The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted in 1982, stands as a cornerstone framework for global ocean governance, defining maritime zones such as territorial seas extending 12 nautical miles with sovereignty and innocent passage rights, contiguous zones up to 24 nautical miles for enforcement, exclusive economic zones reaching 200 nautical miles for resource exploitation, and continental shelves that can extend further for seabed rights. It also designates the high seas as open to all nations for navigation and fishing under conservation obligations, while treating the deep seabed beyond national jurisdictions—the Area—as the common heritage of mankind, regulated by the International Seabed Authority for mining activities. Key institutions include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for dispute resolution and the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for boundary determinations. The treaty emphasizes peaceful ocean uses, environmental protection, technology transfer to developing nations, and equitable sharing of benefits from seabed resources. This vision traces back to 1967, when Maltese Ambassador Arvid Pardo addressed the United Nations General Assembly, advocating for the deep seabed to be managed collectively to prevent domination by technologically advanced powers.
The United States played a pivotal leadership role in the negotiations during the 1970s and 1980s, securing the world’s largest maritime jurisdiction—an area exceeding the size of the continental U.S.—through its exclusive economic zones and continental shelves, granting control over vast fisheries, oil, gas, and mineral resources. American negotiators also ensured protections for navigational freedoms essential to the U.S. Navy, Coast Guard, and commercial shipping. As the era’s frontrunner in deep-seabed mining, the U.S. gained recognition for access to four specially designated mine sites, each approximately the size of Rhode Island and containing strategic minerals like nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese valued at roughly $1 trillion today. Since no nation owns the deep seabed, the treaty established mechanisms equivalent to property rights, recognized internationally. However, President Ronald Reagan rejected the original Part XI provisions on deep-seabed mining due to concerns over mandatory technology transfers and royalties imposed by the International Seabed Authority, viewing them as restrictions on U.S. industry. The 1994 Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI addressed these issues by restructuring the regime to align with free-market principles, which the U.S. signed under President Clinton. Yet, despite broad support from military leaders, business sectors, and veterans’ organizations like the American Legion, the Senate has failed to ratify the treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote that has never materialized.
This persistent non-ratification represents a critical oversight in U.S. foreign policy, allowing adversaries to exploit gaps in international maritime law. While the U.S. adheres to many UNCLOS provisions as customary international law—particularly for freedom of navigation operations—it remains outside the treaty’s binding mechanisms, limiting its influence in bodies like the International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Senate opposition, which peaked in 2012 with a group of Republican senators citing risks to sovereignty and potential unfavorable tribunal decisions, has dwindled in numbers but not in impact, with remaining members contributing to ongoing holds that prevent floor votes. Recent efforts, such as the July 2025 Senate Resolution 331 sponsored by Senators Murkowski, Hirono, and Young urging ratification, have stalled in the Foreign Relations Committee. This inaction questions the committee’s commitment to national security, as evidenced by Retired Navy Admiral Patrick Walsh’s stark assessment: “We are on the sidelines watching others assert their national interests, and we’re not in the game.” The failure to ratify not only isolates the U.S. but also undermines its ability to challenge violations effectively, prioritizing reservations over strategic imperatives.
Over the past 15 years, China’s actions in the South China Sea have starkly illustrated the consequences of this U.S. absence, eroding the treaty’s principles through aggressive expansionism. Beijing, which ratified UNCLOS in 1996, has flagrantly disregarded its obligations, asserting expansive claims via the “nine-dash line” that the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling deemed invalid under the convention, as it exceeded permissible maritime entitlements. Undeterred, China proceeded with large-scale island-building between 2013 and 2016, reclaiming over 3,200 acres on seven features like Fiery Cross and Subi Reefs—artificial constructs that, per UNCLOS, do not generate exclusive economic zones or territorial seas. These sites now host military infrastructure, including airstrips, radar systems, and missile deployments, transforming disputed areas into fortified outposts. Harassment of neighboring vessels has intensified: Philippine ships have faced water cannon attacks, ramming incidents injuring crew members, and laser blinding in 2023-2025 encounters, while swarming tactics involving up to 95 Chinese vessels blocked access to Scarborough Shoal in October 2025. China has also installed physical barriers and declared “nature reserves” as pretexts for occupation, further restricting fishing rights of nations like the Philippines and Vietnam.
Beyond militarization, China’s environmental violations compound the threat, with dredging and giant clam harvesting destroying over 21,000 acres of coral reefs—damage 500 times greater than impacts from other regional actors—contravening UNCLOS Article 192’s mandate to protect the marine environment. These gray-zone tactics, often below the threshold of armed conflict, enable incremental control without full international backlash, while Beijing selectively invokes the treaty to criticize U.S. freedom of navigation operations. In the deep seabed arena, China has capitalized on U.S. non-participation, securing five exploration contracts from the International Seabed Authority for polymetallic nodules in zones like Clarion-Clipperton, sponsoring state-linked firms such as the China Ocean Mineral Resources Research and Development Association. This positions Beijing as a leader in mining technologies and patents, dominating supply chains for critical minerals used in electric vehicles, batteries, and defense systems. The Senate’s failure to ratify leaves U.S. companies unable to sponsor applications under the authority, relying instead on domestic laws like the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, which risks legal challenges and disputes in international waters.
President Trump’s 2025 initiatives highlight the urgent need for ratification to secure these resources and counter China’s dominance. In April, the administration finalized a minerals agreement with Ukraine, granting U.S. access to vast reserves of lithium, graphite, titanium, and other rare earths in exchange for wartime aid and reconstruction support—a deal Trump framed as conditional on resource concessions. October saw renewed focus on Greenland, shifting from earlier purchase proposals to equity stakes in projects like Critical Metals Corp’s Tanbreez Mine, targeting neodymium and cerium for technology applications. Broader frameworks included pacts with Japan for joint mining and processing, Southeast Asian nations pre-APEC, and Ecuador via tariff exemptions, collectively valued at over $10 billion. Executive Order 14285, issued in April, accelerated offshore critical minerals exploration on the U.S. continental shelf and beyond, invoking expedited permitting and invoking wartime authorities in March to boost production. NOAA’s December hearings on seabed mining permits, including for firms like The Metals Company, underscore this push, yet without UNCLOS ratification, these efforts face vulnerabilities—unilateral actions could provoke international opposition, while China’s established contracts lock in advantages.
The U.S. reserved mine sites, potentially worth trillions, remain untapped due to this self-imposed exclusion, handing Beijing a strategic edge in global supply chains and geopolitical leverage. Senate leaders must account for this oversight, as their inaction not only weakens alliances—evident in China’s “shiprider” security deals with Pacific islands—but also exposes U.S. forces to heightened risks in contested waters like the South China Sea and near Taiwan. Questioning authority here is essential: Why prioritize outdated sovereignty concerns when the 1994 amendments resolved them, and when military experts like Admiral Walsh warn of the costs? Ratification would empower the U.S. to sponsor mining, participate in dispute resolutions, and enforce environmental standards against violators, aligning with national interests over sensitivities. Without it, America risks further erosion of its maritime leadership, allowing China to rewrite ocean rules unchecked.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 