Skip to main content
Support
Article

Joining the Law of the Sea

Next month the Senate is going to vote on whether America will join the Law of the Sea Convention. Former Congressman Lee Hamilton makes the case for ratification.

Next month, the Senate will vote on whether the United States will join the Law of the Sea Convention, which lays out a comprehensive international framework to govern the world's ungoverned spaces: our deep and vast oceans. This is a critical opportunity that must not be missed.

The United States has taken a long and winding road to this moment of decision. The Law of the Sea Convention was negotiated for decades and agreed to in 1982. President Reagan directed the U.S. to follow the Convention, with the exception of some rules on mining. After these rules were amended to meet America's demands, President Clinton agreed to sign the Convention, but it stalled in the Senate. Now, the Convention has the support of President Bush and the unanimous approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Over 150 nations are members – including every major power except the United States. The only obstacle to U.S. entry is full Senate ratification.

The arguments in favor of ratification are overwhelming. First, the treaty is critical to our national security. The U.S. military depends upon freedom of movement on the high seas so that our navy can have right of passage, and so we can transport military forces and equipment. The Convention guarantees that freedom, doing away with burdensome and varying rules from coastal nations, and ensuring that we need not seek a permission slip to pass through territorial seas. In addition to simplifying operations, this also helps America – and the world – avert conflict.

The Convention also benefits the American economy. Global commerce depends upon shipping, with $700 billion worth of goods passing through U.S. ports alone each year. The Convention codifies and guarantees freedom of navigation for the world's shipping industry. And, at a time when new sea lanes are opening up in the Arctic because of global climate change, the Convention's framework will be central in resolving disputes.

Furthermore, the Convention guarantees U.S. access to resources. Once the treaty is ratified, we would have rights to resources extending 200 miles out from our shoreline. That means we will obtain international recognized jurisdiction over nearly 300,000 square miles – more than the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska combined. Given the fact that one third of the world's oil and gas is offshore – including an estimated 400 billion barrels of oil and gas in the Arctic alone – America stands to reap a windfall, while ensuring that our interests are protected in the changing Arctic region. Similarly, the Convention would confirm U.S. jurisdiction over highly profitable fisheries.

These economic benefits are accompanied by environmental considerations. Pollution of our oceans has led to the disappearance of scores of species – including some that are important to our food supply, and threatens to have devastating consequences on the global environment. The Convention puts a framework in place to reduce the pollution of the world's waters, including a set of standards that America already adheres to. By joining, we will strengthen our leverage to press others to do more.

These benefits add up to an unusually broad base of support. In addition to President Bush, former President Clinton, and a broad bipartisan group of Senators, the Convention is strongly supported by the U.S. military, the energy industry, and a coalition of leading environmental organizations. Each recognizes that the Convention is favorable to U.S. interests, and that our absence substantially weakens our ability to press those interests within an influential international body. When we fail to take our seat at the table, we cannot make our voice heard.

Yet a small but determined group of opponents continues to argue against ratification. Often, these arguments ring hollow. Opponents of the Convention argue that it weakens U.S. sovereignty, taxes Americans, creates a huge international bureaucracy, and restricts our ability to interdict materials at sea. Yet the Convention actually extends U.S. sovereignty over a dramatically larger portion of the earth, levies no taxes on Americans, has created an institution with only 35 full time employees, and expands our rights of interdiction. The arguments against joining do not amount to anywhere near the strength of the case for ratification.

America cannot advance its interests in a globalizing world without strong international partnerships and legal frameworks. When we turn our back on the world, we weaken our ability to lead, and we miss important opportunities to press our case. By any measure, the Law of the Sea is an international framework that advances American interests on many different fronts. It's time for America to reap the full rewards of that success. It's time to ratify this Treaty.

Related Links