Debates Over US Ratification of UNCLOS

As we begin digging more deeply into the conclusion of treaties, and what it means to sign but not ratify a treaty, you might consider the debate that has been going on over the last few months about whether the United States should ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The U.S. signed the Convention in 1994, when it came into force, and there are currently 161 other countries that are party to the Convention. But there has been continued resistance in the Senate to ratifying the Convention. The Obama administration began the process this year of obtaining Senate advice and consent to ratify the treaty, but it has not yet been put to a vote.

Here is the beginning of a legal debate on the pros and cons of ratification by the U.S.

Territorial Disputes Roil Asia

Over the course of the summer a number of simmering territorial disputes in East and South-East Asia have become much more heated. China and the Philippines have had heated exchanges over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Just last week there were protests in China, involving thousands of people, over the dispute between China and Japan over the ownership of an uninhabited group of islands called Senkaku by the Japanese, and Diaoyu by the Chinese, over which Japan exercises control. Even more recently, Japan has sought to submit to the International Court of Justice the question of sovereignty over a group of islands claimed by both Japan and South Korea, known as Takeshima in Japan, and Dokudo in South Korea.

All of these disputes are fueled not only by latent nationalistic passions and deep historical grievances, but by the knowledge that with control over any of these islands will also come control over rich natural resources on the sea bed in the area surrounding the islands, pursuant to the rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Yet each of the disputes has the potential of spiraling out of control and leading to armed conflict. Why is it that the rules of the Convention cannot settle the matter? Why, notwithstanding apparent treaty rules that would determine control over the islands, is there room for such dispute?