Obama Good - LOST

SDI ‘08
Elections Impact – LOST
Obama Good – LOST

Obama Good – LOST.................................................................................................................................................................... ..............1
Law of the Sea 1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................. .......2
Lost Internal – McCain Opposes............................................................................................................................................................. .....3
2NC Impact Wall – Magnitude.............................................................................................................................................. ......................4
2NC Impact Wall – Magnitude.............................................................................................................................................. ......................5
Taiwan 2NC....................................................................................................................................................................................... ..........6
Bush Doctrine 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................................. ....7
Bush Doctrine 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................................. ....8
............................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......8
Bush Doctrine 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................................. ....9
Russia 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................................... ............10
Russia 2NC................................................................................................................................................................................. ...............11
Russia 2NC.................................................................................................................................................................................... ............12
Ext - Russian Miscalc............................................................................................................................................................ ....................13
PSI 2NC.............................................................................................................................................................................................. .......14
Fish/Oceans 2NC......................................................................................................................................................................... ..............15
Lost Good – Laundry List................................................................................................................................................................ ..........16
LOST Good – Econ............................................................................................................................................................. ......................17
Lost Good – Freedom Of Navigation................................................................................................................................................ .........18
Lost Good – Heg.................................................................................................................................................................................. ......19
LOST Good - PSI....................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Lost Good – WMD Interdiction/Terrorism.............................................................................................................................................. ...21
Lost Good – Arctic................................................................................................................................................................................ .....22
A2: US Will Lose/Can Control Arctic Now............................................................................................................................. .................23
Artic Oil Impact............................................................................................................................................................................... ..........24
Lost Good – Oil Shocks.................................................................................................................................................................. ...........25
Lost Good – Foreign Oil Dependence................................................................................................................................................. .......26
A2: Customary International Law Solves.......................................................................................................................... .......................27
A2: Customary International Law Solves
............................................................................................................................................................................................................ .......28
A2: Naval Force Solves......................................................................................................................................................... ...................29
A2: Empirically False............................................................................................................................................................. ..................30
A2: Lost Bad – General – Impact Calc..................................................................................................................................................... .31
A2: Lost Bad – General – Not Unique...................................................................................................................................... ................32
A2: Lost Bad – General – Internal Link Turn......................................................................................................................................... ...33
A2: Lost Bad – General – Qualifications.............................................................................................................................. ....................34
A2: Allows Excess PRC Claims............................................................................................................................................................. ...35
A2: Restricts Military........................................................................................................................................................ .......................36
A2: Restricts Military........................................................................................................................................................ .......................37
A2: Lost Hurts Heg – Intell Gathering......................................................................................................................................... .............38
A2: Lost Hurts Interdiction......................................................................................................................................................... ..............39
A2: Lost Hurts Econ – Wealth Redistribution............................................................................................................................ ...............40
A2: Lost Hurts Econ – Deficits..................................................................................................................................................... ............41
............................................................................................................................................................................................................ .......41
A2: Lost Bad – Enviro Regs................................................................................................................................................. ....................42
A2: Lost Bad – Sovereignty............................................................................................................................................................ ..........43
A2: Lost Bad – Free Market/Mining............................................................................................................................................. ............44
1
SDI ‘08
Law of the Sea 1NC
( ) Dems victory key to the Law of the Sea
Dale ’08 (Jan 10th -- Helle Dale is director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the
Heritage Foundation. Changing the Middle East – Jan 10th --
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed011008b.cfm)
In some areas of foreign policy there will be a huge difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the White
House, in others not a lot. Iraq has not dominated the campaign as much as might be expected, mainly because of the emergence of a
successful military strategy — which in the words of The Washington Post, a paper that can find a dark cloud behind every silver lining,
has left Iraqi cemetery workers in search of new employment.
Sen. John McCain has carried the heaviest load here of support for President Bush and for our troops. However, with the notable exception
of Sen. Ron Paul, party lines dictate where the candidates stand. Republicans remain solidly behind Mr. Bush's strategy. Democrats want
out, though once in office, that desire will be harder to act on as the inevitable consequences become direly evident. At least until yesterday,
Iran has been much less of an issue, but here former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has taken by far the toughest stand, accusing Democrats of
being "in denial" about Iran's nuclear ambitions and considerable progress to date.
Most candidates have had something to say about Latin America. Mr. Obama of course has famously stated that he would willing to meet
with Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez. Few others are willing to go that far, but Democratic candidates, like Mrs. Clinton and
Sen. John Edwards, have blamed the policies of the Bush administration for being "either disengaged or bullying," driving Latin Americans
into the arms of Mr. Chavez. Republicans remain largely in support of the Bush policy, and show no signs of wanting to change the Bush
administration's tough line on Cuba and Venezuela.
Further areas
where marked differences emerge center not surprisingly around multilateralism. Republicans take a
hard stand against the Law of the Sea Treaty, which as Gov. Mike Huckabee has put it "would endanger both our national
security and our economic interests." Though most candidates on both sides have spoken about the necessity for international respect,
leadership and allies, Democrats almost by instinct reach toward the vocabulary of muiltilateralism whenever
possible.
The Impact is Leadership, Power Projection, Prolif Terrorism and Economy

Watkins, 10/14/07 (James, Former Chief of Naval Operations, San Diego Union Tribune)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on June 26, also communicated the benefits that would
accompany the United States becoming party to the convention. The letter states that the convention "...furthers our National Security
Strategy, strengthens the coalition, and supports the President's Proliferation Security Strategy. From sustaining forward deployed military
forces, to ensuring the security of our ports and waters as well as advancing our most important economic and foreign policy objective, it is
important that the United States become a Party to the Convention."
2
SDI ‘08
Lost Internal – McCain Opposes
McCain opposes the law of the sea
McCain, ’08 (John, quoted in Red State.com,
www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/mccain_would_oppose_law_of_the_sea_treaty)
There’s more encouraging news today about mounting Republican opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Sen. John McCain told
bloggers this morning that he would oppose the measure if it came to the Senate floor as it currently exists.
I’d like to make some changes to it. I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it’s important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully
at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty
aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.
McCain opposes Law of Sea

Washington Note, 2007 (http://hubpages.com/hub/Fighting-Back-Against-LOST-The-Law-Of-The-Sea-Treaty)
In the end this is a fight worth fighting... According to Rob Bluey two Republican presidential candidates have expressed opposition to this
treaty Fred Thompson & John McCain!
John McCain:
"Sen. John McCain told bloggers this morning that he would oppose the measure if it came to the Senate floor as it currently exists."
McCain has changed sides – will block lost

Carpetbagger Report, ’08 (georgebushsthirdterm.blogspot.com/2008/06/when-mccain-opposes-his-own-
legislation.html)
McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee.
Now, if the treaty comes to the Senate floor, he’s vowed to vote against it.
3
SDI ‘08
2NC Impact Wall – Magnitude
Our Watkins Evidence Cites Several Impacts – Each is Huge
1. Heg
2. Economy
4
SDI ‘08
2NC Impact Wall – Magnitude
3. Prolif
4. Port Security – Key Solve WMD Terrorism

