[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 339 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 339
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
May 18, 2017
Mr. Courtney (for himself, Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs.
Davis of California, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Smith
of Washington, Mr. Garamendi, and Mr. Langevin) 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 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, including 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 the treaty 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 adherence, the United States
is not a party to the convention and the associated 1994 agreement;
Whereas the convention has been ratified by 167 parties, which includes 166
states and the European Union, but not the United States;
Whereas the United States, like most other countries, believes 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 those
in EEZs, reflect the United States diplomatic position on the issue
dating back to UNCLOS's adoption in 1982;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would reinforce the United States
perspective into permanent 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 United States ability 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 these issues is not sufficient, because it is not
universally accepted and is subject to change over time based on state
practice;
Whereas relying on other nations to assert claims on behalf of the United States
at the Hague Convention is woefully insufficient to defend and uphold
United States sovereign rights and interests;
Whereas the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in their July 12, 2016, ruling on
the case In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, stated, ``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 the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, stated
``as a party to UNCLOS, we will be in a better position to counter the
efforts of coastal nations to restrict freedom of the seas'' on February
16, 2012, before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, stated, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the 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,
``the Department strongly supports the accession to UNCLOS, an action
consistently recommended by my predecessors of both parties'', on
February 16, 2012, before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, stated, ``we support joining
the Convention because it is in our national interest--both in our
national security and our economic interests'', and, ``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 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations;
Whereas the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, further stated, ``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 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel J.
Locklear, stated that UNCLOS is ``widely accepted after a lot of years
of deliberation by many, many countries, most countries in my Area of
Responsibility (AOR)'', and, ``when we're not a signatory, it reduces
our overall credibility when we bring it up as a choice of how you might
solve a dispute of any kind'', on April 16, 2015, before the Senate
Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft,
stated on February 12, 2016, state that ``With the receding of the
icepack, the Arctic Ocean has become the focus of international
interest'', and ``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 Jonathan Greenert, further
stated, ``remaining outside Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) is
inconsistent with our principles, our national security strategy and our
leadership in commerce and trade'', and, ``virtually every major ally of
the U.S. is a party to LOSC, as are all other permanent members of the
U.N. Security Council and all other Arctic nations'', on June 14, 2012,
before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, further
stated, ``our absence [from LOSC] could provide an excuse for nations to
selectively choose among Convention provisions or abandon it altogether,
thereby eroding the navigational freedoms we enjoy today'', and,
``accession would enhance multilateral operations with our partners and
demonstrate a clear commitment to the rule of law for the oceans'', on
June 14, 2012, before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the United States Special Representative of State for the Arctic and
former Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp, Jr., stated,
``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'', and, ``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 House Subcommittee on
Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats of the Foreign Affairs Committee;
Whereas the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford,
stated, ``The Convention provides legal certainty in the world's largest
maneuver space'', and, ``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 or
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
Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph F. Dunford,
further stated, ``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 Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John M. Richardson, stated,
``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, before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the 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, before the Senate Armed
Services Committee;
Whereas the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security
Affairs, the Honorable David Shear, stated, ``that while the United
States operates consistent with the United Nations convention on the law
of the sea, we've seen positive momentum in promoting shared rules of
the road'', and, ``our efforts would be greatly strengthened by Senate
ratification of UNCLOS'', on September 17, 2015, before the Senate Armed
Services Committee;
Whereas the Commander of United States Pacific Command, Admiral Harry B. Harris,
stated that ``all maritime claims must be derived from land features in
accordance with international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea
Convention, and any disputes should be settled peacefully and in
accordance with international law'', and, ``our efforts would be greatly
strengthened by Senate ratification of UNCLOS'', on September 17, 2015,
before the Senate Armed Services Committee;
Whereas the Commander of United States Pacific Command, Admiral Harry Harris,
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 Senate Armed Services Committee; and
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, retired Admiral
Dennis Blair, stated, ``if we want to focus on the Asia-Pacific going
forward, we're going to have to find a way to pass the Law of the Sea
because it does hurt us and it is striking to us that the Chinese have
signed and they're obligated but don't want to do it'', and ``we have
not signed but want them to do it, right? So it's ironical to many in
the region'' on July 13, 2016, before the Senate Subcommittee on East
Asia, the Pacific, and International Cyber Security: 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 of the Law of the Sea;
(2) urges the United States Senate to give its advice and
consent to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); and
(3) recommends the ratification of UNCLOS remain a top
priority for the administration, having received bipartisan
support from every President since 1994, and having most
recently been underscored by the strategic challenges the
United States faces in the Asia-Pacific region and more
specifically in the South China Sea.
<all>