. Secure and reliable sources of energy are a significant
concern for manufacturers, which consume one-third of the energy produced in the U.S. Energy
companies need the certainty the Convention provides in order to explore beyond 200 miles and to
place experts on international bodies that will delineate claims in the Arctic. And next, it will help reduce
manufacturing costs by opening up access to critical inputs used in many manufacturing applications.
Oil Uniqueness
Oil Exports rising now
Davidson ’14 USA TODAY economics reporter[ Paul Davidson, USA TODAY economics reporter who
covers topics such as jobs, consumer spending and manufacturing, U.S. trade deficit drops to 4-year low,
USA Today, January 7th, 2014, http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/07/us-tradedeficit-declines/4353357/]
The U.S. trade deficit fell to a four-year low in November as exports hit another record and oil imports
continued to decline, boosting estimates for last quarter's economic growth. The trade gap fell 12.9% to
$34.3 billion, a significantly smaller total than economists forecast and lowest since October 2009. A
narrower gap lifts U.S. economic growth as American manufacturers and services companies sell more
products overseas and U.S. consumers buy relatively fewer foreign goods and services. The shrinking
trade balance should add as much as a percentage point to fourth-quarter economic growth, RDQ
Economics estimates. That would push many economic forecasts for the final quarter of 2013 to an
annualized 3%. Economist Patrick Newport of IHS Global Insight says that trend is not likely to continue
this year because stronger economic growth and consumer spending will push up imports. But Paul
Ashworth of Capital Economics says declining U.S. oil imports should more than offset stronger domestic
consumption, narrowing the trade gap slightly again. In November, exports rose nearly 1% to an all-time
high of $194.9 billion on stronger overseas sales of civilian aircraft and engines; industrial supplies,
including chemicals and crude oil; and autos. Imports dropped 1.5% to $229.1 billion as oil imports
continued to fall. Oil imports fell 10.6% in November to $21.4 billion and were down 13.7% the first 11
months of last year vs. the same period in 2013.
Internal Links
Trade key to US economy
USDA 2014 United states department of agriculture [ Department of agriculture, Effects of trade on the
U.S. Economy, from USDA, Feb 13th 2014, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-trademultipliers/effects-of-trade-on-the-us-economy.aspx#.U8WecvldVqW]
U.S. agricultural exports generated output, employment, income, and purchasing power in both the
farm and nonfarm sectors. ERS estimates that, in 2012, each dollar of agricultural exports stimulated
another $1.27 in business activity in 2012. The $141.3 billion of agricultural exports in 2012 produced an
additional $179.5 billion in economic activity for a total economic output of $320.8 billion. Every $1
billion of U.S. agricultural exports in 2012 required 6,577 American jobs throughout the economy.
Calendar year 2012 agricultural exports required 929,000 full-time civilian jobs, which included 622,000
jobs in the nonfarm sector. The agricultural export surplus helped to offset some of the nonagricultural
trade deficit.
Introduction
Trade has always been important to U.S. farm and rural economies, from early colonial days when
tobacco and cotton were the most important export commodities, to today’s massive exports of grain,
oilseeds, and processed foods. Even though farming today accounts for a relatively small share of U.S.
gross domestic product (GDP), U.S. agricultural trade still significantly contributes to the overall U.S.
economy, with impacts felt worldwide. As the world’s economies become more integrated, global trade
and the links between countries grow ever deeper. Trade agreements have expanded agricultural trade
with developed and developing countries and, in turn, have created growth opportunities for U.S.
agriculture. By lowering trade barriers, free trade agreements, such as the North America Free Trade
Agreement, create demand for U.S. agricultural commodities in foreign markets. This demand is
satisfied with purchasing power partly acquired by the ability of foreign nations to increase sales of
other products to the U.S. market.
Agricultural exports continued their post-2009 upswing in 2012, surpassing the record set in 2011 by
$4.9 billion (or 3.6 percent). Economic growth in such regions as Latin America, Asia, the Middle East,
Mexico, and Canada spurred foreign demand for U.S. exports. Agricultural trade was strong even in the
face of a strengthening dollar and slowed growth of world real GDP. World GDP growth is estimated at
2.4 percent in 2012 versus 2.7 percent in 2011. Relative to the rest of the world[1], the dollar
appreciated in real terms by 0.5 percent in 2012.
Trade leads to more full-time civilian jobs
USDA 2014 United states department of agriculture [ Department of agriculture, Effects of trade on the
U.S. Economy, from USDA, Feb 13th 2014, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-trademultipliers/effects-of-trade-on-the-us-economy.aspx#.U8WecvldVqW]
Of the 929,000 full-time civilian jobs related to agricultural exports in 2012, more than 307,000 were
U.S. farm workers. In 2012, 622,000 jobs in the nonfarm sector were involved in assembling, processing,
distributing, and servicing agricultural products for export, a decrease of 15,000 from 2011. About
113,000 of those 622,000 jobs were in food processing; 199,000 in trade and transportation; 66,000 in
other manufacturing sectors; and 245,000 in other services.
Bulk exports[3] have a smaller proportional effect on the nonfarm economy than nonbulk (processed or
high-value) exports (fig. 2). Bulk exports valued at $50.7 billion produced an additional $39.4 billion of
business activity (i.e., each dollar of bulk exports generated $0.78 of additional output). Nonbulk exports
of $90.6 billion stimulated an additional $140.1 billion of business activity (i.e., each dollar of nonbulk
exports generated $1.55 of additional output). For total agricultural exports (bulk and nonbulk), each
dollar of exports produced an additional $1.27 of business activity.
[3] Bulk exports are defined as soybeans and other oilseeds, wheat, rice, corn and other feed grains,
tobacco, and cotton.
Impacts
Arctic - Solvency
Arctic Leadership
Ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty would give the U.S a seat at the negotiating table and increase U.S
leadership in the Arctic – spills over to other regions
Garamone 12 (Jim Garamone, reporter at U.S Department of defense, “Panetta: U.S. Leadership
Needed in Law of the Sea Convention,” http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116268
Accessed July 15, 2014) DM
As the globe’s preeminent maritime power, the United States has much to gain in ratifying the United
Nations Law of the Sea Convention, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said here today.¶ Panetta spoke
at the Law of the Sea Convention forum. Ratifying the treaty, he said, would allow the United States to
exert a leadership role in the development and interpretation of the rules that determine legal certainty
on the world’s oceans.¶ Panetta listed five reasons why the Law of the Sea Convention strengthens U.S.
national security.¶ “First, as the world’s preeminent maritime power, and the country with one of the
largest coastlines and extended continental shelf, we have more to gain from accession to the
convention than any other country,” he said.¶ Right now, the United States has no seat at the table and
is unable to help interpret the “rules of the road” on the oceans. Ratifying the convention “would give us
the credibility to support and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes within a rules-based order,”
the secretary said.¶ Panetta’s second point is that by joining the convention, the United States would
protect its navigational freedoms and global access for military and commercial ships, aircraft, and
undersea fiber optic cables. American rights on the seas, he said, currently rely on customary
international laws, which can change.¶ “Treaty law remains the firmest legal foundation upon which to
base our global presence, on, above, and below the seas,” Panetta said.¶ A third point, he added, is that
ratification would help to increase America’s natural resource and economic jurisdiction, not only to 200
nautical miles off U.S. coasts, but to a broad continental shelf beyond that zone.¶ “Fourth, accession
would ensure our ability to reap the benefits of the opening of the Arctic -- a region of increasingly
important maritime security and economic interest,” Panetta said. Countries are already posturing for
new shipping routes and natural resources as Arctic ice cover recedes.¶ The Law of the Sea Convention
is the only means for international recognition and acceptance of the U.S. extended continental shelf
claims in the Arctic.¶ “And we are the only Arctic nation that is not party to the convention,” Panetta
said.¶ Fifth, the secretary said, the new U.S. defense strategy emphasizes the strategically vital arc
extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia.¶
“Becoming a party to the convention would strengthen our position in this key area,” he said.¶ The
strategic arc is crucial to American interests now and into the future, Panetta said. The convention
would stop countries in this arc from proposing restrictions on access for military vessels in the Indian
Ocean, Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea.¶ “The United States has long declared our interests and
respect for international law, freedom of navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes,” Panetta said.
“We have demonstrated our commitment to those interests through our consistent presence and
engagement in these critical maritime regions.” Ratifying the convention would serve to strengthen U.S.
policy in the region, the secretary said. It would also increase America’s credibility to all nations of the
Asia-Pacific. Right now, he said, the United States undercuts itself as it pushes for a rules-based order in
the region and the peaceful resolution of maritime and territorial disputes in the South China Sea and
elsewhere.
UNCLOS ratification solves territorial disputes in the Arctic and sets a precedent which spills over
Carlson et al 13(Jon D. Carlson, Christopher Hubach, Joseph Long, Kellen Minteer, Shane Young, Political
Journalists, “Scramble for the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Competing Maritime Territorial
Claims”. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 33 Number 2, Summer-Fall 2013)
This article reviews the codification of the international standard for maritime territorial claims, the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in context of a transformation in the
concept of territorial sovereignty. Shifting climate conditions, new technologies for oil extraction, and
increasing international demand-factors that make expensive extraction more viable-have recently
created a "Scramble for the Arctic," featuring competing maritime claims by Russia, Canada, Denmark,
Norway and the United States. As territorial disputes are one of the most common correlates to
militarized conflict, potential insight for avoiding war through a neoliberal institutional framework is of
interest. The resolution of the "arctic scramble" also holds a precedent-setting promise, as there are
similar pending crises in Antarctica and contentious territorial claims in the South China Sea. Will these
nations observe the rule of international law and dispute resolution procedures set forth in UNCLOS, or
will we observe a twentieth century neo-imperial echo to the Scramble for Africa?
If US doesn’t ratify the treaty then it loses leadership in the critical Arctic area
Carlson et al 13(Jon D. Carlson, Christopher Hubach, Joseph Long, Kellen Minteer, Shane Young, Political
Journalists, “Scramble for the Arctic: Layered Sovereignty, UNCLOS, and Competing Maritime Territorial
Claims”. SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 33 Number 2, Summer-Fall 2013)
While the United States debates whether or not the convention would undermine U.S. sovereignty,
Russia, Canada, and the other Arctic nations are doing all they can to prove that these newly available
territories belong to them. By waiting to ratify the convention, the United States risks losing potential
territory to countries that are already operating under the treaty, specifically Canada. For example, the
Beaufort Sea includes an area where the EEZs of the United States and Canada overlap. Predictably, the
two countries have differing opinions on how the area, which covers more than 7,000 square nautical
miles, should be demarcated. Canada argues that the treaty signed between Russia and the United
Kingdom in 1825, defining the boundary as following the 141° west meridian "as far as the frozen
ocean," should stand. The United States position is that since no maritime boundary was ever
negotiated between Canada and the United States, the boundary should run along the median line
between the two coastlines. This is the kind of territorial dispute the United States stands to lose by not
ratifying the convention. In order to have a legitimate say in the dividing of the newly available Arctic
resources, one approach is that the United States should ratify the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea as soon as possible.56 Almost all opposition to the convention can be attributed to oldguard politics and irrational distrust of international organizations like the United Nations. According to
J. D. Watkins and L. E. Panetta, "The Law of the Sea Treaty has a diverse and bipartisan group of
experienced national backers, including military leaders, environmentalists, ocean industries, think tanks
and political figures who recognize and support the pressing need to sign this treaty."57 By ratifying the
treaty, the United States would not only be able to further its own goals in relation to the Arctic
Scramble, but also take on a leadership role in international negotiations. Failure to do so may result in a
loss of claimable Arctic territory and the resultant strategic resources.
Joining UNCLOS key to Arctic leadership and stability
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
The United States has historically been the world leader in protecting the common interest in navigational freedom and the rule of the law in
the oceans. However,
America has temporarily lost that leadership by its con-tinued non-adherence to
UNCLOS. U.S. accession to the Convention will restore that role and advance U.S. leadership in Arctic
Ocean issues. Joining UNCLOS will put the United States on an even footing with the other Arctic
nations, as America assumes the chairmanship of the Arc- tic Council from Canada in 2015. All of the
Council’s member States (ex- cept the United States) and its 12 observer States are parties to the
Conven- tion. Moreover, in 2008, the five Arctic coastal States (Canada, Denmark, Russia, Norway and the United States) declared at
Ilulissat that the law of the sea, as reflected in UNCLOS, is the legal framework that governs the Arctic Ocean, and there is no need for a new
Therefore, U.S. participation in the Arctic Council recog- nizes UNCLOS
as the governing framework in the Arctic. The Arctic Council provides a forum for promoting
cooperation, co- ordination and interaction among the Arctic States on common Arctic is- sues, in
particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection. The Council adopted an Arctic Search
legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean.53
and Rescue (SAR) agreement in 201154 and an Arctic oil response agreement in 2013,55 both of which take into account the relevant
provisions of UNCLOS. The member States of the Arctic Council are also leading the way for the devel- opment of a mandatory Polar Code at
the IMO that will give context to UNCLOS Article 234, while giving due regard to navigation. Similarly, the Council will have an increasing role in
developing man- agement regimes for Arctic fisheries beyond areas of national jurisdiction. Although there are currently no commercial
fisheries in the Arctic, salmon and other fish are expected to move north as global warming alters sea ice conditions.56 This northern migration
will result in a concomitant increase in the number of fishing vessels operating further north of their traditional fishing grounds. Increased
fishing activities in the region could lead to in- creased foreign incursions into the U.S. EEZ, as well as overfishing in areas beyond the EEZs of
the other Arctic States. As a result, in 2009, the Unit- ed States imposed a moratorium on commercial fishing in the Arctic Man- agement Area—
U.S. Federal waters north of the Bering Strait in the Chuk- chi and Beaufort Seas—until more information is available to support sus- tainable
fisheries management.57 Nevertheless,
the United States cannot “go it alone” in the Arctic—it will need the
cooperation of the other member States of the Arctic Council to ensure that U.S. conservation efforts
initiated with the Arctic Fisheries Management Plan are not put in jeopardy. The Council’s work in this re- gard will
be informed by the provisions of UNCLOS relating to the con- servation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish
stocks (Articles 63 and 64), as well as the 1995 Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement, which elaborates on the
fundamental principles of conservation and management established in UNCLOS Articles 116-120. U.S. leadership in evaluating other nations
ECS claims in the Arctic is also lacking. As
a non-Party to UNCLOS, the United States is not only precluded from
filing an ECS claim with the CLCS, it also cannot partici- pate in the CLCS process to evaluate and make
recommendations on other States’ ECS claims in the Arctic and elsewhere. Russia submitted an Arctic ECS claim to
the CLCS in 2001 (partially revised in February 2013).58 In February 2002, the United States filed a notification with the United Na- tions
The U.S.