Garrison, ’06 (Jennifer, US Rep, US Fed News, 3/7)
"Port security is critical in our fight against terrorism, because American ports are a natural target for those who would try to smuggle a
nuclear or biological weapon into our country," Garrison said.
"A lot of my constituents are having a very difficult time understanding why we would stand by and allow a foreign government to operate
American ports," Garrison added. ""It defies common sense to surrender American ports to a foreign government."
Nuclear War
Greg Easterbrook, senior editor of the New Republic, Nov 11 2001 CNN show: Greenfield At Large, lexis
Easterbrook: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had
thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that
fundamentally they were rational. They knew that if they struck, they would be struck in
turn. Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda
is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leave you with one message, it would be this: that the
search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the
world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because if an atomic
warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24
hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained
down on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries.
5
SDI ‘08
Taiwan 2NC
NAVAL POWER PREVENTS US-CHINA WAR OVER TAIWAN
Hultin and Blair ‘06
(Jerry MacArthur Hultin, Undersecretary for the Navy, Dennis Blair, former President for the Institute of Defense Analysis
and Admiral, US Navy, “Naval Power and Globalization,” September, 2006
http://www.poly.edu/president/_doc/hultin%20naval%20power.pdf)
Even if the interaction of US and Chinese decisions in future avoids a global naval arms race centered in the Pacific, China will still have a capable regional navy.
World events may put China and the United States on opposite sides of an issue or crisis, leading to a maritime confrontation.
The most likely location for this scenario is Taiwan. Successful deterrence depends on the United States having strong naval
capability on station or quickly deployable so that there is no incentive to China or other adversaries to initiate hostilities.
The second Pacific area in which the United States must maintain a deterrent capability based on naval power is around the Korean Peninsula. North Korea is a failing
state, but so long as Kim Jong II and his successors maintain their position of power, they will need to be deterred from military aggression. To maintain
deterrence, American naval strategy in the Pacific must preserve its alliance base, its forward deployed posture and its ability to reinforce
quickly to assert maritime superiority throughout any crisis situation.
EXTINCTION
Straits Times 6-25-2000 lexis
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale
war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-
scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of
horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing
bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines
and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic
powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia
may seek to redefine Europe's political
landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and
Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a
nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the
time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political
aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened
war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability,
there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US
estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese
military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang,
president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although
the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons
mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would
see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear
Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
6
SDI ‘08
Bush Doctrine 2NC
LOST Determines Future of US Foreign Policy – Key to Leadership and Multilateral Cooperation
– Prevents Aggressive Unilateralism and Bush Doctrine and Disempowers Hardliners
Washington Note, 10/10/07
(The Washington Note delivered by Newstex) -- I've had something of a one-track mind these past few months, as regular readers of this blog might have noticed. The Law of the
Sea has been the subject of at least half of my recent posts and an even greater percentage of my advocacy focus.The case for the Law of the Sea was essentially made by Matt
Stoller's post and Steve's response last week, though neither mentioned it by name. Steve "What is needed is more strategic thinking in progressive circles
about what battles are worth having in order to achieve more systemic success. I think that consensus is impossible in the left -- and thus we need the Matt
Stollers of the world to find some like-minded associates and begin hatching the campaigns that matter, and ignoring the ones that don't."I couldn't agree more and I think the
example that Steve offers - the opposition to the Bolton nomination - was a battle well chosen. It was very important on its it successfully weakened and then partially removed an
extremely negative element from the administration. But just as important was its execution. Thanks to some smart group decisions on strategy and message, the Bolton
campaign is making current battles against pugnacious nationalism more winnable than before.The effort to ratify the Law of the Sea
convention is a campaign that matters for similar reasons. Yes, the Law of the Sea is compelling on its face. The armed forces rightly wants its navigational and
overflight rights protected. Environmentalists rightly want the U.S. to join and add to global ocean stewardship efforts. And U.S. companies should have a chance to compete with
foreign firms for offshore resources. For some background info on the convention, click here.All of these are good reasons for the U.S. to accede to the Law of the Sea, but none of
them alone or even in combination would necessarily make it important for the progressive agenda. So why is the Law of the Sea significant? our absence from
the Law of the Sea is the outer wall of Fortress America. Winning the ratification battle would seriously de-fang the same pugnacious
nationalists who are on the opposite side of almost every important foreign policy issue facing the U.S. The opposition to the Law of
the Sea is based entirely on a visceral hatred for multilateral cooperation. Its champions detest all forms of international organization and
believe the purpose of international law is to constrain U.S. behavior. They believe the U.S. should rely on the threat of force to advance
its goals and should not be constrained by any rules, even if they rules that tilt the playing field in our favor.This opposition is serious, even if its arguments are
not. Take a peek at this ridiculous ad that people paid good money to get on I'm not even going to bother debunking this ad, which, as Senator Lugar recently pointed out, does not
contain a single true statement. What should be immediately clear, though, is that the opposition to the Law of the Sea is as determined to fight as it is radical. I'll
be the first to admit that the Law of the Sea doesn't stir passions as does the war in Iraq, healthcare, or education. But I'm still disappointed that the left blogosphere and left-center
commentators have mostly ignored the Law of the Sea so far this year. Why? Because the debate on the Law of the Sea effectively isolates the most rabid anti-
internationalists. It pits the far, far, far-right against everybody else. The more high-profile this debate becomes, the more credibility people like Frank Gaffney, Jim DeMint,
Jim Inhofe, and David Vitter will lose. And on the flip side, those of us who support adhering to international norms and participating in international
agreements will look more credible, powerful, and rational. In short, this is the kind of campaign that progressives should be betting the
house on.The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will probably vote on the convention in the next couple of weeks. After that, whether or not it comes to the floor will depend
on the enthusiasm of progressives.If the Law of the Sea does come to the Senate floor, something amazing will Republicans will eat their young. We already saw a preview in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Dick Lugar called out a few Republican hypocrites, who say everyone should suspend their own judgments and defer to Petraeus and
Crocker even as they rejected the unanimous and consistent recommendation of our national security leadership that the convention is a helpful tool to our military. Ted Stevens
and John Warner, perhaps the treaty's two strongest supporters besides Lugar, will similarly take their fellow Republicans to task for setting U.S. interests back in the service of
zany ideological goals. If a final floor vote occurs, the treaty will pass easily and its few opponents will look marginalized and weak.The message that is
likely to emerge from this campaign, should it succeed, is that all forms of international engagement - be they treaties, international
organizations, or specific policies - should be debated on their merits. It will also come out that multilateralism usually benefits the United
States and helps solve global problems in a commonsense way. And we will serve notice that no proposal is a non-starter simply because it
has "UN" in the title. U.S. negotiators got everything they wanted in the Law of the Sea. PIPA polls regularly show that Americans want their government to endorse policies
made collectively by the international community, even if those policies don't represent our first choice - in short, Americans want their government to be a team player. Joining the
Law of the Sea won't get us there, but it will get us closer. At the least, it would discredit those who want to reject international law even when it gives
us everything we want.We need to be spending more time and attention on this. The conventional wisdom is that multilateral treaties are dead on arrival in
the Senate. If we're interested in promoting the International Criminal Court, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, or the Conventions on
women's rights, children's rights, landmines, or biological diversity, we've got to get the Law of the Sea done. My colleague Don Kraus sums it up: "Think about it. If a Senate with
a Democratic majority can not muster the 66 votes to pass a treaty supported by a Republican president, what is the possibility of doing so under a potential Democratic president
who will face much stiffer Republican opposition?"If the U.S, cannot join an agreement supported by environmental groups, petroleum trade associations, peace groups, the Coast
Guard, Navy, departments of State, Commerce, and the Interior (just to name a few) -- what is the chance that we engage on other agreements?"One senate staffer I talked to
recently has been yelling at groups coming to talk with him about climate change. He's been telling them that he doesn't want to talk to them unless the first words out of their
mouth are "Law of the Sea," because "if we can't get this one through, none of the other agreements are going to get through."This is precisely the
kind of issue that smart progressives who pick their battles carefully should be taking on right now.
7
SDI ‘08
Bush Doctrine 2NC
The Impact is Leadership, Iran, and Global Preemptive Strikes Including Russia, China and India
Record, ’03 (Jeffrey, Senior Fellow Institute Foreign Policy Analysis, Parameters,
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/record.htm)
For the United States, the risk is doctrinal degeneration into an excuse for attacking regimes we simply don’t like versus regimes that
pose genuine “preemptive” threats. The doctrine invites abuse because it offers no criteria by which to judge a threat justifying a
preemptive strike. A rogue state is not automatically a target for preemption; if it were, the Bush Administration would be talking about a
war with Iran and not talking at all to North Korea. Indeed, what justifies an attack on Iraq but not on Iran or North Korea, which, like Iraq,
the Administration has identified as “axis of evil” states? Had the Bush Doctrine been in place after World War II, could it have been
invoked against the Soviet Union and Communist China, both of which met the new National Security Strategy definition of a rogue state
and were pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons until 1949 and 1964, respectively? “Because the doctrine sets no bounds,” argues an
analysis of the National Security Strategy, “might the US again choose preemption even though deterrence would this time be appropriate?
And knowing this, might others be more likely to strike even earlier—requiring the US to improve its first strike capabilities in return? The
logic of offense and defense could make a world of unbounded preemption very ugly indeed.”66
A Brookings Institution critique concludes that the Bush Doctrine’s “silence on the circumstances that justify preemption” raises the danger
that other countries “will embrace the preemption argument as a cover for settling their own national security scores. . . . [U]ntil the
Administration can define the line separating justifiable preemption from unlawful aggression in ways that will gain widespread adherence
abroad, it risks seeing its words used to justify ends
it opposes.”67 Russia has already invoked American endorsement of preemption as justifying possible military action against Georgia,
from which Chechen separatists (or terrorists, if you prefer) conduct operations in Chechnya. India could attack Pakistan, happily invoking
the Bush Doctrine on the charge of Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir. And China could justify a preventive war against
Taiwan as a means of forestalling its threatened independence or unfavorable (to China) alteration of the military balance across the Taiwan
Strait. “It cannot be in either the American national interest or the world’s interest,” argues Henry Kissinger, “to develop principles that
grant every nation an unfettered right of preemption against its own definition of threats to its security.”68
However convincing the case for an attack on Iraq, preemption as a declaratory doctrine lacking criteria but applicable to a generic
category of states invites real trouble after Iraq, and for that reason could turn out to be a poor, even impossible basis for America’s
relations with the rest of the world.
8
SDI ‘08
Bush Doctrine 2NC
CHINA TAIWAN EXTINCTION
Straits Times 6-25-2000 lexis
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale
war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-
scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of
horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing
bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines
and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic
powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia
may seek to redefine Europe's political
landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and
Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a
nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the
time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political
aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened
war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability,
there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US
estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese
military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang,
president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although
the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons
mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would
see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear
Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
9
SDI ‘08
Russia 2NC
US Ratification Key to Prevent Miscalculation and Conflict with Russia, New Cold War, and
Russian Expansionism
Eachus, 9/10/07 (Ron, Former legislator and a former chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission. Statesman Journal,
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070910/COLUMN0703/709100322/1064
The hypothetical Northwest Passage via the Arctic Ocean is becoming a reality as a result of global warming. But the U.S. is at a
disadvantage because of its reluctance to join other countries in the one international agreement that can help sort out the ensuing stampede
for resources and concurrent need for environmental and cultural protection.
It is ironic. Burning fossil fuels triggers accelerated melting of the Arctic ice. The receding ice makes new oil and gas deposits more
accessible. The cycle of excessive consumption perpetuates itself and fosters a new "cold war" as Russia, the U.S, Canada and other
countries lay claim to the fuel- and mineral-rich sea bed.
And here's another irony: Even President Bush, who has utter disregard for treaties to reduce carbon emissions, recognizes that ratification
of the Law of the Sea Treaty is necessary.
In 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted rules under which each country is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile economic
zone with rights over natural resources. Countries can claim jurisdiction beyond that if they can show that their continental shelf extends
further.
All Arctic border countries except the U.S. have signed the treaty, putting us on the sidelines when boundaries are negotiated and disputes
resolved. We're powerful enough to bully our way around, but we don't have much standing without the treaty.
Since 1982, the Arctic sea ice has decreased by nearly 20 percent. And some geologists estimate that nearly 25 percent of the world's
undiscovered oil lies under the now-more-accessible Arctic Ocean.
Canada asserts the passages through its Arctic archipelago are part of its internal waters. Russia claims that the undersea ridge from the
North Pole to Eurasia is a geological extension of its continental shelf. Denmark replies that the end of the same ridge was once part of
Greenland, which belongs to them.
Russia even sent a mini-sub to the bottom of the ocean floor to stake a symbolic claim with a flag encased in titanium. The vision may be
laughable. But Russia takes this seriously. Oil revenues sustained Cold War Russia. The resurgent Russia of today uses oil and gas as a tool
for influence over its former Soviet Block states.
"The Arctic is ours and we should manifest our presence," the leader of the expedition declared.
Forgive the obvious analogy, but the recent spurt of activity is merely the tip of a larger iceberg to be revealed in the future when
international tensions can escalate into incidents and accidents. Posturing can easily lead to confrontation. Arctic climate change can
lead to greater storms. Oil spills there are harder to clean up.
Lost in the territorial fray is the basic question of whether exploitation and extraction of natural resources ultimately will be how we define
the Arctic. As harsh as it is, this is a fragile and sensitive part of the Earth. Is the Arctic to become another example of trampling on the
environment, disrespect for native cultures, and extinction of native species?
Environmental organizations have been supportive of the Law of the Sea Treaty as a way to control access and development. So whether
one thinks we should protect the Arctic environment from exploitation or whether one thinks we can't afford to let other countries control
the resources, ratifying the treaty gives the U.S. a justifiable seat at the negotiating table.
When the Senate considers the treaty this fall, members should ratify it. Leaving the fate of the Arctic up to a colonialism-like free-for-all
of territorial claims will only feed an unfettered appetite for consumption and conflict.
And shoving the U.S. to the sidelines, where the options are limited to unilateral assertion of power reserved for the mighty, isn't in our
interests either.
10
SDI ‘08
Russia 2NC
Russian Expansionism Causes Multiple Scenarios for Nuclear War
Cohen ‘96
(Ariel, PhD and Senior Policy Analyst – Heritage, Heritage Foundation Reports, 1-25, Lexis)
Much is at stake in Eurasia for the U.S. and its allies. Attempts to restore its empire will doom
Russia's transition to a democracy and free-market economy. The ongoing war in Chechnya alone
has cost Russia $ 6 billion to date (equal to Russia's IMF and World Bank loans for 1995). Moreover,
it has extracted a tremendous price from Russian society. The wars which would be required to
restore the Russian empire would prove much more costly not just for Russia and the region, but for
peace, world stability, and security. As the former Soviet arsenals are spread throughout the NIS,
these conflicts may escalate to include the use of weapons of mass destruction. Scenarios
including unauthorized missile launches are especially threatening. Moreover, if successful, a
reconstituted Russian empire would become a major destabilizing influence both in Eurasia and
throughout the world. It would endanger not only Russia's neighbors, but also the U.S. and its allies
in Europe and the Middle East. And, of course, a neo-imperialist Russia could imperil the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf.
n15 n15 Vladimir Zhirinovsky, mouthpiece for the most irredentist elements in the Russian security and military services, constantly
articulates this threat. Domination of the Caucasus would bring Russia closer to the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Middle
East. Russian imperialists, such as radical nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, have resurrected the old dream of obtaining a warm port
on the Indian Ocean. If Russia succeeds in establishing its domination in the south, the threat to Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, and Afganistan
will increase. The independence of pro-Western Georgia and Azerbaijan already has been undermined by pressures from the Russian
armed forces and covert actions by the intelligence and security services, in addition to which Russian hegemony would make
Western political and economic efforts to stave off Islamic militancy more difficult. Eurasian oil resources are pivotal to economic
development in the early 21 st century. The supply of Middle Eastern oil would become precarious if Saudi Arabia became unstable,
or if Iran or Iraq provoked another military conflict in the area. Eurasian oil is also key to the economic development of the southern
NIS. Only with oil revenues can these countries sever their dependence on Moscow and develop modem market economies and free
societies. Moreover, if these vast oil reserves were tapped and developed, tens of thousands of U.S. and Western jobs would be
created. The U.S. should ensure free access to these reserves for the benefit of both Western and local economies. In order to
protect U.S. and Western interests in Eurasia and ensure free and fair access to the oil reserves of
the region, the United States should: * Strive to preserve the independence and economic viability of the New
Independent States in the region. In cooperation with Britain, Germany, and France, the U.S. should prevent the reconstitution of
Moscow's sphere of influence in the southern CIS. The West should not grant Moscow carte blanche in the "near abroad" in exchange
for cooperation in Bosnia. The U.S. should lead other Western countries in implementing programs that support independent
statehood, free-market development, and the rule of law in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the Central Asian states. Training for the civil
and security services of these countries should be stepped up, and economic reforms, including privatization of industries and
agriculture, should be continued. Moreover, sanctions on technical and humanitarian assistance to Azerbaijan, imposed at the height
of the Karabakh conflict, should be lifted to increase Washington's leverage in settling the conflict there. * Ensure that Russia
is not a dominant, but rather an equal partner in developing the oil resources of the Caucasus and Central
Asia. Russian oil companies should be assured of equitable access to the development of oil resources and pipeline projects. The
strategic goal of the West should be the creation of a level playing field that allows Russian and Western corporations to participate
in the development of Eurasian energy resources on an equal footing
11
SDI ‘08
Russia 2NC
Escalating Conflict and New Cold War Will Cause Massive Arms Races
Russian and CIS General Newswire, 9/11/07
The head of a Russian foreign policy think tank has argued that a new Cold War involving "an unrestricted nuclear and conventional arms
race" may break out between Russia and the United States in several years.
Russian-U.S. relations may sink into a serious crisis in a few years, and "domestic and political factors will aggravate the situation rather
than help overcome the differences," a Russian Academy of Sciences report that was released on Tuesday quoted Sergei Rogov, director of
the academy's U.S. and Canada Institute, as telling a meeting of the academy presidium.
Serious political, economic and military frictions exist between Moscow and Washington, Rogov said.
"If the present-day trends are sustained, an unrestricted nuclear and conventional arms race may be unleashed again in several years' time,"
he said.
At the same time, there are good reasons to expect Russian-American relations to seriously improve, he argued.
Extinction
Bostrom ‘02
(Nick, PhD Philosophy – Oxford U., Existential Risks,

http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the
USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with
consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There
was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a
nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently
destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in
a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may
one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between
India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart
humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities
most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or
asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
12
SDI ‘08
Ext - Russian Miscalc
US Ratification Key to Prevent Escalating Tensions and Threats of Force over Arctic
King, 8/22/07 Neil Jr, US Resistance to Sea Treaty Thaws,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118772758771704410.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The renewed interest has grown more intense amid a scramble to claim undersea territories in the resource-rich Arctic.
Looking to buttress its legal case for ownership of a massive undersea ridge, Russia planted its flag earlier this month on a seabed more
than 15,000 feet below the North Pole. Canada, asserting its disputed rights, plans a new fleet of ice-breaking ships and a deepwater Arctic
port; yesterday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper asserted his country's claim to the so-called Northwest Passage along its northern
coast during a meeting with Mr. Bush in Quebec. And Denmark is sending a research team to push its own claim to undersea holdings that
extend far from Greenland.
All this has put the U.S. in a jam. The Law of the Sea Treaty allows countries -- even nonsignatories -- exclusive rights to the seabed
extending 200 nautical miles from their shores. Countries can then present evidence to claim rights to any of their continental shelf beyond
that. Claims and disputes fall to one of several arbitration bodies established by the treaty. Without being a party to the treaty, the U.S. has
no clear way -- short of threatening force -- to assert its claims.
U.S. officials said the stakes are literally vast. In the Arctic alone, the U.S. could lay claim to more than 200,000 square miles of additional
undersea territories. The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy is in the region to continue mapping the ocean floor to help strengthen the U.S.
case. By some estimates, the country's total additional undersea holdings, including extensions off the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico,
could exceed 300,000 square miles, or roughly twice the size of California.
Recent estimates have found the Arctic could contain the equivalent of more than 400 billion barrels of oil and gas and massive amounts of
another potential energy source, crystallized methane. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated the amount of carbon found in hydrate
form world-wide is "conservatively" twice the amount found in all the world's fossil fuels.
Increased thawing of the Arctic ice cap is also beginning to open up seaways, such as the long-heralded Northwest Passage that is expected
to revolutionize shipping. Still blocked by ice much of the year, the polar pathway linking China to Northern Europe and the Northwest
U.S. is about 5,000 miles shorter than routes through the Suez or Panama canals. Canada for years has asserted its sovereignty over the
passage, a claim the U.S. and other countries dispute.
13
SDI ‘08
PSI 2NC
PSI Inevitable But LOST Ratification is Key to International Support and Assurances that it
complies with international law
Richardson, 10/11/07 (Michael, New Zealand Herald, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies)
According to the U.S., over 80 countries now participate in the PSI in one way or another. But China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia remain
wary of joining, partly because the U.S. has not yet ratified the UN law of the sea treaty. This raises concerns that the PSI may be used in
ways that are contrary to international law, although there is no evidence of any such breach so far. Moreover, the PSI is a voluntary
association. Participating countries are not obliged to halt a WMD shipment even if asked to do so by another member
The Impact is Nuclear War with North Korea

Grey, ’03 (Robert, Former Ambassador for Clinton, 9/4,
http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/pubs/09_03_psi_brief.pdf.)
The administration recently put forward the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in an effort to constrain proliferation by steps that include
permitting interdiction of weapons shipments on the high seas. There are 11 states (Australia, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States) that have joined the PSI. The PSI will only be successful
if it operates in the context of the NPT and in compliance with international law. There are those who argue that the North Korean threat is
so immediate that the United States and others should invoke the doctrine of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and use the
PSI to interdict North Korean shipping now. This pushes the self defense doctrine well beyond its narrow limits and creates a dangerous
precedent. North Korea's conduct threatens the entire world, not just the United States and a handful of its allies. China, Russia and all the
other members of the international community have a direct stake in this issue. North Korea has repeatedly stated that any interdiction of its
vessels or aircraft would be regarded as an act of war and that it would react accordingly given the North Korean regime and the desperate
condition of the country, forcing a premature confrontation without a clear legal mandate that will guarantee maximum political support
carries with it the grave risk of igniting a major war on the Korean peninsula, and if indeed the North Koreans have nuclear weapons, a war
which could become a nuclear one.
14
SDI ‘08
Fish/Oceans 2NC
US Ratification Key to Global Ocean Biodiversity and Food Supply

