[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 331 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 331
Calling upon the Senate to give its advice and consent to the
ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 22, 2025
Ms. Hirono (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Young, and Mr. King) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Calling upon the 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 the 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 the UNCLOS builds on four 1958 Law of the Sea conventions to which the
United States is a party, namely 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, all done at Geneva April 29,
1958;
Whereas the UNCLOS 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 ratification, the United
States is not a party to the treaty or the associated 1994 agreement;
Whereas, as of January 2025, 170 parties have ratified UNCLOS, including 166
United Nations member states, but not the United States;
Whereas the United States, like most other countries, maintains that coastal
States under the 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
navigational rights in EEZs, reflect the diplomatic position of the
United States on the issue dating back to the adoption of the UNCLOS in
1982;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would codify the United States' current
position of recognizing the provisions within the UNCLOS as customary
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 ability of the United States 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 the UNCLOS to regulate foreign
military activities in their EEZs;
Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would allow the United States to be a
member of the International Seabed Authority and thereby participate
directly in setting and voting on the policies organizing and
controlling mineral-related activities in the international seabed area
as global demand for critical minerals increases;
Whereas more than 97 percent of the global internet traffic relies on
infrastructure located on the seabed of the world's oceans compared to
space-based infrastructure;
Whereas lack of full-party membership to UNCLOS limits the access and influence
of the United States to critical territorial dispute management,
including matters involving pursuit and competition of extended outer
continental shelf submissions, facilitated primarily by Article 76,
which represents the main tool assisting sovereign authority
delimitation agreements;
Whereas relying on customary international norms to defend United States
interests in those issues is not sufficient, because customary
international law is not universally accepted and is subject to change
over time based on state practice;
Whereas relying on other countries to assert claims on behalf of the United
States at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague is woefully
insufficient to defend and uphold United States sovereign rights and
interests;
Whereas the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in the July 12, 2016, ruling on the
case In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, stated that ``the
Tribunal communicated to the Parties and the U.S. Embassy that it had
decided that `only interested States pa11ies 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'' to ``send a representative to
observe the hearing'';
Whereas, on November 25, 2018, the Russian Federation violated international
norms and binding agreements, including the UNCLOS, in firing upon,
ramming, and seizing Ukrainian vessels and crews attempting to pass
through the Kerch Strait;
Whereas, on May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
ruled in a vote of 19 to 1 that ``[t]he Russian Federation shall
immediately release the Ukrainian naval vessels Berdyansk, Nikopol and
Yani Kapu, and return them to the custody of Ukraine'' and that ``[t]he
Russian Federation shall immediately release the 24 detained Ukrainian
servicemen and allow them to return to Ukraine'', demonstrating the
Tribunal's rejection of the Russian Federation's arguments in that
matter in relation to the Law of the Sea;
Whereas, despite the Tribunal's ruling aligning with the position of the United
States Government on the November 25, 2018, incident, the continued
nonparticipation of the United States in the UNCLOS limits the ability
of the United States to effectively respond to the Russian Federation's
actions and to any potential future violations by the Russian Federation
and any other signatory of UNCLOS;
Whereas the past Secretary of Defense, the Honorable Lloyd Austin, stated that
``the United States has long treated the UNCLOS's provisions related to
navigation and overflight as reflective of longstanding and customary
international law. Our military already acts in a manner consistent with
these rights and freedoms, so accession to the Convention will not
impact the manner in which we conduct our operations,'' in response to a
question for the record from Senator Mazie Hirono on January 21, 2021;
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, stated that
``the United States played a major role in drafting the Convention, and
it is favorable to U.S. interests on all significant issues as a result.
Further, our Navy already acts in a manner consistent with the
Convention's navigational and overflight provisions. Accession would not
impose any additional constraints on the Navy's ability to fly, sail,
and operate wherever international law allows'', in response to advance
policy questions on September 14, 2023, before the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, further
stated that ``the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would
give our objections to excessive maritime claims a stronger legal
foundation that does not rely exclusively on customary international
law. When protesting excessive maritime claims asserted by the People's
Republic of China in the South China Sea, the Russian Federation in the
Arctic region, and others, the United States would come from a position
of increased authority and influence,'' in response to advance policy
questions on September 14, 2023, before the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United
States Northern Command, General Gregory M. Guillot, stated, ``I support
U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). UNCLOS
provides a comprehensive regime for the governance of the world's
oceans, including the Arctic, and U.S. accession would further
demonstrate our commitment to an international rules-based order.