noti- fication also invoked UNCLOS, stressing “the importance of promoting stability of relations in the
oceans, and of complying with the provisions of Article 76 of . . . [UNCLOS].” However, as a non-Party to
UNCLOS, the United States lacks standing to challenge other nations’ excessive claims in the Arctic citing
the provi- sions of the Convention. The same is true in other regions of the world. China, for example,
continues to pursue an aggressive posture in the South China Sea and routinely criticizes the United
States for not being a Party to UNCLOS—“the U.S. insists that China must base its [South China Sea]
claims solely on the 1982 UNCLOS although the U.S. itself has not ratified it.”60 Similarly, when Iran
signed UNCLOS in 1982, it filed a declaration indicating, inter alia, that “only states parties to the Law of
the Sea Conven- tion shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein, [including]
the right of Transit passage through straits used for internation- al navigation.”61 Thus, Iran argues that
the United States does not enjoy a right of transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz because that
right is contractual in nature. Joining the Convention would put the United States on solid legal ground
to conclusively “put to bed” these assertions.
regarding the Russian submission, indicating that it lacks sufficient scientific data to support Russia’s ECS claim in the Arctic.59
Arctic Resources
LOST solves—resource security
Kerry 12—US secretary of State [John, US secretary of State and former chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, “Joining Law of the Sea Treaty can’t wait”, Politico (a nonpartisan, Washingtonbased political journalism organization), May 22 2012,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76628.html, Accessed: 7/16/14] AW
Wednesday begins a comprehensive discussion about whether the United States should join the Law of
the Sea Convention. I’ve heard from countless military officials and conservative-minded business
leaders who say it’s urgent. I’ve also spoken with senators and interest groups who oppose it. The
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in coming weeks, intends to provide a forum for debate on this
issue for the first time since 2007. We’ll look at it from all sides to allow members to consider it based
on merit and the best interests of the United States. Why now? We’ve effectively lived by its terms,
even as a nonparty to the treaty and a holdout. But we’ve deprived ourselves of its benefits for the past
30 years. We should instead be asking why it has taken us so long to have this discussion. By not joining
Law of the Sea, we’ve dealt ourselves out of the game that’s unfolding right in front of us. Let me give
you a few examples: The pact will lock in the favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping
interests depend on every day. It can strengthen our hand against China and others, which are staking
out claims in the Pacific, the Arctic or elsewhere. It is designed to give our oil and gas companies the
certainty they need to make crucial investments to secure our energy future. It puts our
telecommunications companies on equal footing with foreign competitors. And it will help secure access
to rare earth minerals, which we need for computers, cellphones and weapons systems that allow us to
live and work day in and day out. If you slice through the fog of misinformation, the case for ratification
is clear and compelling. This isn’t President Barack Obama’s treaty — and it isn’t your father’s Law of the
Sea Treaty, either. This was originally negotiated at President Richard Nixon’s behest; refined and
supported in part by President Ronald Reagan, and endorsed and aggressively pushed by President
George W. Bush. Every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for its ratification. The U.S. business
community — including the shipping, transportation, telecommunications and energy industries, as well
as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — joins the military in supporting it. The treaty’s most committed
supporters are Republicans and conservative-minded business leaders, not Democrats. This isn’t about
politics — it’s about military effectiveness. As we focus more attention toward the Asia-Pacific region,
it’s more important than ever that we’re part of this treaty. China and other countries are staking out
illegal claims in the South China Sea. Signing this treaty would give an immediate boost to U.S. credibility
as we push back against excessive maritime claims and illegal restrictions on our warships and
commercial vessels. There’s no doubt in my mind that it would help resolve maritime issues to the
benefit of the United States and our regional allies and partners. This is about energy security. Russia
and other countries are carving up the Arctic and laying claim to its vast oil and gas riches. But we can’t
even access the treaty body that provides international legitimacy for these types of Arctic claims. We’re
sitting on the sidelines instead of taking every possible step to ensure our stake in this resource-rich
area. This is about rare earth minerals. China controls production of rare earth minerals, critically
important for cellphones, computers and weapons systems. U.S. industry is poised to secure these
minerals from the deep seabed. But they cannot do so unless we’re a party to the treaty. And it’s about
telecommunications. The treaty provides a legal framework to lay and protect submarine cables. We all
know how critical the Internet is. We need to be able to protect the cables through which the Internet
flows. The treaty does that — but don’t take my word for it, listen to AT&T and Verizon, U.S.
telecommunication giants. The contentious political season has been inserting itself on the floor of
Congress. It can, regrettably disrupt the Senate, though it was designed to be immune to the politics of
the moment. But perhaps in a calmer place, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can do what,
historically, it’s done best: Away from the hyperpartisan shouting matches, we can spend a lot of
serious, thoughtful time deliberating all questions of substance. My hope and expectation is that
everyone will keep an open mind and carefully consider the arguments on both sides — so that senators
can come to their own conclusions. But one point, for me, rings true: America has never been content to
sit at the back of the room and let others make decisions that affect our national security and our
economic opportunities. Why should today be any different? Let’s begin the discussion — which I
believe will ultimately reaffirm that the treaty is good for security, jobs and America.
LOST solves—resources, jobs, and international recognition
Bryson 12-- United States Secretary of Commerce [John, the 37th United States Secretary of Commerce,
“The Law of the Sea Convention is Good for American Businesses”, The U.S. Department of Commerce,
June 5 2012, http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2012/06/05/law-sea-convention-good-americanbusinesses, Accessed: 7/16/14] AW
And here is one thing we need to do to make sure that happens: ratify the Law of the Sea Convention.
The U.S. Senate is now taking a hard look at having the U.S. join the Convention, which sets forth a
comprehensive legal framework governing uses of the oceans. The Law of the Sea Convention will
support American businesses and create American jobs, as well as bolster U.S. national security and
promote energy security. We need to join the Convention now. The economic benefits of this treaty are
clear: First, it will give our energy companies the certainty they need to make crucial investments and
create jobs. The Convention would allow the United States to secure rights to the resources of our
continental shelf beyond our exclusive economic zone (EEZ). For years, American oil and gas companies
did not have the technological capability to take advantage of these provisions. Companies are now
ready and able to explore this area, but they are only willing to make the substantial investments
needed to extract these resources if they have maximum international legal certainty. As a party to the
Convention, the United States would gain international recognition of our sovereign rights and therefore
be able to give our companies this legal certainty. Second, the Law of the Sea Convention will also help
U.S. companies secure access to rare earth minerals, which are needed to make things like computers
and cell phones. These important minerals are in high demand and are currently produced almost
exclusively by China. Technological advances make deep seabed mining possible, but it's also very
expensive; only as a party could the United States secure such title for its companies. The Convention
would also afford the U.S. a seat at the table in developing and implementing law of the sea rules that
reflects its maritime status. Additionally, the United States is the only Arctic nation outside the
Convention. As a party to the Convention, we would have a much stronger basis to assert our interests
throughout the entire Arctic region.
Arctic melting now - accession to UNCLOS key to security in the region
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
New data released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administra- tion (NASA)1 and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)2 in 2012 and 2013 reveals that the Arctic is melting
much faster than originally predicted. In September 2012, the Arctic Ocean ice pack shrank to its lowest
extent on record—49 percent below the average over the past 35 years.3 This accelerated decrease in
sea ice led the Administration to re-think the need for a new national strategy to address the significant management, safety and security challenges posed by a rapidly chang- ing Arctic environment.4 After
several months of deliberation, the White House released a new National Strategy for the Arctic Region on May 10, 2013 that seeks to “guide,
prioritize, and synchronize efforts to protect U.S. na- tional and homeland security interests, promote responsible stewardship, and foster
international cooperation.”5 Eleven days later, the U.S. Coast Guard rolled out its new Arctic Strategy, recognizing that there will be an
“increasing demand for the Coast Guard to ensure the safety, security and stewardship of the nation’s arctic waters” as Arctic ice recedes and
mari- time activity increases.6 The new National Strategy will also likely cause the U.S. Navy to look at its Arctic Roadmap published in 2009.7
The National Strategy is built on three lines of effort: • Advance U.S. security interests; • Pursue responsible Arctic region stewardship; and •
Strengthen international cooperation One
of the key supporting objectives identified in the strategy to ad- vance
U.S. security interests is the need to preserve Arctic region freedom of the seas recognized under
international law.9 To that end, the new strat- egy suggests that U.S. efforts to strengthen international
cooperation and partnerships can best be achieved by acceding to the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).10 The remaining sections of this article will analyze whether the observed acceleration of climate
change in the Arctic region provides the United States with new incentives that tip the balance in favor of finally acceding to the Convention.
Arctic Legal Framework
Becoming part of the treaty is key to U.S influence over continental boundaries- C-I-Law not enough to
solve
Kissinger 12 (Henry Kissinger, American diplomat and political scientist (et al) George Shultz,
American economist and businessman, James Baker III, American attorney and governmental official,
Colin Powell, American statesman, and Condoleezza Rice, American political scientist and diplomat,
“Time to Join The Law of the Sea Treaty,”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303674004577434770851478912 Accessed
July 15, 2014) DM
As the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more than
any other country to gain—and to lose—based on how the convention's terms are interpreted and
applied. By becoming party to the treaty, we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations
and negotiations involving other nations' attempts to extend their continental boundaries.¶ The U.S.
currently has no input into international deliberations over rights to the Arctic, where rich energy and
mineral resources are found more than 200 nautical miles from any country's shoreline. Russia has
placed its flag on the North Pole's ocean floor. This is a largely symbolic act, but the part of the Arctic
Ocean claimed by Russia could hold oil and gas deposits equal to about 20% of the world's current oil
and gas reserves.¶ As a nonparty to the treaty, the U.S. has limited options for disputing such claims and
is stymied from taking full advantage of resources that could be under U.S. jurisdiction. Lack of
participation in the convention also jeopardizes economic opportunities associated with commercial
deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones—opportunities
now pursued by Canadian, Australian and German firms. Some say it's good enough to protect our
navigational interests through customary international law, and if that approach fails then we can use
force or threaten to do so. But customary law is vague and doesn't provide a strong foundation for
critical national security rights. What's more, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the
convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis, gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we
operate in the world's largest international zone. The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the
convention compromises our nation's authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our
national and economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy.
UNCLOS solves Arctic conflicts
Oskarsson 14—Ambassador [Thordur, Ambassador for Iceland and former researcher for the Icelandic
Committee on Security and International Affairs, “Security in the Arctic: Time for Dialogue”, World Policy
Institute ( a non-partisan source of informed policy leadership), June 18 2014,
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2014/06/18/security-arctic-time-dialogue, Accessed: 7/15/14] AW
In earnest, there are already signs of fragmentation present regarding the Arctic issue agenda. The five
Arctic “coastal” states have carved out the fisheries as a subject matter exclusively for their discussion.
One can argue that this goes against the spirit of the Arctic Council. Iceland has been working on
guaranteeing its place as an Arctic coastal state and emphasizing that a strict geographical delineation
when addressing such an important issue is unsatisfactory and that legal, economic, and ecological
aspects of Iceland's position in the Arctic should be respected.
All Arctic Council member states have strong national interests in the development of the region, for
example territorial and/or resource claims. There are international mechanisms in place for solving
territorial claims, most importantly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Moving
forward, it's important that Arctic Council members use these mechanisims for solving disputes.
Although the military issues are not part of the Arctic Council agenda, all the participating states have
strong security and safety interests when it comes to this expansive region.
Arctic Generic
Ratification of Lost Solves Arctic & Pacific disputes
Politico 12 (“Joining Law of the Sea Treaty can’t wait,”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76628.html Accessed on July 15, 2014) DM
Why now? We’ve effectively lived by its terms, even as a nonparty to the treaty and a holdout. But
we’ve deprived ourselves of its benefits for the past 30 years. We should instead be asking why it has
taken us so long to have this discussion.¶ By not joining Law of the Sea, we’ve dealt ourselves out of the
game that’s unfolding right in front of us. Let me give you a few examples:¶ The pact will lock in the
favorable navigational rights that our military and shipping interests depend on every day. It can
strengthen our hand against China and others, which are staking out claims in the Pacific, the Arctic or
elsewhere.¶ It is designed to give our oil and gas companies the certainty they need to make crucial
investments to secure our energy future. It puts our telecommunications companies on equal footing
with foreign competitors. And it will help secure access to rare earth minerals, which we need for
computers, cellphones and weapons systems that allow us to live and work day in and day out.
