Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea

1. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea . General Topic Area Introduction Resolved: he United States should accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea without reservations.

2. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Law of the Sea • Treaty – for now, an international legal agreement, convention but self binding – treaties hard to enforce • Referred to as UNCLOS (formally) or LOST • Covers a lot – Ocean is 72% of the earth’s surface • Developed in 1982 after 10 years of work. Came into force in 1994 after the 60th country ratified. Approximately 100 have since ratified (167 as of June 2016) • UN receives ratification instruments but does not implement the treaty

3. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Why Ratified? *Was a free for all except for within a few miles of coast – pollution, resource access, military intrusion

4. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Key Components 12 mile territorial Foreign vessels allows “innocent” passage – no underwater subs, no practice, no fishing, no pollution, states can stop if they need to States control archpalegic waters 200 mile EEZ/outer continental shelf – 350 miles Freedom of navigation outside Created an international seabed authority Created conflict resolution mechanisms (UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf) Internal waters controlled by states, no right of passage Beyond 4 miles can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty. (a reason the US won’t ratify)

5. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Treaty Accede The US would accede to it through ratification. Ratification requires getting 2/3 of senators (67) to support it. If the US aceded to it, they would need to ratify it US signed it in 1994 but we have not ratified it. Technically we are supposed to comply with it We generally follow it as customary international law – laws and norms that have built up

6. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Treaty Reservations Allows a country to agree in part UNCLOS doesn’t allow it

7. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Some General Thoughts • The literature is lopsided. It’s hard to find credible policy arguments agains the treaty. Heritage Foundation Daily Caller • The better arguments are actually arguments against treaties/America fist/don’t constrain us, we don’t need this. Multilateral action ties our hands • It’s odd to imagine this happening in a world of Trump. If it did, what does it mean – we’d still be unilateral and oppositional in other ways • Lecture after 2 days, though I’ve debated and coached this before • How debates play out in the literature not always the same as they play out in 4 minutes speeches

8. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits -- Economic . • Creates business certainty in the EEZ • It supports American businesses that are looking to invest in commercial shipping lanes in the Arctic, in deep-sea mining and telecommunications operations, and in other forms of maritime commerce. • Parties are authorized to mine the seabed

9. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits -- Environment • Requires environmental protections • Provides a framework to negotiate environmental agreements • Requires sustainable fisheries management • (assumes the US would do this)

10. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits – Conflict Resolution/Diplomacy Mechanisms to encourage the resolution of conflicts Mechanisms to allow diplomatic activity Facilitates diplomatic resolution

11. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits – International Law LOST ratification and enforcement of international law Benefits to a “rules based global order” “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.”

12. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits – US Leadership Based on the assumption that leadership can be had by working with others 1 – soft power – people like you – people would like us to sign the treaty (credible and predictable) “ratification of the Convention will soften the United States’ image and signal much needed goodwill to the international community.” 2 – Economic power 3 – Military power What if 1 increases and 2/3 decrease under the treaty? What is the overall best approach to building international power? What is the benefit to being included?

13. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits – China/South China Sea Navigation (naval power) – where we want to navigate is protected Credibility vis a vis China in rulings If China tries to restrict access we can file a claim/make our case US wants to bring China into its international rules based system as it rises

14. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits – China/South China Sea Navigation (naval power) – where we want to navigate is protected Credibility vis a vis China in rulings If China tries to restrict access we can file a claim/make our case US wants to bring China into its international rules based system as it rises

15. Public Forum Debate Law of the Sea Benefits -- 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. -- Assert territorial rights -- UN body divides it up -- Access to energy Challenge Russia’s access/dominance Improve relations with Russia

16. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Benefits – Multilateral Cooperation It’s multilateral – countries work together, cooperate in other areas – proliferation security, global war on terrorism

17. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Answers to: Constrains the US 60 nations have ratified – it has entered into force We’ve signed it, arguably limited by it We don’t get a seat at the negotiating table when this is debated -- Ratifying UNCLOS enables the United States to nominate members to the Law of Sea Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission, and confirms our standing to ensure that discussions on the Freedom of Navigation are not inconsistent with American interest. Economic interests in 200 miles not protected More people liking us is functionally useful Protects navigation without force Strengthens our Arctic access claims

18. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Answers to: Financial Transfers We control where the $ goes It’s not that much $ Deficit skyrocketing anyhow

19. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con -- Sovereignty Leon Panetta, (former) Secretary of Defense, 2012, https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SecDef_Leon_Panetta_Testimonydocx.pdf SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION Third, some allege that in joining, our military would be subject to the jurisdiction of international courts – and that this represents a surrendering of U.S. sovereignty. But once again, this is not the case. The Convention provides that a party may declare it does not accept any dispute resolution procedures for disputes concerning military activities. This election has been made by 20 other nations that have joined the Convention, and the United States would do the same. The bottom line is that neither U.S. military activities nor a U.S. decision as to what constitutes a U.S. military activity would be subject to review by any international court or tribunal

20. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Answers to: Constrains Our Military Undermines our ability to do whatever we want We have military and economic clout, so what do we gain? America First

21. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con -- Sovereignty Undermines our ability to do whatever we want We have military and economic clout, so what do we gain? America First

22. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con -- Politics Undermines our ability to do whatever we want We have military and economic clout, so what do we gain? America First

23. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con – Funds Transfer Steven Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, 2012, the Law of the Sea: The Costs of US Accession to UNCLOS, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/the-law-the-sea-costs-us-accession-unclos If the U.S. accedes to UNCLOS, it will be required by Article 82 to transfer royalties generated from hydrocarbon production of the U.S. “extended continental shelf” (ECS) to the International Seabed Authority for redistribution to developing and landlocked countries. Since the value of the hydrocarbon resources lying beneath the U.S. ECS may be worth trillions of dollars, the amount of royalties that the U.S. Treasury would be required to transfer to the Authority would be substantial. In any event, U.S. accession would amount to an open-ended commitment to forgo an incalculable amount of royalty revenue for no appreciable benefit.

24. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con – Resource Distribution Impact Turn – US hegemony bad Impact Turn – soft power bad, counterintuitive arguments Impact Turn – economic growth bad

25. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con -- Trump The US will be seen as a global, cooperative power – tariffs, Iran nuclear deal, Paris accoards

26. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con – Other Strategies Impact Turn – US hegemony bad Impact Turn – soft power bad, counterintuitive arguments Impact Turn – economic growth bad

27. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con -- NBD Other dispute mechanisms We can assert stuff Treaties won’t really constrain China or Russia Multilateralism is generally a failure Other countries complying solves most of the benefits, the US won’t do the stuff anyhow – protect the environment, use diplomacy, negotiate We’ll get the economic benefits by asserting our interests

28. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Con -- America Most powerful country in the world Will not be constrained by others No value to this In the real world, the best arg is no solvency and politics

29. Public Forum Debate ----------------------------- Law of the Sea Thoughts Try to conceptualize the benefits –resource access/economy Dispute resolution Environmental resource management Secondary – good will, Pro – how can we persuasively access these Con –how can we respond Pro has strategic advantage – arguments with policy consequences, different arguments