Hamilton, 8/27/07 (Lee, Director Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center and Former Representative, indystar.com,
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/OPINION/708270327/-1/LOCAL17)
These economic benefits are accompanied by environmental considerations. Pollution of our oceans has led to the disappearance of scores
of species, including some that are important to our food supply, and threatens to have devastating consequences on the global
environment. The Convention puts a framework in place to reduce pollution, including a set of standards that America already adheres to.
By joining, we will strengthen our leverage to press others to do more.
Failure to protect the oceans will cause extinction
OCEANS AT RISK 05
Oceansatrisk.com 05 “Empty Oceans, Empty Nets,”

http://www.oceansatrisk.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=page&pageID=443)
Oceans provide 95 percent of the living space for the earth's animals and plants, and are the largest source of protein in the
world, feeding billions of people around the globe. Healthy oceans are essential to the survival of our planet. Our oceans are
at risk, and with them our food supplies, our coastal economies, and even ourselves. We must act now to preserve the earth’s
web of life for future generations.
Independently, Loss of Fish Causes 1 Billion Deaths
UNESCO Courier July 1, 1998 lexis
Some 200 million people work in fishing worldwide (industrial and self-employed combined), while as many as 500 million
depend on the oceans indirectly through jobs in tourism, shipping, oil and gas and other aspects of the fishing industry. In
1996 seafood production, including aquaculture, was valued at $ 120 billion. Half the world's catch is exported, especially to
the developed countries, which absorb 80% of imports in value. One billion people depend on the sea for their main source
of food every day. Global export earnings from fishing exceed those from coffee, tea, cocoa and sugar. But post-catch losses
are very high, precisely in those places where the need is greatest. In Africa, losses to self-employed fishermen due to poor
unloading, transport and packaging conditions, as well as the hot climate, range from 25% to 50% of the catch.
15
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – Laundry List
US Ratification Key to Solve Heg, Econ, Oil Shocks, Arctic Claims – CIL Can’t Solve
Lugar, 10/4/07 (Richard, Senate Foreign Relations Expert, CQ Congressional Testimony)
In absenting ourselves from the Law of the Sea Convention, we are risking making the same type of mistake that the Soviets made in 1950.
Opponents seem to think that if the U.S. declines to ratify the Law of the Sea, the United States can avoid any multi-lateral responsibilities
or entanglements related to the oceans. But unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
where U.S. non-participation renders the treaty virtually inoperable, the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of maritime law
regardless of whether the U.S. is a party. Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by
declining to ratify. If we fail to ratify this treaty, we are allowing decisions that will affect our Navy, our ship operators, our offshore
industries, and other maritime interests to be made without U.S. representation. If the United States does not ratify this treaty, our ability
to claim the vast extended continental shelf off Alaska will be seriously impeded. We will also put ourselves in a position of self-imposed
weakness as we are forced to rely on other nations to oppose excessive claims to Arctic territory by Russia and perhaps others. Further, in
an era when our growing energy vulnerability exposes us to the machinations of oil-rich states, we will be constraining the opportunities of
our own oil companies to explore beyond the 200-mile limit, by perpetuating legal uncertainty that is likely to prevent the large-scale
investments that are required. We will be complicating the job of the Navy in asserting navigational rights and weakening our ability to
constrain negative drift in customary international law. And we will not even be able to participate in the amendment process to this
treaty, which is likely to dominate the evolution of accepted ocean law. This is a partial list of the costs of not joining the Convention, but it
should illuminate for members that we do not have a free pass on this treaty. If the Senate does not give its advice and consent, we will be
incurring tangible costs in both the short and long term on issues of vital importance to our economy and national security.
US Ratification Key to Heg Economy and War on Terror

Lugar, 9/27/07 (Richard, Senator and Foreign Relations Badass,
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=284357&&year=2007&)
Today, as we return to this treaty, the coalition in favor of it has grown and the urgency of completing Senate consideration has
intensified. As the world’s preeminent maritime power, the largest importer and exporter, the leader in the war on terrorism, and the owner
of the largest Exclusive Economic Zone off our shores, the United States has more to gain than any other country from the establishment of
order with respect to the oceans. This treaty is important to an expansive array of American economic, environmental, and security
interests.
But I want to underscore for my colleagues a fundamental starting point for our hearings. The Commander-in-Chief, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and the United States Navy, in time of war, are asking the Senate to give its advice and consent to this treaty. Our uniformed
commanders and civilian national security leadership are telling us, unanimously and without qualification, that U.S. accession to this
treaty would help them do their job.
US Ratification key to Hard Power Soft Power and War on Terrorism

Galdorisi and Truver, ’05 (George, Director Space and Naval Warfare Center @ San Diego, Scott,
National Security Programs @ Anteon Corp, Washington Times, 3/29)
The evolving U.S. strategic paradigm, dependent as it is on littoral operations from the sea against the shore, has made accession to the
convention even more compelling. U.S. military strategy, doctrine and operations are crucially dependent on the navigation rights,
flexibility and mobility conferred by the convention. To be sure, disputes might still arise, but the legal standing of the United States,
particularly in protecting important navigation rights through straits and other international waterways, is much more enhanced with than
without UNCLOS. UNCLOS is more than just another treaty. With 148 parties, it is the largest single international negotiating project ever.
It has founded a new era on, under and above the world's oceans that clarifies, not muddies, important rights, responsibilities, and
privileges. In some aspects, customary law has indeed been incorporated and as such is now explicitly positive, conventional law, with
more global force than previously the case. And, it signals a commitment to the rule of law and a basis for the orderly conduct of affairs
among nations: a commitment that the United States must sustain if it is to succeed in other critical endeavors, such as the global war on
terrorism. In short, by refusing to accede to UNCLOS, the United States remains the "odd man out" and risks losing vital credibility
among friends and partners worldwide -- a challenge that Karen Hughes, in her new role at the State Department, will add to an already
burgeoning portfolio.
16
SDI ‘08
LOST Good – Econ
LAW OF THE SEA KEY TO THE U.S. AND GLOBAL ECONOMY
David B. Sandalow, Scholar in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, “Law of the Sea Convention: Should the
U.S. Join?” August 2004 (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb137.htm)
The U.S. economy depends on the oceans. Goods worth more than $700 billion are shipped through U.S. ports each year.
More than a third of oil and gas produced around the world each year comes from offshore wells. (For U.S. oil and gas
production, the figure is roughly 25 percent.) U.S. fisheries had landings in excess of $3 billion in 2002. Submarine cables
are essential to global communications and therefore much of global commerce. The Law of the Sea Convention helps
promote U.S. commercial interests in several important respects. First, the navigational freedoms recognized under the
Convention provide a stable environment for global commerce. Clear rules with widespread acceptance facilitate
international trade and reduce risks to the many industries that depend upon marine transport. Second, the U.S. oil and gas
industry benefits from the Convention's rules concerning offshore resources. Under the Convention, coastal nations have
exclusive authority over all resources within two hundred miles of shore. In addition, coastal nations have authority over the
ocean floor beyond this 200-mile zone, to the edge of the continental shelf. This latter provision is especially beneficial for
the United States, which has the largest continental shelf in the world. Vast areas of the ocean floor off Alaska, Maine, and
other states are brought under U.S. jurisdiction as a result of this provision. With expected advances in deep water drilling
technologies, these areas hold vast potential for oil and gas production. In addition, the Convention offers a ready set of
procedures for delineating the outer limit of each country's continental shelf. These procedures help provide the certainty
needed for major capital investment in offshore oil and gas facilities. However, these procedures are only available to nations
that join the Convention. In addition, only nations that join the Convention can nominate commissioners to the Convention's
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
US Ratification Key to Economy – eez, continental shelf, telecomm and seabed mining
Webb, 9/27/07 (Jim, Senator, FNS)
Our economic interests are advanced in numerous ways, including by codifying our right to an exclusive economic zone out to 200
nautical miles, in which the United States has sovereign control over the resources -- whether living or nonliving; by providing the means
for international recognition of our sizeable continental shelf, particularly off the coast of Alaska where we can export mineral resources;
by setting clear rules for laying of undersea cables, which are an essential component of the telecommunications infrastructure; by
establishing an international framework for deep seabed mining in areas outside of national jurisdictions, which we have long expected
would be subject to international regulations.
17
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – Freedom Of Navigation
US Ratification Key to Navigational Freedom

Negroponte, 9/28/07 (John, Dep Sec State, State Department Documents and Publications)
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the Committee will agree that U.S. accession to the Convention is the best way to secure navigational
and economic rights related to the law of the sea. I hope I have convinced the Committee that arguments against joining the Convention are
completely unfounded, that there are not viable alternatives to joining, and that we cannot just go out and negotiate another treaty, much
less one that is more favorable. And we certainly cannot have much influence over development of the law of the sea in the 21st Century
from outside the Convention.
The safest, most secure, and most cost-effective way to lock in these significant benefits to our ocean-related interests is to join the
Convention. President Bush, Secretary Rice, and I urge the Committee - once again - to give its swift approval for U.S. accession to the
Law of the Sea Convention and ratification of the 1994 Agreement, and we urge the Senate to give its advice and consent before the end of
this session.
US Ratification Key to Prevent Restrictions and Amendments which Undermine our Global
Freedom of Navigation
Oxman, 10/4/07 (Bernand, Law Prof @ U Miami, CQ Congressional Testimony)
Amending the Convention: The parties to the Convention have the right to decide whether to try to amend the Convention. Such an effort
could easily alter the balance of the Convention, whether or not we accept the amendment. This could weaken the platform of principle
on which we currently operate globally, as well as our capacity to influence the perceptions and behavior of foreign coastal states. It is not
easy for a non-member to convince the members that they should or should not change their agreement. As a party to the Convention, we
would have substantially greater influence over the question of whether and, if so how, to approach the question of amendments or new
implementing agreements.
US Ratification key to Shipping and Naval Mobility

Moore, ’05 (John Norton, Prof Nat’l Security Law, Journal Int’l Affairs, 9/22)
The critics show no understanding of the United States' continuing role as a global protector of navigational freedom. Yet a core issue at
stake is the control of unilateral coastal state claims against U.S. shipping, both military and commercial. In this respect, the convention is
the most important and historic achievement in the safeguarding of these interests. For example, the new provisions for the protection of
straits transit and archipelagic sea lanes passage, as well as the improved provisions for innocent passage in territorial seas, are of utmost
importance to U.S. naval mobility. The progressive advancements that the U.S. negotiating team achieved to this end are completely
missed by the critics; by second guessing U.S. naval experts ,it seems they would rather snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Paradoxically, by opposing the convention, the critics reinforce the views of Third World nations that the United States defeated in
negotiations. We must also never forget that thousands of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen, who volunteer to go in harm's way, depend
on the navigation and over-flight provisions guaranteed in the convention. As General Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, recently stated, "The Convention remains a top national security priority." (4)
18
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – Heg
US Ratification Key to Heg
Hamilton, 8/27/07 (Lee, Director Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center and Former Representative, indystar.com,
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/OPINION/708270327/-1/LOCAL17)
The arguments in favor of ratification are overwhelming. First, the treaty is critical to our national security. The U.S. military depends upon
freedom of movement on the high seas so that our navy can have right of passage, and so we can transport military forces and equipment.
The Convention guarantees that freedom, doing away with burdensome and varying rules from coastal nations, and ensuring that we need
not seek a permission slip to pass through territorial seas. This also helps America -- and the world -- avert conflict.
US Ratification Key to Heg and Navigational Freedom

Englund, 9/27/07 (Gordon, dep sec defense, FNS)
This is the second time now, in Washington, I have been able to support this treaty, and the treaty is vitally important to the Department of
Defense. And Mr. Lugar, I appreciate your comments. I believe you summarized it extraordinarily well in terms of how this -- the
importance of this Convention is to, not just the Navy, but the entire Department of Defense.
And what I would like to do is just provide, literally, 10 overview reasons why this is important to the Department of Defense. So first, it is
a legal certainty in the world's largest maneuver of space, there's over 150 nations -- I believe it's up to 155 nations now, that includes major
maritime powers, and it also includes almost all of our Coalition partners, and as you'll hear, that's -- that's a very important point.
We have -- we need to have the global mobility 24/7, 365 days a year, with no permission slips. As Mr. Lugar -- Senator Lugar commented,
all the CNOs since 1982 have supported the Convention. The chairman and the Joint Chiefs are all united in support, and that has been the
case, I think, as long as this treaty has been debated.
Strategic mobility. The treaty preserves the DOD's navigation and overflight rights -- and I emphasize it's overflight, it's not just on the
surface, but it is overflight, so the transit passage under, through, and over critical choke-points. Unrestricted military activities in foreign
exclusive economic zones on the high seas is the right of approach and visit, and it reaffirms our sovereign immunity of warships; and then
it extends that sovereignty to public vessels like our maritime prepositioning ships.
We need to be able, as Secretary Negroponte commented, we need to be able to influence from inside the Convention, rather than
depending on other nations to represent our interests. And particularly, we need to be able to resist coastal state attempts, other countries, in
terms of limiting our navigational freedoms.
US Ratification key to Heg

Watkins, 10/14/07 (James, Former Chief of Naval Operations, San Diego Union Tribune)
The Law of the Sea Convention will continue to form the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the United States is a party. If we fail
to ratify this treaty, we will continue to place the United States in a position of self-imposed weakness, relinquishing a seat at the table as
other nations potentially negotiate amendments to the convention, or, as Russia is doing now in the Arctic, seek excessive claims to areas
beyond recognized national boundaries.
As we navigate through an unsettled period in global geopolitics, senior military and civilian national security leaders have advised that
U.S. accession to the convention would significantly enhance the protection of our national security interests. Support for the convention is
shared broadly by leaders in the economic and environmental communities. The stakes are too high, and the cost too great, for the U.S.
Senate to remain hamstrung because of the ideological opposition of a handful of senators. We strongly urge the Senate to take action on
the convention before the conclusion of this session of Congress.
19
SDI ‘08
LOST Good - PSI
US Ratification Key to PSI Effectiveness
King, 8/22/07 Neil Jr, US Resistance to Sea Treaty Thaws,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118772758771704410.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Administration officials also argue that Washington's failure to sign on to the treaty has, in fact, undercut the Proliferation Security
Initiative, a U.S. effort to enlist international help to cut off shipments of nuclear and missile technology to countries such as Iran or North
Korea.
Two countries that have declined to join PSI, Malaysia and Indonesia, recently cited Washington's spurning of the Law of the Sea Treaty as
their main reason.
Lost Key to PSI Effectiveness

