This resolution urges the Senate to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The resolution affirms that it is in the national interest for the United States to become a formal signatory of the convention, and it recommends that this ratification remain a top federal priority.
[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 361 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 361
Calling upon the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to
the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 30, 2021
Mr. Courtney (for himself, Mr. Young, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Langevin, and Mrs. Luria) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Calling upon the United States Senate to give its advice and consent to
the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea.
Whereas the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted
by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in December
1982 and entered into force in November 1994 to establish a treaty
regime to govern activities on, over, and under the world's oceans;
Whereas UNCLOS builds on four 1958 Law of the Sea conventions to which the
United States is a party, namely the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the High Seas, the Convention
on the Continental Shelf, and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation
of the Living Resources of the High Seas;
Whereas UNCLOS and an associated 1994 agreement relating to implementation of
the treaty were transmitted to the Senate on October 6, 1994, and, in
the absence of Senate advice and consent to ratification, the United
States is not a party to the treaty or the associated 1994 agreement;
Whereas the treaty has been ratified by 167 parties, which includes 166
countries and the European Union, but not the United States;
Whereas the United States, like most other countries, maintains that coastal
states under UNCLOS have the right to regulate economic activities in
their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), but do not have the right to
regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs;
Whereas the treaty's provisions relating to navigational rights, including
navigational rights in EEZs, reflect the diplomatic position of the
United States on the issue dating back to the adoption of UNCLOS in
1982;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would codify the United States current
position of recognizing the provisions within UNCLOS as customary
international law;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would give the United States standing to
participate in discussions relating to the treaty and thereby improve
the ability of the United States to intervene as a full party to
disputes relating to navigational rights and to defend United States
interpretations of the treaty's provisions, including those relating to
whether coastal states have a right under UNCLOS to regulate foreign
military activities in their EEZs;
Whereas relying on customary international norms to defend United States
interests in those issues is not sufficient, because customary
international law is not universally accepted and is subject to change
over time based on state practice;
Whereas relying on other countries to assert claims on behalf of the United
States at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague is woefully
insufficient to defend and uphold United States sovereign rights and
interests;
Whereas the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in the July 12, 2016, ruling on the
case In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, stated that ``the
Tribunal forwarded to the Parties for their comment a Note Verbale from
the Embassy of the United States of America, requesting to send a
representative to observe the hearing'', and ``the Tribunal communicated
to the Parties and the U.S. Embassy that it had decided that `only
interested States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea will be admitted as observers' and thus could not accede to the
U.S. request'';
Whereas, on November 25, 2018, the Russian Federation violated international
norms and binding agreements, including UNCLOS, in firing upon, ramming,
and seizing Ukrainian vessels and crews attempting to pass through the
Kerch Strait;
Whereas, on May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
ruled in a vote of 19-1 that ``[t]he Russian Federation shall
immediately release the Ukrainian naval vessels Berdyansk, Nikopol and
Yani Kapu, and return them to the custody of Ukraine'' and that ``[t]he
Russian Federation shall immediately release the 24 detained Ukrainian
servicemen and allow them to return to Ukraine'', demonstrating the
Tribunal's rejection of the Russian Federation's arguments in that
matter in relation to the Law of the Sea;
Whereas despite the Tribunal's ruling aligning with the position of the United
States Government on the November 25, 2018, incident, the continued
nonparticipation of the United States in UNCLOS limits the ability of
the United States to effectively respond to the Russian Federation's
actions and to any potential future violations by the Russian Federation
and any other signatory of UNCLOS;
Whereas the current Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Lloyd Austin, stated
that ``the United States has long treated UNCLOS's provisions related to
navigation and overflight as reflective of longstanding and customary
international law. Our military already acts in a manner consistent with
these rights and freedoms, so accession to the Convention will not
impact the manner in which we conduct our operations'', in response to a
question for the record from Senator Hirono on January 21, 2021;
Whereas the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, stated
that ``becoming a party to the Convention would reinforce freedom of the
seas and the navigational rights vital to our global force posture in
the world's largest maneuver space. Joining the Convention would also
demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law, and strengthen our
credibility with other Convention parties'', in response to advance
policy questions on July 30, 2019, before the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate;
Whereas the current Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, further
stated that ``acceding to the Convention would strengthen our strategic
position on issues pertaining to the [South China Sea and the Arctic].
