Is the US claim to a 12 nm territorial sea and a 200 nm exclusive economic zone valid under international law?why or why not?Should the United States become a party to UNCLOS III by accession?What are the arguments both for and against becoming a party?
please help me i have been stuck trying to do this for the last two weeks:(
To determine the validity of the US claim to a 12 nm territorial sea and a 200 nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under international law, you need to analyze the relevant legal framework and principles.
1. Territorial Sea: According to customary international law, a coastal state is generally entitled to a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles (nm) from its baseline. This claim is widely recognized and has become a customary norm.
2. Exclusive Economic Zone: Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a coastal state has the right to establish an EEZ extending up to 200 nm from its baselines. UNCLOS, which codifies many aspects of customary international law, provides a comprehensive framework for the rights and responsibilities of coastal states.
Now, regarding the US claim and the question of whether the United States should become a party to UNCLOS III by accession, let's explore the arguments for and against:
Arguments for US accession to UNCLOS III:
1. Legal certainty and protection: By joining UNCLOS, the United States can assert and secure its maritime claims under a widely recognized legal framework. Accession would provide legal certainty, ensuring that the US can enjoy the rights and benefits of an EEZ.
2. Economic interests: The US has the largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world, and by becoming a party to UNCLOS, it can strengthen its rights over the resources within its EEZ, including fishing, oil, and gas reserves, while also participating in important decision-making processes.
3. Building international cooperation: UNCLOS provides a platform for coastal states to coordinate and cooperate on various maritime issues, such as marine pollution, conservation, and navigation. By joining, the US can actively participate in international discussions and contribute to the development of common rules and practices.
4. Global acceptance: Almost all countries have ratified UNCLOS, demonstrating its widespread acceptance and its status as the primary legal instrument governing the world's oceans. By acceding, the US would align itself with the global community and reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law.
Arguments against US accession to UNCLOS III:
1. Sovereignty concerns: Some opponents argue that joining UNCLOS may undermine US sovereignty by subjecting it to international regulations and dispute settlement mechanisms. They believe that the US should maintain full control over its maritime affairs without external interference.
2. Dispute settlement mechanism: Critics raise concerns about the mandatory dispute settlement procedures outlined in UNCLOS. They argue that it might subject the US to biased or unfair rulings, potentially limiting its decision-making autonomy.
3. National security: Critics contend that UNCLOS provisions related to military activities and intelligence gathering might undermine US national security interests. They argue that the US should retain the flexibility to safeguard its strategic interests without being bound by international limitations.
4. Uncertain interpretation: Critics also express reservations about certain provisions of UNCLOS that they believe are open to varying interpretations. They argue that the US should not be bound by a treaty that leaves room for ambiguity and potential disputes.
Ultimately, whether the United States' claim to a 12 nm territorial sea and a 200 nm EEZ is valid under international law is a matter of legal interpretation. A thorough analysis of relevant legal instruments, customary international law, and state practice is required. Regarding joining UNCLOS, the decision rests on weighing the advantages and disadvantages discussed above, considering the United States' specific interests and priorities in relation to international maritime law and global cooperation.