Garamone, 9/27/07 (Jim, American Forces Press Service, Defense Dept Documents and Publications, Lexis)
The treaty guarantees right of passage through some of the most strategic areas of in the world. The Joint Chiefs of Staff sent a "24-star"
letter to the Senate in June, urging accession. "The convention codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms that are
essential for the global mobility of our armed forces," the letter says. "It furthers our National Security Strategy, strengthens the coalition
and supports the President's Proliferation Security Initiative."
The Proliferation Security Initiative is a collective approach of about 90 nations to use all their national and international authorities to
interdict the shipment of weapons of mass destruction and related material. "(The United States) joining the convention will help expand
the number of nations that participate in (the initiative)," Walsh said. "Strategic nations such as Indonesia and Malaysia will be more likely
to join (the initiative) if we in turn join the convention."
US Ratification key to Homeland Security and PSI Effectiveness

Englund, 9/27/07 (Gordon, dep sec defense, FNS)
Homeland security. This is a positive treaty law for our Coast Guard to enforce our port security initiatives. And, again, we have
sovereignty in our territorial sea and our continuous zone, and this is supported by the commandant of the Coast Guard. Frankly, we owe
our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen the -- treaty-based rights, as opposed to the vaguarities of customary
international law -- and you'll hear more of that from Admiral Walsh.
This is important, the support for combined operations with our Coalition partners. This eliminates the seams in the Coalitions and it
furthers our global partnerships. Again, as Secretary Negroponte commented, this supports the Proliferation Security Initiative. The vast
majority of the Proliferation Security Initiative countries that have joined with us are parties to this Convention, and U.S. membership will
eliminate the barriers to more companies or more parties joining. It also permits U.S. warships to board stateless vessels on the high seas
US Ratification Key to PSI

Inside The Navy, 7/23/07
Capt. Patrick Neher, the director of Navy international and operational law, attended the forum as an audience member. He said the United
States is having some difficulty signing up other countries for the Proliferation Security Initiative because the United States has not agreed
to the Law of the Sea. Malaysia and Indonesia were two countries that would not come aboard for PSI unless the United States accepts the
treaty, he said.
20
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – WMD Interdiction/Terrorism
Key to War on Terror
Schultz, 9/26/07 (George, Former Sec State, WSJ,
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/10033781.html)
Our participation would increase our ability to wage the war on terror. The convention assures maximum maritime naval and air mobility,
which is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. It provides the stability and framework for our forces, weapons and
materials to be deployed without hindrance -- ensuring our ability to navigate past critical choke points throughout the world.
US Ratification key to Heg, Global Power Projection and Success of War on Terrorism
Clark, 10/4/07 (Vernon, Former Chief of Naval Operations U.S. Navy, CQ Congressional Testimony)
We must be able to get to the fight rapidly. Strategic mobility is more important than ever. The oceans are fundamental to that
maneuverability and joining the Convention supports the freedom to get to the fight, twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week,
without a permission slip.
Joining the Convention now will support and enhance ongoing U.S. military operations, including the continued prosecution of the global
war on terrorism. It will enable our armed forces to defend us at home and abroad with legal certainty. It will provide a stable and
predictable legal regime within which to conduct our operations today, and realize our vision for the future.
LOST Ratification Key to PSI Effectiveness and Global Power Projection

A prime example of the kind of international cooperation we need to expand is the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). The
Law of the Sea Convention strengthens this initiative, which aims to impede and stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction, their
delivery systems, and related materials. Being party to the Convention will greatly enhance the Navy's ability to support the objectives of
PSI by reinforcing and codifying freedom of navigation rights on which the Navy depends for operational mobility. Currently, the vast
majority of our PSI partners are Party to the Convention. We cannot remain outside the Convention and convince other nations that we
truly believe in the importance of the rule of law when we are not Party to the Convention which provides legal certainty throughout the
world's oceans.
US Ratification Key to Heg and War on Terror

Myth:
The Convention was drafted before - and without regard to - the war on terror and what the United States must do to wage it successfully.
Reality:
The Convention enhances, rather than undermines, our ability to wage the war on terror. Maximum maritime naval and air mobility is
essential for our military forces to operate effectively. The Convention provides the necessary stability and framework for our forces,
weapons, and materiel to get to the fight without hindrance. It is essential that key sea and air lanes remain open as a matter of international
legal right and not be contingent upon approval from nations along those routes. The senior U.S. military leadership - the Joint Chiefs of
Staff - has recently confirmed the continuing importance of U.S. accession to the Convention in a letter to the Committee.
21
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – Arctic
US Ratification Key to Arctic Claim and Oil Development
Eaton and Newton, 10/4/07 (Sam, Marketplace Morning Report Editor, George, Former Head US Arctic Research Commission,
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/04/sea_law)
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a second round of hearings on a U.N. treaty called the Law of the Sea. The U.S. is the only
Arctic nation that hasn't yet ratified the 10-year-old treaty.
Supporters say that means the U.S. doesn't have a seat at the table when it comes to negotiating offshore uses of the sea -- and with the
Arctic ice cap melting at a record pace, those uses have gained new relevance.
GEORGE NEWTON: The basic essence is oil.
George Newton is the former head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. The U.S. government estimates that the Arctic seabed could
hold about a quarter of the world's untapped oil reserves. But Newton says as long as the U.S. refuses to sign the treaty, it's giving other
arctic nations like Russia and Denmark a head start.
NEWTON: What countries want, and oil companies want, before they begin drilling in the Arctic Ocean is an element of certainty.
US Accession Key to Control of Arctic – Key to oil and Economy

Apodaca, ’07 (Martine, Legislative Director UNF Programs, OceanLaw.org, October)
Mr. Gaffney also doesn't acknowledge that an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes has begun and is being
accelerated by global warming as the arctic ice cap recedes. At stake are a possible 460,000 square miles of Arctic seabed that could hold as
much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, valuable commodities like gold, diamonds, fishing stocks, and lucrative freight
routes.
The race is on.
Other nations are moving to take advantage of this situation. In August 2007, Russia planted its national flag on the seabed beneath the
North Pole, calling international attention to a dubious claim to ownership of the North Pole and the Lomonosov Ridge -- with substantial
potential oil, gas, and mineral deposits. The Canadians are staking claims in the arctic as well. In August 2007, Canada's Prime Minister
Stephen Harper set off on a three-day tour of the region and announced plans to build two new military bases to reinforce Canada's
territorial claims, and the Canadians are spending $7 billion on new arctic patrol vessels.
The U.S., however, has taken itself out of the race; only nations who are party to the Convention can make such claims -- or challenge the
claims of others. Thus, while nations struggle for control of the arctic, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines.
US Ratification Key to Heg, Arctic Access and Territorial Claims

Newsday, 9/27/07
An impressive coalition of environmental, military and business leaders urged the United States Senate this week to do what it should have
done 25 years ago: become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Far from eroding American sovereignty, as
critics have oddly maintained, this agreement can protect the nation's vital interests on a broad array of issues - but only if we're at the table,
along with 155 other nations.
The irony is that the United States played a major role in the development of the treaty, which became available for signatures in 1982.
President Ronald Reagan objected to its provisions on seabed mining. So the United States helped negotiate a side agreement that resolved
the mining issue - a further constructive role for the nation in this process. Still, ideologues in the Senate dug in, citing those sovereignty
concerns, and refused to let the nation sign on.
Now, the time is ripe for change. For one thing, there's a new player, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. Its chairmen, Leon Panetta and
retired Adm. James Watkins, were the top signers of this week's letter to the Senate.
For another, the melting of Arctic ice will open new sea lanes, and parties to the treaty can stake claims to areas of the ocean beyond their
existing control. The convention provides a rational mechanism for adjudicating those claims. Some parties have already begun the process,
but the United States can't make credible claims until it's a party to the treaty.
22
SDI ‘08
A2: US Will Lose/Can Control Arctic Now
No Turns - International Recognition of Our Territorial Claims Crucial to Legal Certainty Key to
Investment
Negroponte, 9/27/07 (John, Dep Sec State, FNS)
MR. NEGROPONTE: But when it comes to economic activity, which a lot of this deals with, whether it's seabed mining or continental
shelf exploitation, if you don't have some kind of international recognition, it becomes a lot harder to find investors and companies that are
going to be willing to take the kind of risks that are involved in exploitative economic activities in what I think are fairly characterized as
usually quite hazardous and challenging conditions -- you're getting out into the –
We’ll Win in Arbitration – Expertise, Empirics and We get to pick the arbitrators
Walsh, 9/27/07 (Pat, Vice Chief Naval Operations, FNS)
MR. WALSH: As with any international arbitration, arbitrators are chosen by the sides. So we would pick the arbitrators in conjunction
with the other side that we would want. We have very effective lawyers in arguing arbitrations. We win quite regularly. And you have got
arbitrators who you hope will rule fairly
23
SDI ‘08
Artic Oil Impact
Arctic Oil Key to Economy and Heg
NYT, 8/3/07
The day's events underscored both Russia's restored sense of confidence and the international competition for access, influence and
extraction rights in the far north, which has intensified as oil and gas prices have surged and as trends in global warming have encouraged
speculation that the region could become more navigable.
President Vladimir V. Putin called the members of the expedition to thank them personally, an unmistakable sign of the significance of the
claim to the Kremlin, which has reestablished itself as a world power in recent years in part through its control of its oil, gas, minerals and
other commodities.
Five countries -- Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States -- have territory in the Arctic Circle and under international
convention have rights to economic zones within 200 miles of their borders. Denmark has sent its own scientific expeditions to study the
opposite end of the ocean-spanning ridge and to seek proof that it is torn from the continental shelf north of Greenland, which is a Danish
territory.
Several other countries seek to extend their influence in the circle, seeing the mostly unpopulated region's potential for providing a
hydrocarbon and mineral rush. The ultimate demarcation, if geologists' estimates of its deposits prove true, could be a key to future
national wealth and power.
Rising Prices and Energy Shocks Inevitable – Multiple Reasons – Only Arctic Oil Solves
McMurray, 10/4/07 (Claudia, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs, State Dept Documents and Publications, Lexis)
The world community faces an unprecedented set of challenges in global energy that makes our energy security objectives more difficult to
achieve. These include:
* tight global supply and demand balances; * geopolitical challenges in major oil production centers; * exploding global economic growth
driving greater energy use; and * our shared concern over the global environment.
Global energy markets are being shaped and strained by unprecedented economic growth in Asia. Natural gas, oil and coal demand are
expected to rise faster in East and South Asia than in any other region in the world. If the forecast growth rate of 3.0% annually is
maintained, oil demand in the region will roughly double by 2025.
Many of the world's major oil producing regions are also locations of geopolitical tension, and possibilities exist of unexpected supply
disruptions. Instability in producing countries is the biggest challenge we face, and it adds a significant premium to world oil prices.
Concurrently, we are faced with the rise of what is often called resource nationalism, where consumer countries attempt to "lock-up"
upstream assets in the pursuit of a false notion of energy security, and where producer countries reject much needed foreign investment and
expertise in the face of declining production levels.
Roughly two-thirds of the world's oil and gas reserves are in countries that provide limited access or are completely closed to foreign
investment.
National oil companies own about 50 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. And we are seeing increasing instances of manipulation of
resources in countries with large resource bases. Examples include: further limiting access to resources for commercialization;
renegotiating contracts or even outright expropriation of assets; renationalizing assets; and cutting off supply.
Because of these factors, prices have more than tripled since 2002, and in the last few days have reached record highs, over 84 dollars a
barrel. And we don't project much change in this in the near future because the uncertainties I've mentioned will likely still be with us and
demand will most certainly increase.
As a result of all these factors, the Arctic region is set to play a major role in the world's future energy security. The United States
Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic could be home to more than 25 percent of the world's undiscovered reserves of oil and natural
gas.
24
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – Oil Shocks
US Ratification Key Economy – Prevents Massive Oil Supply Shocks
Cox, 10/4/07 (Joseph, CEO Chamber of Shipping, CQ Congressional Testimony)
Mr. Chairman and Senators, you have heard testimony about the vital movement of oil into our nation. There is an additional concern as
we shift to LNG from other sources of energy as we will have to import increasing amounts of LNG as well as other energy products into
our country. Yes, virtually all ships carrying our energy supply transit areas that are protected by the Law of the Sea provisions. While
energy supply is of obvious critical importance, we note that other types of ships, container ships, bulk ships and others also enjoy the same
freedom of navigation afforded the energy carriers. Our way of life depends on the freedom of the seas and the rights of innocent passage.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, freedom of the seas and rights of innocent passage are not theoretical concepts. These are
critical aspects of the Law of the Sea Convention and ones that we rely on for the effective operation of our industry. We are very
concerned with protection of those rights. Both US flag ships and ships owned or operated by American companies are impacted by
international events. We rely on our nation to be actively involved. The U.S. should place itself in the most effective position to be a force
for adherence to treaty obligations by all. We can do this by acceding to the treaty.
My members operate in the international maritime world. We benefit from a consistent application of the rules that we have to follow.
There are certainly fewer ships flying our flag than in years past although that does not mean we are less involved as a nation. The latest
figures we have seen place the United States as the sixth largest shipowning nation in the world. In recent months, we have seen actions by
companies that will lead to more American seafarers serving on ships that fly the flags of other nations. Clearly we have a lot at stake.
US Ratification Key to Navigation Freedom – Key to Oil and Gas Imports Crucial To Economy
and Energy Security
Kelly, 10/4/07 (Paul, Consultant Rowan Company, former commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, CQ Congressional
Testimony)
Marine Transportation of Petroleum
Oil is traded in a global market with U.S. companies as leading participants, The LOS Convention's protection of navigational rights and
freedoms advances the interests of energy security in the U.S., particularly in view of the dangerous world conditions we have faced since
the tragic events of September 11, 2001. About 44 percent of U.S. maritime commerce consists of petroleum and petroleum products.
Trading routes are secured by provisions in the Convention combining customary rules of international law, such as the right of innocent
passage through territorial seas, with new rights of passage through straits and archipelagoes. U.S, accession to the Convention would put
us in a much better position to invoke such rules and rights.
U.S. Oil Imports at All-Time High
US Ratification Key to Navigational Freedom – Prevents Oil Shocks