Arctic Solves Russia
LOST restores US supremacy—KT prevent US-Russia war
Begich 13—US senator [Mark, junior United States Senator from Alaska, “Law of the Sea remains critical
for Alaska, nation”, Homer Tribune (newspaper headquartered in Homer, Alaska),
http://homertribune.com/2013/01/law-of-the-sea-remains-critical-for-alaska-nation/, Accessed:
7/15/14] AW
Failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty this past year denied an opportunity to
promote strong, growing economies and jobs here in Alaska and across the nation. But the fight to
reassert U.S. leadership in global maritime policy is not over yet. While this treaty has important
benefits for the entire nation, nowhere is the need to ratify the Law of the Sea more apparent than here
in Alaska. The warming Arctic is bringing challenges across our expansive coast, undercutting coastal
villages and buckling permafrost roads and runways. But the diminishing Arctic icepack – which shrank
to a record low size last summer – also means increased economic activity. The centuries old dream of
the Northwest Passage is fast becoming a reality, cutting shipping distances between Europe and Asia by
40 percent. Traffic along Russia’s Northern Sea route is increasing every year. Someday the Bering
Straits may have the same strategic importance as the Straits of Gibraltar. The diminishing icepack is
also attracting oil and gas development. Shell began exploratory work in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort
Seas last year and other companies will soon follow. The energy potential is huge with billions of barrels
of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. With warming waters and diminished ice, tourism and
fisheries will also flow into the Arctic. This makes it more imperative than ever to ratify the Law of the
Sea. Adopted in 1982, the treaty provides a basic governance structure to resolve claims for high seas
resources. Most importantly, the Law of the Sea allows nations to claim the seabed – and its petroleum
and mineral resources – beyond the 200-mile limit if they demonstrate a natural extension of their
continental shelf. Preliminary findings indicate this area above Alaska may be much larger than anyone
ever thought; some say twice the size as California. We are not the only ones with our eyes on the Arctic
prize and as decisions are made, it is imperative that the U.S. has a strong voice. Russia is mobilizing to
take full advantage of its Arctic resources and plans to submit its claims to the UN soon. Other Arctic
nations are not far behind and even China, with no Arctic border, is building icebreakers and mounting
expeditions to the region. Until we ratify the Law of the Sea, we don’t have a seat at the table. This is
important not just to Alaskans but all Americans. Ratifying the Law of the Sea and claiming our Arctic
resources means jobs around the country: shipyard jobs in Louisiana and Mississippi, refining jobs in
Washington, petroleum industry jobs in Texas; jobs for roughnecks from around the country. It means
we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and move towards the national comprehensive energy
policy we so desperately need, creating greater economic and national security. Other important
maritime issues face our nation and as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, and a
newly appointed member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will work to ensure the Coast
Guard and NOAA have the personnel, ships, icebreakers and infrastructure they need to accomplish
their missions which are critical to our nation’s commerce and security. The same economic and
national security interests are why it remains critical to ratify the Law of the Sea. Regrettably, a small
number of Republican Senators – enough to deny the two-thirds majority needed for ratification –
blocked a vote on this important treaty last year. They even rejected a treaty on the rights of the
disabled negotiated under George W. Bush and supported by every major veteran’s group across our
nation. But the demand for the Law of the Sea remains. This treaty was largely negotiated in the United
States’ best interest. No surprise ratification is backed by our military, industry, and even environmental
groups. Opponents include the likes of Iran, Libya and North Korea which also oppose ratification.
Failure to act with the fast-changing Arctic could leave billions of dollars and thousands of jobs on the
table.
US-Russia Arctic Conflict
UNCLOS KT control US-Russia Arctic conflict—legitimizes US claims
Johnson 14-- Special correspondent for Bloomberg BNA [Jenny, Multimedia producer and special
correspondent for Bloomberg BNA in Russia, “Who Owns the North Pole? Debate Heats Up as Climate
Change Transforms Arctic”, Bloomberg (a premier site for business and financial market news. It delivers
world economic news, stock futures, stock quotes, & personal finance advice),
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-04/who-owns-the-north-pole-debate-heats-up-as-climatechange-transforms-arctic.html, Accessed: 7/15/14] AW
“When we talk about any kind of jurisdiction, any kind of boundaries, any kind of governance structure,
we are talking from a position of weakness” as the only Arctic state that is not a party to UNCLOS, said
retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. David Titley, director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate
Risk at the Penn State Department of Meteorology. “We undercut our authority,” he told Bloomberg
BNA in an interview. The example of China and Russia's flouting of the convention's norms also presents
the possibility that the treaty could be renegotiated to become more favorable to those countries'
interests. UNCLOS as currently written is extremely favorable to U.S. interests, codifying the rights of
freedom of navigation and passage that are important to maintaining its global power status, according
to Titley. “The real strategic threat for us not being a [party to UNCLOS] is if anybody at some point
wants to change the rules of the game … we're not going to have a seat at that table,” Titley said.
UNCLOS “basically codifies up a world in which the U.S. is kind of the number one dog. And so now by
not ratifying this, as the world changes, and maybe if that situation changes, we're not even going to be
in the room when—if this ever gets looked at again. … It's frankly pretty hard to see that another
[international legal] regime would be as friendly to U.S. interests as is UNCLOS. That's a real danger.”
Another key risk connected with the United States not being a party to the treaty is that the treaty itself
is weakened by lack of U.S. participation, because it is important as a big coastal state and a major
economy, according to Jensen. At the same time, the United States is not able to make its own
submission regarding the outer limits of its continental shelf and does not have representatives involved
in the process of making recommendations. “To the U.S. itself and to the international community, it
would be a benefit if the U.S. ratified,” Jensen said. A senior State Department official told BBNA April 3
that joining the treaty remains a “high priority” for the U.S. The Arctic is “one of the chief reasons why
we need to join,” the official said. The U.S. has been actively exploring the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska
to determine the outer limits of its continental shelf, but the U.S. has not explored as far north as the
North Pole. “We are entitled to this continental shelf whether we are a party to the convention or not,”
the State Department official said, but “what we are not entitled to is secure recognition” of the U.S.
claim by other countries.
Arctic Uniqueness – US Influence Low Now
No US trade influence in the Arctic right now
Borgerson 13 (Scott, Writer for Foreign Affairs, Co-Founder of non-profit Arctic Circle, “The Coming
Arctic Boom: As the Ice Melts, the Region Heats Up “ 92 Foreign Aff. 85 (2013))
UNCLOS allows countries to claim exclusive jurisdiction over the portions of their continental shelves that
extend beyond the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zones prescribed by the treaty. In the United
States’ case, this means that the country would gain special rights over an extra 350,000 square miles of
ocean -- an area roughly half the size of the entire Louisiana Purchase. Because the country is not a party
to UNCLOS, however, its claims to the extended continental shelf in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas (and
elsewhere) cannot be recognized by other states, and the lack of a clear legal title has discouraged private
firms from exploring for oil and gas or mining the deep seabed. The failure to ratify UNCLOS has also
relegated the United States to the back row when it comes to establishing new rules for the Arctic. Just
as traffic through the Bering Strait is growing, Washington lacks the best tool to influence regulations
governing sea-lanes and protecting fisheries and sensitive habitats. The treaty also enshrines the
international legal principle of freedom of navigation, which the U.S. Navy relies on to project power
globally.
Solves Arctic Trade
Ratification of UNCLOS is necessary for peaceful trade in the arctic now
Borgerson 2013 International affairs writer [ Scott G. Borgerson, is International Affairs Fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations and a former Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, Publisher
Council on Foreign Relations Press, Free news pos, May 31st, 2013,
http://www.freenewspos.com/news/article/a/348307/air%20travel/overview]
Why should the U.S. ratify the Law of the Sea?
As the Arctic becomes more navigable, the increasing competition for natural resources in and under
the seas is a growing potential for both violent conflict over and permanent damage to the oceans. The
oceans serve as a vital source of food and fuel, means of trade and commerce, and regulator of global
climates.
Disputes about the use of these maritime goods, for example in the South China Sea, will be negotiated
within the comprehensive framework of the Law of the Sea, as the main players involved in these
disputes ratified the treaty decades ago. U.S. engagement cannot wait until an attack is launched and
conflict breaks out in the South China Sea. The United States has commitments to peacefully manage
conflicts, preserve and restore the oceans and safeguard international trade. Ratification of the Law of
the Sea is necessary now.
Trade Routes/Shipping Lanes
Failure to ratify LOST limits trading routes in the arctic
Burt ’14 – Former national security reporter [Andrew Burt, a former national security reporter, attends
Yale Law School, Why U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty, Yale Law School, May 25 th, 2012
The second reason the treaty’s importance is increasing in the Arctic.
Last summer saw the lowest total volume of Arctic ice in recorded history, and the U.S. Navy estimates
the region will be ice free one month out of the year by 2040. As the ice melts, the Arctic is changing,
opening up new shipping routes and new opportunities to reach vast resources on the seabed. So long
as the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, it will not have access to the international body created by
UNCLOS to delegate rights in these waters – rights that other Arctic countries are already in the process
of shoring up.
The good news is that, as of last week, the administration appears to have taken up the cause.
“Accession to this treaty is absolutely essential,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. “We believe that it is imperative to act now,” said Hillary
Clinton. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that the treaty might even
help prevent future wars by providing new venues to “stave off conflict with less risk of escalation.”
But doubts over finding the 67 votes needed in the Senate remain. The last time UNCLOS made it to the
floor was under the George W. Bush Administration’s backing. Mark Helmke, a spokesman for Senator
Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), a key supporter of the treaty, explained that effort to me in a conversation last year:
“It’s a classic case where a well-organized minority can stop something that is supported by the broad
majority.” Far-right groups used the “internationalist” threat they saw in the treaty for fundraising, and
Lugar’s office was berated with phone calls from constituents who sincerely worried “that the law of the
sea meant the U.N. could take over every single fishing pond in the state.” UNCLOS died on the Senate
floor.
The Obama Administration deserves credit for tackling a long-ignored but pressing issue, especially in an
election year. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to take note: the longer it waits to ratify the treaty, the blacker
Uncle Sam’s eye will be.
If the U.S does not ratify the L.O.S.T, it will be denied access for an opportunity to have rights in new
shipping routes created by ice melting in Arctic
Burt 12 (Andrew Burt, former national security reporter and attended Yale Law School, “Why U.S.
Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty,” http://www.law.yale.edu/studentlife/15557.htm Accessed
on July 15, 2014) DM
The second reason the treaty’s importance is increasing is the Arctic. ¶ Last summer saw the lowest
total volume of Arctic ice in recorded history, and the U.S. Navy estimates the region will be ice free one
month out of the year by 2040. As the ice melts, the Arctic is changing, opening up new shipping routes
and new opportunities to reach vast resources on the seabed. So long as the U.S. has not ratified the
treaty, it will not have access to the international body created by UNCLOS to delegate rights in these
waters – rights that other Arctic countries are already in the process of shoring up. ¶ The good news is
that, as of last week, the administration appears to have taken up the cause. “Accession to this treaty is
absolutely essential,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on
Wednesday. “We believe that it is imperative to act now,” said Hillary Clinton. Martin Dempsey, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that the treaty might even help prevent future wars by
providing new venues to “stave off conflict with less risk of escalation.” ¶ But doubts over finding the 67
votes needed in the Senate remain. The last time UNCLOS made it to the floor was under the George W.
Bush Administration’s backing. Mark Helmke, a spokesman for Senator Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), a key
supporter of the treaty, explained that effort to me in a conversation last year: “It’s a classic case where
a well-organized minority can stop something that is supported by the broad majority.” Far-right groups
used the “internationalist” threat they saw in the treaty for fundraising, and Lugar’s office was berated
with phone calls from constituents who sincerely worried “that the law of the sea meant the U.N. could
take over every single fishing pond in the state.” UNCLOS died on the Senate floor. ¶ The Obama
Administration deserves credit for tackling a long-ignored but pressing issue, especially in an election
year. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to take note: the longer it waits to ratify the treaty, the blacker Uncle
Sam’s eye will be.
Arctic Conflict
UNCLOS solves Arctic conflicts—increased diplomatic relations
Gupta and Roy 12-- Senior Research Associate and University of Alaska’s Finance Vice President
[Sourabh, Senior Research Associate for Samuels International Associates (an international business
consulting firm that specializes in international trade and public affairs), Ashok, Associate Professor of
Business Administration at University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. Implications
for Alaska and why there’s no time to lose, Alaska Business Publishing Company ( the leading business
publication in Alaska), November 1 2012, http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-BusinessMonthly/November-2012/Ratify-the-Law-of-the-Sea-Treaty/, Accessed: 7/15/14] AW
As the changing climate opens the Arctic to greater navigational and commercial penetration, the lack of
predictability of national jurisdictional rights and security of property rights is likely to significantly limit
the scope of responsible commercial exploitation of the region’s overlapping and common resources.
Worse, it might also tempt acts of unilateralism by the oil companies operating in the region as they
prepare to prospect for resource riches in contested Arctic maritime zones. A similar “race to the
resources” in the South China Sea has already led to an alarming rise in interstate tensions. Without
predictability of tenure a similar fate might befall the Arctic Ocean region. Hence, the key question going
forward is this: Can the “race to the resources” be transformed into an orderly, peaceful and positivesum commercial race that is consonant with the principles and best practices of international law, or will
it degenerate into an exercise of raw power politics and struggle that will bring neither the security nor
the stability to enable the responsible commercial exploitation of this resource rich corner of the
planet? If it is to be the former—with all the commercial benefits that could accrue to Alaska and the
United States, the U.S. Senate will need to firmly throw its weight behind a body of international law
which, among other things, facilitates orderly and peaceful development: the U.N. Convention on the
Law of the Sea Treaty. Alone among the major western states and the various Arctic littorals, the U.S. is
a non-signatory to this vital treaty. An opening in this regard will likely present itself this November
when the treaty is placed on the Senate floor for ratification. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
Treaty is a globally agreed legal framework for the management of the world’s oceans. Navigational
freedoms, including the freedom of movement of warships through the high seas, international straits
and archipelagic waters, are deeply embedded in the Law of the Sea Treaty. Crucially, insofar as claims
to maritime territory and rights to development of seabed resources are concerned, the treaty provides
for a technical body of experts—the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf—to assess and
verify the competing claims of various states. Provision for law-based dispute settlement of conflicting
claims is also provide for, as well as a framework for joint and cooperative development of such
contested zones in the interim. Apart from the U.S., all other Arctic Council members have ratified the
Law of the Sea Treaty.