The United States would have increased credibility when responding to
excessive maritime claims and militarization efforts in the South China
Sea. With respect to the Arctic, becoming a party to the Convention
would allow the U.S. to position itself to safeguard access for the
purposes of maritime traffic, resource exploitation, and other human
activities, while ensuring other states comply with the law of the
sea'', in response to advance policy questions on July 30, 2019, before
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Philip S.
Davidson, stated that ``our accession to the UNCLOS would help our
position legally across the globe and would do nothing to limit our
military operations in the manner in which we're conducting them now'',
on April 17, 2018, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Philip S.
Davidson, further stated, ``I'm on record saying that [ratification of
the UNCLOS] would be good for us, I think we would be hard-pressed to
find a Navy Admiral that's said otherwise.'', on March 9, 2021, before
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United
States Northern Command, General Glen VanHerck, stated, ``It would be
[in the interests of the United States to accede to the UNCLOS because]
it gives us a better posture, a seat at the table, more credibility when
we work many of the issues that we have to work around the globe with
allies, partners, and potential competitors.'', on March 16, 2021,
before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United
States Northern Command, General Glen VanHerck, further stated in regard
to United States ratification of the UNCLOS that ``as Russia takes over
the Arctic Council in May [2021], it's never been more crucial for us
with our like-minded nations and allies and partners that we come to
agreement to not allow Russia and China to exploit any seams and gaps'',
on March 16, 2021, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United
States Northern Command, General Glen VanHerck, further stated ``I
support the accession to UNCLOS. I think it puts us in a more strategic
position when we address these issues internationally, globally, with
competitors or our allies and partners as well.'', on April 14, 2021,
before the House Committee on Armed Services;
Whereas the Commander, United States European Command, General Tod Wolters,
answered in the affirmative under questioning from Congressman Joe
Courtney on whether General Wolters supported the United States becoming
a full participant in UNCLOS, on April 15, 2021, before the House
Committee on Armed Services;
Whereas the Commander, United States Pacific Fleet, and current nominee to be
the Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral John C.
Aquilino, stated that, ``there's really two main reasons [to ratify
UNCLOS]: as the group gets together, it would be certainly beneficial if
we had a seat at the table when there were discussions occurring as it
applied to potential adjustments and the interpretations of those
international laws and the second reason is it puts us in an increased
position of credibility . . . we adhere to the UNCLOS treaty in our
operations, and it would make our position must stronger if we were
signatories'', on March 23, 2021, before the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, retired Admiral
Harry B. Harris, stated, ``I believe that UNCLOS gives Russia the
potential to, quote, unquote `own' almost half of the Arctic Circle, and
we will not have that opportunity because of, we're not a signatory to
UNCLOS,'' on March 15, 2018, before the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate; and
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, Admiral Harry B.
Harris, further stated, ``I think that by not signing onto it that we
lose the creditability for the very same thing that we're arguing for'',
and ``which is the following--accepting rules and norms in the
international arena. The United States is a beacon--we're a beacon on a
hill but I think that light is brighter if we sign on to UNCLOS'', on
February 23, 2016, at a hearing before the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate;
Whereas the past Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, stated that
``the UNCLOS treaty guarantees rights such as innocent passage through
territorial seas; transit passage through, under and over international
straits; and the laying and maintaining of submarine cables'', and ``the
convention has been approved by nearly every maritime power and all the
permanent members of the UN Security Council, except the United
States'', on February 16, 2012, before the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate;
Whereas the past Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, further stated,
``Our notable absence as a signatory weakens our position with other
nations, allowing the introduction of expansive definitions of
sovereignty on the high seas that undermine our ability to defend our
mineral rights along our own continental shelf and in the Arctic.'' and
that ``the Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an
action consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties'', on
February 16, 2012, before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F.
Dunford, stated, ``The Convention provides legal certainty in the
world's largest maneuver space.'', that ``access would strengthen the
legal foundation for our ability to transit through international
straits and archipelagic waters; preserve our right to conduct military
activities in other countries' Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) without
notice or permission; reaffirm the sovereign immunity of warships;
provide a framework to counter excessive maritime claims; and preserve
our operations and intelligence-collection activities'', and ``joining
the Convention would also demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law,
strengthen our credibility among those nations that are already party to
the Convention, and allow us to bring the full force of our influence in
challenging excessive maritime claims'', on July 9, 2015, before the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, General Joseph F.
Dunford, further stated that ``by remaining outside the Convention, the
United States remains in scarce company with Iran, Venezuela, North
Korea, and Syria'' and ``by failing to join the Convention, some
countries may come to doubt our commitment to act in accordance with
international law'', on July 9, 2015, before the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, stated that ``we support
joining the Convention because it is in our national interest--both in
our national security and our economic interests'', ``becoming a party
to the Treaty benefits the U.S. economically by providing American
companies the legal certainty and stability they need to hire and
invest'', and ``companies will be hesitant to take on the investment
risk and cost to explore and develop the resources of the sea--
particularly on the extended continental shelf (ECS)--without the legal
certainty and stability accession to LOS provides'', on June 28, 2012,
before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
Whereas the past President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, further stated that ``the
benefits of joining cut across many important industries including
telecommunications, mining, shipping, and oil and natural gas'', and
``joining the Convention will provide the U.S. a critical voice on
maritime issues--from mineral claims in the Arctic to how International
Seabed Authority (ISA) funds are distributed'', on June 28, 2012, before
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
Whereas the past Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, retired Admiral
Paul Zukunft, stated on February 12, 2016, ``With the receding of the
icepack, the Arctic Ocean has become the focus of international
interest.'', ``All Arctic states agree that the Law of the Sea
Convention is the governing legal regime for the Arctic Ocean . . . yet,
we remain the only Arctic nation that has not ratified the very
instrument that provides this accepted legal framework governing the
Arctic Ocean and its seabed.'', and ``Ratification of the Law of the Sea
Convention supports our economic interests, environmental protection,
and safety of life at sea, especially in the Arctic Ocean.'';
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. Richardson, stated
that ``acceding to the Convention would strengthen our credibility and
strategic position'', and ``we undermine our leverage by not signing up
to the same rule book by which we are asking other countries to
accept'', on July 30, 2015, in his nomination hearing before the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. Richardson, further
stated that ``becoming a part of [UNCLOS] would give us a great deal of
credibility, and particularly as it pertains to the unfolding
opportunities in the Arctic'', and ``this provides a framework to
adjudicate disputes'', on July 30, 2015, in his nomination hearing
before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
Whereas the past United States Special Representative of State for the Arctic
and former Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, Jr.,
stated that ``as a non-party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the U.S.
is at a significant disadvantage relative to the other Arctic Ocean
coastal States'', ``those States are parties to the Convention, and are
well along the path to obtaining legal certainty and international
recognition of their Arctic extended continental shelf'', and ``becoming
a Party to the Law of the Sea Convention would allow the United States
to fully secure its rights to the continental shelf off the coast of
Alaska, which is likely to extend out to more than 600 nautical miles'',
on December 10, 2014, before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and
Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) affirms that it is in the national interest for the
United States to become a formal signatory of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), done at
Montego Bay, Jamaica, December 10, 1982;
(2) urges the United States Senate to give its advice and
consent to the ratification of the UNCLOS; and
(3) recommends the ratification of the UNCLOS remain a top
priority for the Federal Government, the importance of which
was most recently underscored by the strategic challenges the
United States faces in the Asia-Pacific, the Arctic, and the
Black Sea regions.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line