Testimony)
The outlook for United States energy supply in the first 30 years of the new millennium truly brings home the importance of securing the
sea routes through which imported oil and natural gas is transported.
According to API's Petroleum Facts at a Glance for September 2007, total imports of domestic petroleum were 66 percent or 13,759,000
barrels per day. This is an extraordinary volume of petroleum liquids being transported to our shores in ships every day.
The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, projects that by 2030, net
imports of crude oil on the basis of barrels per day, are expected to account for 71 percent of crude supply up from 66 percent in 2005.
Looking at the September numbers from API makes one wonder whether 2030 is fast approaching.
Growing Natural Gas Imports
ETA's 2007 Outlook also states that, despite the projected increase in domestic natural gas production, over the next twenty five years an
increasing share of U.S. gas demand will also be met by imports. A substantial portion of these imports will come in the form of liquefied
natural gas (LNG). All four existing LNG import facilities in the U.S. are now open, and three of the four have announced capacity
expansion plans. Meanwhile, several additional U.S. LNG terminals are under study by potential investors, and orders for sophisticated
new LNG ships are being placed. This means even more ships following transit lanes from the Middle East, West Africa, Latin America,
Indonesia, Australia, and possibly Russia, to name the prominent regions seeking to participate in the U.S. natural gas market.
Rising World Oil Demand
According to the EIA, world petroleum consumption in 2004 was 82.3 million barrels per day. Up to 1985 oil demand in North America
was twice as large as Asia. As developing countries improve their economic conditions and transportation infrastructure we could soon see
Asian oil demand surpass North American demand. By 2030 world demand is expected to reach nearly 1] 8 million barrels per day. Steady
growth in the demand for petroleum throughout the world means increases in crude oil and product shipments in all directions throughout
the globe. The Convention can provide protection of navigational rights and freedoms in all these areas through which tankers will be
transporting larger volumes of oil and natural gas.
25
SDI ‘08
Lost Good – Foreign Oil Dependence
US Ratification Key to Solve Energy Security and Inevitable Oil Shocks
International Oil Daily, 10/9/07
The Bush administration is lobbying the Senate to pass a controversial United Nations sea treaty that has gained significance as a handful
of Northern Hemisphere countries, including the US, Canada and Russia, seek to lay claim to potential oil and gas riches beneath melting
Arctic ice caps.
President Bush has expressed support for ratification of the UN Law of the Sea Treaty (Lost) despite long-standing opposition from
members of his Republican party and conservative think tanks who say it impedes on US sovereignty and gives too much power to the UN.
Bush, however, realizes the potential energy riches at stake in the Arctic -- as well as the US need for more secure sources of supply -- and
says approval of the treaty, which has been in force since 1994, would give the US "a seat at the table" when the time comes to settle claims
about who owns what in the Arctic.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated that one-quarter of the world's undiscovered hydrocarbons lie above the Arctic Circle ,
mostly in the form of natural gas.
More than 150 countries are signatories to the UN treaty, including all the major players with Arctic coasts except for the US . Under the
treaty, a country with an Arctic coastline can claim a 200 nautical mile exclusive zone, plus any area it can prove is connected to its own
continental shelf.
Russia, Canada and Denmark are all trying to claim waters up to the North Pole, saying the Arctic seabed is part of their shelf, while
Norway hopes to extend its Arctic territory, too ( IOD Aug.20,p1 ).
Any country that wants to make a claim under Lost must do so within a decade of ratifying it. Russia 's deadline is 2009, Canada 's is 2013
and Denmark 's 2014. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf will ultimately help determine Arctic claims.
Cont….
"If the United States does not ratify this treaty, our ability to claim the vast extended continental shelf off Alaska will be seriously
impeded," Lugar said in his opening statement before last week's hearing. "In an era when our growing energy vulnerability exposes us to
the machinations of oil-rich states, we will be constraining the opportunities of our own oil companies to explore beyond the 200 mile limit,
by perpetuating legal uncertainty that is likely to prevent the large-scale investments that are required."
Lost solves foreign oil reliance – key to economy

Testimony)
The offshore oil and natural gas industry spends billions of dollars annually in the search for and production of oil and natural gas in the
world's oceans. U.S. offshore production accounts for more than 27% of the country's oil production, and 15% of its natural gas production.
Each year, offshore energy development contributes between $4 and 6 billion in revenues to the federal treasury. Millions are also paid to
states and local communities. The federal offshore produced approximately 500 million barrels of oil and about 3 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas in 2006. In addition to activities in areas under United States jurisdiction such as Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, our nation has
substantial interests in offshore oil and natural gas development activities globally, given our significant reliance upon imported oil. U.S. oil
and natural gas production companies, as well as oilfield drilling, equipment and service companies, are important players in the
competition to locate and develop offshore natural gas and oil resources. The pace of technological advancement, which drove the need to
define the outer limits of the continental margin, has not abated. Advances in technology and increased efficiencies are taking us to greater
and greater water depths and rekindling interest in areas that once were considered out of reach or uneconomic.
Recognizing the importance of the LOS Convention to the energy sector, the National Petroleum Council, an advisory body to the United States
Secretary of Energy, in 1973 published an assessment of industry needs in an effort to influence the negotiations. Entitled "Law of the Sea: Particular
Aspects Affecting the Petroleum Industry," it contained conclusions and recommendations in five key areas including freedom of navigation, stable
investment conditions, protection of the marine environment, accommodation of multiple uses, and dispute settlement. The views reflected in this study had
a substantial impact on the negotiations, and most of its recommendations found their way into the Convention in one form or another. Having been satisfied
with the terms of the Convention, the U.S. oil and natural gas industry's major trade associations, including those I am representing today, have
for many years supported ratification of the Convention by the United States Senate. Also, the Outer Continental Shelf Policy Committee,
an advisory body to the United States Secretary of the Interior on matters relating to our offshore oil and natural gas leasing program, has
adopted resolutions supporting the United States acceding to the Convention.
26
SDI ‘08

Status Quo Doesn’t Solve – US Ratification Key to Navigational Freedom, US Influence in LOST
and International Negotiation Credibility
Myth: Most of the benefits are available without the treaty. A major error in this assertion is that it altogether misses the ongoing struggle
for navigational freedom in the world's oceans, a struggle requiring active U.S. engagement and leadership. Such a role is simply
impossible if we are the only permanent Security Council member not to adhere to the convention. It also fails to address the cost to the
United States of being excluded from the principal institutions created by the convention, including the loss of a U.S. veto over major
decisions concerning deep seabed mining. It is also wrong to ignore the permanent loss of a U.S. deep seabed mining industry that would
result from non-adherence. It further ignores the cost of the United States' international negotiating credibility in holding out requests for
renegotiation of a major international agreement, and then turning our backs on the renegotiated agreement that met all of our
requirements.
US Ratification key to Prevent Multiple Claims of Creeping Jurisdiction which Cumulatively

Crush Freedom of Navigation
Myth: Freedom of navigation is only challenged from "[t]he Russian navy [that] is rusting in port [and] China has yet to develop a
bluewater capability...." (14) The implication here is that the principal challenge to navigational freedom emanates from a major power and
that we do not have any particular national concerns about freedom of navigation. But the 1982 convention deals with the law of peace, not
war or self-defense. Thus, this argument misses altogether the serious and insidious challenge, which, again, is what the convention is
designed to deal with; these repeated efforts by coastal nations to control navigation, including those from U.S. allies and trading partners,
have through time added up to death by a thousand pin-pricks. This is the so-called problem of "creeping jurisdiction" which remains
the central struggle in preserving navigational freedom for a global maritime power. After years of effort, we have won in the convention a
legal regime that supports our efforts to control this "creeping jurisdiction." To unilaterally disarm the United States from asserting what
was won against illegal claimants is folly and undermines our national security.
US Ratification Key to Solve 100s of Threats to Navigation Rights and Prevents Miscalculation at
Sea
Myth: U.S. adherence to the convention is not necessary because navigational freedoms are not threatened (and the only guarantee of free
passage on the seas is the power of the U.S. Navy). Wrong--it is not true that our navigational freedoms are not threatened. There are
more than 100 illegal, excessive claims around the globe that adversely affect vital navigational and over-flight rights and freedoms.
The United States has utilized diplomatic and operational challenges to resist excessive maritime claims by other countries that interfere
with U.S. navigational rights as reflected in the convention. On occasion, these operations have entailed a certain amount of risk (e.g., the
Black Sea bumping incident with the former Soviet Union in 1988). Being a party to the convention would significantly enhance our efforts
to roll back these claims by, among other things, putting the United States in a far stronger position to assert its rights, thus affording
additional methods of resolving conflict and aligning expectations of behavior at sea.
27
SDI ‘08
US Ratification Key – Evolving Treaty Interpretation Will Crush Freedom of Navigation Unless
We Enhance Our Influence by Ratifying
That system now exists. For the foreseeable future, it is the basis for the legal and political environment in which we operate every day. It is the
only plausible platform of principle for global operations.
But law, even treaty law, never stands still. The question is: How will it evolve?
In my opinion, by becoming party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States will be in a much stronger position to control the evolution
of the law of the sea and, in particular, to influence the perceptions of foreign nations regarding their rights and our freedoms off their coasts. Let
me briefly explain why.
Protecting American Interests: Because we are the main global maritime power, our interests demand that we consider the global effect of the
Convention's rules and their interpretations; there are a number of issues that are of greater concern to us than to most other countries. It is not
prudent for us to sit idly by on the sidelines and rely on others to protect our global interests from the inside. For example, despite our close security
relationship with most of its member states, there are disturbing signs that the European Community may try to shift the Convention's
balance in a sharply coastal direction in derogation of the freedom of navigation beyond the territorial sea and free transit of international straits.
Practice of the Parties: The practice and views of the parties to the Convention regarding its meaning and application influence the perceptions and
behavior of lawyers and governments as well as judges, national and international. If left unattended, that practice is likely to evolve in the same
way that customary law would evolve, namely in derogation of the rights and freedoms on which we rely for global mobility. Yet other states find
it odd when we criticize their actions as a violation of a treaty to which we have yet to become party. If the underlying challenge to the maintenance
of our interests in global mobility is to maximize our influence over the perception of coastal states around the world regarding their rights and our
freedoms off their coasts, then it stands to reason that the enhanced credibility our interpretations would acquire as party to the Convention is an
important element in protecting and advancing our interests now and in the future.
Customary International Law Can’t Solve – US Ratification Key to Prevent Restrictions on

Freedom of Navigation
In attempting to address this problem, we must recognize that there are many reasons why a coastal state may not wish to accord maximum
freedom to foreign ships and aircraft off its coast. It may prefer to control natural resource activities off its coast. It may prefer to control
pollution from foreign ships off its coast. It may fear implications for its security of foreign operations off its coast. It may even hope to
leverage control over offshore areas in order to extract political and economic concessions from those who need to pass through or lay and
maintain cables in such areas. Even though it is the principal global maritime power with the most to benefit from maximum freedom to
use the seas off foreign coasts, the United States shares many of the interests of other coastal states in controlling activities off the coast.
The result is a contradiction. At best, many coastal states want to maximize freedom off foreign coasts while maximizing their control over
foreign activities off their own coasts. At worst, a fair number of people don't even worry about global mobility, and think of interests in the
sea exclusively in terms of controlling foreign activities off the coast. The real challenge in the law of the sea is to reconcile the tension in a
manner that reasonably accommodates the conflicting interests both within and between states over time.
If the law of the sea is left to drift, it will drift in the direction of increasing coastal state restrictions on global freedoms. This is not idle
speculation. It is precisely what happened in the 20th century. That century began with free high seas except for a narrow 3-mile band along
the coast. It ended with coastal state sovereignty within liberal baselines enclosing internal and archipelagic waters, coastal state
sovereignty within a 12-mile territorial sea measured from those baselines, coastal state sovereign rights and jurisdiction for many purposes
within a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, and coastal state sovereign rights over resources of a continental shelf that may extend even
further where the continental margin is wider than 200 miles. I traced this process in greater detail in a recent essay that, with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, I propose to append to this statement for the Committee's convenience. 3 The result in this century is that the
drift toward increased coastal state control has already consumed the valuable natural resources of the sea and seabed in large areas off the
coast. Now the target of new assertions of coastal state control is more likely to be navigation and overflight and telecommunications.
The reality is that the areas of greatest importance to our global mobility are already subject to coastal state sovereignty or sovereign rights.
Our capacity to move around the world depends on the willingness of these coastal states to respect navigation and overflight and related
rights and freedoms in waters they already perceive to be theirs. The challenge is not to our capacity to make legal arguments. The
challenge is to our ability, at minimum cost to ourselves, to persuade foreign coastal states to restrain their own claims and actions in the
first place. Customary international law will not work well in this situation. Customary law is the creature of state practice. The likely
drift of state practice is in the direction of increasing restraints on our global mobility that will be costly to respect and costly to resist.
28
SDI ‘08
A2: Naval Force Solves
Using Unilateral Naval Action To Ensure Freedom of Navigation Fails, Collapses War on Terror,
allied Relations and Causes Conflict – US Ratification Key
Lugar, 10/4/07 (Richard, Senate Foreign Relations Expert, CQ Congressional Testimony)
As I have listened to the arguments critics have made, some are simply false, others are highly speculative or sensationalist claims that are
sharply contradicted by our national security leadership, including President Bush. But other objections can be traced to baseline philosophical
objections to the fundamental idea of a multi-lateral treaty that delineates rights and responsibilities of member states. As I mentioned in the first hearing,
these philosophical objections often have been connected to the wish for a U.S. ocean policy that relies on power projection to protect U.S.
interests. But as Admiral Walsh testified, this is not a practical solution in the real world. He pointed out that "many of the partners that we
have in the Global War on Terror who have put life, limb, and national treasure on the line are some of the same ones where we have
disagreements on what they view as their economic zone or their environmental laws. It does not seem to me to be wise to now conduct
Freedom of Navigation operations against those very partners that. . .are in our headquarters trying to pursue a more difficult challenge
ahead of us, which is a Global War, a Global War on Terror." Even a mythical 1,000 ship U.S. Navy could not come close to patrolling
every strait, protecting every economic interest, or asserting every navigational right. Attempting to do so would be prohibitively expensive
and destructively confrontational.
It is this recognition, coupled with the understanding of the limits of customary international law, that have impelled a succession of seven
Presidents to move the concept behind this treaty toward realization. The last seven administrations have understood that treaty law is the best option for
gaining maximum leverage for U.S. ocean interests. If anyone doubts that President Reagan did not act to legitimize the concept of the Law of the Sea treaty, I
would refer them to President Reagan's two fundamental presidential statements on ocean policy. The first was issued on January 29, 1982. The President said: "Last March, I
announced that my administration would undertake a thorough review of the current draft and the degree to which it met United States interests in the navigation, overflight,
fisheries, environmental, deep seabed mining, and other areas covered by that convention. Our review has concluded that while most provisions of the draft convention are
acceptable and consistent with the United States interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable. I am announcing today that the United States
will return to those negotiations and work with other countries to achieve an acceptable treaty."
cont…
Finally, we should not miss the irony that in 2002, the year that President Bush decisively repudiated the Rome Statute, he also sent a treaty priority list to the Foreign Relations
Committee designating the Law of the Sea as one of just five "urgent" treaties requiring action. President Bush has not been regarded as an enthusiast for multi-lateral agreements.
Yet he understands what his six predecessors understood - that the Law of the Sea Convention is our best opportunity to bolster international law related
to the oceans in a way that benefits U.S. interests.
Naval Power Alone Can’t Secure Freedom of Navigation – LOST Ratification Key to Power
Projection, Economy, Global Cooperation, and Solving WMD Terrorism
We depend on a strong Navy to secure and promote our maritime safety and security. However, it is clear that the United States and its
Navy cannot effectively do it alone. We must rely on partner nations and coalition efforts to provide for a free and secure maritime
domain. Global partnerships of likeminded nations are the future of our national security strategy. Through mutual assistance, nations can
leverage common interests and increase their potential. While the United States is and will continue to conduct unilateral operations when necessary,
we can share the burden and improve readiness of allies' navies through cooperative efforts with maritime nations who share a common interest and a
reliance upon international commerce, safety, security, and freedom of the seas. To maximize the effectiveness of these efforts to combat
transnational criminal organizations and other dangerous uses of the oceans to disrupt sea lane passage and global commerce, we need to
close the seams among like-minded nations.
We and our coalition partners need to be fully committed to the same set of rules for the full range of maritime operations, but your Navy is
at a distinct disadvantage with the United States being outside the Law of the Sea Convention. 154 nations are owners of a Magna Carta for
the oceans that guarantees robust navigational freedoms throughout the world's largest maneuver space. We on the other hand only get to
use it on loan and have to filter our support for what it provides through the lens of customary international law.
Unilateral Freedom of Navigation Operations Undermine Ability to Challenge Excess Maritime