UNCLOS key to US success in the Arctic
Gray 13 [Daniel W., US Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander, Graduate of University of North Carolina
and National Graduate School, CHANGING ARCTIC: A STRATEGIC ANALYSIS OF UNITED STATES ARCTIC
POLICY AND THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, 2/5/13,
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA581139, 7/15/14]
The Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, also testified before Congress in support of
U.S. accession into UNCLOS. In addition to maritime security and freedom of navigation, ADM Papp
conveyed the need for accession to set international provisions on law enforcement, especially drug
smuggling. Arguing that a non-party status hurts U.S. efforts in gaining cooperation via bi-lateral
agreements with its international partners, ADM Papp explained that the provisions embedded in
UNCLOS would “cement a common cooperative framework, language, and operating framework . . . in
securing expeditious boarding, search enforcement, and disposition decisions” of law enforcement
cases.17 ADM Papp stated his belief that accession into UNCLOS was essential for the U.S. to pursue an
Arctic strategy. He described UNCLOS as the “umbrella” necessary to the Coast Guard’s statutory
missions of environmental protection, maritime security, and law enforcement in the Arctic. Accession
into UNCLOS, he said, “provides the legal framework we need to take advantage of opportunities.”18
Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2012, Thomas J. Donohue, the President
and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testified that “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
funds are distributed . . . . Contrary to some opponents claims, joining the Treaty promotes American
sovereignty. LOS strengthens our sovereignty by codifying our property claims in the Arctic and on our
ECS [extended continental shelf].”19 The business community claims that technology is at the point
where it is financially feasible to exploit these resources; however “companies need the certainty the
Convention provides in order to explore beyond 200 miles and to place experts on international bodies
that will delineate claims in the Arctic.”20 The Chairman and CEO of Exxon, R. W. Tillerson, in a 2012
letter to the Senate Foreign Service Committee, expressed his company’s support for the ratification of
UNCLOS as a necessity to financially and efficiently operate in the Arctic. He elaborated that there are
currently overlapping claims in the Arctic and that UNCLOS provides the legal basis necessary for
resolving claims and establishing stability necessary to support development. Otherwise, “the lack of
legal certainty unnecessarily clouds our investment motivation.”21 Thomas J. Donahue of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce echoed Tillerson’s statement in a January 2012 letter to Senators John Kerry and
Richard Lugar, pointing out that without UNCLOS “no U.S. company will make the multi-billion dollar
investments required to recover these resources without the legal certainty the Convention
provides.”22
Arctic – Now Key
Climate
Ratification now is key – Arctic and Climate changes
Kissinger 12 (Henry Kissinger, American diplomat and political scientist (et al) George Shultz, American
economist and businessman, James Baker III, American attorney and governmental official, Colin Powell,
American statesman, and Condoleezza Rice, American political scientist and diplomat, “Time to Join The
Law of the Sea Treaty,”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303674004577434770851478912 Accessed
July 15, 2014) DM
Our planet's environment is changing, and there is an increasing need to access resources responsibly.
We can expect significant change and resulting economic benefit as the Arctic opens and delivers
potentially extraordinary economic benefit to our country. Our coastline, one of the longest in the
world, will increase. These changes and the resulting economic effects are the substance of serious
international deliberations of which we are not a part. Time moves on and we are not at the table. This
is a serious problem and a significant cost for future generations of Americans. Maritime claims not only
in the Arctic but throughout the world are becoming more contentious. As aggressive maritime behavior
increases, the U.S. military has become more, not less, emphatic on the need to become party to this
treaty. Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the
convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving disputes.¶ We
have been on the sidelines long enough. Now is the time to get on the field and lead.
Territorial Claims/Sovereign Rights
Ratifying UNCLOS is key to US Arctic claims—border disputes and OCS claims
Dwyer 13 [William G., Commander, United States Coast Guard, THE EVOLVING ARCTIC: CURRENT STATE
OF U.S. ARCTIC POLICY, September 2013,
http://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/37620/13Sep_Dwyer_William.pdf?sequence=1,
7/16/14]
United States accession to UNCLOS is critical to ensure sovereignty in the Arctic. UNCLOS provides
specific guidance for dealing with maritime borders disputes and the outer continental shelf claims
through an international tribunal and arbitration.221 Currently as a non-signatory to UNCLOS, the U.S. is
not able to avail itself of these provisions and can only engage bi-laterally as needed. The consequences
of this are becoming increasingly clear in relationships with Canada and Russia, with whom the U.S has
active maritime border disputes. The U.S. is in dispute with the Russian Federation over the Bering Strait
and with Canada over the waters of the Northwest Passage (NWP). The NWP crosses over North
America, in an area that Canada claims are internal waters not subject to the conventions of “innocent
passage” as established under customary international law and UNCLOS. On the contrary, the U.S.
regards the waters of the NWP as an international strait for navigational purposes, through which ships
can pass without interference by the coastal state (Canada).222 The opening of the Northwest Passage
would have a global impact on marine transportation. It would cut shipping routes between ports in Asia
and U.S. east coast by nearly 5,000 miles.223 Due to a lack of standing under the UCLOS treaty, the U.S.
is arguing from a position of weakness with respect to the statuses of the Northwest Passage, the
Northern Sea Route, and the Bering Strait and the subsequent threat to Freedom of Navigation.
Additionally, UNCLOS contains specific provisions for extended Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) claims.
Besides massive deposits of oil and gas, the Arctic contains major mineral deposits such as nickel, iron
ore, tin, uranium, copper, and other rare earth minerals. Every Arctic nation is accessing locations and
methods to extract these resources.224 In the massive land grab for natural resource rich areas that has
been going on between the other seven Arctic nations, the U.N. as detailed in UNLCOS is the arbiter. As
a non-party, the U.S. is left out in the cold with respect to OCS claims. The OCS is rich in natural
resources and opportunities for positive economic impact. According to the U.S. Geological Service, the
U.S. Arctic contains 29.96 billion barrels of oil and 72 billion barrels of natural gas (about 33 percent of
technically recoverable oil and 18 percent of technically recoverable gas in the entire Arctic).225
Although the U.S. abides by the rules of UNCLOS without having ratified it, it trails behind the remainder
of the Arctic states on its policy and in asserting its presence in the region.226 Signing and ratifying
UNCLOS, like Canada, would prove to be an excellent framework for shaping U.S. Arctic policy and
advancing the current blueprint for the region.
UNCLOS must be the foundation of US Arctic policy—sovereign rights and security issues
Dwyer 13 [William G., Commander, United States Coast Guard, THE EVOLVING ARCTIC: CURRENT STATE
OF U.S. ARCTIC POLICY, September 2013,
http://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/37620/13Sep_Dwyer_William.pdf?sequence=1,
7/16/14]
UNCLOS must be the legal bedrock of U.S. Arctic policy. UNCLOS is the framework of
cooperation within the region. Other nations have rejected the push for an Arctic treaty, like the
Antarctic Treaty, favoring instead the UNCLOS structure.245 By ratifying UNCLOS, the U.S.
will advance a “remarkable treaty that expands U.S. sovereign rights, powerfully serves U.S. needs
for the Navy and the Coast Guard, and provides American industry with the security necessary to
generate jobs and growth.”246 By joining the UNCLOS alliance, the U.S. will be better able to
settle maritime claims and disputes between other Arctic nations on issues such as outer
continental shelf and maritime boundary line issues. The U.S. will also be in a better position to
challenge the jurisdictional claims of both Russia (Northern Sea Route) and Canada (Northwest
Passage). Only through UNCLOS can the U.S. make rightful claim to the Extended Continental
Shelf and the natural resources within it. Implementation requires Congressional action and
pressure by the Administration to get UNCLOS to a vote in the Senate. The current state of U.S.
Arctic policy leaves lives at risk, natural resources unrealized, along with marine wildlife and the
Arctic Alaskan Native way-of-life woefully unprotected. Other Arctic nations are reaping the
benefits of the opening of the far north, while the U.S. watches and waits with no meaningful
ability to enforce, police, or respond in the region. By creating a U.S. Arctic committee, with the
legal and fiscal authority to establish and execute Arctic policy and directing specific measures
such as icebreaker construction, infrastructure development, building of a joint U.S. base and
ratifying UNCLOS, the U.S. can move forward in the region to more fully support Alaskan
Natives, industry, defense, and homeland security needs to protect U.S. interests and sovereignty
in the future.
Mapping Solvency
LOST is key to US mapping efforts
Panchyson 13 [Dorian, Law student at American University
Washington College of Law, UNCLOS-er than ever; why the U.S. should learn to stop worrying and love
the law of the sea, 12/19/13, http://www.nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/unclos-er-than-ever-why-the-us-should-learn-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-law-of-the-sea/, 7/19/14]
From 1982, signatories of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) were granted
sovereignty to the areas extending to 200 nautical miles from their coasts. These exclusive economic
zones (EEZ) grant countries restricted access and exploration rights to marine resources, including
anything extracted from underwater continental shelves. Countries can make additional claims under
UNCLOS if it can be proven that the continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile boundary of the EEZ.
Earlier this month, Canada announced the intention to submit a claim under UNCLOS for exclusive
access rights to an additional 1.07 million square kilometers of Arctic seafloor. Preliminary studies
indicate the U.S. extended continental shelf totals close to one million square kilometers – an area
approximately double the size of California, with a large portion in the Arctic Sea north of Alaska. As
knowledge of these areas expands through ambitious mapping projects such as Ballard’s and other jointgovernment projects, the U.S. is likely to encounter increasingly tense negotiations over disputed areas.
Without the adjudication mechanism offered by UNCLOS, the U.S. may be forced to settle disputes
through diplomacy, or alternatively, assert the claims unilaterally. Given that all other Arctic Council
member countries have ratified UNCLOS, the U.S. should make UNCLOS ratification a key security
priority moving forward.
Iran Solvency
US ratification is key to credibility with Iran – Solves the Strait of Hormuz flashpoint
Garamone 12 (Jim Garamone, reporter at U.S Department of defense, “Panetta: U.S. Leadership
Needed in Law of the Sea Convention,” http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116268
Accessed July 15, 2014) DM
“How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules, when we haven’t officially
accepted those rules,” the secretary said.¶ The Strait of Hormuz is another possible flash point. It is a
vital sea lane of communication and commerce and the United States and its allies “are determined to
preserve freedom of transit there in the face of Iranian threats to impose a blockade,” Panetta said.¶
“U.S. accession to the convention would help strengthen worldwide transit passage rights under
international law and isolate Iran as one of the few remaining non-parties to the convention,” the
secretary said.
Bio-D Solvency
UNCLOS Maritime zones at risk—needs US leadership
Druel and Gjerde 13 (Elisabeth and Christina, researchers at the Institute for Sustainable Development
and International Relations and International Union for Conservation of Nature, respectively:
12/13“Sustaining marine life beyond boundaries: Options for an implementing agreement for marine
biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”,
Marine Policy no. 49)
1. Introduction The adoption in 1982 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
constituted a milestone in the history of ocean governance. In terms of ocean space, it defined or
recognised various maritime zones, including two in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ): the High
Seas and the Area (the deep-seabed beyond national jurisdiction). According to UNCLOS, the High Seas
is the water column found beyond the limits of national jurisdiction of States and a traditional regime of
freedom of the seas applies there (UNCLOS, Part VII, Article 87). The Area, which encompasses the
seabed, ocean floor and subsoil thereof in ABNJ, and its mineral resources, are considered by UNCLOS to
be the common heritage of mankind (UNCLOS, Part XI, Article 136). Activities related to seabed mining
are organised and controlled by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) (UNCLOS, Part XI, Article 153
(1)). Together, the High Seas and the Area represent almost half of the planet's surface and host a
significant amount of its biodiversity. As stated in the Preamble, States adopted UNCLOS with the desire
to establish “through this Convention, with due regard for the sovereignty of all States, a legal order for
the seas and oceans which will facilitate international communication, and will promote the peaceful
uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilisation of their resources, the conservation of
their living resources and the study, protection and preservation of the marine environment”. Yet, more
than 30 years after the adoption of UNCLOS, despite its outstanding achievements in transforming
ocean law and governance, it is clear that many of these ambitions have yet to be fulfilled, especially as
they relate to the protection and preservation of the marine environment and the conservation of
biodiversity in ABNJ [1]. Over the past decades, human activities in ABNJ have developed exponentially,
leading also to an increase in the impacts on and threats to marine biodiversity found in these areas. For
example, around 90% of world trade is now carried out by the shipping industry [2], with associated
risks of oil, garbage, and noise pollution, collisions with large marine animals, and introduction of alien
species through ballast waters. Fishing activities have expanded to the High Seas and even into the deep
sea, with growing concerns regarding the overexploitation of fish stocks, illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing (IUU fishing) and damage to deep-water habitats due to destructive fishing practices
such as bottom trawling [3]. Exploration of mineral resources in the Area is now underway, with 19
contracts for exploration already approved by the ISA [4],[5] and [6]. These are no longer limited to the
Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean, but also cover areas in the Western Indian Ocean and on
the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The impacts on marine biodiversity of any future exploitation of these resources
will hinge on the adoption of effective measures, such as environmental management plans, that can
take into account not only direct impacts but also the cumulative impacts of other human uses as well as
climate change and ocean acidification. New uses are also emerging, such as bioprospecting (research
and development related to genetic resources), with an increasing number of patents associated with
genes of marine origin [7] and climate engineering activities, including ocean fertilisation [8]. The
growing impacts of climate change and ocean acidification are already apparent, and it is assumed that
in the future climate change will be the anthropogenic threat having the greatest impact in the deep
ocean [9] and [10]. This has raised serious questions as to whether the current governance framework
for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ is robust enough to respond to
these threats and whether the legal and institutional machinery is in place to ensure the adoption of the
necessary and appropriate policies. A number of international and regional organisations have a
mandate for managing activities in ABNJ, mostly on a sector or issue-based basis, and sometimes also on
a geographical basis. They include inter alia (i) the ISA for the prospection, exploration and exploitation
of mineral resources in the Area; (ii) regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) for fisheries;
(iii) through several conventions, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) for vessel-source
pollution and dumping of wastes; and (iv) a few regional seas conventions 1 which have a mandate over
the protection of the marine environment in ABNJ [11]. However, a crucial problem exists in that “the
myriad of institutions described above bear no real relationship to one another and operate
independent of each other without an overarching framework to ensure structure, consistency and
coherence” [12]. In addition, it has already been pointed out that a number of regulatory and
governance gaps exist in the current system ( Table 1 and Table 2), making it even harder to ensure the
conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ.
