Login Register for an account
Bilateral relations between U.S. and Russia will be more important to Arctic security than U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS
If the U.S. Senate ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, Russia will not witness any significant changes in bilateral relations in the Arctic. It is obvious that the U.S. intends to apply the Convention only when it coincides with its national interests. Potential conflicts will be resolved through bilateral negotiations rather than UNCLOS provisions directly.
Since the Convention does not oblige all contentious issues to be decided within its rules and institutions, the United States can either appeal to precedent or refuse to discuss an inconvenient problem in terms of the Convention. Apparently, some Russian experts underestimate the fact that under international law, common law prevails over codified law. This allows the U.S. to bypass the Convention and is all the more reason to not consider it a universal source of law on Arctic issues.
In line with this logic, experts from the Ministry of Defense and the Department of State submitted their official conclusions to the U.S. Senate in which they found that ratification would not impose any restrictions on the military.
Moreover if the Convention was ratified, the U.S. could appeal to the right of transit in territorial waters enshrined in the Convention as grounds for legal military presence not only in the Barents Sea, but also anywhere in the world. In case of complaints about the inadmissibility of covert presence or military activities in territorial waters, the United States could exercise the right of self-interpretation, challenging what is meant by military activities in the particular case (Article 298-1 of the Convention).
U.S. military activities cannot be a matter of contention within the framework of the Convention. Similarly, Russia will not receive any positive changes to the delimitation of the Bering Sea or defining the boundary line in the Chukchi Sea and beyond the exclusive economic zone towards the pole.
Thus, strategic environment and level of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Arctic will be based on the state of their bilateral relations in general, and not on the U.S. decision of whether or not to ratify the UN Law of the Sea.
Valery Konyshev. "Can UN Law of the Sea stop militarization in Arctic? ." Russia Direct. (January 6, 2014) [ More ]
Quicktabs: Evidence
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will not help resolve Arctic disputes with Russia
Strategic environment and level of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Arctic will be based on the state of their bilateral relations in general, and not on the U.S. decision of whether or not to ratify the UN Law of the Sea.
Russia, Arctic
Related Quotes:
US ratification of UNCLOS will not boost capacity to challenge Russian claims, disputes likely to be resolved outside of convention
Russia will defend its claims in the Arctic but is unlikely to resort to military means
Russia has effectively removed option of resolving border disputes through UNCLOS in its signing statements under Article 298
No major disagreement over ECS claims between U.S. and Russia
Arctic nations are only cooperating through international institutions out of political convenience
Parent Arguments:
The U.S. would not Benefit from Ratification of UNCLOS
Counter Argument:
U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would help resolve disputes with Russia in Arctic
This is a quote from a news article or citation relevant to the debate over U.S. ratification of UNCLOS. Quotes are used to support arguments and you can see which arguments this quote is related to from the 'arguments' tab below the quote or see more quotes from this source or author by clicking the relevant links in the citation. You can also comment on the quote or view another random quote in the system.
South China Sea arbitration shows U.S. could solve key Arctic arguments over passage through Arctic Council mechanisms
Even after South China Sea ruling, U.S. still best served by ratification of UNCLOS to preserve rights to continental shelf
UNCLOS regime is key component of U.S.-led liberal order
Recent South China Sea case shows how U.S. non-party status to UNCLOS is allowing China to shape international law in ways inimical to U.S. interests
U.S. at dual disadvantage in Arctic due to non-party status as its claims lack legitimacy and it has no claim to challenge others
Open Debate Engine Status Block
There are currently:
128 arguments
1321 quotes
536 news articles
There are 200 orphaned quotes, or 15% of existing quotes.
About — Contact — FAQ — Updates
Site powered by the Open Debate Engine.