Claims and Changing Interpretations of Customary International Law – US Ratification Is Key
For many years now, we have remained outside the Convention. We have asked our young men and women to conduct freedom of
navigation operations. One such operation resulted in the Black Sea bumping incident between U.S. and Soviet warships. As a commanding officer, I had,
unfortunately, the privilege of conducting those kinds of operations at too close of quarters.
What that means to me is that these kinds of operations, because these are what we're largely left with when we do not have agreements with other
nations, and clear international standing, sometimes puts us at great risk to challenge the excessive maritime claims that other countries
may make to prevent those claims from becoming customary international law.
Mr. Chairman, in my view, we need a better venue. We need more than just freedom of navigation operations to maintain freedom of the
seas. We should not rely only on that limited ability to formalize our international posture. We can do better than that. We should look for every possible
guarantee that we can find to ensure our sailors' safety and to keep them from needlessly going into harm's way. And that's why I believe that we need to join the
Law of the Sea Convention, so that our people know when they're operating in the defense of this nation's national interests, far from our
shores, that they have the backing and that they have the authority of widely recognized and accepted law to look to, rather than depending
only upon the threat or the use of force or customary international law that can be too easily changed.
29
SDI ‘08
A2: Empirically False
Its Not Empirically False – Ratification Now is Key
WE NEED TO JOIN NOW
Some may ask why, after the Convention has been in force for thirteen years, there is an urgent need to join. There are compelling reasons
why we need to accede to the Convention now.
Although the first several years of the Convention's life were fairly quiet, its provisions are now being actively applied, interpreted, and
developed. The Convention's institutions are up and running, and we -- the country with the most to gain and lose on law of the sea issues --
are sitting on the sidelines. For example, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (which is the technical body charged with
addressing the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles) has received nine submissions and has made recommendations on two of them,
without the participation of a U.S. commissioner. Recommendations made in that body could well create precedents, positive and negative,
on the future outer limit of the U.S. shelf. We need to be on the inside to protect our interests. Moreover, in fora outside the Convention, the
provisions of the Convention are also being actively applied. Our position as a non-Party puts us in a far weaker position to advance U.S.
interests than should be the case for our country.
30
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – General – Impact Calc

All your LOST Bad arguments are really stupid, cause policy paralysis and bad decisionmaking–
prefer our impacts – only our evidence explains how to evaluate our competing claims*****
Mr. Chairman, I have outlined some of the benefits of becoming a party to the Convention. But as many of us have learned, the best things
in life may be free, but the rest has a price. What exactly is that in this case? A treaty is typically a reciprocal bargain in which each of the
parties agrees to limit its own freedom of action in exchange for the limitations imposed on the others. That, Mr. Chairman, is an exercise
of sovereignty. Indeed, entering into treaties with foreign powers is one of the most important ways in which sovereignty is exercised. The
most significant obligation that we undertake as a party to the Convention is to respect the same substantive rights and freedoms as every
other state under the Convention. But this involves no incremental cost to us. The Convention is in fact the platform of principle on which
we rely to protect our own interests at sea every day. President Reagan committed us to respect those rights and freedoms, and that
commitment has been honored by all of his successors and by Congress in relevant legislation. The reason for undertaking the commitment
is to promote our interests in persuading other states to do the same; thus, we would undermine our own interests if we abandoned our
respect for the Convention even if we did not become party. By becoming party to the Convention, we also acquire rights as well as duties
under the institutional and dispute settlement provisions of the Convention. The institutions created by the Convention are independent
organs and are not part of the United Nations.
In this regard, let me emphasize that I would expect any first- year law student to be able to conjure infinite risks of incalculable
magnitude from virtually any legal text. The real question for those entrusted with policy decisions is one of assessing probable
risks and probable benefits and their probable magnitude. It is that perspective that informs my own analysis; it is one that I believe
would be most useful to members of the Committee.
Cont…
My conclusion, therefore, is that the probable costs and risks are small, that the magnitude of the probable benefits is very high, and
accordingly that America's interests are best served becoming party to the Convention. To put it differently, the risks of damage to
America's long-term security, economic, and environmental interests by not becoming party to the Convention are far greater than the
risks of becoming a party. The major stakeholders in our country agree that the United States would benefit substantially from becoming
party to the Convention. They are supported by an extraordinary array of present and former political and military leaders of our country's
foreign, defense, and economic policies. Virtually all of our friends and allies around the world are already party to the Convention, and
remain puzzled by our hesitation.
31
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – General – Not Unique
Your Turns Are Totally Not Unique – Only Risk of a Turn
Lugar, 9/27/07 (Richard, Senator and Foreign Relations Badass,
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=284357&&year=2007&)
Opponents seem to think that if the U.S. declines to ratify the Law of the Sea, the United States can avoid any multi-lateral responsibilities
or entanglements related to the oceans. But unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
where U.S. non-participation renders the treaty virtually irrelevant or inoperable, the Law of the Sea will continue to form the basis of
maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party. International decisions related to national claims on continental shelves beyond 200
miles from our shore, resource exploitation in the open ocean, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the treaty
whether we join or not.
Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify. The Convention is the accepted
standard in international maritime law. Americans who use the ocean and interact with other nations on the ocean, including the Navy,
shipping interests, and fisherman, have told me that they already have to contend with provisions of the Law of the Sea on a daily
basis. They want the United States to participate in the structures of Law of the Sea to defend their interests and to make sure that other
nations respect our rights and claims.
Given that the United States has been abiding by all but one provision of the Treaty since President Reagan’s 1983 Statement of Oceans
Policy and that we have been a party to a less advantageous international convention on ocean law since 1958, dire predictions about the
hazards to our sovereignty of joining the Law of the Sea ring particularly hollow.
Your Turns Are Not Unique – 3 Reasons

Joining is a win/win proposition. We will not have to change U.S. laws or practices, or give up rights, and we will benefit in a variety of
ways. The United States already acts in accordance with the Convention for a number of reasons:
1. * First, as noted, we are party to a group of 1958 treaties that contain many of the same provisions as the Convention.
2. * Second, the United States heavily influenced the content of the 1982 Convention, based on U.S. law, policy, and practice.
3. * Finally, the treaty has been the cornerstone of U.S. oceans policy since 1983, when President Reagan instructed the Executive Branch
to act in accordance with the Convention's provisions with the exception of deep seabed mining.
Thus, we are in the advantageous position in the case of this treaty that U.S. adherence to its terms is already time-tested and works well.
At the same time, the United States would gain substantial benefits from joining the Convention - these can be summarized in terms of
security, sovereignty, and sustainability.
Impact Turns Are Oversimplified, Wrong and Not Unique – We’re Already Party to a 1958
Convention that links to all their arguments more
As national security professionals who have spent much of our lives working on oceans and security issues, we believe that Senate advice
and consent to ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention is strongly in the national interest of the United States. Elsewhere we have
each testified at length as to why advice and consent is urgently needed. (1) This short paper, which supplements our earlier testimony,is
motivated by our mutual concern that the arguments being against the treaty are simplistic and erroneous.
Not only are the specific cases advanced against the treaty wrong,but more importantly, its critics ignore the powerful masons for U.S.
compliance, including the fact that the 1982 convention supercedes the far less favorable 1958 convention that is currently in force. (2)
This response will first briefly summarize a few of the broader issues ignored by the critics and will then address the erroneous arguments
or "myths" that are advanced against the convention.
We respect the privilege of all Americans to disagree with their elected officials; it is only through a full exchange of views that truth
emerges. Perhaps, as Churchill said, we should "not resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it parts for the time with reality."
(3) Nevertheless, the critics, some of whom are personal friends, are mistaken in their opposition to the convention and we cannot stand by
idly while myths are advanced against a treaty of the utmost importance to U.S. national security.
32
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – General – Internal Link Turn

LOST Inevitably Constrains US Even if we don’t join – Only Becoming a Party Increases Our
Influence and Prevents Restraints
Judicial and arbitral bodies: Interpretations rendered by judicial and arbitral tribunals established under the Convention will also influence
the perceptions and behavior of lawyers and governments around the world and the future understanding of the law. While the actual
judgment may be binding only on the parties to a case, the effect of a judicial or arbitral decision on perceptions of the law is not limited to
parties to a case or even to parties to the Convention. By joining the Convention the United States would have the right to nominate and
participate in the election of judges to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) that sits in Hamburg, as well the right to
add names to the lists from which arbitrators are selected under the Convention. Moreover, by joining the Convention, the United States
would enhance the likelihood that judges and arbitrators would pay serious attention to its views regarding the interpretation and
application of the Convention, even in cases where the United States is not a party to the dispute and has not exercised its right to intervene
under the Convention.
Thus, even though the United States opts for arbitration under the Convention rather than accepting the jurisdiction of ITLOS, by joining
the Convention our influence will extend well beyond any arbitration to which we may be a party. Moreover, we gain the right to seek
urgent temporary provisional measures from ITLOS pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. As the Senate recognized when it
approved the existing Implementing Agreement regarding fisheries to which we are already party, this enhances our leverage over foreign
fishing on the high seas adjacent to our exclusive economic zone. Becoming party to the Convention extends that leverage to fishing
vessels flying the flag of any country that is party to the Law of the Sea Convention
Your Turns are Inevitable – US Ratification Only Enhances Our Interests – Internal link turns all
your offense
The critics seem to suggest that if only the United States refuses to adhere, the convention will disappear. But it is already in force for 148
nations, is acknowledged by the United States as a reflection of customary law and is the core of modern ocean law. Continued non-
adherence would not, for example, end the existence of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) (explained below), but would
disenfranchise the United States and remove our veto over the potential distribution of seabed mining revenues. Parties to the treaty
include every major developed nation, all NATO members except Turkey and the permanent members of the UN Security Council. As a
major maritime nation, theUnited States' absence stands out.
No Turns – LOST Inevitably Sets Maritime Law – US Involvement can only increase our influence
Environment and Energy Daily, 10/5/07
In the end, the strongest argument for ratification may be that the United States cannot avoid the treaty, said Lugar.
"Unlike some treaties, such as the Kyoto Agreement and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ... the Law of the Sea will continue to form
the basis of maritime law regardless of whether the U.S. is a party," he said. "If we fail to ratify this treaty, we are allowing decisions that
will affect our Navy, our ship operators, our offshore industries and other maritime interests to be made without U.S. representation."
Your Turns Are Note Unique – Ratification Can Only Increase US Influence
Negraponte, 9/27/07 (John, Dep Sec State, FNS)
What do we have to do in exchange for securing these benefits? We will not have to change U.S. law
and practices, or give up rights largely because we have already followed the Convention, per the
mandate from President Reagan. In other words, we have been living with the Convention for years and
it has stood the test of time.
The first several years of the Convention's life was fairly quiet, but now its provisions are being actively
applied, interpreted and developed, and we are on the sidelines. One example is the technical body
reviewing the Continental Shelf beyond 200 miles. Its recommendations, which are being made without
participation of a U.S. expert, will affect our rights with respect to other countries' shelves, in addition to
creating precedence that could affect the future outer limit of our own shelf.
33
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – General – Qualifications
Prefer Our Evidence – It Accounts for Every Possible Risk and is the most thoroughly expert
reviewed national security assessment ever – our card actually says this
The critics sometimes advance "conspiracy" or "personality" theories that suggest that the president has been hoodwinked by Vice
President Dick Cheney, military holdovers from the Clinton administration or unnamed "special interests." But such charges ignore the
reality of what is perhaps one of the most careful processes for determining national interests in any area of foreign policy: the
negotiating instructions during the Nixon and Ford administrations that were developed by an 18-agency task force set up within the
National Security Council by presidential order to ensure full vetting of national interests. This process included an almost 100-member
private sector advisory committee, the NSC Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea, which represented every oceans interest as well
as representatives of the Senate. A similar methodology was employed by subsequent administrations. Indeed, there has probably never
been a process as thoroughly dedicated to national interests on any complex issue of foreign policy Over the subsequent years, the
Reagan administration conducted a full interagency review, which concluded that the provisions of the convention other than those on
seabed mining were in the national interest. The Clinton administration then conducted a review before submitting the convention, with the
renegotiated Part XI on deep seabed mining, to the Senate in 1994. Most recently, the Bush administration performed careful reviews
before twice recommending the convention to theSenate's top priority list of treaties. This review included an exhaustive examination by
the Defense Department on every objection raised, no matter how remote the risk, followed by another interagency review of all
recommended U.S. statements for the proposed Senate resolution of advice and consent. For more than a quarter century, the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Navy, fully understanding strategic needs for naval mobility, have been among the strongest supporters of the convention.
We also note that recently, high-level administration officials have strongly supported the United States' accession to the convention. These
officials include Condoleezza Rice, in her confirmationhearing as secretary of state, and John Bellinger, during his confirmation hearing as
legal adviser of the Department of State. Even JohnBolton, in his confirmation hearing as U.S. ambassador to the UnitedNations, testified
in support of the administration's decision to make accession to the convention a priority.
Prefer Our Evidence – The Qualifications Debate is a Crush

Finally, the critics brush aside the consensus among affected ocean interests and knowledgeable oceans experts in the United States in
favor of their own judgment as persons who clearly lack expertise in international law or operational U.S. maritime policy. Indeed, few
conventions have been so unanimously supported by knowledgeable experts and affected interests. Supporters include every president,
both Democrat and Republican, who has considered the convention subsequent to the successful 1994 renegotiation of Part XI on deep
seabed mining, Joint Chiefs chairman, combatant commanders and secretaries of state from the Nixon administration to today; not to
mention every affected U.S. oceans interest including the oil and gas industry, fisheries, shipping and oceanic cables industries; to marine
scientists and environmentalists. Most recently, the congressional U.S. Oceans Commission and the new Bush administration Oceans
Interagency Task Force boh unanimously recommended Senate advice and consent on the convention. As deliberations continue, senators
might want to ask who they trust more for national security advice: every chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the combatant commanders of
our united geographic commands and the consistent view of the Navy since the Nixon administration, or those few who admittedly are not
naval, oceans or international law experts. Further, how can the totality of U.S. agencies, military departments and private sector oceans
industries representatives constitute a "special interest" as charged by the critics? By what criteria are the most vocal critics not special
interests?
34
SDI ‘08
A2: Allows Excess PRC Claims
LOST Doesn’t Allow Excessive PRC Claims

