United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The most significant issues which were covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of maritime boundary disputes.

[1] The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests.

In any event, Congress needs to pass laws defining if the extended waters, including oil and mineral rights, are under State or Federal control.

Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the Convention.

[1] On April 24, 2004 Jeane Kirkpatrick (Reagan Administration United Nations Ambassador 1981–1985), testified against United States ratification of the treaty before the Senate Armed Services Committee, in which she argued that "Viewed from the perspective of U.S. interests and Reagan Administration principles, it was a bad bargain," and that "its ratification will diminish our capacity for self-government, including, ultimately, our capacity for self-defense.

Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, rendered after two years of international judicial proceedings, the landmark Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Award, which resolved the maritime boundary delimitation (in the East, Central and West sectors) to satisfaction of both Parties and committed Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago to resolve their fisheries dispute by means of concluding a new Fisheries Agreement.

[5] On September 20, 2007, an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under UNCLOS issued its decision on a longstanding maritime boundary dispute between Guyana and Suriname, which contained a ruling blaming both nations for violating treaty obligations.

[9] During the same hearing, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey also urged swift ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

[10] On June 14, 2012, The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held the so-called "24 Star" hearing, featuring six four-star generals and admirals representing every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

[18] Other commentators have argued that although the George W. Bush administration, the Pentagon and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee favored ratification,[19] other U.S. congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction have yet to undertake an open, transparent and substantive public review of this most complex treaty's significant environmental regulatory and judicial enforcement provisions, their relationship to the provisions of other multilateral environmental treaties, and the need to amend U.S. federal environmental, wildlife, chemicals and offshore drilling laws and/or regulations in order to implement the international legal obligations the U.S. would assume upon ratification of UNCLOS.

[20] It is arguable whether such a review would have revealed the relationship between U.S. UNCLOS accession efforts, environmental legislation previously proposed by members of the 111th Congress and oceans policies adopted by the Obama administration.