US ratification of the UNCLOS

Hearings are being held in the American legislature on the ratification of the UNCLOS. Two-third majority is required for ratification.

Personally, I don't think the UNCLOS has a high chance of being ratified, despite the support of the Department of State and other government arms. Conservative resistance is high.

Thoughts?

UCSDAE said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hearings are being held in the American legislature on the ratification of the UNCLOS. Two-third majority is required for ratification.

Personally, I don't think the UNCLOS has a high chance of being ratified, despite the support of the Department of State and other government arms. Conservative resistance is high.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Well, right now the Democrats control the Senate and that is where the vote will occur. Getting a 2/3rds majority will be very difficult, and that's the way it was meant to be.

I agree with the concerns. There is a significant loss of soveriegnty and your own control with this treaty as regards both potential defense and resource issues and any nation that can already handle that end of things on their own should think long and hard before giving up that capability to an international committee.

I expect it will not pass in the US Senate for that reason and I expect both Republican and Democratic opposition to keep it from reaching 2/3rd by a fairly large margin. It's an election year and it appears that the conservatives may have the upper hand like they did in 2010. If that is so, many Democrats will not go along with it for fear of having it used against them during the election.

I'm letting this thread stand because it has some important military aspects concerning the Pacific Rim nations.

DO NOT respond to or quote this post.

bd popeye super moderator

Even if UNCLOS is ratified, U.S. cannot use it as a premise to help Phillipines over the South China Sea dispute, since the US-Phillipines MDT and UNCLOS explicitly excludes "territorial disputes" as an item to be disputed for the law to be invoked...

Plus, no nation in their right mind with the strength and world wide national interest in the seas like US, China, or even tiny nations like Phillipines to give up their sovereign territorial rights by ratifying the UNCLOS like this... It has to explicitly exclude "territorial disputes"...

if i'm not mistaken, signing the UNCLOS would mean that Americans would have to consign themselves to international law - i.e they no longer have the luxury of violating other countries sovereign waters indiscriminately. Not something you give up willingly.

z117 said:

if i'm not mistaken, signing the UNCLOS would mean that Americans would have to consign themselves to international law - i.e they no longer have the luxury of violating other countries sovereign waters indiscriminately. Not something you give up willingly.

Click to expand...

How does the US violate other nations sovereignty on the high seas?

bd popeye said:

How does the US violate other nations sovereignty on the high seas?

Click to expand...

well, it has to do with "peceaful passage" meaning if SUB are in EEZ, then it has to surface and raise its countries flag, no surveillance inside eez etc. thats what i read before.

" it has to do with "peceaful passage" meaning if SUB are in EEZ"

I honestly think no US or Chinese commander of a strategic SSN will do that . UNCLOS or no UNCLOS.

UCSDAE said:

" it has to do with "peceaful passage" meaning if SUB are in EEZ"

I honestly think no US or Chinese commander of a strategic SSN will do that . UNCLOS or no UNCLOS.

Click to expand...

true, then whats the point of UNCLOS if no one obey it.

s002wjh said:

true, then whats the point of UNCLOS if no one obey it.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of interpretation. China feels that US surveillance activities do not constitute "peaceful passage" while the US feels that it does.