Economy Solvency
Jobs
Absent UNCLOS, jobs and economic opportunity plunge
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Over 160 nations have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty during the past 20 years. The U.S. now stands
alone with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and sad smattering of third world and disreputable nations in
turning our backs on the greatest opportunity for wealth creation available on the globe today. In doing
so, the U.S. is now losing jobs and economic opportunity to BRIC nations and the rest of the world, we
are surrendering them. The Senate still has time to act to ratify LOTS and to set things right. This is the
most important economic agenda item the Congress can take up – and they can still do it before the end
of the year. With one vote, the United States Senate has the power to unleash staggering economic
growth and jobs creation. Disinformation Decoded
Resources - Generic
Not joining LOST results in resource losses that are vital to the economy and our national security.
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
I am tired of losing out to China and Russia on the world stage. By not ratifying LOTS, the U.S. loses
access to resources that lie in undersea regions that are outside of the current U.S. sphere of legal
access – much in the same way that China and Russia are accessing oil that we have prevented ourselves
from going after, now China and Russia are accessing vast amounts of rare earth minerals, and other
critical minerals, that are essential to our economy and national security. There Is a New Cold War
Russia and China, two of America’s most powerful strategic foes, are actively exploring the Arctic and
Pacific for oil, gas and seabed mineral riches. The U.S. is not. Why? Because, Russia and China have
ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty and the U.S. hasn’t. Without ratifying LOTS, the U.S. has no standing to
apply for mining and drilling permits under international law. Bottom line: there is a new Cold War
taking place, and America is not winning. The seabed holds trillions of dollars of mineral resources.
According to RT, a Russian/English news channel, Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander Gorban last
month stated his hope that “there will never be a “war for resources” – or an even “hotter” conflict – in
the Arctic Region.” In the next breath, he then went on to reiterate that Russia is indeed "…trying to
fight for the Arctic shelf…” Gorban is a close Putin ally and his acknowledgement that Arctic conflict is
possible demonstrates the global stakes in play. Russia is not alone in recognizing the value of the LOTS
in the fight for global resource dominance. Five countries border the Arctic: Russia, the U.S. (via Alaska),
Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland). However, only one country is ineligible to mine or drill
those resources -- the U.S. That’s because the U.S. is not a member of the international body that grants
title, or property rights, to countries to engage in the exploration of seabed resources. That body is
called the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Admittance into that body is accomplished via
ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. China is also utilizing LOTS and the ISA to aggressively pursue
the wealth of the Arctic. According to a report by Elisabeth Rosenthal in the New York Times last month,
“The Arctic has risen rapidly on China’s foreign policy agenda in the past two years,” said Linda
Jakobson, East Asia program director at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Australia.
So, she said, the Chinese are exploring “how they could get involved.” China is already playing the role of
the Russia of the Pacific. Right now, China is exploring U.S.-based mineral claims in the Pacific and there
is nothing the U.S. can do about it. China is acting within the framework of international law and the
U.S., because we have not ratified LOTS, has no standing in the International Seabed Authority to
challenge China’s abuses.
LOST KT US heg—access to seabed resources
Donohue 12-- CEO of the United States Chamber of Commerce [Thomas, the President and CEO of the
United States Chamber of Commerce located in Washington, D.C, “Letter in Support of the Law of the
Sea Treaty”, US Chamber of Commerce (A business federation representing companies, business
associations, state and local chambers in the U.S), July 26 2012,
https://www.uschamber.com/letter/letter-support-law-sea-treaty, Accessed: 7/16/14] AW
Law of the Sea would grant American business the stability, predictability, and clear legal rights that
business needs before making multi-billion-dollar investments in deep seabed resource recovery.
Ratification would unleash an investment boom in the development of vast untapped oil, natural gas,
and strategic mineral resources—including vital rare earth minerals—off America’s shores. Failure to
ratify would leave U.S. business on the sidelines. With ratification, America would gain exclusive
resource sovereignty over 4.1 million square miles of subsea territory, an area greater than the
contiguous 48 states. Securing international recognition for U.S. sovereign rights over this territory—and
defending against encroachment by other nations—is vital to American prosperity. New technology
makes deep seabed resource extraction technically feasible and economically attractive. More intense
global competition for vital resources makes ratification increasingly urgent. The stakes are enormous.
America’s extended continental shelf, which in some areas extends hundreds of miles beyond U.S.
territorial waters, contains abundant oil and natural gas reserves that can provide reliable, affordable
energy to America’s homes and factories for decades to come—but only if the Senate acts to approve
Law of the Sea. Likewise, by joining the Convention, U.S. companies would gain exclusive access to
abundant rare earth mineral resources that are essential to high-tech manufacturing. China currently
controls 90 percent of the world supply of rare earth minerals. Law of the Sea represents America’s best
opportunity to take control of its own resource destiny. No U.S. company will make the multi-billiondollar investments required to recover these resources without the legal certainty the Convention
provides.
Generic Economy & Jobs
Ratifying LOST can uniquely solve the economy
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
The Institute for Liberty (IFL) has come to the conclusion that ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is the
most important property rights and wealth building step that America can take to maintain our leading
superpower status and to exponentially grow our economy. There has been a tremendous amount of
disinformation about this treaty. In fact, just earlier this year, IFL thought we knew the truth about what
was termed “LOST” and we signed a letter opposing ratification. We, like so many other conservatives,
were given bad information. In light of the facts, IFL dropped our opposition to the treaty and we are
now leading the conservative charge for its ratification. I am meeting everyday with conservative
grassroots leaders to ask them to join me in this imperative course correction and we are making a great
deal of progress. Conservatives love to debate, but we hate to be misled. Given what we know now, the
treaty’s appropriate moniker should be LOTS. Trillions of dollars, global property rights for U.S. interests,
critical navigation rights, and veto power over an international fund that could end up in adversarial
hands is what is at stake. Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will grow the U.S. economy while
protecting our military and strategic interests around the world.
Ratifying the treaty will help the US more than any other nation
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
There have been some troubling Ailinsky-esque tactics at play by those who would rather raise money
from, and get their names in front of, the grassroots conservative movement – by spreading
disinformation -- than acknowledge that this particular treaty is not like others, and is actually critical to
U.S. national security interests and to rebuilding our badly damaged economy. Here are the most
common ways that conservatives have been misled about the facts of this treaty, along with the facts
that the conservative movement needs to know in order to help in this urgent course correction: Myth:
Ratifying the treaty does not benefit the US. Fact: The opposite is true. Ratifying this treaty benefits the
U.S. more than any other nation. Once ratified, the U.S. receives the largest Exclusive Economic Zone
(area where the U.S. and only the U.S. can mine and drill the seabed) and also gives the US 100% veto
power over all ISA funding disbursements.
Now key for LOST ratification – trillions of dollars in revenue and jobs
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty is long overdue. With millions out of work, and an
exploding deficit, ratifying this treaty is something the U.S. Senate can get to work to accomplish
by the end of 2012. It is a critical step toward putting America back on a path to financial
prosperity and to ensuring American exceptionalism. LOTS prevents the U.S. from losing more
ground to the Chinese and the Russians. It will generate trillions of dollars and create a
tremendous number of jobs. It protects our national security. The concerns that Reagan had were
fixed at his request, and according Reagan’s own Chief of Staff, James Baker, this is the treaty
that Reagan negotiated and would have wanted ratified. It promotes the conservative principle of
private property rights. It’s time to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Solves Misc Shipping (Drugs/Weapons)
Failure to ratify UNCLOS directly jeopardizes many US interests
Angelo et. al. 12 [Mary Jane Angelo, Professor of Law and Director of the Environmental and Land Use
Law Program at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, Rebecca Bratspies, Professor of Law at
CUNY School of Law, has published widely on the topics of environmental liability, regulatory
uncertainty, regulation of international fisheries, and regulation of genetically modified food crops,
David Hunter, Professor of Law and Director of the International Legal Studies Program and the Program
on International and Comparative Environmental Law at the American University Washington College of
Law, specializes in international environmental law, John H. Knox, Professor of Law at Wake Forest
University School of Law, teaches and writes about environmental protection and international law,
Noah Sachs, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Center for
Environmental Studies at the University of Richmond School of Law, specializes in environmental law,
climate change, hazardous waste regulation, and tort law, Sandra B. Zellmer, the Alumni Professor of
Natural Resources Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law, teaches and writes about natural
resources and public lands, water and environmental law, and environmental ethics, Reclaiming Global
Environmental Leadership:
Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties, January 2012,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2079630, 7/15/14]
Failure to join the Convention directly jeopardizes many significant U.S. interests. Ratifying the LOS
Convention would require no changes to U.S. law. Indeed, the United States already considers itself
bound by the Convention’s substantive provisions.127 By failing to ratify the convention, the United
States diminishes its influence in global ocean governance and loses the opportunity to influence the
direction of the law. As the world’s largest maritime power, the United States has the most at stake
from developments in the law of the sea. Yet it continues to sit on the sidelines, thereby forfeiting the
opportunity to participate in the governance of virtually every major ocean interest, including: freedom
of navigation; marine environmental protection; natural resource management; oil, gas and mineral
extraction; marine scientific research; and the peaceful resolution of ocean- related disputes. Failure to
join the Convention not only prevents the United States from participating in the future development of
international law on these points, but it also directly jeopardizes many significant U.S. interests. First and
foremost, global freedom of navigation is essential for the exercise of U.S. military power. By failing to
join the Convention, the United States compromises its ability to assert navigational rights and freedoms
essential to our armed forces. As a non-Party and yet the world’s greatest maritime power, the United
States is in a far weaker position than it should be. The many examples include the right of innocent
passage through other countries’ territorial waters and the authority of warships to board stateless
vessels on the high seas, both of which are critically important for U.S. maritime security and for the
success of ongoing operations to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as drug
interdiction activities. Rather than being able to claim these rights as mutual commitments, the United
States is forced to rely on the assertion that they have become customary international law and must
therefore be extended to non-Parties. The United States has thus placed itself in the weaker position of
depending on the forbearance of the Convention’s Parties.
AT Mining Objections
Joining UNCLOS is long overdue – mining issues have been resolved
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
UNCLOS provides a comprehensive legal framework regarding uses of the oceans. Negotiated over a nine year
period (1973–1982) by more than 150 delegations, UNCLOS carefully balances the interests of States to control
activities off their coasts with those of all States to use the oceans without undue interference. Although
the United States played a key role in devel- oping the terms of the Convention consistent with U.S.
national interests, President Reagan elected not to sign the treaty when it opened for signa- ture, citing
concerns with Part XI of the Convention on deep sea bed min- ing.11 Despite America’s refusal to sign UNCLOS, the
President recognized that the Convention “contains provisions with respect to traditional uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing
maritime law and practice and fairly balance the interests of all states.”12 Accordingly, the President an- nounced that the United States was:
prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests re- lating to traditional uses of the oceans—such as navigation and
overflight. In this respect, the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the
Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under interna- tional law are recognized by such coastal
states.13 Widespread recognition that the Convention’s deep seabed mining re- gime was fundamentally flawed and required basic change in
order to make it generally acceptable to the industrialized nations prompted the U.N. Sec- retary-General to convene a series of informal
meetings in New York in 1990 to begin negotiation of a new agreement that would correct the objec- tionable provisions of Part XI. These
efforts resulted in the
adoption of the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United
Nations Conven- tion on the Law of the Sea, with Annex.14 The Implementing Agreement (IA) contains a
number of legally binding changes that meet the six objections to Part XI raised by President Reagan in
1982. As a result, the United States and all other major industrialized nations have signed the IA.15 On
October 7, 1994, President Clinton submitted UNCLOS and the IA to the Senate for advice and consent to accession and ratification, respectively. Despite widespread bi-partisan support, the concurrence of all the Federal agencies and departments with ocean interests, and
support from the U.S. maritime industries (oil and gas, shipping, telecommunica- tions, marine science, fishing) and environmental groups, the
Convention and its Implementing Agreement have languished in the Senate for the past 20 years.
The United States is the only
major maritime power and major indus- trialized nation that has not joined the Convention. UNCLOS entered
into force on November 16, 1994, and as of August 2013 has 166 parties. The IA entered into force on July 28, 1996, and currently has 145
parties.
Alt- hough the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, it continues to view the Convention’s
navigational provisions as reflective of customary interna- tional law and therefore binding on all
nations.16 Clearly, the original objections to the deep seabed mining provisions of the Convention have
been rectified and are no longer grounds for objec- tion. Thus, while the U.S. military, commercial
interests and certain non- governmental organizations have recognized and advocated for the United
States to accede to the Convention for many years, the Senate has failed to act. The impacts of climate
change in the Arctic region, however, should provide the necessary impetus for the U.S. Senate to revisit
UNCLOS and provide its advice and consent to support U.S. accession to this important treaty
AT: Ratifying LOST leads to UN bureaucracy
Ratifying the treaty creates nothing – will give US a seat at ISA
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Myth: Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will create a United Nations bureaucracy.
Fact: Not true. Ratifying the LOTS creates nothing. Ratifying the treaty will give the United States a seat
on the already-formed International Seabed Authority. The International Seabed Authority has existed
for over 20 years. The ISA is the international authority that grants exploration and mining and drilling
permits to all nations. The ISA also creates clear, legally binding, protocols for ships while navigating
foreign waters. This is long established, current international law. The U.S. opting not to join the ISA
does nothing except prevent America from receiving mining and drilling permits, while also creating a
gray area legally for our military and for U.S. companies when dealing with waterways belonging to
foreign nations. That is why every U.S. business association, including the US Chamber of Commerce and
the National Association of Manufacturers, and every sitting military leader of a U.S. Command –
including the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports the treaty’s ratification.
ISA too small to bully U.S- need to act to claim ocean resources
Bower and Poling 12 (Ernest Z. Bower, Senior Adviser and Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies,
Gregory B. Poling, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, “Advancing
the National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea,”
http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea Accessed on
July 17, 2014)DM
The ISA’s 39 staff and narrow jurisdiction have little chance of bullying the United States or anyone else.
U.S. mining interests meanwhile are sitting on the sidelines while the ocean’s resources are claimed by
others, and U.S. telecom companies lack the protections and dispute resolution mechanisms for
undersea cables that all their international competitors enjoy.
AT: International Lawsuits
International lawsuits about resource extraction violations are much more likely—plan solves by
providing legal certainty
Bellinger 12 [John, partner in the the international and national security law practices at Arnold & Porter
LLP and an Adjunct Senior Fellow in International and National Security Law at the Council on Foreign
Relations, UNCLOS: Clearly In The U.S. National Security, Economic, And Environmental Interests,
ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/18/14]
Third, U.S. companies have been unwilling to begin costly exploration and extraction activities in
reliance on theoretical and untested legal arguments that have not been accepted by other countries
and that are flatly contrary to the terms of Law of the Sea Convention. Companies instead want the clear
legal certainty provided by the Convention before making investments that could run into the billions of
dollars. Critics of the Convention who are concerned about the possibility of international litigation
should be much more concerned about the possibility of lawsuits against the United States or U.S.
companies if the United States were to engage in resource extraction on the U.S. extended continental
shelf or on the deep seabed contrary to the terms of the Convention, than about possible environmental
claims against the United States if the U.S. were to join the Convention. Moreover, a U.S. company that
initiates deep seabed mining outside the Convention risks having a foreign company sponsored by a
country that is party to the Convention jump on its claim after it has proven to be profitable. No U.S.
company would want to take that legal risk.
AT: Will Create a Tax on US Business
No taxes – only US property rights for resources
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Myth: Ratifying the treaty will create a tax on US businesses.
Fact: Wrong. The treaty creates U.S. property rights for vast mineral and oil wealth. The ISA simply
grants permits to countries to mine and drill for resources thereby giving companies and countries title –
something vital to the very foundation of property rights. One cannot hold a property right if one does
not first have title. Once title is granted and resource development takes place, certain Reagan
amendments go into effect. Ronald Reagan fought for certain mineral rights for the U.S. and he got
them in the 1994 amendments to the treaty. That’s why Reagan’s former Chief of Staff, James Baker,
supports ratifying the LOTS. Just as with any other resource development project, there is a royalty
schedule: no royalty payments of any kind for the first five years of resource development and after five
years the royalties cap at 7%. Right now, Russia, China and 161 other countries are eligible to exploit
global resources, enrich their nations, fill the ISA coffers with royalties, and then direct ISA expenditures
around the world. Once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, we would be granted 100% veto power as to how all
ISA resources from all countries are allocated. That is why Condoleezza Rice endorses the treaty – the
U.S. pays up to 7% for just our country, but we get veto power over 100% of the ISA coffers for every
royalty from every country. That means zero global mineral and oil wealth payments from anywhere in
the world going to rouge states. The only way the U.S. can accomplish this is by ratifying the Law of the
Sea Treaty and taking our seat at the ISA.
Revenues distributed fairly- U.S guaranteed veto on how funds are distributed
Bower and Poling 12 (Ernest Z. Bower, Senior Adviser and Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies,
Gregory B. Poling, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, “Advancing
the National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea,”
http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea Accessed on
July 17, 2014)DM
Regarding the third concern, the taxation on resource extraction in exclusive economic zones amounts
to just over 2 percent on average, a price that mining and hydrocarbon companies have signaled they
are willing to pay as the world’s energy markets hunger for new resources and prices of commodities
climb. As for revenue redistribution, opponents too often overlook the fact that following renegotiation
of the Law of the Sea, the United States is guaranteed the only permanent veto on how funds are
distributed. It is also exempt from any future amendments to the treaty without Senate approval. In
other words, the United States would enjoy a position of unequaled privilege, not unfair treatment,
within UNCLOS.
AT: LOST will erode US Sovereignty
Opposite is true – only gives veto power to the US
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Myth: Ratifying the treaty will erode U.S. sovereignty.
Fact: False. Ratifying the Treaty does not give one ounce of U.S. power to any other nation or to the
United Nations. In fact, the opposite is true. Once the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty, America
has 100% veto power over all other ISA expenditures and activities. Once we join the ISA, the U.S. can
assert our sovereign will over every other nation – unilaterally. Put another way, if the Law of the Sea
Treaty is ratified, the ISA will be forced to ask U.S. permission for all expenditures. Right now, the power
vacuum created by America’s absence in the ISA is being filled by Russia and China – an extremely
dangerous proposition. Also, Russia and China certainly did not ratify this treaty in order to erode their
own sovereignty. If Russia’s and China’s leaders are smart enough to ratify this treaty while preserving
their national sovereignty, the U.S. can certainly do the same.
Size of U.S continental shelf would lead to increase in U.S sovereign jurisdiction
Bower and Poling 12 (Ernest Z. Bower, Senior Adviser and Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies,
Gregory B. Poling, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, “Advancing
the National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea,”
http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea Accessed on
July 17, 2014)DM
The final, and currently most prominent, argument against ratification surrounds sovereignty.
Opponents say that, by limiting itself to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and whatever
extended continental shelf it can claim, the United States is restricting its jurisdictional sovereignty.
What this argument misses, however, is that the United States’ continental shelf is the largest of any—
up to 600 miles offshore in the Arctic alone. John Norton Moore of the University of Virginia School of
Law has argued that ratification would “massively increase [U.S.] sovereign jurisdiction” by more than
the size of the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska combined.¶ The arguments against ratification have been
steadily weakened in the last three decades and were overwhelmingly addressed in 1994. The most
important reason, however, for U.S. accession has remained unchanged for 30 years: a rules-based
international order is in the United States’ interests. The current global order and the U.S. preeminence
within it are built upon legal norms and rules. Those rules do not unfairly constrain the United States.
They constrain those that would overturn the system, and they prevent a return to an earlier era of
great-power competition and might-makes-right diplomacy. General Dempsey said May 9 at a forum on
the Law of the Sea, “Force of arms should not be our only national security instrument. [A] stable legal
framework has never been more important to the United States.”
AT: Will Give Aid to US Enemies
Joining LOST will help the US prevent resource flow to enemies
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Myth: Ratifying the treaty will give aid and comfort to U.S. enemies.
Fact: The opposite is true. Ratifying LOTS and joining the ISA will strengthen national security. By NOT
ratifying the treaty, Russia, China and other U.S. adversaries are in control of the ISA and they control
where ISA funds flow. Conversely, if the U.S. ratifies LOTS, then the U.S. will have 100%, unilateral veto
power over all ISA funding and can prevent resources from flowing to America’s enemies. That is why
every single Republican Secretary of State dating back to the treaty’s inception supports ratification –
from Henry Kissinger forward. Among the most vocal in support of the treaty’s ratification are
Condoleezza Rice and her Senior Advisor John Bellinger III. Rice and Bellinger fought for Guantanamo
Bay and the holding of terror detainees indefinitely, they defended water-boarding on behalf of the U.S.
and the White House. Nobody can accuse them of ever once supporting anything that would give aid
and comfort to America’s enemies or rouge states. They unequivocally support ratification of LOTS and
U.S. admission to the ISA – because ratification strengthens US national security.
AT: It’s an Environmentalist Ploy
It’s not a ploy – key to trillions dollars of wealth
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Myth: This treaty is an environmentalist ploy.
Fact: False. This treaty is backed by the US military; by the mining, oil and gas industries; by
manufacturers; by the defense industry; and, by every living Republican Secretary of State and by every
Republican president – essentially, this treaty is backed by everyone the environmentalist community
loathes, sues and pickets. The supporters of this treaty are amongst the most vocal critics
AT: Can Explore w/o UNCLOS
Ratifying the treaty is a prerequisite to obtaining the resources
Langer ’12 – President of Institute for liberty [Andrew Langer, Andrew Langer is the president of
the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American
exceptionalism around the world, The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Oceanlaw.org,
Wednesday, November 18th, 2012, http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treatyandrew-langer]
Myth: U.S. companies can explore mineral claims without ratifying the treaty and joining the ISA.
Fact: False. This is the issue of property rights, which is of tantamount importance in forging political
stability and global prosperity. Right now, U.S. business’ mineral claims are imperiled because of our
inability to participate in the International Seabed Authority. If other nations can lay claim to these
regions, and have the lawful backing of the treaty and the ISA, then our businesses can legally be forced
off these claims. U.S. businesses cannot subject themselves to a potential taking scenario where once
that have developed a resource, it is taken by China or Russia.
AT: Coast Guard Trade-Off DA
Coast Guard abides by UNCLOS now – no new legislation from ratification
Upton, 2014 – Analyst in Natural Resources Policy [Harold, Analyst in Natural Resources and writer, U.N
Convention on the Law of the Sea: Living Resources Provisions, February 11, 2014, Accessed July 15,
2014,
http://congressional.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/congressional/result/pqpresultpage.gispdfhitsp
anel.pdflink/http%3A$2f$2fprod.cosmos.dc4.bowker-dmz.com$2fapp-bin$2fgiscongresearch$2fc$2f8$2ff$2fa$2fcrs-2014-rsi-0085_from_1_to_14.pdf/entitlementkeys=1234%7Cappgis%7Ccongresearch%7Ccrs-2014-rsi-0085]
In support of current U.S. maritime policy, the U.S. government, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard,
currently expends considerable resources enforcing U.S. and international fishing and living resources
laws in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as well as Hawaii,
Howland-Baker, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico, and other remote U.S. EEZ areas and in
the high seas driftnet area of the western Pacific. Recognizing the existing level of U.S. commitment and
based on current U.S. interpretation, the living resource provisions of UNCLOS are generally not seen as
imposing significant new U.S. obligations, commitments, or encumbrances involving living resources and
their management. UNCLOS could provide several new privileges, primarily related to participation in
commissions developing international ocean policy. Some measure of increased stability in international
living marine resource policy can be inferred as a beneficial aspect of U.S. participation in the UNCLOS
regime. It appears that no new domestic legislation would be required to implement the living resources
provisions of UNCLOS.
No trade off --- ratification improves clarity and addresses conflict
Upton, 2014 – Analyst in Natural Resources Policy [Harold, Analyst in Natural Resources and writer, U.N
Convention on the Law of the Sea: Living Resources Provisions, February 11, 2014, Accessed July 15,
2014,
http://congressional.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/congressional/result/pqpresultpage.gispdfhitsp
anel.pdflink/http%3A$2f$2fprod.cosmos.dc4.bowker-dmz.com$2fapp-bin$2fgiscongresearch$2fc$2f8$2ff$2fa$2fcrs-2014-rsi-0085_from_1_to_14.pdf/entitlementkeys=1234%7Cappgis%7Ccongresearch%7Ccrs-2014-rsi-0085]
As presently understood and interpreted, the LOS provisions generally appear to reflect current U.S.
policy with respect to living marine resource management, conservation, and exploitation. Based on
these interpretations, the living resource provisions of UNCLOS are generally not seen as imposing
significant new U.S. obligations, commitments, or encumbrances involving living resources and their
management. One possible benefit of U.S. ratification would be the international community’s
anticipated positive response to such U.S. action. In addition, U.S. accession to UNCLOS would provide
the United States the opportunity to nominate a representative to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf and to seek clarification of U.S. continental shelf boundaries, thus addressing concerns
related to shared continental shelf areas such as the Bering Sea’s donut hole and the Arctic waters of
the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.23 Furthermore, accession could benefit the United States by allowing
U.S. participation in the International Seabed Authority and appointment of U.S. representatives to its
various subsidiary bodies.24 Moreover, U.S. accession to UNCLOS would provide the United States with
the opportunity to nominate national representatives as judges on the ITLOS and to fully participate in
developing the practices of this important global body.
AT China SOI
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
The sea-bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdic- tion—that is, beyond the 200 nm continental shelf or beyond the ECS established pursuant to UNCLOS—to include all resource exploration and exploitation activities, are regulated by the ISBA, in accordance with
Part XI of the Convention and the Part XI IA. If
the United States continues to delay establishing the outer limit of its
ECS in the Arctic, other nations may undercut U.S. claims and receive ISBA license to extract resources in
areas that otherwise could be under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction. In May 2013, five Asian nations—including China—were
granted ob- server status in the Arctic Council, and China has stated it does not intend to be a “wallflower” in the forum.33 Beijing has
expressed an interest in de- veloping new shipping routes through the Arctic that will connect China
with its largest export market—the European Union. To that end, in Au- gust 2013, a Chinese merchant vessel loaded with
heavy equipment and steel set sail from Dalian en route to Rotterdam via the Arctic’s Northern Sea Route (NSR).34 China has also
expressed an interest in developing Arc- tic resources. In March 2010, Rear Admiral Yin Zhou of the People’s
Lib- eration Army Navy stated at the Eleventh Chinese People’s Political Con- sultative Conference that
“under . . . UNCLOS, the Arctic does not belong to any particular nation and is rather the property of all
the world’s people” and that “China must play an indispensable role in Arctic exploration as it has onefifth of the world’s population.”35 Officials from the State Oceanic Administration have similarly
indicated that China is a “near Arctic state” and that the Arctic is an “inherited wealth for all
humankind.”36 As a party to UNCLOS, the United States could claim an ECS in the Arctic and fore- stall
any encroachment of U.S. ocean resources by China or any other nation.
AT: Spending
Spending good for the economy
Klein ’13, journalist at Washington Post (Ezra Klein, studied political science and is editor and chief of
Washington Post, “Government is hurting economy by not spending enough”, Washington Post, January
30th 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/30/government-is-hurtingthe-economy-by-spending-too-little/, 7/15/14)
That said, the government is hurting the recovery, and badly. But it's not because it's spending too
much, or because of concerns over future policy. It's because government, at all levels, is spending and
investing too little. Despite the stimulus and various other policies we've passed to help the recovery,
and despite the large deficits the government has been running, government spending and investment
have, at all levels, been contractionary since 2010. The new numbers the Bureau of Economic Analysis
released on fourth-quarter economic growth have received considerable attention for the clear damage
that falling government spending did to the economy. According to the BEA, "government consumption
expenditures and gross investment" knocked 1.33 percentage points off the total change in economic
growth. If government spending had just been neutral -- that is to say, if it had neither contracted nor
expanded -- the economy would have grown by 1.23 percentage points rather than shrunk by 0.1
percentage points. But this isn't the first time that total government spending and investment has been
a drag on growth. It pulled growth down by 0.67 percentage points in 2010, .34 in 2011, and .33 in 2012.
This is the strange, counterintuitive truth of government policy over the last three years: We haven't
been spending enough to keep growth steady, much less help it along. This graph helps tell the tale. It
compares actual GDP growth since 2010 with GDP growth after subtracting government expenditures
and investments (note that it misses any contributions, positive or negative, of tax policy). In only two
quarters is growth helped by including the government's role. In all other quarters, government
spending and investment were contractionary: A big reason for this is cutbacks on the state and local
level, which have been much larger than cutbacks at the federal level. In 2010, for instance, federal
spending took 0.23 percentage points off GDP, while state and local spending took 0.43 percentage
points off. As such, Washington often misses the overall contraction in government spending, as the
bulk of that contraction has been at the state and local levels. But federal spending has been contracting
too. Another way of looking at this data is to compare the contribution of private spending and public
spending to economic growth. Here are those numbers since 2009: Economists expect that to continue.
Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics projects the sequester alone will cut 0.5 percentage points off growth
in 2013 if it's allowed to go into effect. Add that to the expiration of the payroll tax cut and assorted
other belt-tightening measures at the federal level and total fiscal drag, he says, is likely to be more than
one percentage point of GDP in 2013 -- a significant hit when total GDP growth isn't expected to be
above three percentage points. These numbers, by the way, only measure the most direct contribution
of government spending. They don't measure indirect contributions, as when a defense contractor uses
money from his federal contract to buy a house. His house purchase would've shown up in private
investment, not public investment, but its absence doesn't show up anywhere at all. So yes, the
government is hurting the recovery. But it's not because of deficits or uncertainty, or at least, it's hard to
find evidence for either theory. The real, provable damage the government has done to economic
growth in recent years has been in cutting back on spending and investment since 2010
Spending improves the economy
Rugaber ’12, AP economic writer( Christopher Rugaber, International Trade at Bureau of National
Affairs, “Consumer, Government Spending Helps Economy, But Growth Remains Weak”, The Ledger,
October 26th 2012, http://www.theledger.com/article/20121026/NEWS/121029491?p=3&tc=pg,
7/15/15)
The U.S. economy grew at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed
by more spending by consumers and the federal government. Even with the increase from a 1.3 percent
growth rate in the April-June quarter, the economy remains too weak to rapidly boost job creation. The
report Friday from the Commerce Department is the last broad snapshot of the economy before
Americans choose a president in 11 days. Republican nominee Mitt Romney has attacked President
Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and has noted that growth has slowed from last year. The
1.74 percent annual growth rate for the first nine months of 2012 remains slightly behind last year’s 1.8
percent growth. That, in turn, trailed 2010’s growth of 2.4 percent. Obama has argued that the economy
is steadily improving. Analysts cautioned, though, that Friday’s report offered few signs that economic
growth is gaining momentum. “We suspect that growth will slow a little in the fourth quarter and expect
it to remain close to 2 percent next year,” said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital
Economics. The economy grew faster last quarter in part because consumer spending rose at a 2
percent annual rate, up from a 1.5 percent rate in the second quarter. Spending on homebuilding and
renovations increased at an annual rate of more than 14 percent. And federal spending surged, mainly
because of the sharpest increase in defense spending in more than three years. Growth was held back
by the first drop in exports in more than three years and flat business investment in equipment and
software. It was also slowed by the effects of the drought that struck the Midwest last summer. The
drought cut agriculture stockpiles and reduced the economy’s annual growth rate by nearly a half-point.
Once crop supplies return to normal, they will help boost economic growth, analysts noted. The
government’s report covers gross domestic product. GDP measures the nation’s total output of goods
and services — from restaurant meals and haircuts to airplanes, appliances and highways. It was the
government’s first of three estimates of growth for the July-September quarter. And it sketched a
picture that’s been familiar all year: The economy is growing at a tepid rate, slowed by high
unemployment and corporate anxiety over an unresolved budget crisis and a slowing global economy. It
is unclear what effect, if any, Friday’s report might have on the presidential race. Some analysts said
they doubted it would sway many undecided voters in battleground states. “It’s moving in the right
direction, but it’s still an unimpressive number,” says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s
Center for Politics. “It’s so close to the election I don’t know how many people are left to influence.” The
factors supporting the economy’s growth are shifting. Exports and business investment drove much of
the growth after the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009. But those sectors are weakening.
Consumer spending, meantime, has picked up. And housing is adding to growth after a six-year slump.
The number of homes available for sale has fallen since the recession, helping push up prices. That trend
has also supported an increase in home construction, though from very low levels. Consumer spending
drives nearly 70 percent of economic activity. Businesses have grown more cautious since spring, in part
because customer demand has remained modest and exports have declined as the global economy has
slowed. Many companies worry that their overseas sales could dampen further if recession spreads
throughout Europe and growth slows further in China, India and other developing countries. Businesses
also fear the tax increases and government spending cuts that will kick in next year if Congress doesn’t
reach a budget deal.
Politics
Business & Labor Support
Support from business have big impact on the senate
Bower and Powling ’12 [ Ernest Z. Bowzer, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in
Washington, D.C. Gregory Poling is a research assistant with the CSIS Southeast Asia Program. Gregory
B. Powling, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative, Advancing the
National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea, Center for Strategic
International Studies, http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratificationlaw-sea]
The other factor that is different this time as the Senate considers ratification is the overwhelming
support of U.S. business. Manufacturers along with oil, telecommunications, and shipping companies,
and every other sector of the economy with a stake in access to sea lines of communication and
undersea resources support ratification of the convention. Both the American Petroleum Institute and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have voiced their support. Senator Kerry is taking advantage of this
support from U.S. businesses by including their representatives in upcoming hearings. In a rare show of
solidarity, American labor and the environmental community have joined hands in supporting accession.
The AFL-CIO and the Seafarers International Union of North America both sent letters to the
administration in the last year expressing support. A group of nine environmental conservation groups,
including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Ocean
Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund, sent a letter to Secretary Clinton in October voicing support
for ratification.
Ratifying LOST popular with every major ocean industry—no voter backlash means it won’t influence
elections
Lugar 12 [Richard, Ranking Minority Member on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator,
Every Major Ocean Industry Supports US Accession to UNCLOS, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/18/14]
Every major ocean industry, including shipping, fishing, telecommunications, oil and natural gas
developers, drilling contractors, and ship builders, support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea.
This is not a recent development. Ocean industry support for the Convention has been virtually
unanimous going back to 2003 when the Foreign Relations Committee first took it up and initiated a
process that resulted in a unanimous Committee vote to report Law of the Sea favorably to the whole
Senate. A few years later, at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on October 4, 2007, a business
panel testified in favor of the Convention. Only Senator Menendez and I were present for that powerful
and unequivocal testimony, but then, as now, every major ocean industry backed the Convention and
appealed for its ratification.
UNCLOS – Broad support
Bipartisan, industrial, and environmentalist support for LOST ratification
Block, 2013 – Staff Writer [Ben, Staff Writer for Worldwatch Institute, U.S. Leaders Support Law of the
Sea Treaty, Worldwatch Institute, Accessed July 15, 2014, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993]
Among the international treaties that President Obama supported during his campaign - including a
nuclear test ban, a global bill of rights for women, biodiversity accords, and a renewed climate change
agreement - the Law of the Sea is likely to face less opposition, according to observers. It is supported by
a wide array of interest groups, including the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, international environmental
groups, and the mining, fishing, shipping, and telecommunications industries. "The fact is, if you can't
get the Law of the Sea treaty through the Senate with the breadth of support it currently has...it will be
very difficult to really run the trap [lines] on any of these other treaties," said Don Kraus, Chief Executive
Officer of the lobbying group Citizens for Global Solutions. In his final week in office, former President
George W. Bush issued a directive calling for the Senate to ratify the treaty "promptly." Yet
conservatives insist that approval will not be simple. "If [Democratic leaders] start cramming a bunch of
controversial treaties down the Senate's throat with the thinking that Republicans will just take it, I think
they're wrong," said Steven Groves, a Heritage Foundation international law fellow. "So many of these
treaties are objectionable, and Law of the Sea is one of them." Industry groups support the treaty largely
for its clarification of rules regarding the high seas - ocean waters beyond national jurisdiction - and the
Arctic Ocean. Russia, Canada, the United States, and several Scandinavian countries have all claimed
territorial rights to Arctic maritime regions as ice caps recede. Environmental groups oppose oil drilling
in much of the Arctic due to concerns about oil spills and habitat destruction. Yet groups such as the
Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature still support
the treaty for the clarity and negotiating space it can provide.
Ratifying UNCLOS popular with everyone – industry, environmentalists, the military
Angelo et. al. 12 [Mary Jane Angelo, Professor of Law and Director of the Environmental and Land Use
Law Program at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, Rebecca Bratspies, Professor of Law at
CUNY School of Law, has published widely on the topics of environmental liability, regulatory
uncertainty, regulation of international fisheries, and regulation of genetically modified food crops,
David Hunter, Professor of Law and Director of the International Legal Studies Program and the Program
on International and Comparative Environmental Law at the American University Washington College of
Law, specializes in international environmental law, John H. Knox, Professor of Law at Wake Forest
University School of Law, teaches and writes about environmental protection and international law,
Noah Sachs, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Center for
Environmental Studies at the University of Richmond School of Law, specializes in environmental law,
climate change, hazardous waste regulation, and tort law, Sandra B. Zellmer, the Alumni Professor of
Natural Resources Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law, teaches and writes about natural
resources and public lands, water and environmental law, and environmental ethics, Reclaiming Global
Environmental Leadership:
Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties, January 2012,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2079630, 7/15/14]
Because joining the Convention would protect and advance a wide array of U.S. security, economic and
environmental interests, it has the broadest range of support of any of the treaties covered in this
report. The nation’s security leadership, including the Navy and the Coast Guard, has unequivocally
supported ratification of the Convention under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged the Senate to approve the Convention,124 as have ocean policy
experts,125 the oil and gas industry, and environmental groups.126 All emphasize the importance of
ensuring that the United States has a seat at the table when the Convention Parties make crucial
decisions affecting U.S. national interests.
UNCLOS has a ton of bipartisan support
Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea
Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013,
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S--Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
Since 1994, all succeeding Administrations—Democrat and Republican alike—have strongly supported
U.S. accession to the Convention. UN- CLOS has likewise garnered significant attention on Capitol Hill,
with 13 full committee hearings devoted exclusively to UNCLOS being convened by five different
Congressional committees in the last 20 years. Nonethe- less, despite widespread support by all major
stakeholders since the mid- 1990s, proponents of the Convention have not succeeded in convincing a handful of ideologues—who
continue to fallaciously view UNCLOS as an assault on U.S. sovereignty—that accession is in the best interests of the United States
Shields the link- its bipartisan in the public and supported by the military and
environmentalists
WSJ 12 (GOP Scuttles Law-of-Sea Treaty. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/07/16/gop-oppositionscuttles-law-of-sea-treaty/)
One of the enduring mysteries of the treaty is how it has failed to even come up for a ratification vote
given the breadth of support it enjoys from widely disparate groups. Former secretaries of State, both
Republicans and Democrats, top civilian and uniformed Pentagon officials, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, environmentalists, and former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been
vocal supporters.
Not popular – GOP Senate opposition
Obama urges Congress to ratify UNCLOS—bipartisan support exists
London Embassy 12 (London Embassy, 5/23/12, “OBAMA ADMINISTRATION URGES SENATE TO
APPROVE OCEANS TREATY” http://london.usembassy.gov/forpol132.html )
The top-ranking foreign policy officials in the U.S. government went to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee May 23 attempting to end a debate that began in the 1980s — whether the United States
should join 160 other nations to become a party to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS). The president is for it. The secretaries of defense and state are for it, as are most of the
brass-plated officers of the U.S. military establishment. But a few members of the U.S. Senate are not,
and since treaty accession requires a positive vote from that body of the U.S. Congress, UNCLOS has
been adrift in the choppy waters of partisan politics for years. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham
Clinton was the first witness, presenting the committee with a list of economic, defense, navigational,
jurisdictional and territorial reasons that strengthen the case for the United States to join the treaty. She
said a “limited but vociferous opposition” is not heeding the facts as recognized by all the important
sectors with interests in the sea-ways of the world.
Republicans oppose ratification
Block, 2013 – Staff Writer [Ben, Staff Writer for Worldwatch Institute, U.S. Leaders Support Law of the
Sea Treaty, Worldwatch Institute, Accessed July 15, 2014, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993]
The opposition from some Republican members of Congress is mostly a reflection of their deepseated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies. "This seems to me a bit of
a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country's environmental policy,"
Groves said. "That's generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans."
GOP Support
Link turn --- LOST ratification popular with everybody, especially Republicans
Kerry 12, (John, Secretary of State, presidential runner-up, former chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, “Law of the Sea: A National Security Issue that Unites”, 6/14/12, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/a-national-security-issue_b_1596414.html) ADL
Conventional wisdom tells us that with the presidential campaign season upon us, the United States
Senate is closed for business. On the Foreign Relations Committee, we're working now to prove
conventional wisdom wrong, because conventional wisdom may be convenient, but national security
imperatives are too inconvenient to ignore. That's why today we're having our second and third major
hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty, which one of my Republican friends calls "the best conservative
treaty you've never heard of." Don't take my word for it. It's a treaty that boasts an unprecedented
breadth of support from Republican foreign policy experts, the United States military, and the hardnosed, bottom line American business community. It's an issue that President George W. Bush and I
actually agreed on -- strongly, unequivocally. And it's an issue that just last week, all the living former
Republican secretaries of state supported on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, days after
former Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John Warner and Chamber of Commerce head Tom
Donahue teamed up to support in their own statement of commitment.
Lugar Supports
Lugar backs UNCLOS—bipartisan support exists – key senators
London Embassy 12 (London Embassy, 5/23/12, “OBAMA ADMINISTRATION URGES SENATE TO
APPROVE OCEANS TREATY” http://london.usembassy.gov/forpol132.html )
“I therefore urge the committee to listen to the experts, listen to our businesses, listen to the Chamber
of Commerce, listen to our military,” Clinton said, “and please give advice and consent to this treaty
before the end of this year.” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, a Democrat
from Massachusetts, said he won’t bring the issue to a vote soon. “We will wait till the passions of the
elections have subsided,” Kerry said, before he’ll call on members to endorse or reject the treaty. But he
also promised a series of hearings that will analyze the treaty, its clauses, advantages and disadvantages
from many different perspectives. In a political climate where agreement between Democrats and
Republicans is rare, Republican Richard Lugar also endorsed the treaty, as a former chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee who had tried to get an affirmative vote on the compact in 2004.
“We’re making the job of our Navy more difficult,” Lugar said, “despite the long-standing and nearly
unanimous pleas of Navy leaders that United States participation will help them maintain navigational
rights more effectively and with less risk to the men and women they command.” Opponents of U.S.
accession to UNCLOS argue that the U.S. Navy asserted itself on the high seas historically, so why not
now? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said the U.S. Navy does not because
the world is changing, and more nations are demonstrating their own powers on the sea. “The force of
arms does not have to be and should not be our only national security instrument,” Dempsey said.
“Joining the convention would provide us with another way to stave off conflict with less risk of
escalation.”
Oil Support
American Petroleum Institute supports LOST ratification
National Journal 12 12 (“Business Groups Urge Law Of the Sea Ratification
http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/06/business-groups-urge-law-of-th.php)
Ahead of today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the Law of the Sea Convention, a
dozen business groups urged senators to approve the treaty, which would grant American sovereignty
over resources within hundreds of miles of its shores. Over 150 countries and the European Union have
ratified the treaty, so supporters argue that the United States is missing out on the legal certainty and
predictability it would provide. "Now that new technologies and changed conditions have made it
cheaper and easier to access the potential wealth beneath the oceans, the business community simply
cannot afford to have the U.S. remain on the sidelines," the groups wrote in a letter to senators on
Wednesday. The letter goes on to say how the treaty will help energy companies, the
telecommunications industry and other industries that rely on mineral resources. "Accession to the Law
of the Sea Convention is the only means to protect and advance the claims of U.S. entities to the vast
mineral resources contained on the deep seabed floor, and would ensure that ships flying American
flags travel safely and securely through international waters," the letter says. Groups that signed the
letter include the American Petroleum Institute, the Chamber of Shipping of America, the National
Association of Manufacturers and the Telecommunications Industry Association.
Shields the link
Fang 12 (This article was reported in collaboration with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute,
where Lee Fang is a reporting fellow. Never Mind Super PACs: How Big Business Is Buying the Election
http://www.thenation.com/article/169639/never-mind-super-pacs-how-big-business-buyingelection?page=full#)
But as the 2010 midterm elections loomed, Citizens United handed API an additional arrow for its
quiver. The group could now funnel undisclosed corporate donations directly to campaign entities.
Among the oil executives leading API at the time—and still to this day—was Tofiq Al-Gabsani, a
registered lobbyist for the Saudi government. Al-Gabsani is the chief executive of Saudi Refining Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, the government-owned Saudi oil giant
better known as Aramco. Aramco, by means of its US subsidiary, is understood by insiders to be one of
the top donors to API, where, according to the Washington Post, membership dues for the largest firms
can be as much as $20 million a year. API has roughly 400 member firms, but only a small group of oil
and gas industry CEOs sit on its board of directors, which oversees the trade association’s major political
campaigns, according to API state business filings and two former API executives. Alongside the top
officials of such major American firms as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, one of those directors for the
past three years has been Al-Gabsani. US law still bans foreign corporations from participating directly in
elections. But after Citizens United, trade associations like API—whose influential members include
foreign corporations—are free to spend as they wish, unburdened by disclosure requirements. And
these groups have taken full advantage of their new freedoms. While other campaign committees, from
labor unions to Super PACs, face strict transparency rules, trade associations enjoy unparalleled power
to covertly manipulate elections using corporate money. API-funded groups were a force behind the
tidal wave of negative advertisements to hit Democrats in the midterms. Pennsylvania Representative
Joe Sestak “voted for Pelosi’s job-killing cap-and-trade plan,” intoned one election-season TV ad from
Americans for Tax Reform, one of several groups financed by API in 2010. Sestak’s vote for a bill to put a
price on carbon pollution, the ad continued, constituted “a great big tax that would make utility bills
skyrocket, gas prices soar.” Sestak lost his bid for the US Senate, and his Congressional seat was one of
sixty-three taken by the Republicans.
AT: Midterms Disad
Swing voters are a myth – They do not affect the election – what changes polls are voters who show
up
Drum 14 – journalist for Mother Jones (Kevin, Political journalist founder of catwriters blog, “Swing
Votes Don’t Matter”, Mother Jones, April 22 2014, http://www.motherjones.com/kevindrum/2014/04/most-independent-voters-arent-really ,7/16/2014)mc
I write from time to time about the myth of the independent voter, which goes something like this:
there aren't any. Oh, lots of people say they're independent, but it turns out that most of them lean in
one direction or another, and when Election Day rolls around the leaners vote just as reliably as stone
partisans. Trueindependents—the ones who switch between parties from election to election—make up
only about 10 percent of the electorate. Still, 10 percent is 10 percent. It's not quite nothing. But it turns
out that it really is. Today, Lynne Vavreck breaks things down a bit further and explains just how these
folks vote: Only a small percentage of voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010. Moreover,
there were almost as many John McCain voters who voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2010 as
there were Obama voters who shifted the other way....On average, across districts, roughly 6 percent of
Obama voters switched and just under 6 perce nt of McCain voters switched. So, yes, there are some
true switchers. But mostly they're going to cancel each other out. The net result from a huge push for
swing voters is likely to be no more than 2 or 3 percentage points. In a few high-stakes states in a
presidential election, that might make them worth going after. But in your average congressional
election, it's a waste of time and money. So what does make the difference? On turnout, the numbers
were not evenly balanced for Democrats and Republicans. Only 65 percent of Obama’s 2008 supporters
stuck with the party in 2010 and voted for a Democrat in the House. The remaining 28 percent of Mr.
Obama’s voters took the midterm election off. By comparison, only 17 percent of McCain’s voters from
2008 sat out the midterms. ....It may seem hard to believe that the [2010] shellacking was more about
who turned up than about who changed their minds between 2008 and 2010, but it lines up with a lot of
other evidence about voters’ behavior. Most identify with the same political party their entire adult
lives, even if they do not formally register with it. They almost always vote for the presidential candidate
from that party, and they rarely vote for one party for president and the other one for Congress. And
most voters are also much less likely to vote in midterm elections than in presidential contests.
Environmental & Energy Lobbies key issues in multiple states
The Hill 2014 (“Climate to be the 2014 Battlefield” http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/194317-climate-to-be-14-battlefield)
Energy and environmental issues are expected to take a front seat in dozens of races across the country,
from coal country in West Virginia and Kentucky to the Gulf Coast, where Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
faces a tough reelection race just as she prepares to take up the chairmanship of the Senate Energy
Committee. Noise surrounding crude oil exports and offshore oil development from coastal states is
already being made, and Landrieu may push policy that evens the playing ground for coastal states
when it comes to collecting federal dollars tied to energy development. In Alaska, Sen. Mark Begich (DAlaska) faces a difficult reelection battle in a major energy state. On Thursday, he distanced himself from
Obama's climate agenda, pushing for more oil exploration. Open-seat Senate races in South Dakota and
Montana are also places where energy will be a major theme as the natural-gas boom becomes a
prominent debate in 2014.
Environmental Lobbies key to turnout empirically
The Hill 2014 (“Climate to be the 2014 Battlefield” http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/194317-climate-to-be-14-battlefield)
A number of political players are promising involvement.
The Sierra Club plans to highlight differences between candidates on energy issues. The green group
touts that in 2014 it will mobilize its 2.1 million members and supporters to continue the momentum it
built in 2013 races in Virginia and Colorado, where candidates it backed won reelection.
Environmental Lobbies key to turnout empirically – Gearing up for 2014
The Hill 2014 (“Climate to be the 2014 Battlefield” http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/194317-climate-to-be-14-battlefield)
It’s not clear what candidates will benefit from Steyer’s backing, but he said NextGen Climate Action
would look at races that could be won. Some think Steyer could prove to be the Democrats' version of
Charles and David Koch, the energy magnates who have poured money into organizations backing
conservative causes. “He is building a vast political network and seizing opportunities provided by loose
campaign finance rules to insert himself into elections nationwide,” the Los Angeles Times wrote in a
recent article. He isn’t alone, either. A recent report by the Center for Public Integrity revealed the
liberal nonprofit League of Conservation Voters spent $15 million in 2012 backing "pro-environment"
candidates. And in 2013 the green group continued funding key allies like Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) The group also spent $1.7 million overall in Virginia’s gubernatorial race in
2013, making it Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe's largest cash contributor outside of the
Democratic Governor's Association. McAuliffe ended up winning the race, which possibly featured the
first "climate denier" attack ad, said Jeff Gohringer of the League of Conservation Voters. McAuliffe set
an example for future candidates “that when they lean into these issues, they will be supported by a
strong political force,” Gohringer told The Hill days before McAuliffe was elected. “We're proud of our
success in Virginia and Massachusetts this year, and making climate change an issue in those races,”
Gohringer told The Hill on Tuesday. “We want to build on that momentum. “We're in the process of
making decisions for 2014. Defending the Senate firewall to prevent the gutting of environmental
protections will be a major priority for us,” Gohringer added.
AT T: Non-Military
We meet that it’s not military action- focus is maritime zones, resource rights
Kissinger 12 (Henry Kissinger, American diplomat and political scientist (et al) George Shultz, American
economist and businessman, James Baker III, American attorney and governmental official, Colin Powell,
American statesman, and Condoleezza Rice, American political scientist and diplomat, “Time to Join The
Law of the Sea Treaty,”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303674004577434770851478912 Accessed
July 15, 2014) DM
The convention's primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation,
allocate resource rights, establish the certainty necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea,
and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deep-seabed mining, which
prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and
George W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama,
because it is in the best interest of our nation. Yet the U.S. remains one of the few major countries not
party to the convention.
AT: Privatization CP
Ratification now is key—refusal undermines a laundry list of objectives including private industry and
the military
Negroponte 12 [John, served as Director of National Intelligence and as Deputy Secretary of State in the
Administration of President George W. Bush, ambassador, Joining UNCLOS Now: Nine Reasons Why It Is
Imperative for the United States, ProQuest, 7/1/12, 7/17/14]
Why is it imperative for the United States to join the convention now? For starters, the United States
would gain legal protection for its sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in offshore zones, the
freedom of maneuver and action for its military forces, protection for economic, environmental and
marine research interests at sea while seizing an extraordinary opportunity to restore the mantle of
international leadership on, over and under nearly three-quarters of the earth. US firms would be able
to obtain essential internationally recognized exclusive rights to explore and exploit deposits of critical
and strategic minerals on the ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction and secure recognized title to the
recovered resources. The convention, as revised by the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, provides
the commercial regime needed for private industry in full compliance with the criteria articulated in
1982 by President Reagan when he laid out his conditions for a convention he would sign. More difficult
to measure than the tangible benefits gained from US accession is the diplomatic blight on America's
reputation for rejecting a carefully negotiated accord that enjoys overwhelming international consensus
and a treaty that was adjusted in unprecedented fashion to specifically meet the demands put forth by
President Reagan. Remaining outside the convention undermines US credibility and limits our ability to
achieve critical national security objectives. The treaty was negotiated over decades during which
American delegations scored important victories. To the dismay of the rest of the world that negotiated
the convention with the United States in good faith, after many years the Senate has yet to have an up
or down vote. In my opinion, this is a constitutional abdication of congressional leadership. Through
inaction, the United States is forfeiting concrete interests while simultaneously undermining something
more intangible, the legitimacy of US leadership and its international reputation.
AT: States CP
States can’t make treaties
Denning No Date- Brannon, Professor of Law Cumberland school of law, Stanford university, State
Treaties, The heritage Guide to The Constitution,
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/69/state-treaties
The courts have had little occasion to deal with the clause, though in Holmes v. Jennison (1840), Justice
Roger B. Taney, writing for himself and three other Justices, commented that the clause "positively and
unconditionally" forbade states from entering into treaties, and that "even the consent of Congress
could not authorize" them to do so. He also distinguished formal "treaties," which were expressly
forbidden to states, from "agreements" and "compacts" that Congress could authorize.