Myth: The PRC asserts that the convention entitles it to exclusive economic control of the waters within a 200-nm radius of its artificial
islands, including waters transited by the vast majority of Japanese and American oil tankers en route to and from the Persian Gulf. This is
wrong on both facts and law. The U.S. government is not aware of any claims made by the PRC to a 200-mile economic zone around its
artificial islands. Any claim that artificial islands generate a territorial sea or EEZ would be illegal under the convention. The convention
specifically provides that artificial islands do not have the status of islands and have no territorial sea or EEZ of their own.
35
SDI ‘08
A2: Restricts Military
Our Link Comes First – Navigational Freedom is a Prerequisite to the activities they claim we
restrict
Myth: The convention is harmful to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Again, this is false. The PSI has already been negotiated
explicitly in conformance with the convention, and not surprisingly so, since the nations with which we coordinate in that initiative are
parties to the convention. This charge apparently rests on the false belief that if the United States does not adhere to the convention, it will
be free from any constraints in relation to oceans law. Again, this is a false assumption; we are today a party to the 1958 Geneva
Convention that is much more restrictive than the 1982 convention now before the Senate. This charge is also misguided as it fails to
understand the critically important interest we have in protecting navigational freedoms on, in and above the world's oceans. The
convention allows our vessels to get on station, a capability that is essential before any issue even arises about boarding. Moreover, we
emphatically do not want a legal regime that would permit any nation to seize U.S. commercial vessels in the world's seas. That would be a
massive loss of U.S. sovereignty! The PSI was carefully constructed with parties to the 1982 convention, using the flag state, port state and
other jurisdictional provisions of the 1982 convention precisely to avoid this problem. Nor is this charge at all realistic in failing to note that
nothing in the Law of the Sea Convention could or does trump our inherent rights to individual and collective self-defense. Most recently,
we note, Under-Secretary of State John Bolton, a principal architect of the PSI, testified to the Senate that adhering to the convention will
not harm the PSI.
LOST Doesn’t Restrict US Military or Give Excess Authority to International Dispute Settlements
and All Your Turns Are Not Unique Anyway –5 Reasons
- consensus of convention rejects application to military activities
- dispute settlement jurisdiction is severely limited
- 100’s of currently binding international agreement give more restrictive authority to international dispute settlement
- Senate has already approved provisions which incorporate LOST Dispute resolution procedures
- Dispute resolution key to commercial navigation
Myth: U.S. military activities will be subject to a world court. There was consensus in the convention negotiations that military activities
should be exempted from dispute settlement. Accordingly, Article 298 of the convention permits nations to opt out of the dispute settlement
provisions for military activities, and under the president's submission, as embodied in the Senate draft resolution of advice and consent,
this option is unmistakably exercised for the United States. Further, the scope of dispute settlement is in general severely limited. For
example, none of the United States' decisions relating to foreign fishermen's access to our fish stocks are subject to dispute settlement. In
addition, as embodied in the president's submission and the Senate draft resolution, the United States will be accepting "arbitration" as our
preferred modality of dispute settlement rather than the International Court of Justice (ICI) or the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (ITLOS). The United States is already a party to literally hundreds of international agreements, including more than 85 submitting
disputes to the ICI, that provide for compulsory dispute resolution. Recently, the Senate approved the 1995 agreement implementing certain
fisheries provisions of the convention, an agreement strongly supported by U.S. fishing interests, which incorporates by reference the
dispute resolution procedures of the convention. As a result of these agreements, remedies are often available when the rights of the
United States or its citizens are violated by other countries. In this connection, compulsory dispute settlement is particularly useful in
controlling illegal interference with commercial navigation. Because of its importance in constraining these illegal claims, even the former
Soviet Union was persuaded of the convention's importance despite its longstanding general opposition to compulsory dispute settlement.
The severely cabined dispute settlement procedures in the convention are far more restrictive than those in most other resolution
provisions already binding on the United States. Moreover, asnoted above, the convention allows us to opt for special arbitrationover the
ICJ or the ITLOS.
LOST Doesn’t Limit Military in Any Way – It Excludes Military Activities and US Has Exclusive
Authority to Define Military Activities
Myth:
The Convention would permit an international tribunal to second-guess the U.S. Navy.
Reality:
No international tribunal would have jurisdiction over the U.S. Navy. U.S. military activities, including those of the U.S. Navy, would not
be subject to any form of dispute resolution. The Convention expressly permits a party to exclude from dispute settlement those disputes
that concern "military activities." The United States will have the exclusive right to determine what constitutes a military activity.
36
SDI ‘08
A2: Restricts Military
US Would Get to Define What Counts as Military Activities under LOST
I want to make sure that, for the record, your position on the other point that Senator Vitter mentioned is clearly stated. Let me just ask you
if my understanding is correct. I believe what you were saying is -- looking at Article 298, it basically exempts disputes concerning military
activities, but -- from my reading of it -- is silent as to what the enforcement mechanism would be.
And as someone who used to draft legislation here, I'm not sure this directly applies, but I want to -- this is my understanding. What your
position is, that any time legislation is silent, existing law prevails. And any time this sort of treaty provision is silent, it goes back to the
law of the individual country involved. Is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. : Yes, sir. We specifically negotiated the treaty, and we had the same interest as other major powers, like the Russians or Chinese, who
certainly did not want to have their military activities subject to dispute resolution, so we had a commonality of interest here to have a
provision that allowed us in the treaty to opt out of any dispute resolution involving our militaries. That's a right you have under the treaty,
and we would do that.
Then the senator has raised a fair question as to, well, who decides what's a military activity? It's not defined in the treaty, so under general
treaty practice, if it's not contrary to language in the treaty, it would be up to us to decide. And I'm sure that other major countries would
take exactly the same position.
Declaration of US Authority to Define Military Activities exemption is Explicitly Supported in

Convention and Tons of Other Parties Have the Same Declaration
Myth: Other parties will reject the U.S. "military activities" declaration as a reservation. The U.S. declaration is consistent with the
convention and is not a reservation. It is an option explicitly provided by Article 298 of the convention. Other parties to the convention that
have already made such declarations exercising this option include the United Kingdom, Russia, France, Canada, Mexico, Argentina,
Portugal, Denmark, Ukraine and Norway.
LOST Excludes Military Restrictions and Your Turns Are Empirically False
Walsh, 9/27/07 (Pat, Vice Chief Naval Operations, FNS)
Third, we've been operating under the convention since 1983 when President Reagan determined that, with the exception of the deep
seabed mining provisions which were later fixed, the United States government would adhere to the convention and demand the same from
others.
Fourth, joining the convention will not subject our armed forces to the jurisdiction of international tribunals or arbitration panels. The
convention is very clear on these points. It recognizes and confirms the sovereign status of warships, government vessels used for
noncommercial purposes and military aircraft. The convention is not an arms control treaty. The United States, like other nations, will
exclude its military activities from the dispute resolution process.
Lost Doesn’t Restrict Military Activities – Critics misunderstand International Law – 2 Reasons
– only applies to acts of war, not military activities for peaceful purposes
- Prefer our Evidence – theirs is theoretical – ours speaks to other countries practice
The critics evince little knowledge of international or oceans law, and consequently make arguments contrary to U.S. interests. For
example, some have argued that the provision in Article 88 that limits use of the high seas for "peaceful purposes" would constrain U.S.
warships or prevent military activities on the high seas. (6) But to make this argument is to unknowingly adopt the "old" Soviet line, no
longer embraced even by Russia, which was never supported by the United States. During the negotiations, the U.S. representative
accurately described the "peaceful purposes" language when he said:
The term "peaceful purposes" did not, of course, preclude military
activities generally. The United States had consistently held that
the conduct of military activities for peaceful purposes was in full
accord with the Charter of the United Nations and with the
principles of international law. Any specific limitation on military
activities would require the negotiation of a detailed arms control
agreement. (7)
37
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Hurts Heg – Intell Gathering
US Ratification Doesn’t Undermine Intelligence or Sub Activity – Consensus of Experts Agree and
We Follow the Convention Provisions Now
Myth:
The Convention would prohibit or impair U.S. intelligence and submarine activities.
Reality:
The Convention does not prohibit or impair intelligence or submarine activities. Joining the Convention would not affect the conduct of
intelligence activities in any way. This issue was the subject of extensive hearings in 2004 before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. Witnesses from Defense, CIA, and State all confirmed that U.S. intelligence and submarine activities are not adversely
affected by the Convention. We follow the navigational provisions of the Convention today and are not adversely affected; similarly, we
would not be adversely affected by joining.
US Ratification Doesn’t Restrict Intell Gathering

Negroponte, England and Walsh, 9/27/07 (John, Gordon and Pat, Dep Sec State, Dep Sec Defense,
Vice Chief Naval Operations, FNS)
Gentlemen, there are critics who have stated that the convention would impair intelligence gathering activities. They point to Articles 19
and 20 and claim for example that they prohibit submarines from transiting submerged through the territorial sea of another country in
order to gather intelligence and that if caught the coastal state could bring the case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Do
you believe that this is a legitimate concern?
Secretary Negroponte?
MR. NEGROPONTE: No, sir, because nothing impedes a submarine from proceeding submerged in the territorial sea of another country. It
simply wouldn't enjoy the right on innocent passage but that does not prevent it from being able to navigate submerged through the
territorial sea of another country.
SEN. WEBB: Secretary England?
MR. ENGLAND: Mr. Chair, if I could just add that this was a subject of extensive briefings before the committee in 2004; they were
closed briefings. That was probably -- those were not before this Senate Committee on Intelligence. We have reviewed those hearings both
ourselves, the DNI, I believe the secretary of State, we all still today support those hearings and the comments made. The conclusions those
hearings was that this would have no effect on any of our intelligence activities. But they were closed so I would refer to those hearings, sir.
SEN. WEBB: Admiral Walsh, would you have anything to add?
MR. WALSH: Support comments previously made here, sir. I do not see the objections raised by the critics on this point. We have been
operating really by the provisions of the treaty since 1983. And we have not had to change our activities as result of the treaty or following
it.
Your Intelligence Gathering Argument is totally wrong and terminally not unique – experts agree
Myth: The convention would interfere with the operations of our intelligence community. Having either chaired or participated in the 18-
agency National Security Council interagency process that drafted the United States' negotiating instructions for the convention, we found
this charge so bizarre that we recently checked with the intelligence community to see if we had missed something. The answer that came
back was that they, too, were puzzled by this charge, as there was absolutely no truth to it. We are confident that there is no provision in
the convention which will, if approved by the Senate, constrain the operations of our intelligence community. In this regard, the United
States is already bound by the 1958 convention, and since 1983, pursuant to President Reagan's order, we have operated under the
provisions of the 1982 convention, with the exception of deep seabed mining issues associated with Part XI.
38
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Hurts Interdiction
We Straight Turn all Your Interdiction Arguments –6 Reasons
- PSI Already Complies with LOST
- US is already party to MORE restrictive Convention
- Navigational Freedoms link outweighs – it’s a prerequisite
- Prevents massive loss of sovereignty via reciprocal boardings
- International right to self defense trumps any LOST restrictions
- Experts agree
Myth: The convention is harmful to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Again, this is false. The PSI has already been negotiated
explicitly in conformance with the convention, and not surprisingly so, since the nations with which we coordinate in that initiative are
parties to the convention. This charge apparently rests on the false belief that if the United States does not adhere to the convention, it will
be free from any constraints in relation to oceans law. Again, this is a false assumption; we are today a party to the 1958 Geneva
Convention that is much more restrictive than the 1982 convention now before the Senate. This charge is also misguided as it fails to
understand the critically important interest we have in protecting navigational freedoms on, in and above the world's oceans. The
convention allows our vessels to get on station, a capability that is essential before any issue even arises about boarding. Moreover, we
emphatically do not want a legal regime that would permit any nation to seize U.S. commercial vessels in the world's seas. That would be a
massive loss of U.S. sovereignty! The PSI was carefully constructed with parties to the 1982 convention, using the flag state, port state and
other jurisdictional provisions of the 1982 convention precisely to avoid this problem. Nor is this charge at all realistic in failing to note that
nothing in the Law of the Sea Convention could or does trump our inherent rights to individual and collective self-defense. Most recently,
we note, Under-Secretary of State John Bolton, a principal architect of the PSI, testified to the Senate that adhering to the convention will
not harm the PSI.
LOST Makes No Changes in Interdiction Authority – the 1958 convention makes it not unique
and limits on ship searches are key to freedom of navigation which is a bigger internal link
Myth: As a non-party, the United States is allowed to search any ship that enters our EEZ to determine whether it could harm the United
States or pollute the marine environment. Under the convention, the U.S. Coast Guard or others would not be able to search any ship until
the United Nations is notified and approves the right to search the ship. Under applicable treaty law, the 1958 convention on the law of the
sea as well as customary international law, no nation has the right to arbitrarily search any ship that enters its EEZ to determine whether it
could harm that nation or pollute its marine environment. Nor would we want countries to have such a blanket right, because it would
fundamentally undermine the freedom of navigation that benefits the United States more than any other nation. Thus, the descriptions of
both the status quo and the convention's provisions are incorrect and seriously misleading. Adhering to the convention will make no change
in our existing authority to search ships entering our EEZ and also with regard to environmental protection. Also, under the convention, the
United Nations plays no role at all, much less a role in deciding when and where a foreign ship may be boarded.
On Balance – US Ratification Boosts PSI And WMD Interdiction efforts – 3 Reasons – LOST Allows
interdiction, PSI Already Requires compliance with LOST provisions, US Ratification increases International Participation in PSI
Myth:
Joining the Convention would hurt U.S. maritime interdiction efforts under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
Reality:
Joining the Convention would not affect applicable maritime law or policy regarding the interdiction of weapons of mass destruction. PSI
specifically requires participating countries to act consistent with international law, which includes the law reflected in the Convention.
Almost all PSI partners are parties to the Convention. Further, joining the Convention is likely to strengthen PSI by attracting new
cooperative partners.
39
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Hurts Econ – Wealth Redistribution
US Ratification Increses US Economic Resources – its not a Wealth Transfer
England, 9/27/07 (Gordon, Dept Sec Defense, FNS)
Let me just say, there was a quarter-page ad in the Washington Times yesterday, "What the U.S. Taxpayers Need to Know About the U.N.'s
Law of the Sea Treaty." And it asserts, "The U.N.'s Law of the Sea is the biggest giveaway of American sovereignty and resources since the
Panama Canal Treaty. It lays the groundwork for another U.N. corruption scandal worse than the oil for food by setting up a scheme to
facilitate payoffs based on revenue derived from global taxes or fees. It gives the U.N. control over billions of dollars' worth of oil, gas and
minerals in the so-called international waters known as the Area. And finally, the International Seabed Authority, based on the island of
Jamaica but maintaining a relationship agreement with the United Nations, controls the Area."
Now, I mention that not in a sense of being an adversary or ridicule, but these are the arguments that are being made. As we all view here
today, unanimously everybody in national security, the president of the United States, those who served as secretary of State under
President Reagan and so forth, the fact is the treaty has not moved.
And in part it's because of holds parliamentary by senators and unwillingness by the leadership to bring it up and forget the holds, but
secondly, by the thought that there must be a large group of Americans out there who somehow believe that this is a giveaway of
sovereignty, of money, of U.N. domination.
MR. ENGLAND: Senator?
SEN. LUGAR: You have a response.
MR. ENGLAND: Well, my only comment is, rather than national security, from an economic point of view, the United States has the most
to gain. I mean, our exclusive economic zone goes out 200 nautical miles. I mean, we have one of the largest coastlines in the world, when
you think of Alaska and the Hawaiian islands and the East and West coasts, Gulf of Mexico.
You think of our coastline, 200 miles, and we have exclusive economic rights in that area. And in addition, as Secretary Negroponte said,
we go out to the continental shelf off of Alaska. That could be as much as 600 miles. And we have exclusive economic rights in that area.
It would seem to me that, contrary to your comments about what the newspaper said, the ad taken out, it is the opposite of that. I mean,
some people have said this is a big U.S. land grab because, you know, there are so many rights that accrue to the United States because of
our huge coastline. So it would seem to me this is hugely beneficial to the United States. Rather than a disadvantage, it's a huge advantage
to the United States in terms of our economic as well as our security interests.
Claims LOST Hurts Economic Interests are wrong – 3 reasons – US Can veto, US doesn’t claim
ownership of deep sea bed resources now, legal experts agree
Environment and Energy Daily, 10/5/07
"This treaty was hijacked along the trail" of negotiations, said Frank Gaffney, of the Center for Security Policy. "It reflects the outdated
preferences of the Soviet Union and progressive trans-nationalists."
One vehicle for those "progressive trans-nationalists," according to Gaffney and fellow witness Fred Smith, president of the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, is the International Seabed Authority. Created by the treaty, the ISA oversees deep seabed mining in areas outside of
individual countries' exclusive economic zones.
"Western governments would be required to enforce payment of fees and royalties, subsidize the U.N.'s mining operation, and provide
resources for redistribution for Third World entities," Smith said in his written testimony.
But those claims have been repeatedly rejected by the Bush administration and legal experts. Testifying at the Foreign Relations
Committee's first Law of the Sea hearing last week, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte pointed out that the United States is
guaranteed the only permanent seat on the seabed authority -- and that the authority can only make "substantive decisions" under
consensus, allowing an objection from the United States to halt any unfavorable proposal.
Moreover, "the deep seabed is an area that the United States has never claimed and has conveniently recognized as being beyond the
sovereignty and jurisdiction of any nation," Negroponte said.
40
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Hurts Econ – Deficits
Your Budget Argument is Profoundly Stupid
Myth: Adhering to the convention will come with substantial financial obligations. U.S. financial obligations under the convention wil lbe
modest. Had we been a full party throughout 2001, our contribution to the ISA would have been approximately $1.3 million computed at
the 25 percent rate, and this reduced to a 22 percent rate in 2002. Our contribution to the International Tribunal is estimated to be
approximately $2 million per year. This total level of contribution is less than the United States pays each year for membership in the
U.S./Canada Great Lakes Fish Commission.
41
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – Enviro Regs
NO ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN FOR THE UNITED STATES – WE’RE ALREADY IN