Acceding to the treaty would enable U.S. representation during critical
international negotiations that impact the maritime domain, provide an
additional mechanism to counter countries like Russia and China that
continue to exploit our absence from key ocean governance diplomatic
forums, and ultimately help protect our nation's rights and interests in
this critical sphere of operations,'' in response to advance policy
questions on July 23, 2023, before the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate;
Whereas the Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command and United
States Northern Command, General Gregory M. Guillot, further stated in
regard to United States ratification of the UNCLOS, ``I believe
accession to the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) would help the U.S.
protect its interests in the Arctic: Accession would demonstrate our
commitment to a rules-based order, ensure our best interests are
represented during international negotiations regarding territorial
disputes and challenges to longstanding maritime customs and practices,
and improve our ability to advocate for our ocean governance interests
around the globe, including in the Arctic. Engagement through UNCLOS is
particularly critical today as multiple nations vie for access and
control in the Arctic and seek to modify international norms to
accommodate expansionist ambitions around the globe in general, and in
the Arctic in particular. Finally, accession would preclude Russia and
China from exploiting U.S. absence in forums,'' in response to advance
policy questions on July 23, 2023, before the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Secretary of the Navy, Honorable Carlos Del Toro, stated that
``accession would `lock in' the customary rights and freedoms reflected
in the UNCLOS, and would give the U.S. a seat at the table to set the
course for future law of the sea discussions on a coequal level with
member states like China and Russia. China continues a more aggressive
posture in the South China Sea. As widely reported, Chinese warships,
law enforcement vessels, and other PRC-flagged vessels have failed to
respect the rights of maritime nations under the Convention. As a party
to the Convention, U.S. objections to these violations would have more
force and credibility, and would enhance its ability to respond to
excessive maritime claims, land reclamation, and militarization efforts
by China in the South China Sea,'' in response to a question for the
record from Senator Hirono on July 13, 2021;
Whereas the past Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral
John C. Aquilino, stated that ``there's really two main reasons [to
ratify the UNCLOS]: as the group gets together, it would be certainly
beneficial if we had a seat at the table when there were discussions
occurring as it applied to potential adjustments and the interpretations
of those international laws and the second reason is it puts us in an
increased position of credibility. . . we adhere to the UNCLOS treaty in
our operations, and it would make our position much stronger if we were
signatories,'' on March 23, 2021, at his nomination hearing before the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Indo-Pacific Command, retired
Admiral Philip S. Davidson, stated that ``our accession to the UNCLOS
would help our position legally across the globe and would do nothing to
limit our military operations in the manner in which we're conducting
them now,'' on April 17, 2018, before the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, retired Admiral
Harry B. Harris, stated ``I believe that UNCLOS gives Russia the
potential to, quote, unquote `own' almost half of the Arctic Circle, and
we will not have that opportunity because of, we're not a signatory to
UNCLOS'', on March 15, 2018, before the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate;
Whereas the past Commander of United States Pacific Command, retired Admiral
Harry B. Harris, stated, ``I think that by not signing onto it that we
lose the credibility 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 Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate;
Whereas the past Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, retired General Joseph
F. Dunford, stated that ``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 Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate;
Whereas the past President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donahue, stated that ``we support joining
the Convention because it is in our national interest-both in our
national security and our economic interests,'' ``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 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
Whereas the past President and Chief Executive Officer of the United States
Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Thomas J. Donahue, further stated that ``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 Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
Whereas the past Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, retired Admiral
Paul Zukunft, stated on February 12, 2016, ``With the receding of the
icepack, the Arctic Ocean has become the focus of international
interest.'', ``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, retired Admiral Michael Gilday,
stated that ``acceding to the Convention would strengthen our strategic
position on issues pertaining to the [South China Sea and the Arctic].
The United States would have increased credibility when responding to
excessive maritime claims and militarization efforts in the South China
Sea. With respect to the Arctic, becoming a party to the Convention
would allow the U.S. to position itself to safeguard access for the
purposes of maritime traffic, resource exploitation, and other human
activities, while ensuring other states comply with the law of the
sea,'' in response to advance policy questions on July 30, 2019, before
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
Whereas the past United States Special Representative of State for the Arctic
and former Commandant of the Coast Guard, retired Admiral Robert Papp,
Jr., stated that ``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,'' ``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 Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and
Emerging Threats of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) affirms that it is in the national interest for the
United States to become a formal signatory of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), done at
Montego Bay December 10, 1982;
(2) urges the United States Senate to give its advice and
consent to the ratification of the UNCLOS; and
(3) recommends the ratification of the UNCLOS remain a top
priority for the Federal Government, the importance of which
was most recently underscored by the strategic challenges the
United States faces in the Indo-Pacific, the Arctic, and the
Black Sea regions.
<all>