COMPLIANCE
David B. Sandalow, Scholar in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at Brookings, “Law of the Sea Convention: Should the
U.S. Join?” August 2004 (http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb137.htm)
The standards for environmental protection set forth in the Convention work strongly to the advantage of the United States,
which has already met and in most cases significantly exceeded these standards but necessarily depends on actions by other
nations to protect the marine environment.
LOST Doesn’t Allow Regulation of Land Based Pollution or Backdoor Kyoto Implementation
E&E Daily, 9/27/07 (environment and energy daily)
"Some of these arguments [made by treaty opponents] are issues of fact," Negroponte said. "It's just not a fact that this seabed regime is
going to be run by the U.N. or have control of anything other than the seabed."
Negroponte and his legal adviser at the State department, John Bellinger, also dismissed concerns expressed by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)
about treaty parties' ability to regulate land-based pollution.
"This is not a backdoor way to subject us to the Kyoto Protocol," Bellinger said.
LOST Doesn’t Regulate Land Based Pollution or Allow Backdoor Kyoto Enforcement
MR./ADM. : Senator, I think it clearly does not allow regulation over land-based pollution sources. The -- that would stop at the water's
edge. The -- as far as at least dispute resolution involving them, there can be limitations on the pollution that could emanate, but as far as
the ability of any other country to complain and bring us to dispute resolution over pollution that would come from land, that's not
permitted under the treaty.
SEN. VITTER: Well, Article 213 says -- states, "Shall enforce their laws on and shall" -- shall, mandatory -- "adopt laws and regulations
and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established through competent international
organizations or diplomatic conference to prevent, reduce and control pollution."
Well, it sounds to me like the Kyoto Protocol is an international standard, and we shall pass laws to enforce that.
MR./ADM. : Well, this is -- this is not a backdoor way to subject us to the Kyoto Protocol. There is no way that the standard that those
standards could be standards that someone could subject us to in dispute resolutions.
SEN. VITTER: Why? Because of the -- it says we shall do this, we shall pass laws to enforce international environmental standards. So
why couldn't a state clearly take us to dispute resolution to say you're not doing that; you need to heighten environmental laws A, B, C, D
and E?
MR./ADM. : There are some environmental issues that are the subject of international agreement such as ocean dumping, for example, but
the -- when you talk about land-based pollution, you know, our view is that that's just not covered by the treaty, Senator. I think that's the
point, that we believe that there is no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources.
LOST Doesn’t Allow Regulation of Land Based Pollution

Times Picayune, 10/11/07
But Vitter also suggested that the agreement could give other nations a say over land-based pollution sources and amount to a back-door
adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, an effort to reduce greenhouse emissions, which the Senate has refused to ratify.
"Why would we open that Pandora's box?" Vitter asked.
Renewed interest
Supporters dismiss the assertion as baseless. John Negroponte, deputy secretary of state, said the treaty provides no avenue to drag the
United States into court over land-based business, and for sea-based commerce, it only requires the country to "take into account"
international rules and regulations.
42
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – Sovereignty
LOST Ratification key to prevent perpetual unilateral use of force – their sovereignty arguments
are backwards – 4 reasons
- international agreements are vital to sovereignty
- constitution checks
- congress checks
- withdrawal procedures check
Arguments against the convention are, in a way; a denigration of law; they seem to indicate that any international agreement is an
unwelcome infringement of U.S. sovereignty, when the contrary is the case. President George Washington regarded the Jay Treaty with
Great Britain as the most important achievement of his administration. No one would accept a loss of U.S. sovereignty. At the same time,
one of the most important sovereign rights is the legal ability of states to enter into agreements, just as individual citizens in the United
States have the right to agree to contracts with one another. In fact, it is only children and the mentally incompetent who have no right to
contract. To deny the U.S. government the right to enter into agreements with other nations would deprive it of one of its most fundamental
rights, leaving it with few options short of expending the lives of its armed forces to establish and enforce national rights. It should also
be understood that under the U.S. Constitution, freedom of action cannot be lost through international agreements. One widely-accepted
precept of U.S. foreign policy is that a subsequent act of Congress can override a prior international agreement. Further, critics fail to
mention that because of its sovereignty, the United States is free to withdraw from the convention.
We Straight Turn Your Sovereignty Claims – 4 Reasons

- ISA Inevitable US Ratification not key
- ISA Only has jurisdiction over mineral resources in deep seabed – not the water column
- US Has Already Rejected Claim of Sovereignty over Deep Sea Bed
- US Ratification Massively Expands US Sovereign Jurisdiction
Myths Concerning National Sovereignty
Myth: The United States is giving up sovereignty to a new international authority that will control the oceans. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The United States does not give up an ounce of sovereignty in this convention. Rather, as noted, the convention solidifies a
massive increase in resource and economic jurisdiction for the United States, not only to 200 nautical miles off our coasts, but to abroad
continental margin in many areas even beyond that. The new International Seabed Authority (ISA) created by this convention, which, as
noted, has existed for a decade and will continue to exist regardless of U.S. actions, deals solely with mineral resources of the deep seabed
beyond national jurisdiction--it has nothing to do with the water column above the seabed. The deep seabed is not only an area in which the
United States has no sovereignty; but one on which the United States and the entire world have consistently opposed extension of national
sovereignty claims.
LOST Directly Repudiates World Government, Expands Sovereignty and Is Crucial to Free
Market Principles and Property Rights
Myth: The convention is an effort by the radical left to move toward world government. The reality is the opposite! The convention
includes a massive extension of national sovereign rights over the most important oceans resources, including fish stocks and oil and gas,
while protecting national sovereign rights in freedom of navigation for all nations. As such, it is a direct repudiation of radical claims,
urged by some, for an international agency to control the oceans. Only seabed mineral resources beyond a broadly extended area of coastal
state jurisdiction are placed under the limited control of an international authority, and this was necessary to establish the exclusive
property rights needed by mining firms for minerals otherwise owned by no nation. Further, the ISA, as renegotiated, adopts free-market
principles as its core and is itself a rejection of the "New International Economic Order." Also, the negotiations resisted any effort to
stray into arms control as urged by some. In reality, the convention is a triumph for both national sovereign rights and free market
principles.
43
SDI ‘08
A2: Lost Bad – Free Market/Mining
US Ratification key to Mining Industry – ISA Doesn’t Hurt Sovereignty or cause excessive
regulation and is key to Property Rights
Moreover, to mine deep seabed minerals requires security of tenure for the billion dollar plus costs of such an operation. Our industryhas
emphatically reminded us that they cannot mine under a fishing approach in which mining is a free-for-all concept, as the critics seem to
suggest. Rather, they must have both the exclusive rights to mine sites and international recognition of titles to the minerals recovered.
These requirements led to the formation of a limited international agency to provide security of tenure and title for mineral resources of the
seabed beyond national jurisdiction, which was otherwise owned by no one. The ISA was a necessary specialized agency of strictly limited
jurisdiction to deal with security of tenure and stable property rights so that investors can amortize their debt. Quite contrary to the recent
testimony of one critic before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the ISA would not have "the exclusive right to
regulate what is done, by whom, when and under what circumstances in subsurface international waters and on the sea-floor." (12)Rather,
the ISA is a small, narrowly mandated international agency that has emphatically no ability to control the water column and only functional
authority over the mining of the minerals of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction. Again, this is a necessary requirement for seabed
mining, an area beyond which any nation has sovereignty, to provide security of tenure to mine sites, without which mining will not occur.
By not adhering to the treaty, the United States will simply lose its deep seabed mine sites--the best in the world--and our seabed mining
industry will be permanently deep-sixed.
On Balance LOST Massively Expands US Sovereignty, is crucial to property rights and US

Mining Industry
Myth: The convention would turn the oceans over to the United Nations. This is completely and utterly false; not a drop of ocean water nor
an ounce of oceans resources would be turned over to the United Nations. To the contrary, the convention disappointed extreme
internationalists who believed in "blue helmet" solutions to oceans issues. It placed all coastal resources of the water column and the
continental shelf under coastal nation, rather than international, jurisdiction. And it maintained and strengthened freedom of navigation on
the world's oceans. These critical issues in the negotiation, by far the most important, hugely strengthened national sovereign rights.
Even the ISA that the convention created is an independent international authority, supported by the United States, and is necessary to
provide stability of property rights to deep seabed minerals owned by no other nation. Without such an authority providing exclusive
property rights to seabed mine sites of the deep ocean floor, seabed mining, including that by U.S. interests, would never be realized.
And remember that this body is limited to the mineral resources of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction that have yet to be mined,
in contrast with the billions of dollars in fisheries, oil and gas production on the continental margins, all of which are under national
jurisdiction.
44

Obama Good - LOST

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Obama Good - LOST

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SDI ‘08

Elections Impact – LOST

Obama Good – LOST

The Impact is Leadership, Power Projection, Prolif Terrorism and Economy

McCain opposes Law of Sea

McCain has changed sides – will block lost

Our Watkins Evidence Cites Several Impacts – Each is Huge

4. Port Security – Key Solve WMD Terrorism

NAVAL POWER PREVENTS US-CHINA WAR OVER TAIWAN

Hultin and Blair ‘06

Straits Times 6-25-2000 lexis

CHINA TAIWAN EXTINCTION

Straits Times 6-25-2000 lexis

(Nick, PhD Philosophy – Oxford U., Existential Risks,

The Impact is Nuclear War with North Korea

US Ratification Key to Global Ocean Biodiversity and Food Supply

Failure to protect the oceans will cause extinction

Oceansatrisk.com 05 “Empty Oceans, Empty Nets,”

Independently, Loss of Fish Causes 1 Billion Deaths

UNESCO Courier July 1, 1998 lexis

US Ratification Key to Heg Economy and War on Terror

US Ratification key to Hard Power Soft Power and War on Terrorism

LAW OF THE SEA KEY TO THE U.S. AND GLOBAL ECONOMY

US Ratification Key to Navigational Freedom

US Ratification key to Shipping and Naval Mobility

US Ratification Key to Heg and Navigational Freedom

US Ratification key to Heg

Lost Key to PSI Effectiveness

US Ratification key to Homeland Security and PSI Effectiveness

US Ratification Key to PSI

LOST Ratification Key to PSI Effectiveness and Global Power Projection

US Ratification Key to Heg and War on Terror

US Accession Key to Control of Arctic – Key to oil and Economy

US Ratification Key to Heg, Arctic Access and Territorial Claims

US Ratification Key to Navigational Freedom – Prevents Oil Shocks

Lost solves foreign oil reliance – key to economy

A2: Customary International Law Solves

US Ratification key to Prevent Multiple Claims of Creeping Jurisdiction which Cumulatively

Customary International Law Can’t Solve – US Ratification Key to Prevent Restrictions on

Unilateral Freedom of Navigation Operations Undermine Ability to Challenge Excess Maritime

A2: Lost Bad – General – Impact Calc

Your Turns Are Not Unique – 3 Reasons

A2: Lost Bad – General – Internal Link Turn

A2: Lost Bad – General – Qualifications

Prefer Our Evidence – The Qualifications Debate is a Crush

A2: Allows Excess PRC Claims

LOST Doesn’t Allow Excessive PRC Claims

Declaration of US Authority to Define Military Activities exemption is Explicitly Supported in

US Ratification Doesn’t Restrict Intell Gathering

NO ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN FOR THE UNITED STATES – WE’RE ALREADY IN

LOST Doesn’t Allow Regulation of Land Based Pollution

We Straight Turn Your Sovereignty Claims – 4 Reasons

On Balance LOST Massively Expands US Sovereignty, is crucial to property rights and US

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi