LOST AFF

1ac

Plans
Text: The United States federal government (United States Senate) should ratify
and implement the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ocean development

1ac Arctic
Advantage __ is the Icy Wasteland
Two Scenarios:
First is resources US adherence to LOST in the Arctic is inevitable, however
ratification is key to resource access the alternative is energy dependence and
high vulnerability to price shocks
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)
The Arctics unfavorable weather and climate conditions have produced one of the most inhospitable environments on
Earth, which led

to a very limited presence of humans and an absence of sovereignty claims for centuries. 1 As global
warming causes the polar icecaps to recede, potentially oil-rich seabeds are being uncovered beneath the
Arctic Ocean in the rapidly navigable and drillable territory. According to the U.S. Geological Survey
estimations, the Arctic Ocean's seabed may hold vast reserves of oil and natural gasup to 25% of the worlds
undiscovered reserves. 2
Not surprisingly, the recent discoveries sparked a new land rush of claims in the Arctic regionthe division of
which will be governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention). 3 Under the

Convention, five nations Canada, the United States, Russia, Norway and Denmark can claim the natural resources on, above,
and beneath the Arctic Ocean floor up to 200 miles from their shorelines. 4 They can also extend their claim up to 350 miles from
shore for any area that is proven to be a part of their continental shelf. 5
Determination of who owns the Arctic Ocean and any resources that might be found beneath those waters will have

significant economic implications. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts a decline in petroleum
reserves and, despite oil prices topping $146 in June 2008, the demand for oil is growing. 6 In addition to the vast
mineral resources, the unpredictability of the Persian Gulf region makes the Arctic region even more
attractive for exploitation. Russia and Norway have already submitted their claims to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (the Commission), while Canada and Denmark are collecting evidence to prepare their submissions in
the near future. 7 All of these nations can gain considerable oil and gas resources as a result of the Convention.
However, one Arctic state has so far failed to join the race. Unlike the other Arctic nations, the United States
has not ratified the Convention. Although the United States has complied voluntarily with the
Convention, the failure to ratify the Convention could foreclose its ability to tap into potential energy
resources. This failure could prevent significant contributions to American energy independence,
and increase security threats. Thus, the best way to guarantee access to the Arctics resources and to protect
other economic and non-economic interests is for the United States to become a party to the Convention.

This comment discusses the United States interests in the Arctic region and available methods of securing such interests. In part I,
this comment provides background information on the geography of the Arctic. Part II reviews recent legal developments with
respect to claims raised by countries bordering the Arctic. Part III examines the legal regime governing the use of the oceans and the
relevant provisions of the Convention, including sovereignty limits, deep seabed mining, and methods of dispute resolution. Part IV
evaluates the United States position with respect to Arctic sovereignty. First, this section explores the reasons for failing to ratify the
Convention by the United States. Next, it analyzes the pros and cons of ratifying the Convention as well as the pros and cons of
maintaining the status quo. It also analyzes whether customary law or a mini-treaty could secure American interests in the Arctic
region. Finally, this comment concludes that diminishing natural resources and the high instability of

regions where such resources are still present stimulate the need of the United States to ratify the
Convention to preserve its right to influence the Arctics future.

Only ratification solves legal uncertainty absent lost creates a chilling effect that
prevents resource utilization and endangers the economy
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

Maritime natural resource exploitation from oil and natural gas to seabed minerals has strategic implications for the United
States. Ratifying LOSC will put the United States in a position to secure internationally recognized claims to
those important natural

resources.
The United States is committed to exploring for additional domestic reserves of oil and natural gas in an effort to
bolster domestic production and provide assured access to energy resources. Increasing production from domestic
reserves will not necessarily help reduce higher oil prices, since these prices are set by the global market, but it can help
close the U.S. trade deficit and provide more assured access to energy if a major crisis chokes off
access to foreign energy imports for any length of time.
Offshore oil and natural gas exploration along the

extended continental shelf an area beyond the 200-nauticalexpected to increase U.S. reserves over the next decade. However, the United States cannot
secure internationally recognized sovereign rights to those resources unless it ratifies LOSC. While the United
mile EEZ is

States enjoys national jurisdiction over living and non-living resources above and below the seabed out to 200 nautical miles, claims
to resources beyond the EEZ must be formally made to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the
international body established by LOSC for parties to adjudicate claims to the extended continental shelf. Without the United
States ratifying LOSC,

U.S. companies operating beyond the EEZ would be considered on the high seas and beyond
the formal legal protection of the United States. As a result, offshore drilling companies have increasingly
expressed their concern about the lack of legal protections afforded to U.S. companies and have indicated
a reluctance to assume significant risk in operating in areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction. In short, U.S. failure to
ratify LOSC could have a chilling effect on commercial resource exploration and exploitation on the

extended continental shelf.

Ratifying LOSC will allow the United States to make a claim to the extended continental shelf an area estimated to be twice the size
of California and bring the potential oil and natural gas resources beyond the existing EEZ under U.S. jurisdiction. 20
Furthermore, these sovereign resources would be beyond the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which only
has authority over resources in the deep seabed beyond other national jurisdictions. 21 While critics often cite concerns about the
ISA and its administration of U.S. companies drilling under the deep seabed, such concerns will be assuaged by bringing the
extended continental shelf under internation - ally recognized U.S. jurisdiction.
Seabed mining, in the Arctic and elsewhere, is also becoming an important strategic interest for the

United States. U.S. companies increasingly seek to engage in seabed mining for minerals such as rare
earth elements and cobalt that are critical to the broad U.S. economy and used in producing defense
assets. However, as long as the United States remains outside the international legal protections afforded by LOSC,
the private sector remains hesitant to invest in seabed mining investments that would reduce
U.S. vulnerabilities to external pressure and supply disruption. Indeed, since few suppliers provide such
minerals and they are prone to intentional or unintentional disruptions and price spikes,
increasing U.S. production will help prevent suppliers from exerting political and economic
leverage over the United States and its allies. 22
Econ decline causes global catastrophe and nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, 9 *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of
the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington Quarterly,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)

Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result
of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended

Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the

multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the
same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways

potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic
environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and
in which the

nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth
continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of
technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach.

will

likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups

structures,
command
and
control
processes,
and
training
attacks

procedures

necessary

Terrorist groups in 2025

to

inheriting organizational
conduct
sophisticated

and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become

self-

radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty
of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear

worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security
arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not
weapons is not inevitable,

clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle
East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation
and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined
with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving
reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile

uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could
reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive
flight times, and
potentially

countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders
deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions
short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and
modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed
turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries,
and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also
becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Statistics prove
Royal 10 Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department
of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic
Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature
has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states.
Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level,
Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated
with the rise and fall of pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as

crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 10981) that leads to uncertainty
about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution
of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power
economic

(Werner, 1999). Seperately, Polllins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of
conflict among major, medium, and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and
security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996,2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation
of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely
to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectation of future trade decline,

states will be inclined to use

force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or
because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as

external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends
to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p.89). Economic decline has also
been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and
lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary

theory suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to create a
rally round the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that
economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997) Miller (1999) and Kisanganie and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more

periods of
weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force.
susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that

Energy dependence risks extinction

Lendman 07 - Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

[Stephen Lendman, Resource Wars - Can We Survive

Them?, rense.com, 6-6-7, pg. http://www.rense.com/general76/resrouce.htm]

With the world's energy supplies finite, the US heavily dependent on imports, and "peak oil" near or
approaching, "security" for America means assuring a sustainable supply of what we can't do
without. It includes waging wars to get it, protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over
which it travels. That means energy's partnered with predatory New World Order globalization, militarism, wars,
ecological recklessness, and now an extremist US administration willing to risk Armageddon for
world dominance. Central to its plan is first controlling essential resources everywhere, at any cost, starting with oil and where most of

it is located in the Middle East and Central Asia. The New "Great Game" and Perils From It The new "Great Game's" begun, but this time
the stakes are greater than ever as explained above. The old one lasted nearly 100 years pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue

it's the US with help from Israel, Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South
Korea and Taiwan challenging Russia and China with today's weapons and technology on both sides
making earlier ones look like toys. At stake is more than oil. It's planet earth with survival of all
life on it issue number one twice over. Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing, peace
declining, and the planet's ability to sustain life front and center , if anyone's paying attention. They'd better be because
beyond the point of no return, there's no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split. His famous
wasn't oil. This time,

quote on future wars was : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

There may be nothing left but resilient beetles and

bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future,
if at all. The threat is real and once nearly happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October,
Under a worst case scenario, it's more dire than that.

1962. We later learned a miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with
host country Cuba. For the first time, we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was avoided only because Soviet submarine
captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near
Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had he done it, only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big
part of it, would have survived.

Second is conflict war in the Arctic would go nuclear

Wallace & Staples 10 *Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia,
**President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa (Michael, Steven, Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear
Weapons: A Task Long Overdue,) //J.N.E
The fact is, the

Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has
General Vladimir Shamanov
declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russias
submarine fleet would increase its operational radius. 55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines were
announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian

spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. 56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obamas inauguration, President Bush
issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military
vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to
protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. 57 The Bush administrations disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw
from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the
instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has
figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early
Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has

put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic,
including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port.

Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic
military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship- based helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. 58
Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35
fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving
7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. 59 The manoeuvres prompted
a protest from Russia which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the
Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. 60 9 Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear
Weapons: A Task Long Overdue Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament
affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being
expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states the United States and the Russian Federation,

which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world converge on the Arctic
and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries
Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into
the threat or use of nuclear weapons. 61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no
circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken
lightly.

LOST is key to resolve tensions and prevent environmental destruction

King 7 Andrew King is currently an associate at Archer Norris, a law corporation. Education: University of California, Hastings
College of the Law, San Francisco, J.D., 2007 Witkin Awards for Excellence: Remedies; Mediation; and American West Law,
Culture & Environment CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Pretrial Practice Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Member,
2005 - 2006 Best Moot Court Brief (2005); Best Moot Court Oralist, Honorable Mention (2005) University of York, York, England,
B.A., with first class honors, 2000 Nominated for Royal Historical Society Prize for Undergraduate Dissertation (2007, Andrew,

Thawing a Frozen Treaty: Protecting United States Interests in the Arctic with a Congressional-Executive Agreement on the Law of
the Sea, http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V34/I2/king.pdf - II. Renewed Interest in the Arctic Region and a
Snapshot of Recent Territorial Claims // SM)
Until recently, international strategic concern with the Arctic Ocean was limited to the comings and goings of nuclear submarines.6
Over the past decade, however, the steady shrinking of the Arctic ice cap has fueled a renewed economic

and political interest in the region. As Dr. Rob Huebert, of the University of Calgary Centre for Military and Strategic
Studies in Canada, has observed, now, in the post-Cold War global warming era, everyone is pitching for action. Climate
change is reshaping the Arctic [and] [t]he issues are energy, fish and shipping

lanes. 7 In September 2005, scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (N SIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, reported
that the Arctic ice cap had shrunk to the smallest expanse ever recorded.8 Arctic experts predict this melting will continue and
eventually create a seasonally open sea nearly five times the size of the Mediterranean. As the ice thins, exploration of

ocean oil and natural gas deposits becomes more feasible. The United States Geological Survey
estimates that one quarter of the worlds undiscovered oil and gas resources lies in the Arctic.1
While melting ice bodes ill for fragile Arctic ecosystems and could have a deleterious effect on climates on the rest of the planet, with
change comes opportunity. As temperatures change, pink salmon are colonizing Arctic tributaries, cod

are traveling northward, and large-scale commercial fisheries are becoming

increasingly viable . Furthermore, lucrative navigable shipping channels , including the famed
North West Passage and the lesser-known North East Passage, which both link the European continent with
China, appear, for the first time in centuries, to be more than pipedreams. All of this commotion in the frigid
North has attracted the interest of various competing sovereignties, environmentalists, and the
energy, fishing, freight, and cruise-line industries, among others. Unfortunately, and somewhat predictably, the

opening up of the Arctic is proving far from smooth sailing in the realm of international relations. The Arctic Ocean is unique in that
it is the only place on the planet where the borders of five countries-the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark-come
together the way sections of an orange meet at the stem.'5 As the Arctic region becomes less forbidding, long-

held tensions between these nations and competing claims to Arctic waterways are coming to the
surface. The United States and Canada are engaged in an ongoing dispute over rights to the North
West Passage and the Beaufort Sea. Norway and Russia are fighting over a disputed part of the
Barents Sea thought to be rich in oil and gas deposits. In 2001, Russia staked a claim to over half the Arctic,
following a tradition set by Stalin who once simply drew a line from the northern Russian port of Murmansk to the North Pole and
declared it to be the Soviet Unions polar territory.'8 While the other nations have challenged Russias claim, on
another front the Russian parliament has so far refused to ratify a 1990 agreement with the United States over rights to fish and
other resources in the Bering Sea.2 Not to be outdone, Denmark, an Arctic nation through its colonial possession of Greenland,

has laid claim to the North Pole itself. Finally, in what may qualify as one of the more comical territorial disputes of
modern times, Denmark and Canada are now engaged in their own cold war over Hans Island, an

uninhabited speck of rock between Greenland and the Canadian coastline. Although control over the rock could one day determine
exploration rights, the confrontation thus far has been limited to trips by the countries respective ministers clad in governmentissued parkas, and some surreal incidents where landing parties from both navies raise their national flag and leave whisky and
brandy as signs of their visit . . . .23 Joking aside, all

of the above is evidence of the Arctic nations

jockeying for position in this new gold rush . At a time when melting ice portends an influx
of new drilling, shipping, fishing, and cruise ship travel, it is imperative that

some

order be

brought to this imminent stampede in order to preserve the environment, and

protect economic and national security.

In fact, such a

mechanism already exists in a

provision of the Law of the Sea treaty . The problem for United States interests in the Arctic is
that a handful of Senators on Capitol Hill continue to find ways to block ratification of this accord,
leaving America on the sidelines and the Arctic in danger of uncontrolled pillage.25
Arctic environment destruction causes extinction
WWF 10 (December 1, 2010 Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky World Wildlife
Fund http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/arctic/WWFBinaryitem18711.pdf)
zabd

Planetary Keystone The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many
reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes
supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses,
narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the
world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of
supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just
important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is
generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes
affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the
rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and
influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. Heat
balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its
regulatory and carbon storage function s. Disrupt these functions and we effect farreaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years.
In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet.
The plan solves both scenarios LOST ratification allows US resource access and
ensures cooperation and stability
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)
The Arctic

The Arctic is emerging as one of the most important maritime domains in the world. Russia, the
United States and other Arctic-bordering countries are increasing activity in the Arctic as changing
environmental conditions provide access to new shipping routes and natural resource deposits. Arctic countries
are jockeying for power by remapping the sea floor and increasing their military presence,
driving new security and diplomatic concerns that carry strategic significance for the United States.
The foundation of our future success in the Arctic must be built upon the 1982 Convention on the Law of
the Sea, the seminal agreement that provides the international legal framework for use of the worlds seas and oceans, including
the Arctic Ocean, said General Charles H. Jacoby, commander of U.S. Northern Command, testifying before the Senate Armed
Services Committee. 23 Joining the convention would protect and advance a broad range of U.S. interests,
including navigational mobility and offshore resources. In January 2009, President George W. Bush issued National Security
Presidential Directive-66/ Homeland Security Presidential Directive-25 (NSPD-66/HSPD-25) outlining U.S. interests in the Arctic.
The directive requires the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and through it, the U.S. Coast Guard to execute missions to
manage natural resources and protect the environment in the Arctic, for example by responding to environmental damage such as
oil spills and conserving commercial fisheries. NSPD-66/HSPD-25 also cites the need to safeguard U.S. interests regarding
hydrocarbon resources such as oil and natural gas, especially those that may overlap with resources claimed by other states. 24
However, the United States cannot adequately protect its energy, environmental and natural resource

interests in the Arctic unless it ratifies LOSC. As the Arctic continues to open up as its ice cover declines, other Arctic
countries, such as Russia and Canada, continue to submit claims to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf in order to acquire sovereign rights over valuable energy and minerals resources. While the United
States continues to map its extended continental shelf in the Arctic, 25 it cannot make internationally recognized sovereign
claims to energy and other natural resources it discovers until it ratifies the treaty 26 and it cannot
challenge claims made by Russia or other Arctic countries that conflict with its own
scientific assessments. As noted above, today the United States may only make sovereign claims to seabed resources within its

200-nautical-mile EEZ. However, as U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., recently wrote, with accession to
the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States has the potential to exercise additional sovereign rights over resources on an
extended outer continental shelf, which might reach as far as 600 nautical miles into the Arctic from the Alaskan coast. 27
Meanwhile, U.S. influence in the region is waning, which will only exacerbate Americas ability to

secure its interests in the region. Within the Arctic Council, the primary venue for promoting
cooperation in the region, the United States remains the only member that has not ratified LOSC. The
Arctic Council is a consensus-based forum which often debates and makes decisions regarding issues already
governed by previous agreements and international law, such as the natural resource exploitation protections provided by LOSC.

Considering agreements

within existing frameworks such as LOSC can make it easier to level the
playing field and hold discussions with countries except the United States. Given its failure to
date to ratify LOSC and subsequent lack of international legitimacy and protections provided
under the International Seabed Authority for its natural resource claims, the United States remains
excluded from important mechanisms for promoting economic cooperation and respect for rightful
natural resource claims by all Arctic countries.
Ratification is key to resource development no alternative ensures access
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)

Convention is a win/win
United States does not have to change its laws, give up any rights, and will only
benefit in a variety of ways. 137
1. The Convention Protects United States Economic Interests in the Arctic
As noted by John D. Negroponte during testimony before the Senate Committee, joining the
proposition because the

The Convention would codify the United States sovereignty rights over all the resources in the ocean, and on and under the ocean
floor, in a 200-nautical mile EEZ off its coastline. 138 Because the United States has one of the longest coastlines and the largest
EEZ of all the countries in the world, it could gain significantly from these provisions. 139
The Convention also gives the United States an opportunity to expand its sovereignty rights over resources on and under the
ocean floor beyond 200 nautical miles to the end of its continental shelf, up to 350 nautical miles. 140 This mechanism is

especially valuable to the United States as it would maximize legal certainty regarding the United States
rights to energy resources in large offshore areas, including the areas of the Arctic Ocean. However, the
United States must ratify the Convention for its claims to be internationally recognized. 141 Not surprisingly, the
American oil companies favor ratification, as it will allow them to explore oceans beyond 200 miles off the coast, where evolving
technologies now make oil and natural gas recoverable.142
If the United States ratifies the Convention it could expand its areas for mineral exploration and production
by more than 291,383 square miles. 143 The United States claim under article 76 would add an area in the Arctic
(Chukchi Cap) roughly equal to the area of West Virginia. 144 With a successful claim the United States would have the sole right to
the exploitation of all the resources on and under the Arctic Ocean bottom. These potential energy resources could make

significant contributions to United States energy independence. Because the Convention is the
only means of assuring access to the mineral resources beneath the Arctic Ocean, American companies wishing to
engage in deep seabed mining operations will have no choice but to proceed under the flag of a country that has adhered to the
treaty. 145
In addition, as discussed in section I, the Commission will soon begin making decisions on the claims

to
the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean that could affect the United States own claim. For example the United
States is unable to comment on Russias claim to the Arctic Ocean. In order to challenge the
Commissions finding the United States must be a member of the Convention. 146

With the recent energy crisis, it is rather surprising that more Americans are not demanding that the United States join the
Convention and catch up with the other Arctic nations in exploring and securing its extended continental shelf. Although the United
States may decide to refrain from exploiting its continental shelf resources, it seems hard to imagine why it would not want to
maximize its potential ability to do so by ratifying the Convention and by joining the other Arctic nations in pursuit of its own claim
to the Arctic Ocean.
2. The Convention Protects the United States National Security Interest in the Arctic
The opening of the Arctic Ocean could become a source of new drilling, shipping, fishing, and other opportunities to the United
States. However, with more open and accessible waters, the long and unprotected border in the Arctic could also become a potential
terrorist and drug trafficking entry. In order to protect the United States security interests in the Arctic and worldwide, the United
States armed forces must be able to navigate freely on, over, and under the oceans.
The Convention preserves key rights of navigation and overflight. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense John D. Negroponte, the
Convention provides for a legal framework . . . [which] is essential to the mission of the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Homeland Security . . . . 147 The Convention grants American ships the right of innocent passage, allowing ships
transit through the territorial seas of foreign countries without having to provide advance notice or request permission.
Moreover, the Convention establishes the right of transit passage through international straits such as the Straits of Singapore and
Malacca or the Strait of Gibraltar. This right, which is absolutely critical to U.S. national security, may not be suspended, hampered,
or infringed upon by coastal States. 148 Also, the Convention creates the Archipelagic sea lanes passage that allows transit through
routes in archipelagic states, such as Indonesia. 149 Additionally, the provisions creating EEZ give the American military the ability
to position, patrol, and operate forces freely in, below, and above those littoral waters.150
Finally, the Convention secures the right of American warships to operate on the high seas, which is a critically important element
of maritime security operations, counter-narcotic operations, and anti- proliferation efforts. 151 The Conventions navigational

rights led to its support by all branches of the military: Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department
Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard.152
3. The Convention Could Help the United States to Enforce Its Rights in the Arctic Through Peaceful Dispute Settlement
Numerous legal experts believe that the U.S. interests in a clear and stable law of the sea are reinforced

by the
settlement provisions in the Convention. 153 When nations disagree on
boundaries, mineral claims, or other aspects of the Convention, the Convention contains a unique dispute resolution
mechanism that obligates nations to settle their differences peacefully through one of four methods.
comprehensive compulsory dispute

The dispute mechanism is flexible, in that Parties have options as to how and in what fora they will settle their disputes, and
comprehensive, in that most of the Conventions rules can be enforced through binding dispute resolution. 154 For example, the
Convention allows a member to choose arbitration tribunals and does not require any disputes to go to the International Court of
Justice. Consequently, the United States, as part of its accession or anytime thereafter, would have the legal right to choose among
the following adjudicating bodies:
The International Tribunal for The Law of the Sea, a standing tribunal of twenty-one judges, each from different nations, that serve
nine year terms;
The International Court of Justice, a United Nations court of fifteen judges appointed by the General Assembly and Security Council;
A special arbitration tribunal under Annex VII made up of environmental, marine science, navigation, and fisheries experts, of
which the United States would pick two to five arbitrators;
A special arbitration panel under Annex VII composed of five members of whom the United States would be allowed to choose one
and be involved in the appointment of at least three others.155
The Convention also allows the parties to exclude some of the sensitive categories of the disputes, such as military activities, from
the binding dispute settlement procedures. 156
Finally, the Convention would provide the United States with a clear and internationally recognized pathway

for making and disputing claims to Arctic resources. The United States could at last catch up with
other Arctic nations and prepare its own claim to the Commission. Of course, the Conventions dispute settlement
provisions do not guarantee that the United States would win every dispute, but not joining the Convention presents a far
greater risk: that the United States will be left without solid legal protections for its vital national security,
economic, and environmental interests. 157

CONCLUSION
As the global climate is warming up rapidly, leading to ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean, Arctic nations are confronting the
prospect of new rights over the Arctics vast natural resources. All Arctic nations Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russiaexcept for
the United States, ratified the Convention and have already submitted, or are preparing to submit, proposed limits for their extended
continental shelves to the Commission. The submissions will enable these countries to obtain international recognition over their
extended continental shelves in the Arctic, including exclusive rights over oil and gas reserves.
As a nation with an extensive coastline and a continental shelf with enormous oil and gas reserves, the United States has much more
to gain than lose from joining the Convention. Furthermore, the uncertainties stemming from the customary law

make it a less effective measure to protect American interests. Only a universal regime such as the
Convention can adequately safeguard the United States interest in the Arctic Ocean. The best way to
guarantee access to the Arctics resources is for the United States to become a party to the Convention.

1ac South China Sea

Advantage __ is Deserted Islands
Ratifying the LOST mediates the South China Sea and solves tensions.
Hachigian 12. Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress with expertise in National security, U.S.

foreign policy, U.S.-China relations, Asia geopolitics. Chinas Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention; Center
for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-big-reason-toratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/ MMG.
Finally, the

United States will have a stronger hand when it comes to the other issues at play in the
South China Sea if it ratifies Law of the Sea. The United States has strong interests there in
freedom of navigation and the maintenance of peace and stability. Brunei, Cambodia, China,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam all have overlapping and conflicting claims over
islands and shoals in the South China Seaand thus over the substantial maritime rights that go along with them. While those
disputes have been in the news lately with the standoff between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal, there are

many similar contests. Huge food and energy resources are at stake. Fish stocks in the region
are horribly depleted and badly managed, but there is soaring demand for fish from growing
populations in neighboring countries with rising wealth and more appetite for animal protein.
The South China Sea has nearly one-tenth of the worlds Hostile incidents are on the rise, as
fishing boats enter disputed waters more often in search of their fisheries used for human
consumption, which is impressive considering its relatively small size. quarry, backed (tacitly or
not) by their governments. The stakes go even higher in terms of energy extraction.
New technologies are now making it possible to explore and extract oil and natural gas from the
deep ocean. And according to a recent report, the South China Sea likely holds about 15.6 billion barrels of petroleum, of which
about 1.6 billion barrels are recoverable. Some Chinese estimates are higher by a factor of 10. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates
that the seabed also holds nearly 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These numbers are speculative, but even if they are partially
accurate, they make the South China Sea a significant potential source for energy resources. China claims as their historical
waters more than three-fourths of the South China Sea, delineated by the so-called ninedash line, pictured below. Competing
country claims in the South China Sea These claims are generally considered outrageous by everyone except the Chinese, who have
kept the justification for them (and the nature of the claims themselves) ambiguous. The Obama administration has done an
admirable job of standing with other Southeast Asian countries trying to resist Chinas pressure in these territorial disputes. The
administration has called for a multilateral process based on the rule of law, rather than the bilateral approach Beijing prefers. But

the U.S. position would be much stronger if the United States could simply say
that, The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention should govern this dispute. As Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton explained in her recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Im sure you have followed
the claims countries are making in the South China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital
interests, particularly freedom of navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the
convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the conventions rules and a greater
ability to enforce them. The Chinese get a lot of mileage in conversations with Southeast Asian nations from the United

States not being a party to the convention. (How can the Americans tell us that Law of Sea Convention applies when they havent
even ratified it?) Thats why Secretary Clinton was joined by five Republican predecessors, who penned an op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal this past month asking for Senate ratification.

Specifically, its key to US diplomatic credibility China will comply with LOST if
pressured, but only US engagement can do that
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)
Ratifying LOSC

will give the United States added legitimacy as it seeks to defend the interests of allies and partners in
the Asia Pacific, particularly countries involved in disputes over the South China Sea. Tensions between China
and Southeast Asian states over historical territorial claims and jurisdiction over potentially lucrative seabed natural resources
are escalating because of increasingly assertive behavior on all sides. LOSC is central to

mitigating tensions and avoiding conflict in the South China Sea, which involve territory demarcation,
maritime navigation and other issues covered by the convention. Without ratifying LOSC, the United States will be
unable to credibly encourage efforts of allies like the Philippines as it attempts to mediate a dispute with
China over the joint development of resources in the South China Sea using the LOSC dispute settlement mechanism.
Moreover, U.S. failure to ratify LOSC will leave America hamstrung as countries in the region
promote new international maritime norms that may conflict with U.S. interests. Legal scholars and
military and political leaders in China, Thailand and elsewhere are interpreting the treaty in ways that
bolster their own interests, but the United States cannot effectively counter these interpreta - tions or
promote new ones without ratifying LOSC and availing itself of the conventions legal bodies. 28 These interpretations
could harm U.S. maritime security activities in the region if these counties successfully build consensus with others that conflict with
the U.S. interpretation of customary international law.
Although critics of LOSC rightly argue that the treaty will not bind Chinas assertive behavior in the South
China Sea, 29 evidence

suggests that despite attempts to interpret the treaty in ways that promote its own interests, China
is willing to work within the LOSC framework. According to one expert, recent statements by
the ministry of foreign affairs reaffirm that China will advance maritime claims that are consistent and
compliant with UNCLOS, which may allow states to press China to clarify its claims through the
treatys dispute settlement mechanism and bring the region closer to a negotiated settlement. 30 However,
countries in the region may be reluctant to press China to clarify its claims lest they strain relations with their largest
trading partner. As a party to LOSC, the United States could support its partners by pressing China to clarify its
maritime claims, which are legitimately tied to U.S. maritime interests in the region, including freedom of navigation rights for the
U.S. Navy.

That checks Chinese aggression and enhances US credibility in the region

Vanecko 11 [Jonathan J. Vanecko, Liutenant CMDR USN at US Naval War College and worked
in the pentagon, May 11 2011, Time to Ratify UNCLOS; A New Twist on an Old Problem,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a546081.pdf, MM]
In order to be prepared to counter specific threats as they arise across the globe, operational
commanders continuously conduct shaping activities in order to give U.S. forces the most
favorable operating conditions across the spectrum of conflict. As defined by Joint Publication
3-0, shaping operations are intended to dissuade or deter adversaries, assure or solidify
relationships, enhance international legitimacy, and gain multinational cooperation.51
Therefore, collectively, shaping operations are arguably the most important activity undertaken
within an area of responsibility (AOR). In the PACOM AOR, this note rings especially true. With
no major combat operations currently underway, the majority of operations conducted directly
support shaping operations. Furthermore, strategic guidance put forth by ADM Robert F.
Willard, Commander U.S. Pacific Forces, seeks to protect and defend U.S. interests in the region
while promoting regional security and deterrence of aggression; all functions within or
underpinned by the effectiveness of shaping operations.52 Specifically, for the South China Sea
this means maintaining forward presence, providing for extended deterrence, and concentrating
on the focus areas of allies and partners, China, and transnational threats.53 In every instance,
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea and the 1994 Implementation
Agreement support those objectives . In fact, for the South China Sea, Freedom of
Navigation assertions and the Proliferation Security Initiative would benefit immediately .
Even though as the worlds most powerful Navy the United States has had very little difficulty
asserting freedom of navigation around the world, it is becoming increasingly challenging given
Chinas aggressive enforcement of legal interpretations in the South China Sea (SCS) that are
inconsistent with international norms. This is particularly true with respect to their EEZ, which
China views as a buffer zone for defense.63 Furthermore, China considers any military or
surveillance (electronic attack) activity hostile and in violation of UNCLOS provisions that
require maritime users to refrain from any threat or use of force against coastal states.64 One
need only look at the 2001 EP-3 and 2009 Impeccable incidents off Hainan Island to see that
the stakes are high for both sides,65 but it doesnt need to be this way. As mentioned previously,

the enhanced legitimacy gained through ratification of UNCLOS would aid PACOM in several
ways. First, legitimacy gives FON assertions and diplomatic protests more weight ,
and leaves nations such as China constrained in their ability to challenge U.S. action. Because
UNCLOS is almost universally accepted, U.S. actions would receive tacit support from the 160
nations party to the convention allowing commanders to more aggressively assert navigational
rights within the approved framework of UNCLOS should diplomacy fail.66 In other words,
after military capability, legitimacy is the second prong necessary to unilaterally conduct
effective FON assertions in the SCS. Unilateral action is always the last resort, and ratification of
UNCLOS helps dramatically increase the legitimacy of U.S. FON assertions when
viewed from a multinational vantage point. Rhetoric marching lock step with action will
decrease PACOM difficulties convincing SCS nations that U.S. interests are not just self-serving.
Although self interest plays a part, the externalities of the U.S. FON program help all coastal and
maritime nations, especially those like the Philippines who do not have a strong blue water navy
able to conduct these assertions on their own. Restated, ratification of the convention shows our
allies and partners that we are committed to international law and a global partnership of
maritime nations sharing common goals and values.67
South China Sea is a hotbed for East Asian Conflict.
Business Insider 6/10/14. This Map Shows Why The South China Sea Could Lead To The Next World War.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-south-china-sea-graphic-2014-7. MMG

The South China Sea is a powder keg of territorial claims mixed with oil and gas resources.
Almost every country in the area has a longstanding animus towards at least one of its
neighbors. China claims 90% of the Sea, and Beijing is viewed with fear and suspicion
throughout the region. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are both entrenched there
Japan is slowly building its military capabilities in the face of a perceived Chinese
threat while Vietnam and the Philippines are emerging as regional players. The
South China sea is where the worlds next major interstate power struggle will play out. Any
blowup there will almost necessarily involve China and the U.S., which have the two largest
economies on earth. But the confrontation has already begun, with China claiming everything within its now-infamous

"nine-dash line," and nearly all of its neighbors involved in disputes along the line's edges. Between April and June of 2014, Japan
scrambled its fighter jets 340 times "in response to feared incursions on its airspace." What's still unclear is just how

bad things could plausibly get there.

Extinction- maritime conflict and Chinese aggression escalate to full blown

US/China nuclear war
Lowther, 2013 (William, 3/16/13, Taiwan could spark nuclear war: report,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211, Accessed:
6/27/14 FG)
Taiwan is the most likely potential crisis that could trigger a nuclear war between China and the
US, a new academic report concludes. Taiwan remains the single most plausible and dangerous source of
tension and conflict between the US and China, says the 42-page report by the Washington-based Center for

Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Prepared by the CSIS Project on Nuclear Issues and resulting from a year-long study, the
report emphasizes that Beijing continues to be set on a policy to prevent Taiwans independence ,

while at the same time the US maintains the capability to come to Taiwans defense. Although
tensions across the Taiwan Strait have subsided since both Taipei and Beijing embraced a policy of engagement in
2008, the situation remains combustible, complicated by rapidly diverging cross-strait military
capabilities and persistent political disagreements, the report says. In a footnote, it quotes senior fellow
at the US Council on Foreign Relations Richard Betts describing Taiwan as the main potential
flashpoint for the US in East Asia. The report also quotes Betts as saying that neither Beijing
nor Washington can fully control developments that might ignite a Taiwan crisis. This is a classic

recipe for surprise, miscalculation and uncontrolled escalation, Betts wrote in a separate study of his own.
The CSIS study says: For the foreseeable future Taiwan is the contingency in which nuclear weapons
would most likely become a major factor, because the fate of the island is intertwined both with the legitimacy of the
Chinese Communist Party and the reliability of US defense commitments in the Asia-Pacific region. Titled Nuclear Weapons and
US-China Relations, the study says disputes in the East and South China seas appear unlikely to lead to major conflict
between China and the US, but they do provide

kindling for potential conflict between the two nations

because the disputes implicate a number of important regional interests, including the interests of treaty allies of the US. The
danger posed by flashpoints such as Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and maritime

demarcation disputes is magnified by the potential for mistakes , the study says. Although
Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military Maritime Consultative
Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the bases for

miscommunication and misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historical reservoirs of suspicion,
the report says. For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions would result in a military or
even nuclear response by the other party. To make things worse, neither side seems to believe the others

declared policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very
uncertain endeavor, could be especially difficult in any conflict, it says. Although conflict mercifully

seems unlikely at this point, the report concludes that it cannot be ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we are unwise or
unlucky. The report says: With both sides possessing and looking set to retain formidable nuclear

weapons arsenals, such a conflict would be tremendously dangerous and quite possibly devastating.

Goes nuclear fast

Goldstein, 13 Avery, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the
Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the
University of Pennsylvania (First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations, International
Security, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring 2013, Muse //Red)

Two concerns have driven much of the debate about international security in the post-Cold War era. The first is the potentially deadly mix of nuclear
proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists, a worry that became dominant after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001.1 The second concern, one whose prominence has waxed and waned since the mid-1990s, is the potentially disruptive impact that China will
have if it emerges as a peer competitor of the United States, challenging an international order established during the era of U.S. preponderance.2
Reflecting this second concern, some analysts have expressed reservations about the dominant post-September 11 security agenda, arguing that China
could challenge U.S. global interests in ways that terrorists and rogue states cannot. In this article, I raise a more pressing issue, one to which not
enough attention has been paid. For

at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak, the gravest danger in
Sino-American relations is the possibility the two countries will find themselves in a crisis that
could escalate to open military conflict. In contrast to the long-term prospect of a new great power rivalry between the
United States and China, which ultimately rests on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain forecasts about big shifts in
their national capabilities, the

danger of instability in a crisis involving these two nuclear-armed states is a

tangible, near-term concern.3 Even if the probability of such a war-threatening crisis and its escalation to the use of significant military
force is low, the potentially catastrophic consequences of this scenario provide good reason for
analysts to better understand its dynamics and for policymakers to fully consider its implications. Moreover, events since
2010especially those relevant to disputes in the East and South China Seassuggest that the danger
of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific that could lead to a U.S.-China standoff
may be on the rise. In what follows, I identify not just pressures to use force preemptively that pose the most serious risk should a SinoAmerican confrontation unfold, but also related, if slightly less dramatic, incentives to initiate the limited use of force to gain bargaining leveragea
second trigger for potentially devastating instability during a crisis.4 My discussion proceeds in three sections. The first section explains why, during

the next decade or two, a serious U.S.-China crisis may be more likely than is currently recognized. The
second section examines the features of plausible Sino-American crises that may make them so dangerous. The third section considers general features
of crisis stability in asymmetric dyads such as the one in which a U.S. superpower would confront an increasingly capable but still thoroughly
overmatched Chinathe asymmetry that will prevail for at least the next decade. This more stylized discussion clarifies the inadequacy of focusing onesidedly on conventional forces, as has much of the current commentary about the modernization of China's military and the implications this has for
potential conflicts with the United States in the Western Pacific,5 or of focusing one-sidedly on China's nuclear forces, as a smaller slice of the
commentary has.6 An

assessment considering the interaction of conventional and nuclear forces

indicates why escalation resulting from crisis instability remains a devastating
possibility. Before proceeding, however, I would like to clarify my use of the terms "crisis" and "instability." For the purposes of this article, I
define a crisis as a confrontation between states involving a serious threat to vital national interests for both sides, in which there is the expectation of a
short time for resolution, and in which there is understood to be a sharply increased risk of war.7 This definition distinguishes crises from many
situations to which the label is sometimes applied, such as more protracted confrontations; sharp disagreements over important matters that are not
vital interests and in which military force seems irrelevant; and political disputes involving vital interests, even those with military components, that
present little immediate risk of war.8 I define instability as the temptation to resort to force in a crisis.9 Crisis stability is greatest when both sides
strongly prefer to continue bargaining; instability is greatest when they are strongly tempted to resort to the use of military force. Stability, then,

describes a spectrumfrom one extreme in which neither side sees much advantage to using force, through a range of situations in which the balance of
costs and benefits of using force varies for each side, to the other extreme in which the benefits of using force so greatly exceed the costs that striking
first looks nearly irresistible to both sides. Although the incentives to initiate the use of force may not reach this extreme level in a U.S. China crisis,

the capabilities that the two countries possess raise concerns that escalation pressures will exist
and that they may be highest early in a crisis, compressing the time frame for diplomacy to
avert military conflict.
Rising tensions over the SCS independently kill the US Japan Alliance
Carnegie 4/10/14. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; a Global Think Tank. Obamas Quiet Priority in Japan:
The East China Sea. http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/04/10/obama-s-quiet-priority-in-japan-east-china-sea/h7ss. MMG.

If a conflict did eruptintentional or accidental, large or smallJapan would have the initial
frontline responsibility for defending itself and the islands, but the incident would trigger
immediate alliance consultations regarding what form of U.S. involvement is desired and
appropriate. While a U.S. ally usually wants to showcase U.S. support and firepower
early and often in a crisis for its deterrent effect, U.S. officials might worry that
this could seem escalatory to Beijing or contribute to Japanese overconfidence
and tempt Tokyo to make excessive demand s. If Washington is too careful and equivocal, however, it
could lead to a Chinese miscalculation that the allies are not willing or able to defend their
position, perhaps causing Beijing to gamble on a Senkaku takeover or otherwise sharper military
conflict. The worst situation would have the United States appearing to hold back Japan from
defending itself or urging it to concede, which would no doubt create serious cracks in the oftcited alliance cornerstone for U.S. security policy in the Asia-Pacific. Japanese confidence in
U.S. security commitments would plummet, and the same effect would echo in Seoul and Manila. Clearly, U.S.
political and operational support for Japan will be required in such a crisis. But the U.S. president and the Japanese prime minister
must strike the right balance between resolve and restraint, and this can only come from mutual understanding and clear
communication. Any misunderstanding at the highest levels could have serious adverse

consequences for the alliance.

Japan alliance is key to stability solves democracy, warming

Campbell 10. Kurt M. Campbell Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Statement before the House
Armed Services Committee Washington, DC. U.S. Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2010/07/145191.htm>. MMG

The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of our engagement in the Asia-Pacific. The alliance
has provided a basis for peace and security in the Asia-Pacific for a half-century and has -- in
many ways -- underwritten the Asian economic miracle and the spread of democratic
governance throughout the region. This year the United States and Japan are celebrating the 50th anniversary of our

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, a historic milestone that offers both an opportunity to reflect on the successes of the past
and, perhaps more importantly, to chart a forward-looking course for this relationship to ensure that it is well positioned to manage
issues of consequence both in the region and beyond. The Obama administration entered office with a deep

appreciation of the strategic importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Then-Prime Minister Taro Aso was the

first foreign leader to meet with President Obama. Japan was President Obamas first stop on his first visit to East Asia as President.
Secretary Clintons maiden voyage as Secretary of State was to Asia, and it was no coincidence that her first stop was in Japan. As

the worlds first and second largest economies the U.S. and Japan have worked closely to
contribute to the global economic recovery. Together, the United States and Japan bring
tremendous capability and creativity to bear on the challenges the world faces

today . Our economic relationship is strong, mature, and increasingly interdependent, firmly
rooted in the shared interest and responsibility of the United States and Japan to promote global
growth, open markets, and a vital world trading system. Our bilateral economic relationship is
based on enormous flows of trade, investment, and finance. In previous decades our economic
relationship was often characterized by conflict over trade issues. Today, even as we continue to address
trade irritants such as beef and Japan Post, we are able to prioritize new modes of cooperation that allow us to pursue common
interests such as innovation and entrepreneurship, the internet economy and cloud computing as building blocks to improve

opportunities for our trade and economic growth .

We have a shared interest in greener, more

sustainable growth. Climate change is a trend that obviously presents enormous

challenges for both the United States and Japan, but also creates opportunities
for us both to leverage our comparative advantage in innovation to develop new,
growth-inducing energy technologies . We were also very pleased that our two nations initialed the text of an
Open Skies aviation agreement in December of last year. It is a landmark agreement that is a pro-consumer, pro-competitive, progrowth accord. The agreement will strengthen and expand our already strong trade and tourism links with Japan. As our
security and economic relationship has evolved, so has our cultural relationship matured and
grown. We have a longstanding tradition of exchange and cooperation between our two
countries, and between the people of our two nations. We have cooperation in the fields of education and

science, and through traditional programs such as the Fulbright Exchange and the JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching Program).
The global challenges we face today require a complex, multi-dimensional approach to public diplomacy. As President Obama said
recently, "... cooperation must go beyond our governments. It must be rooted in our people - in the studies we share, the business
that we do, the knowledge that we gain, and even in the sports that we play." The Secretary echoed the Presidents views when she
said, What we call people-to-people diplomacy has taken on greater significance, as our world has grown more interdependent, and
our challenges, more complex. Government alone cannot solve the problems that we face. We have to tap into the challenge of our
people, their creativity and innovation, and their ability to forge lasting relationships that build trust and understanding. The
historic elections in late August of 2009 ushered in the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). It should come as no surprise that over the
past 10 months the relationship has had its shares of ups-and-downs. Some commentators have even suggested that the U.S.-Japan
alliance is in a period of strategic drift --- nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, public opinion polling shows

support in Japan for the U.S.-Japan alliance is the highest it has ever been over 75 percent.

After spending over half of my professional career thinking about the U.S.-Japan alliance I feel confident in saying that our alliance
will continue to grow stronger. I would now like to take this opportunity to lay out three elements of our relationship that I believe
underscore the bilateral, regional and global depth and breadth of our relationship. It is now more than 10 months since Japans
historic change of government in September 2009. The new ruling coalition came to power with a manifesto calling for a review of
many of the policies of its LDP predecessors, including aspects of the alliance with the United States, with some envisioning an
alliance without bases. However, in practice the Japanese government has continued to reaffirm the crucial

role of the Alliance in ensuring Japans security and maintaining peace and security in the AsiaPacific region. This past January, then-Prime Minister Hatoyama, in a statement celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
signing of the revised U.S-Japan Security Treaty, said that it is not an exaggeration to say that it was thanks to
the U.S.-Japan security arrangements that Japan has maintained peace, while respecting
freedom and democracy, and enjoyed economic developmentsince the end of the last World War to this

day. To celebrate this 50th anniversary year, and to deepen and broaden our alliance, we and our Japanese allies are meeting at all
levels and across government bureaucracies to share views and assessments of Asias dynamic strategic environment and charting a
course to seize opportunities while minimizing potential for conflict. Over the last fifteen years, the United States and

Japan have worked together to update our alliance, through efforts ranging from the force
posture realignment to the review of roles, missions, and capabilities. The alliance has grown in scope, with
cooperation on everything from missile defense to information security. Additionally, Japan provides approximately
$1.7 billion annually in host nation support to the U.S. military, a key Japanese contribution to
our alliance. There are more than 48,000 American military personnel deployed in Japan,

including our only forward deployed carrier strike group, the 5th Air Force, and the III Marine Expeditionary Force. Through the
Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), the United States and Japan made a landmark alliance commitment under the 2006 U.S.Japan Realignment Roadmap, which was reaffirmed by the 2009 Guam International Agreement, to implement a coherent package
of force posture realignments that will have far-reaching benefits for the Alliance. These changes will help strengthen the flexibility
and deterrent capability of U.S. forces while creating the conditions for a more sustainable U.S. military presence in the region. The
transformation includes the relocation of approximately 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam, force
posture relocations and land returns on Okinawa, and other realignments and combined capability changes on mainland Japan (e.g.,
increased interoperability, as well as collaboration on ballistic missile defense). This realignment will strengthen both countries
ability to meet current responsibilities and create an Alliance that is more flexible, capable, and better able to work together to
address common security concerns

Warming causes extinction

Hill Henderson March 16th, 2005 Countercurrents.org Racing To Extinction http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-

henderson160305.htm (MG)
There are tragic stories of death and injury every day in all our local papers involving young guys in souped up cars racing recklessly,
loosing control and killing themselves, their passengers, or, sadly in too many cases, innocent families in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Us old codgers ask Why take the chance of possible death or a life of remorse and jail in reckless, speeding behavior?
Why get even close to taking such risks everything considered? Now this isnt an op-ed on street racers, on

reckless youthful behavior in sports cars or muscle cars, but on global warming. It is an attempt to
wake you up to recognize our reckless behavior in risking the very future of humanity and maybe even
all life as we know it by going too fast and behaving extremely recklessly. Most of us know a little about
global warming: the burning of fossil fuels and other side effect products of industrial societies combine to produce greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increasing global mean temperatures leading to heretofore unprecedented climate change. It seems

that most of us think of this as a gradual warming, a far off in the future, perhaps even
beneficial, unimportant background warming. In reality it is an almost unbelievably tragic
disaster risking everything we value; a catastrophic accident we are already in, sliding towards a
cliff. In BC where I live the forest in two thirds of the province, plus parts of the Yukon and Alaska an area equal to the American

south-west are dying due to a mountain pine beetle epidemic. The beetles are part of these forest ecosystems but their populations
were kept in check by cold winter temperatures (more than thirty degrees below zero for at least two weeks). Two decades of

unprecedented warm winters have uncorked a pathogen whose effects can be easily seen from
space: an evolving, rapidly spreading disaster for lifeforms including us who live in these
forests. Warmer temperatures also mean deadly water temperatures in rivers and creeks for
salmon both beginning their journey or returning to spawn. Combined with warmer waters disrupting feeding

and introducing new predators and food competition in the North Pacific where they will spend most of their lifecycle, global
warming may mean the end of the estimated hundred million year history of salmon in what we have so recently labeled the northeast Pacific. I have used local, BC examples but global warming accidents are happening everywhere, every day. Like salmon and the
flora and fauna in our forests, we are adapted for a very slender range of temperature to survive. We are nested in and dependent
upon historic climates and interacting ecosystems. Global warming even now promises wrenching dislocation

and death. But these immediate effects of global warming pale before the possibility of runaway
global warming where warming due to our greenhouse gas emissions causes greatly increased
greenhouse gas production from normal terrestrial sources the release of CO2 stored in
tundra, for example - creating positive feedback loops which overwhelm regular biosphere
regulation and lead to temperatures possibly hundreds of degrees warmer then present.
Runaway global warming that could lead to an atmosphere like Venus . In September
2000, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking was widely quoted in the press as being very worried about runaway global
warming: "I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with

boiling sulfuric acid," said Hawking. "I am worried about the greenhouse effect." If we go over this cliff no more
humanity; the extinction of almost every existing species except some bacteria; the end of life on
Earth as we know it. I have a re-occurring dream: Im a young guy again, in a car with some friends traveling at night along

the mountain two lane blacktop of my youth. Were going way too fast, way too fast. Were doing things like passing blind and almost
loosing it on corners. In the moonlight I can see the lake far below. I know an accident is going to happen but they wont listen to me:
shut up chicken. They are focused on the speed, the rush, on keeping the car on the road. It is insane and Im trapped into going
along with them. Wake up. An exponential increasing population with an economy growing at two

percent, compounding in mere decades after centuries of industrialization based upon fossil fuel
use, has us speeding recklessly, growing way, way too fast in a finite world. Science has a
convincing understanding of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, a cause and
effect first postulated more then a century ago. We are already in the skid the accident is happening. The already
existing greenhouse gases will continue to trap heat over the next century. It might be too late already to overt runaway global
warming. If we know that reckless street racing leads to death, why do we allow the production and merchandising of cars designed,
engineered and promoted to street race? If we know that continuing fossil fuel use risks our lives today and maybe human
extinction, why do we still have an economy almost totally dependent upon fossil fuels while possible alternative renewable energy
sources languish relatively ignored? Where fossil fuel exploitation is still subsidized by governments? Why are we expanding car
economies (now in China and India as well as the developed world) when we should be aware of the global warming danger and
know of other possible economic and social configurations that dont require intensive fossil fuel use? Other ways of organizing our
lives that dont need the fossil fuel addiction? Why do young guys continue to race recklessly when they see wrecks and pictures of
the dead in the media and guys like themselves remorseful in the manslaughter trial coverage? Why does everybody in our business
community still demand exponential rates of growth and the wasteful use of what are now becoming very precious resources needed
by future generations? Rates of material growth that can clearly be understood as risking catastrophic death and mayhem and
perhaps even the extinction of humanity on this planet? Why arent our captains of industry, our economic-centric politicians and
commerce focused governments and all of us that own businesses (or work in or are financially dependent upon them) in the dock,
right now, today, for risking unbelievable calamity just because of our personal, incredibly ignorant and unethical addiction to
reckless speed? When there are (when there were?) so many other possible ways of driving, of operating our economies, that dont
risk extinction?

Democracy checks extinction

Diamond, 95 Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, Professor of

Political Science and Sociology and Coordinator of the Democracy Program at the the Center on Democracy at Stanford University (Larry, "Promoting

Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives : a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict",
December 1995, June 26th 2010, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm)

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia

nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal
drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of
tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate.
The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of
these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular
sovereignty, and openness.

1ac Leadership
Advantage __ is Big Boats
Challenges to US leadership are inevitable LOST ratification strengthens
international institutions that are key to continued strength
Allen, Armitage, and Hamre 11 (Allen, Thad W. [Admiral Thad W. Allen holds a Master of
Public Administration degree from George Washington University and a Masters degree in
Management from the MIT Sloan School of Management. He served for four decades in the
United States Coast Guard and is now a senior fellow of the RAND Corporation.]. Armitage,
Richard L. [Richard L. Armitage graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1967 with
the rank of ensign. He was the United States Deputy Secretary of States for five years and is now
the president of a consulting firm.]. Hamre, John J. [John J. Hamre earned a B.A. in political
science and economics from Augustana College and Ph.D. in 1978 from the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He was the Deputy Secretary of Defense
from 1997 to 2000 and is now the president of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies.]. Odd Man Out at Sea. The New York Times, April 24th, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04 /25/opinion/25allen.html?_r=0 [accessed July 11th,
2014])//ALepow
But the United States
has yet to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a result, the United
States, the worlds leading maritime power, is at a military and economic disadvantage. The
Its been in place for nearly 30 years; nearly 160 countries (plus the European Union) have signed it.

convention codifies widely accepted principles on territorial waters (which it defines as those extending 12 miles out to sea),
shipping lanes and ocean resources. It also grants each signatory exclusive fishing and mining rights within 200 miles of its coast
(called the exclusive economic zone). Although the United States originally voted to create the convention and negotiated many
provisions to its advantage, Congress has never ratified it. With nearly 12,500 miles of coastline, 360 major commercial ports and
the worlds largest exclusive economic zone, the United States has a lot to gain from signing the convention. It is the only legal
framework that exists for managing international waters; joining it would allow us to secure international recognition of a claim to
the continental shelf as far as 600 miles beyond our exclusive economic zone in order to explore and conserve the resource-rich
Arctic as the polar ice cap recedes. It would also provide American companies with a fair and stable legal framework to invest in
mining projects in the deep seabed. Ratification makes sense militarily as well. According to the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, the convention codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms
that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces. In other words, it enhances
national security by giving our Navy additional flexibility to operate on the high seas and in
foreign exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. This is particularly important in the Asia
Pacific region and the South China Sea, where tensions among China, Japan and Southeast
Asian nations have increased because of conflicting interpretations of what constitutes
territorial and international waters. Perhaps most important of all, ratification would prove to
be a diplomatic triumph. American power is defined not simply by economic and military might,
but by ideals, leadership, strategic vision and international credibility. Of course, there are those who
would prefer that we have nothing to do with the United Nations, who believe that international treaties hurt our national interests
and restrain our foreign policy objectives. All three of us have struggled while working with and through international organizations
they are unwieldy and not always responsive to American interests. But as we see in Libya today, the United

Nations and other international alliances are indispensable in providing legitimacy and
reinvigorating American partnerships in times of crisis. And they will ensure needed balance as
rising powers inevitably challenge Americas economic and military strength. Last July, Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton gained much respect by reassuring the Southeast Asian nations that the United States strongly
supported multilateral efforts to address those territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and denounced Chinas heavy-handed,
unilateral tactics. But strong American positions like that are ultimately undermined by our failure

ratify the convention; it shows we are not really committed to a clear legal regime for the seas.
For all of these reasons, ratification is more important today than ever before. At a

to

time when Americas military and economic strengths are tested, we must lead on the seas as
well as on land.
Absent the aff rising powers will redefine key components of international law to
undermine US naval power
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

The United States should ratify the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). To date, the United States has
protected its maritime interests successfully without ratifying this treaty. However, the rise of modern
navies and unconventional security threats are making this approach ever more risky and will
increasingly imperil U.S. national security interests. 1 Failure to ratify LOSC will cede to other countries Americas
ability to shape the interpretation and execution of the convention and protect the provisions that support
the existing international order. It will also complicate Americas ability to address maritime challenges in the Arctic and
South China Sea, inhibit Americas ability to drill for oil and gas offshore and allow other countries to lay claim to strategic energy
and mineral reserves located in the high seas. The United States can ill afford to continue forgoing LOSC and the
benefits that accrue to American interests
LOSC and Maritime Security
Civilian and military leaders across the U.S. security community support LOSC ratification. 2 Joining the Convention will advance
the interests of the U.S. military, said former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in January 2005. 3 As the worlds leading
maritime power, the United States benefits more than any other nation from the navigation provisions of the Convention. More
recently, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, stated that U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention would benefit the U.S. militarys mission in the Asia-Pacific region by enabling the United States to reinforce and assert
the Conventions rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea. 4 Beyond the support from these government leaders, the treaty also enjoys
widespread support among American private companies and non- governmental organizations, from the American Petroleum
Institute to the World Wildlife Fund. 5
This support is not new. American political leaders and military strategists have long recognized the need for a multilateral
framework setting rules for maritime activities since the early to mid-1900s, when increasing maritime activity and commercial
efforts to tap undersea resources prompted concerns over the potential for maritime conflict. The United Nations (U.N.), with
American support, convened the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1973 to begin preparing a multilateral treaty. The confer
- ence produced the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which became available for signature and ratification as of
December 1982 and entered into force in 1994. Today, 161 countries and the European Union have ratified the convention, with the
United States remaining one of the few holdouts, despite its key role in the negotiations. 6
U.S. naval and Coast Guard forces benefit from the fact that most countries in the world operate according to
international norms enshrined in LOSC. These norms include freedom

of navigation on the high seas for vessels and

passage in territorial waters and straits used for international transit.
Such norms benefit a range of U.S. operations, including joint counter-piracy activities, humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief missions with international partners and power projection. The convention also
established specific dispute resolution processes. Although these processes are voluntary and nonbinding, they provide a formal
avenue for cooperation a critical means of preventing violent conflict from emerging.
aircraft of all countries, as well as their innocent

Perhaps most notably, the convention clarifies the difference between military activities and innocent passage, an increasingly
important distinction in international disputes over freedom of navigation rights. 7 For example, surveying and using weapons or
intelligence-gathering capabilities (e.g., tapping into seabed fiber optic cables) in territorial waters are activities that violate innocent
passage as described in the convention. 8 LOSC also specifies norms and duties for submarines and other underwater vehicles,
surface vessels and aircraft that must be met to ensure innocent passage in territorial waters and international straits. Submarines or
other underwater vehicles operating in another states territorial waters, for example, are required to surface and show their flag in
order to signal innocent passage. 9
LOSC critics often argue that the treatys navigational provisions are redundant given that countries including the United States
comply with customary international law. However, as navies around the world modernize, states may seek to

redefine or reinterpret customary international law in ways that directly conflict with U.S.
interests, including freedom of navigation. Ratification will help the United States counter
efforts by rising powers seeking to reshape the rules that have been so beneficial to the global economy and to
U.S. security. China, for example, seeks to alter customary international law and long-held interpretations of
LOSC in ways that will affect operations of the United States as well as those of many of its allies and

partners. Some U.S. partners and allies share Chinas view on some of these issues. Thailand, for example, has adopted Chinas view
that foreign navies must have consent of the coastal state before conducting military exercises in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
a view that runs counter to traditional interpretation of the treaty. 10 LOSC provides a legitimate and recognized

framework for adjudicating disagreements that will enable the United States to sustain access to
the global commons.

Ratification will also help the United States deflate Irans recent challenges to U.S. freedom of navigation through the Strait of
Hormuz. Historically, Iran has stated that the right to freedom of navigation does not extend to non-signatories of the convention
and has passed domestic legislation that is inconsistent with international law, specifically by requiring warships to seek approval
from Iran before exercising innocent passage through the strait. 11 Ratifying LOSC would nullify Irans challenges should it ever
choose to close the strait to U.S. or other flagged ships. Moreover, ratifying LOSC will provide the U.S. Navy the strongest legal
footing for countering an Iranian anti-access campaign in the Persian Gulf.

Naval power deters great conflict - prevents extinction

Conway et al 7 - General of U.S. Marine Corps and Commandant of the Marine Corps, Admiral
of U.S. Navy and Chief of Naval Operations ("A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century
Seapower", Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard,
http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf) //Laura T
This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore.
The expeditionary character and versatility of maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric
advantage of enlarging or contracting its military footprint in areas where access is denied or
limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has unintended
economic, social or political repercussions. The sea is a vast maneuver space, where the
presence of maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches
to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility and
scalability of maritime forces provide 6755 joint or combined force commanders a range of
options for responding to crises. Additionally, integrated maritime operations, either within
formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more informal
arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to
would-be aggressors that we will act with others to ensure collective security and prosperity.
United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from
direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and prosperity are
inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to protect and
sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance,
information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence,
and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or strategic
imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies
our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will be characterized by
regionally concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the combat power to limit regional
conflict, deter major power war, and should deterrence fail, win our Nations wars as part of a
joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be
globally distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain
cooperative relationships with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or
mitigate disruptions and crises. Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the
Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our
friends and allies of our continuing commitment to regional security, and deter and dissuade
potential adversaries and peer competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly
repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces will be sized and
postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward
deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the
area of conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders, pandemics, and the
interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises erupt. While this strategy
advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we
cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our
national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national
and multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation
and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the
Nations primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they provide the
means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully

arrayed in plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure
friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while working to sustain
the global order. Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleetships, aircraft,
Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activitiescapable of selectively controlling the seas,
projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly forces and civilian populations from
attack.Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability
as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nations comparative seapower
advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great
power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be
actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime
forcesour lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and
operational agilityprovide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will
pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against
aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
Ratification uniquely props up US legitimacy within multilateral institutions- it
legitimizes US freedom of navigation and enhances credibility, our ev is reverse
causal
Vanecko 11 [Jonathan J. Vanecko, Liutenant CMDR USN at US Naval War College and worked
in the pentagon, May 11 2011, Time to Ratify UNCLOS; A New Twist on an Old Problem,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a546081.pdf, MM]
Certainly ratification will place the United States on firm legal standing, but more importantly ,
ratification will add significantly to the legitimacy of U.S. operations conducted
under the framework of UNCLOS. But does obtaining legitimacy carry enough weight to warrant
ratification? And would ratification increase the legitimacy of U.S. action? Absolutely. Through
theory and practical application, legitimacy, like the other principles of war, has come to form
the bedrock foundation by which joint operations are planned and conducted.38 Legitimacy
isnt, however, just an other principle of warfare that can be brushed aside when
inconvenient. Instead, and rightfully so, legitimacy concerns often times drive commanders to
operate within a multinational construct.39 Thus , sustaining legitimacy is, and will
remain, a priority for leaders at all levels of the military and must be included in the
planning and execution phases to ensure operations are viewed in a favorable light post
implementation.40 Moreover, legitimacy is no longer an imperative solely for the politician or
diplomat; that line has become hopelessly blurred.41 Instead, legitimacy has become a prime
example of the nexus between politics and war.42 In other words, it sends a clear message to
the world that military actions match rhetoric with respect to the rule of law.43 Furthermore,
speaking to the issue of UNCLOS directly, legitimacy is the seam created when U.S. policy is to
operate within international law, but not as part of it. Thus, legitimacy is not legality, although
the law is certainly a component.44 Clearly U.S. Freedom of Navigation and Proliferation
Security Initiatives, both underwritten by UNCLOS provisions, are at least debatably legal under
current practice but still they fail to achieve widespread international approval . This
is exactly the problem with the U.S. position on UNCLOS and the disconnect between stated
intentions and the ultimate failure to ratify. As John B. Bellinger III points out, treaty partners
lose confidence in the ability of the United States to make good on its word when we negotiate
and sign treaties but dont ultimately become party to them.48 Specifically what Mr. Bellinger
is referring to is the loss of U.S. credibility, or in other words the rightness of actions.
Furthermore, because the United States is so successful at negotiating treaties, when
representatives push hard for and are in turn granted changes within the document (as is the
case with the 1994 agreement on implementation), but then ultimately fail to accede, it is very

frustrating for the other nations involved.49 Again, this erodes U.S credibility and in turn
legitimacy of action. With this in mind, the U.S. Senate must take the earliest opportunity to
harvest this low hanging fruit and free PACOM from a barrier that detracts from shaping
operations in the South China Sea (SCS).50
Institutional legitimacy is the only way to exercise hegemony to prevent extinction
Kromah 9 (Lamii Moivi Kromah, Department of International Relations University of the
Witwatersrand, February 2009, The Institutional Nature of U.S. Hegemony: Post 9/11,
http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/7301/MARR%2009.pdf, MM)
A final major gain to the United States from the Pax Americana has perhaps been less widely
appreciated. It nevertheless proved of great significance in the short as well as in the long term: the pervasive cultural influence
of the United States. This dimension of power base is often neglected. After World War II the
authoritarian political cultures of Europe and Japan were utterly discredited, and the liberal
democratic elements of those cultures revivified. The revival was most extensive and deliberate in the occupied powers of
the Axis, where it was nurtured by drafting democratic constitutions, building democratic institutions, curbing the power
of industrial trusts by decartelization and the rebuilding of trade unions, and imprisoning or
discrediting much of the wartime leadership; post war reconstruction of Germany and Japan
exhibit all these features. Moderates were giving a great voice in the way government business was done Constitutions in
these countries were changed and amended to ensure democratic practices and martial elites were
prosecuted. American liberal ideas largely filled the cultural void. The effect was not so dramatic in the "victor" states
whose regimes were reaffirmed (Britain, the Low and Scandinavian countries), but even there the United States and its culture
was widely admired. The upper classes may often have thought it too "commercial," but in many respects American mass consumption
culture was the most pervasive part of America's impact. American styles, tastes, and middle-class consumption
patterns were widely imitated, in a process that' has come to bear the label "coca-colonization."34
After WWII the U.S. established organizations such as the United Nations, NATO and others. In each these new regimes it make Germany a member
and eventual an integral partner. Germany's

freedom of movement has been limited by domestic

institutional constraints overlain by a dense network of external institutional constraints on
autonomous decision making in the domains of security and economy. Thus a powerful
combination of constitutional design, membership in integrative international institutions and the
continued division of Germany achieved the post-war American objective of 'security for Germany and security from
Germany'.35 Others are even more sanguine about the prospect of an active German hegemony. One body of literature, such as Simon Bulmer and
William E. Paterson, 'Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?' International Affairs, 72 (1996), 9-32., focuses upon the
constraining effects of Germany's 'exaggerated multilateralism' or a reliance upon 'indirect institutional power'." The

institutionalization
of German power has produced an empowered but non-threatening Germany that sets the
European agenda and dominates the institutional evolution of the European Union (EU) and its governance structures.36 The cornerstone of
German security policy is the perpetuation of NATO, including the maintenance of U.S. forces in Europe and the U.S. nuclear guarantee. In 1994
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl described the U.S. presence as an "irreplaceable basis for keeping Europe on a stable footing," and that sentiment is
echoed routinely by high German officials. German participation in the Western European Union and the Eurocorps has been based on the
presumption that European military forces must be integrated into NATO rather than standing as autonomous units.37For industrial societies, the
Second World War destroyed more wealth than it created because it disrupted the global trade on which wealth had come to depend. No longer could
states gain in wealth by seizing territory and resources from each other as they had done during the mercantilist period in the seventeenth and
eighteenth century. WWII broke the world power of the Western European states. Even without the advent of nuclear weapons, it drove home the
lesson of the First World War that the major European states could no longer wage war amongst themselves without bringing about the political and
physical impoverishment of their societies, and perhaps destroying them completely. By

1945 it was clear that all out war had

become an irrational instrument in relations among major powers. Almost no conceivable
national objective short of lastditch survival justified the costs of undertaking it. This lesson was as

manifestly true for revolutionary workers states like the Soviet Union as it was for conservative, bourgeois, capitalist states like Britain and France.38 A
final major gain to the United States from the benevolent hegemony has perhaps been less widely appreciated. It nevertheless proved of great
significance in the short as well as in the long term: the pervasive cultural influence of the United States.39 This dimension of power base is often
neglected. After World War II the authoritarian political cultures of Europe and Japan were utterly discredited, and the liberal democratic elements of
those cultures revivified. The revival was most extensive and deliberate in the occupied powers of the Axis, where it was nurtured by drafting
democratic constitutions, building democratic institutions, curbing the power of industrial trusts by decartelization and the rebuilding of trade unions,
and imprisoning or discrediting much of the wartime leadership. American liberal ideas largely filled the cultural void. The effect was not so dramatic in
the "victor" states whose regimes were reaffirmed (Britain, the Low and Scandinavian countries), but even there the United States and its culture was
widely admired. The upper classes may often have thought it too "commercial," but in many respects American mass consumption culture was the most
pervasive part of America's impact. American styles, tastes, and middle-class consumption patterns were widely imitated, in a process that' has come to
bear the label "coca-colonization."40 After

WWII policy makers in the USA set about remaking a world to

facilitate peace. The hegemonic project involves using political and economic advantages gained

in world war to restructure the operation of the world market and interstate system in the
hegemon's own image. The interests of the leader are projected on a universal plane: What is good for the hegemon is good for the world.
The hegemonic state is successful to the degree that other states emulate it. Emulation is the
basis of the consent that lies at the heart of the hegemonic project.41 Since wealth depended on
peace the U.S set about creating institutions and regimes that promoted free trade, and peaceful
conflict resolution. U.S. benevolent hegemony is what has kept the peace since the end of WWII.
The upshot is that U.S. hegemony and liberalism have produced the most stable and durable political order
that the world has seen since the fall of the Roman Empire. It is not as formally or highly integrated as the European
Union, but it is just as profound and robust as a political order, Kants Perpetual Peace requires that the system be diverse and not monolithic because
then tyranny will be the outcome. As

long as the system allows for democratic states to press claims and
resolve conflicts, the system will perpetuate itself peacefully. A state such as the United States
that has achieved international primacy has every reason to attempt to maintain that primacy
through peaceful means so as to preclude the need of having to fight a war to maintain it.42 This view of the posthegemonic Western world does not put a great deal of emphasis on U.S. leadership in the
traditional sense. U.S. leadership takes the form of providing the venues and mechanisms for
articulating demands and resolving disputes not unlike the character of politics within domestic pluralistic systems.43
America as a big and powerful state has an incentive to organize and manage a political order that
is considered legitimate by the other states. It is not in a hegemonic leader's interest to preside
over a global order that requires constant use of material capabilities to get other states to go
along. Legitimacy exists when political order is based on reciprocal consent. It emerges when
secondary states buy into rules and norms of the political order as a matter of principle, and not
simply because they are forced into it. But if a hegemonic power wants to encourage the
emergence of a legitimate political order, it must articulate principles and norms, and engage in
negotiations and compromises that have very little to do with the exercise of power.44 So should this
hegemonic power be called leadership, or domination? Well, it would tend toward the latter. Hierarchy has not gone away from this system. Core states
have peripheral areas: colonial empires and neo-colonial backyards. Hegemony, in other words, involves a structure in which there is a hegemonic core
power. The problem with calling this hegemonic power "leadership" is that leadership is a wonderful thing-everyone needs leadership. But sometimes I
have notice that leadership is also an ideology that legitimates domination and exploitation. In fact, this is often the case. But this is a different kind of
domination than in earlier systems. Its difference can be seen in a related question: is it progressive? Is it evolutionary in the sense of being better for
most people in the system? I think it actually is a little bit better. The trickle down effect is bigger-it is not very big, but it is bigger.45 It is to this theory,
Hegemonic Stability that the glass slipper properly belongs, because both U.S. security and economic strategies fit the expectations of hegemonic
stability theory more comfortably than they do other realist theories. We must first discuss the three pillars that U.S. hegemony rests on structural,
institutional, and situational. (1) Structural leadership refers to the underlying distribution of material capabilities that gives some states the ability to
direct the overall shape of world political order. Natural resources, capital, technology, military force, and economic size are the characteristics that
shape state power, which in turn determine the capacities for leadership and hegemony .

If leadership is rooted in the

distribution of power, there is reason to worry about the present and future. The relative decline
of the United States has not been matched by the rise of another hegemonic leader. At its hegemonic
zenith after World War II, the United States commanded roughly forty five percent of world production. It
had a remarkable array of natural resource, financial, agricultural, industrial, and technological
assets. America in 1945 or 1950 was not just hegemonic because it had a big economy or a huge military; it had an unusually wide range of
resources and capabilities. This situation may never occur again. As far as one looks into the next century, it is
impossible to see the emergence of a country with a similarly commanding power position. (2)
Institutional leadership refers to the rules and practices that states agree to that set in place
principles and procedures that guide their relations. It is not power capabilities as such or the
interventions of specific states that facilitate concerted action, but the rules and mutual
expectations that are established as institutions. Institutions are, in a sense, self-imposed constraints that states create to
assure continuity in their relations and to facilitate the realization of mutual interests. A common theme of recent discussions of the management of the
world economy is that institutions will need to play a greater role in the future in providing leadership in the absence of American hegemony. Bergsten
argues, for example, that "institutions

themselves will need to play a much more important role.46

Institutional management is important and can generate results that are internationally greater
than the sum of their national parts. The argument is not that international institutions impose outcomes on states, but that
institutions shape and constrain how states conceive and pursue their interests and policy goals.
They provide channels and mechanisms to reach agreements. They set standards and mutual
expectations concerning how states should act. They "bias" politics in internationalist directions
just as, presumably, American hegemonic leadership does. (3) Situational leadership refers to
the actions and initiatives of states that induce cooperation quite apart from the distribution of

power or the array of institutions. It is more cleverness or the ability to see specific opportunities
to build or reorient international political order, rather than the power capacities of the state,
that makes a difference. In this sense, leadership really is expressed in a specific individual-in a
president or foreign minister-as he or she sees a new opening, a previously unidentified passage
forward, a new way to define state interests, and thereby transforms existing relations. Hegemonic stability
theorists argue that international politics is characterized by a succession of hegemonies in which a single powerful state dominates the system as a
result of its victory in the last hegemonic war.47 Especially after the cold war America can be described as trying to keep its position at the top but also
integrating others more thoroughly in the international system that it dominates. It is assumed that the differential growth of power in a state system
would undermine the status quo and lead to hegemonic war between declining and rising powers48, but I see a different pattern: the

U.S.
hegemonic stability promoting liberal institutionalism, the events following 9/11 are a brief
abnormality from this path, but the general trend will be toward institutional liberalism. Hegemonic
states are the crucial components in military alliances that turn back the major threats to mutual sovereignties and hence political domination of the
system. Instead of being territorially aggressive and eliminating other states, hegemons respect other's territory. They aspire to be leaders and hence
are upholders of inter-stateness and inter-territoriality.49 The nature of the institutions themselves must, however, be examined. They were shaped in
the years immediately after World War II by the United States. The American willingness to establish institutions, the World Bank to deal with finance
and trade, United Nations to resolve global conflict, NATO to provide security for Western Europe, is explained in terms of the theory of collective
goods. It is commonplace in the regimes literature that the United States, in so doing, was providing not only private goods for its own benefit but also
(and perhaps especially) collective goods desired by, and for the benefit of, other capitalist states and members of the international system in general.
(Particular care is needed here about equating state interest with "national" interest.) Not only was the United States protecting its own territory and
commercial enterprises, it was providing military protection for some fifty allies and almost as many neutrals. Not only was it ensuring a liberal, open,
near-global economy for its own prosperity, it was providing the basis for the prosperity of all capitalist states and even for some states organized on
noncapitalist principles (those willing to abide by the basic rules established to govern international trade and finance). While such behaviour was not
exactly selfless or altruistic, certainly the benefits-however distributed by class, state, or region-did accrue to many others, not just to Americans.50

For the truth about U.S. dominant role in the world is known to most clear-eyed international
observers. And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good
for a vast portion of the world's population. It is certainly a better international arrangement
than all realistic alternatives. To undermine it would cost many others around the world far more than it would cost Americans-and far
sooner. As Samuel Huntington wrote five years ago, before he joined the plethora of scholars disturbed by the "arrogance" of American hegemony; "A
world without U.S. primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy
and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence
than any other country shaping global affairs.51 I argue that the overall American-shaped system is still in place. It is
this macro political system-a legacy of American power and its liberal polity that remains and
serves to foster agreement and consensus. This is precisely what people want when they look for
U.S. leadership and hegemony.52 If the U.S. retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it, not Europe, not China, not the
Muslim world and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a
multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a New Dark Age. Moreover, the alternative to unipolarity would
not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity a global vacuum of power.53 Since the end of WWII the United States
has been the clear and dominant leader politically, economically and military . But its leadership as been unique; it has not
been tyrannical, its leadership and hegemony has focused on relative gains and has forgone
absolute gains. The difference lies in the exercise of power. The strength acquired by the United States in the
aftermath of World War II was far greater than any single nation had ever possessed, at least since the Roman Empire. America's share of
the world economy, the overwhelming superiority of its military capacity-augmented for a time
by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them--gave it the choice of
pursuing any number of global ambitions. That the American people "might have set the crown of world empire on their brows,"
as one British statesman put it in 1951, but chose not to, was a decision of singular importance in world history and recognized as such.54 Leadership is
really an elegant word for power. To exercise leadership is to get others to do things that they would not otherwise do. It involves the ability to shape,
directly or indirectly, the interests or actions of others. Leadership

may involve the ability to not just "twist arms"

but also to get other states to conceive of their interests and policy goals in theory thus shifts
from the ability to provide a public good to the ability to coerce other states. A benign hegemon in this sense
coercion should be understood as benign and not tyrannical . If significant continuity in the ability of the United States
to get what it wants is accepted, then it must be explained. The explanation starts with our noting that the institutions
for political and economic cooperation have themselves been maintained. Keohane rightly stresses the role of institutions as "arrangements permitting
communication and therefore facilitating the exchange of information. By providing reliable information and reducing the costs of transactions,

institutions can permit cooperation to continue even after a hegemon's influence has eroded.
Institutions provide opportunities for commitment and for observing whether others keep their
commitments. Such opportunities are virtually essential to cooperation in non-zero-sum
situations, as gaming experiments demonstrate. Declining hegemony and stagnant (but not
decaying) institutions may therefore be consistent with a stable provision of desired outcomes, although

the ability to promote new levels of cooperation to deal with new problems (e.g., energy supplies,
environmental protection) is more problematic. Institutions nevertheless provide a part of the necessary explanation.56 In
restructuring the world after WWII it was America that was the prime motivator in creating and supporting the various international organizations in
the economic and conflict resolution field. An example of this is NATOs making Western Europe secure for the unification of Europe. It was through
NATO institutionalism that the countries in Europe where able to start the unification process. The U.S. working through NATO provided the security
and impetus for a conflict prone region to unite and benefit from greater cooperation. Since the United States emerged as a great power, the new ways.

This suggests a second element of leadership, which involves not just the marshalling of power
capabilities and material resources. It also involves the ability to project a set of political ideas or
principles about the proper or effective ordering of po1itics. It suggests the ability to produce
concerted or collaborative actions by several states or other actors. Leadership is the use of power to orchestrate
the actions of a group toward a collective end.55 By validating regimes and norms of international behaviour the
U.S. has given incentives for actors, small and large, in the international arena to behave
peacefully. The uni-polar U.S. dominated order has led to a stable international system. Woodrow Wilsons zoo of managed relations among
states as supposed to his jungle method of constant conflict. The U.S. through various international treaties and organizations as become a quasi world
government; It resolves the problem of provision by imposing itself as a centralized authority able to extract the equivalent of taxes.

The focus of
the identification of the interests of others with its own has been the most striking quality of
American foreign and defence policy. Americans seem to have internalized and made second nature a conviction held only since
World War II: Namely, that their own wellbeing depends fundamentally on the well-being of others; that American prosperity cannot occur in the
absence of global prosperity; that American freedom depends on the survival and spread of freedom elsewhere; that aggression anywhere threatens the
danger of aggression everywhere; and that American national security is impossible without a broad measure of international security.57

Heg without legitimacy causes violent transitions and economic volatility

voluntary limits on power maintain relative international stability
Martin Griffiths January 2004; Associate Professor and Head of School at School of Government and International

Relations, Griffith University (coincidence, as it turns out) BEYOND THE BUSH DOCTRINE: AMERICAN HEGEMONY AND
WORLD ORDER AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF AMERICAN STUDIES
www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/a.j.a.s/Articles/1_04/Griffiths.pdf

In international relations, an established hegemony helps the cause of international peace in a

number of ways. First, a hegemon deters renewed military competition and provides general
security through its preponderant power. Second, a hegemon can, if it chooses, strengthen
international norms of conduct. Third, a hegemons economic power serves as the basis of a
global lending system and free trade regime, providing economic incentives for states to
cooperate and forego wars for resources and markets. Such was the nature of British hegemony in the nineteenth
century, hence the term Pax Britannica. After the Second World War, the United States has performed the roles that Britain once
played, though with an even greater preponderance of power. Thus, much of the peace between democracies after

World War Two can be explained by the fact that the political-military hegemony of the United
States has helped to create a security structure in Europe and the Pacific conducive to peaceful
interaction. Today, American hegemony is tolerated by many states in Europe and Asia, not
because the United States is particularly liked, but because of the perception that its absence
might result in aggression by aspiring regional hegemons. However, Chalmers Johnson has argued that this is
a false perception promoted from Washington to silence demands for its military withdrawal from Japan and South Korea.8 It is
true that hegemonic stability theory can be classified as belonging in the realist tradition because of its focus on the importance of
power structures in international politics. The problem is that power alone cannot explain why some states choose to follow or
acquiesce to one hegemon while vigorously opposing and forming counter-alliances against another hegemon. Thus when

international relations theorists employ the concept of hegemonic stability, they supplement it
with the concept of legitimacy.9 Legitimacy in international society refers simply to the perceived
justice of the international system. As in domestic politics, legitimacy is a notoriously difficult factor to
pin down and measure. Still, one cannot do away with the concept, since it is clear that all
political orders rely to some extent on consent in addition to coercion. Hegemony without
legitimacy is insufficient to deter violent challenges to the international order, and may provoke
attempts to build counter-alliances against the hegemon. Hegemonic authority which accepts
the principle of the independence of states and treats states with a relative degree of
benevolence is more easily accepted. The legitimacy of American hegemony during the cold war was facilitated by two
important characteristics of the era. First, the communist threat (whether real or imaginary) disguised the tension between the
United States promotion of its own interests and its claim to make the world safe for capitalism.10 Second, American

hegemony managed to combine economic liberalism between industrialised states with an

institutional architecture (the Bretton Woods system) that moderated the volatility of transaction flows
across borders. It enabled governments to provide social investments, safety nets and
adjustment assistance at the domestic level.11 In the industrialised world, this grand bargain
formed the basis of the longest and most equitable economic expansion in human history,
from the 1950s to the 1980s. And it provided the institutional foundation for the newest wave of
globalisation, which began not long thereafter and is far broader in scope and deeper in reach
than its nineteenth century antecedent. The system that the United States led the way in creating after 1945 has fared
well because the connecting and restraining aspects of democracy and institutions reduce the incentives for Western nations to
engage in strategic rivalry or balance against American hegemony. The strength of this order is attested to by the longevity of its
institutions, alliances and arrangements, based on their legitimacy in the eyes of the participants. Reacting against the

closed autarchic regions that had contributed to the world depression and split the globe into
competing blocs before the war, the United States led the way in constructing a post-war order
that was based on economic openness, joint management of the Western political-economic
order, and rules and institutions that were organised to support domestic economic stability and
social security.12 This order in turn was built around a basic bargain: the hegemonic state
obtains commitments from secondary states to participate in the international order, and the
hegemon in return places limits on the exercise of its power. The advantage for the weak state is
that it does not fear domination or abandonment, reducing the incentive to balance against the
hegemon, and the leading state does not need to use its power to actively enforce order and
compliance. It is these restraints on both sides and the willingness to participate in this mutual
accord that explains the longevity of the system, even after the end of the cold war. But as the
founder and defender of this international order, the United States, far from being a
domineering hegemon, was a reluctant superpower.
And turns are wrong LOST shores up military power without linking to any of
their offense
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he
writes the blog The Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions
and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The
U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-usshould-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty/258301/ // SM)
All of the uniformed services--and especially the U.S. Navy--are solidly behind UNCLOS. American
military leaders have always been discriminating when it comes to treaties, traditionally resisting those (like the Rome Statute
of the ICC) that might put U.S. servicemen and women at risk. But they support UNCLOS because it will enable,
rather than complicate, their mission. Because the United States was the principal force behind the
negotiation of UNCLOS, it contains everything the U.S. military wants, and nothing that it fears. The
treaty's primary value to the U.S. military is that it establishes clear rights, duties, and jurisdictions of
maritime states. The treaty defines the limits of a country's "territorial sea," establishes rules for
transit through "international straits," and defines "exclusive economic zones" (EEZs) in a way
compatible with freedom of navigation and over-flight . It further establishes the
"sovereign inviolability" of naval ships calling on foreign ports, providing critical
protection for U.S. vessels. More generally, the treaty allows states party to exempt their
militaries from its mandatory dispute resolution provisions--allowing the United States to retain
complete military freedom of action. At the same time, the treaty does nothing at all to interfere
with critical U.S.-led programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Nor does it
subject

any U.S.

military personnel to the jurisdiction of any international court .

1ac Solvency
Solvency
US ratification of LOST adds credibility to the convention and helps with
enforcement- checks Chinese manipulation of treaty
May 12 [Cmdr Bradley May, commander May served more than 14 years as a submarine officer
on active duty and in a Reserve capacity. He currently works at Space and Naval Warfare
(SPAWAR) Systems Center Atlantic, June 2012, Now Hear This: The U.S. Senate Should Ratify
UNCLOS, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-06/now-hear-us-senate-shouldratify-unclos, MM]
The first draft of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was
completed in 1982. The treaty provided a broad legal framework governing movement on the
sea and the proper handling of sea-based resources. By 1994, treaty revisions had alleviated U.S.
concerns regarding deep seabed mining. President Bill Clinton signed and forwarded it to the
Senate for advice and consent, but it was never ratified. President Barack Obamas
administration has recently sought to persuade the Senate to approve UNCLOS. Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking at the Forum on the Law of the Sea Convention on 9 May,
stated that it was time for the United States to ratify the 30-year-old pact. However, not all are
in agreement. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and Dan
Blumenthal, previous Department of Defense senior country manager for China and Taiwan,
wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed in September 2011 arguing against ratification. Their
opposition relates to Chinas expansive maritime territorial claims, specifically in the South
China Sea. The editorial contends that ratification would limit U.S. naval operations while not
effectively dealing with Chinas expansionist ambitions. On the contrary, UNCLOS
ratification would not constrain the U.S. Navy and should dissuade Chinese
attempts at territorial expansion in the South China Sea . UNCLOS presents an idea
called the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). This construct was designed to give nations control
over certain economic activities within 200 miles of their shores, well beyond their sovereign 12mile territorial waters. Intended as a balance between coastal states abilities to manage and
protect ocean resources and maritime users rights to high-seas freedom of navigation, the EEZ
concept has been manipulated by China as justification to regulate various maritime activities,
particularly those of a military nature. There are two recent examples of tension between the
United States and China resulting from this. First, the harassment in 2009 of the USNS
Impeccable (T-AGOS-23) while performing surveillance in international waters about 70 miles
from Hainan Island, and second, the 2001 collision between a U.S. Navy EP-3E Aries II aircraft
and a Chinese jet while the U.S. plane was conducting patrol operations over Chinas EEZ. China
maintains that UNCLOS prohibits foreign military operations within its EEZ, but the treaty
contains no such language. It does, however, give coastal states jurisdiction over scientific
research in their EEZs. The 2002 Surveying and Mapping Law of the Peoples Republic of China
has defined mapping and surveying so broadly as to claim that they constitute research. China
asserts that military surveillance and reconnaissance is scientific research per the 2002 law, and
thus argues that regulating them is justified since UNCLOS grants countries control rights over
scientific research. This is indeed a bold stretch. Yet, if left unchecked, China undoubtedly will
continue to interpret UNCLOS provisions in its own interests. As a result, the United States
must challenge China on these matters and not allow it to shape the law of the sea in its favor .
If we are not a party to the treaty, however, we have no influence over how the law
develops . By ratifying UNCLOS, we create the best chance that the law of the sea develops in a

manner aligned with our national interests and those of our allies. China seeks to use UNCLOSs
EEZ provisions to marginalize U.S. influence in the region, because China prefers one-on-one
dealings with its smaller neighbors. Those neighbors, on the other hand, favor multilateral
negotiations that better balance Chinas greater power. The smaller ones often welcome U.S.
involvement, since many view us as a friend. However, they also recognize that our interests at
times may differ from theirs. Therefore, they seek assurances that the United States can provide
a strong balance to Chinas growing power without threatening their affairs. Since they all are
parties to UNCLOS, they would receive such assurances by our conformance with the treatys
principles. Ratifying UNCLOS, then, sends a clear message that we intend to be a
dedicated partner in forging their regional futures. UNCLOS treats EEZs as
international waters. As long as the United States aggressively and repeatedly asserts this
fundamental fact, we need not fear constraint of our naval forces. Ratifying UNCLOS only
bolsters this argument in our favor. Furthermore, it affords us more influence in shaping its
provisions and makes us a more persuasive partner on behalf of Chinas neighbors. As a result,
we more effectively restrain Chinas territorial aspirations in the South China Sea. Per Secretary
Panetta, The time has come for the United States to have a seat at the table. The time has come
for the United States to fully assert its role as a global leader and accede to this important
treaty.

Arctic Advantage

1ac Arctic
Advantage __ is the Arctic
Two Scenarios:
First is resources US adherence to LOST in the Arctic is inevitable, however
ratification is key to resource access the alternative is energy dependence and
high vulnerability to price shocks
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)
The Arctics unfavorable weather and climate conditions have produced one of the most inhospitable environments on
Earth, which led

to a very limited presence of humans and an absence of sovereignty claims for centuries. 1 As global
warming causes the polar icecaps to recede, potentially oil-rich seabeds are being uncovered beneath the
Arctic Ocean in the rapidly navigable and drillable territory. According to the U.S. Geological Survey
estimations, the Arctic Ocean's seabed may hold vast reserves of oil and natural gasup to 25% of the worlds
undiscovered reserves. 2
Not surprisingly, the recent discoveries sparked a new land rush of claims in the Arctic regionthe division of
which will be governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention). 3 Under the

Convention, five nations Canada, the United States, Russia, Norway and Denmark can claim the natural resources on, above,
and beneath the Arctic Ocean floor up to 200 miles from their shorelines. 4 They can also extend their claim up to 350 miles from
shore for any area that is proven to be a part of their continental shelf. 5
Determination of who owns the Arctic Ocean and any resources that might be found beneath those waters will have

significant economic implications. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts a decline in petroleum
reserves and, despite oil prices topping $146 in June 2008, the demand for oil is growing. 6 In addition to the vast
mineral resources, the unpredictability of the Persian Gulf region makes the Arctic region even more
attractive for exploitation. Russia and Norway have already submitted their claims to the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf (the Commission), while Canada and Denmark are collecting evidence to prepare their submissions in
the near future. 7 All of these nations can gain considerable oil and gas resources as a result of the Convention.
However, one Arctic state has so far failed to join the race. Unlike the other Arctic nations, the United States
has not ratified the Convention. Although the United States has complied voluntarily with the
Convention, the failure to ratify the Convention could foreclose its ability to tap into potential energy
resources. This failure could prevent significant contributions to American energy independence,
and increase security threats. Thus, the best way to guarantee access to the Arctics resources and to protect
other economic and non-economic interests is for the United States to become a party to the Convention.

This comment discusses the United States interests in the Arctic region and available methods of securing such interests. In part I,
this comment provides background information on the geography of the Arctic. Part II reviews recent legal developments with
respect to claims raised by countries bordering the Arctic. Part III examines the legal regime governing the use of the oceans and the
relevant provisions of the Convention, including sovereignty limits, deep seabed mining, and methods of dispute resolution. Part IV
evaluates the United States position with respect to Arctic sovereignty. First, this section explores the reasons for failing to ratify the
Convention by the United States. Next, it analyzes the pros and cons of ratifying the Convention as well as the pros and cons of
maintaining the status quo. It also analyzes whether customary law or a mini-treaty could secure American interests in the Arctic
region. Finally, this comment concludes that diminishing natural resources and the high instability of

regions where such resources are still present stimulate the need of the United States to ratify the
Convention to preserve its right to influence the Arctics future.

Only ratification solves legal uncertainty absent lost creates a chilling effect that
prevents resource utilization and endangers the economy
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

Maritime natural resource exploitation from oil and natural gas to seabed minerals has strategic implications for the United
States. Ratifying LOSC will put the United States in a position to secure internationally recognized claims to
those important natural

resources.
The United States is committed to exploring for additional domestic reserves of oil and natural gas in an effort to
bolster domestic production and provide assured access to energy resources. Increasing production from domestic
reserves will not necessarily help reduce higher oil prices, since these prices are set by the global market, but it can help
close the U.S. trade deficit and provide more assured access to energy if a major crisis chokes off
access to foreign energy imports for any length of time.
Offshore oil and natural gas exploration along the

extended continental shelf an area beyond the 200-nauticalexpected to increase U.S. reserves over the next decade. However, the United States cannot
secure internationally recognized sovereign rights to those resources unless it ratifies LOSC. While the United
mile EEZ is

States enjoys national jurisdiction over living and non-living resources above and below the seabed out to 200 nautical miles, claims
to resources beyond the EEZ must be formally made to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the
international body established by LOSC for parties to adjudicate claims to the extended continental shelf. Without the United
States ratifying LOSC,

U.S. companies operating beyond the EEZ would be considered on the high seas and beyond
the formal legal protection of the United States. As a result, offshore drilling companies have increasingly
expressed their concern about the lack of legal protections afforded to U.S. companies and have indicated
a reluctance to assume significant risk in operating in areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction. In short, U.S. failure to
ratify LOSC could have a chilling effect on commercial resource exploration and exploitation on the

extended continental shelf.

Ratifying LOSC will allow the United States to make a claim to the extended continental shelf an area estimated to be twice the size
of California and bring the potential oil and natural gas resources beyond the existing EEZ under U.S. jurisdiction. 20
Furthermore, these sovereign resources would be beyond the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which only
has authority over resources in the deep seabed beyond other national jurisdictions. 21 While critics often cite concerns about the
ISA and its administration of U.S. companies drilling under the deep seabed, such concerns will be assuaged by bringing the
extended continental shelf under internation - ally recognized U.S. jurisdiction.
Seabed mining, in the Arctic and elsewhere, is also becoming an important strategic interest for the

United States. U.S. companies increasingly seek to engage in seabed mining for minerals such as rare
earth elements and cobalt that are critical to the broad U.S. economy and used in producing defense
assets. However, as long as the United States remains outside the international legal protections afforded by LOSC,
the private sector remains hesitant to invest in seabed mining investments that would reduce
U.S. vulnerabilities to external pressure and supply disruption. Indeed, since few suppliers provide such
minerals and they are prone to intentional or unintentional disruptions and price spikes,
increasing U.S. production will help prevent suppliers from exerting political and economic
leverage over the United States and its allies. 22
Econ decline causes global catastrophe and nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, 9 *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of
the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis, Washington Quarterly,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)

Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result
of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended

Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the

multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the
same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways

potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic
environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and
in which the

nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth
continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of
technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach.

will

likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups

structures,
command
and
control
processes,
and
training
attacks

procedures

necessary

Terrorist groups in 2025

to

inheriting organizational
conduct
sophisticated

and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become

self-

radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty
of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear

worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security
arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not
weapons is not inevitable,

clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle
East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation
and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined
with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving
reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile

uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could
reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive
flight times, and
potentially

countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders
deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions
short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and
modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed
turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries,
and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also
becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Statistics prove
Royal 10 Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department
of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic
Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature
has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states.
Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level,
Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated
with the rise and fall of pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as

crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 10981) that leads to uncertainty
about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution
of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power
economic

(Werner, 1999). Seperately, Polllins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of
conflict among major, medium, and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and
security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996,2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation
of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely
to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectation of future trade decline,

states will be inclined to use

force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or
because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as

external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict,
particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends
to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p.89). Economic decline has also
been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and
lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary

theory suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to create a
rally round the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that
economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997) Miller (1999) and Kisanganie and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more

periods of
weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force.
susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that

Energy dependence risks extinction

Lendman 07 - Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

[Stephen Lendman, Resource Wars - Can We Survive

Them?, rense.com, 6-6-7, pg. http://www.rense.com/general76/resrouce.htm]

With the world's energy supplies finite, the US heavily dependent on imports, and "peak oil" near or
approaching, "security" for America means assuring a sustainable supply of what we can't do
without. It includes waging wars to get it, protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over
which it travels. That means energy's partnered with predatory New World Order globalization, militarism, wars,
ecological recklessness, and now an extremist US administration willing to risk Armageddon for
world dominance. Central to its plan is first controlling essential resources everywhere, at any cost, starting with oil and where most of

it is located in the Middle East and Central Asia. The New "Great Game" and Perils From It The new "Great Game's" begun, but this time
the stakes are greater than ever as explained above. The old one lasted nearly 100 years pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue

it's the US with help from Israel, Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South
Korea and Taiwan challenging Russia and China with today's weapons and technology on both sides
making earlier ones look like toys. At stake is more than oil. It's planet earth with survival of all
life on it issue number one twice over. Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing, peace
declining, and the planet's ability to sustain life front and center , if anyone's paying attention. They'd better be because
beyond the point of no return, there's no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split. His famous
wasn't oil. This time,

quote on future wars was : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

There may be nothing left but resilient beetles and

bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future,
if at all. The threat is real and once nearly happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October,
Under a worst case scenario, it's more dire than that.

1962. We later learned a miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with
host country Cuba. For the first time, we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was avoided only because Soviet submarine
captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near
Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had he done it, only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big
part of it, would have survived.

Second is conflict war in the Arctic would go nuclear

Wallace & Staples 10 *Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia,
**President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa (Michael, Steven, Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear
Weapons: A Task Long Overdue,) //J.N.E
The fact is, the

Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition. Russian President Medvedev has
General Vladimir Shamanov
declared that Russian troops would step up training for Arctic combat, and that Russias
submarine fleet would increase its operational radius. 55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines were
announced the creation of a special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian

spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. 56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obamas inauguration, President Bush
issued a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military
vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to
protect U.S. borders in the Arctic. 57 The Bush administrations disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw
from the ABM treaty and deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the
instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has
figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early
Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has

put forward new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic,
including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deep-water port.

Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic
military contingent that draws on army, navy and air force assets with ship- based helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. 58
Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35
fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that country held a major Arctic military practice involving
7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil rigs. 59 The manoeuvres prompted
a protest from Russia which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military exercise since the end of the
Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. 60 9 Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear
Weapons: A Task Long Overdue Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament
affairs, summarized the situation bluntly: From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being
expressed over the fact that two nuclear weapon states the United States and the Russian Federation,

which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the world converge on the Arctic
and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries
Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into
the threat or use of nuclear weapons. 61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no
circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in military confrontation can be taken
lightly.

LOST is key to resolve tensions and prevent environmental destruction

King 7 Andrew King is currently an associate at Archer Norris, a law corporation. Education: University of California, Hastings
College of the Law, San Francisco, J.D., 2007 Witkin Awards for Excellence: Remedies; Mediation; and American West Law,
Culture & Environment CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Pretrial Practice Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Member,
2005 - 2006 Best Moot Court Brief (2005); Best Moot Court Oralist, Honorable Mention (2005) University of York, York, England,
B.A., with first class honors, 2000 Nominated for Royal Historical Society Prize for Undergraduate Dissertation (2007, Andrew,

Thawing a Frozen Treaty: Protecting United States Interests in the Arctic with a Congressional-Executive Agreement on the Law of
the Sea, http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V34/I2/king.pdf - II. Renewed Interest in the Arctic Region and a
Snapshot of Recent Territorial Claims // SM)
Until recently, international strategic concern with the Arctic Ocean was limited to the comings and goings of nuclear submarines.6
Over the past decade, however, the steady shrinking of the Arctic ice cap has fueled a renewed economic

and political interest in the region. As Dr. Rob Huebert, of the University of Calgary Centre for Military and Strategic
Studies in Canada, has observed, now, in the post-Cold War global warming era, everyone is pitching for action. Climate
change is reshaping the Arctic [and] [t]he issues are energy, fish and shipping

lanes. 7 In September 2005, scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (N SIDC) in Boulder, Colorado, reported
that the Arctic ice cap had shrunk to the smallest expanse ever recorded.8 Arctic experts predict this melting will continue and
eventually create a seasonally open sea nearly five times the size of the Mediterranean. As the ice thins, exploration of

ocean oil and natural gas deposits becomes more feasible. The United States Geological Survey
estimates that one quarter of the worlds undiscovered oil and gas resources lies in the Arctic.1
While melting ice bodes ill for fragile Arctic ecosystems and could have a deleterious effect on climates on the rest of the planet, with
change comes opportunity. As temperatures change, pink salmon are colonizing Arctic tributaries, cod

are traveling northward, and large-scale commercial fisheries are becoming

increasingly viable . Furthermore, lucrative navigable shipping channels , including the famed
North West Passage and the lesser-known North East Passage, which both link the European continent with
China, appear, for the first time in centuries, to be more than pipedreams. All of this commotion in the frigid
North has attracted the interest of various competing sovereignties, environmentalists, and the
energy, fishing, freight, and cruise-line industries, among others. Unfortunately, and somewhat predictably, the

opening up of the Arctic is proving far from smooth sailing in the realm of international relations. The Arctic Ocean is unique in that
it is the only place on the planet where the borders of five countries-the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark-come
together the way sections of an orange meet at the stem.'5 As the Arctic region becomes less forbidding, long-

held tensions between these nations and competing claims to Arctic waterways are coming to the
surface. The United States and Canada are engaged in an ongoing dispute over rights to the North
West Passage and the Beaufort Sea. Norway and Russia are fighting over a disputed part of the
Barents Sea thought to be rich in oil and gas deposits. In 2001, Russia staked a claim to over half the Arctic,
following a tradition set by Stalin who once simply drew a line from the northern Russian port of Murmansk to the North Pole and
declared it to be the Soviet Unions polar territory.'8 While the other nations have challenged Russias claim, on
another front the Russian parliament has so far refused to ratify a 1990 agreement with the United States over rights to fish and
other resources in the Bering Sea.2 Not to be outdone, Denmark, an Arctic nation through its colonial possession of Greenland,

has laid claim to the North Pole itself. Finally, in what may qualify as one of the more comical territorial disputes of
modern times, Denmark and Canada are now engaged in their own cold war over Hans Island, an

uninhabited speck of rock between Greenland and the Canadian coastline. Although control over the rock could one day determine
exploration rights, the confrontation thus far has been limited to trips by the countries respective ministers clad in governmentissued parkas, and some surreal incidents where landing parties from both navies raise their national flag and leave whisky and
brandy as signs of their visit . . . .23 Joking aside, all

of the above is evidence of the Arctic nations

jockeying for position in this new gold rush . At a time when melting ice portends an influx
of new drilling, shipping, fishing, and cruise ship travel, it is imperative that

some

order be

brought to this imminent stampede in order to preserve the environment, and

protect economic and national security.

In fact, such a

mechanism already exists in a

provision of the Law of the Sea treaty . The problem for United States interests in the Arctic is
that a handful of Senators on Capitol Hill continue to find ways to block ratification of this accord,
leaving America on the sidelines and the Arctic in danger of uncontrolled pillage.25
Arctic environment destruction causes extinction
WWF 10 (December 1, 2010 Drilling for Oil in the Arctic: Too Soon, Too Risky World Wildlife
Fund http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/wherewework/arctic/WWFBinaryitem18711.pdf)
zabd

Planetary Keystone The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many
reasons. One is their enormous biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes
supporting millions of migrating birds and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses,
narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are among the richest in the
world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of
supermarkets across the nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just
important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A keystone species is
generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of changes
affecting other species in that ecosystem. The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to the
rest of the world. With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and
influence climate patterns, the Arctic functions like a global thermostat. Heat
balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are all related to its
regulatory and carbon storage function s. Disrupt these functions and we effect farreaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth for thousands of years.
In the context of climate change, the Arctic is a keystone ecosystem for the entire planet.
The plan solves both scenarios LOST ratification allows US resource access and
ensures cooperation and stability
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)
The Arctic

The Arctic is emerging as one of the most important maritime domains in the world. Russia, the
United States and other Arctic-bordering countries are increasing activity in the Arctic as changing
environmental conditions provide access to new shipping routes and natural resource deposits. Arctic countries
are jockeying for power by remapping the sea floor and increasing their military presence,
driving new security and diplomatic concerns that carry strategic significance for the United States.
The foundation of our future success in the Arctic must be built upon the 1982 Convention on the Law of
the Sea, the seminal agreement that provides the international legal framework for use of the worlds seas and oceans, including
the Arctic Ocean, said General Charles H. Jacoby, commander of U.S. Northern Command, testifying before the Senate Armed
Services Committee. 23 Joining the convention would protect and advance a broad range of U.S. interests,
including navigational mobility and offshore resources. In January 2009, President George W. Bush issued National Security
Presidential Directive-66/ Homeland Security Presidential Directive-25 (NSPD-66/HSPD-25) outlining U.S. interests in the Arctic.
The directive requires the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and through it, the U.S. Coast Guard to execute missions to
manage natural resources and protect the environment in the Arctic, for example by responding to environmental damage such as
oil spills and conserving commercial fisheries. NSPD-66/HSPD-25 also cites the need to safeguard U.S. interests regarding
hydrocarbon resources such as oil and natural gas, especially those that may overlap with resources claimed by other states. 24
However, the United States cannot adequately protect its energy, environmental and natural resource

interests in the Arctic unless it ratifies LOSC. As the Arctic continues to open up as its ice cover declines, other Arctic
countries, such as Russia and Canada, continue to submit claims to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf in order to acquire sovereign rights over valuable energy and minerals resources. While the United
States continues to map its extended continental shelf in the Arctic, 25 it cannot make internationally recognized sovereign
claims to energy and other natural resources it discovers until it ratifies the treaty 26 and it cannot
challenge claims made by Russia or other Arctic countries that conflict with its own
scientific assessments. As noted above, today the United States may only make sovereign claims to seabed resources within its

200-nautical-mile EEZ. However, as U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Robert J. Papp, Jr., recently wrote, with accession to
the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States has the potential to exercise additional sovereign rights over resources on an
extended outer continental shelf, which might reach as far as 600 nautical miles into the Arctic from the Alaskan coast. 27
Meanwhile, U.S. influence in the region is waning, which will only exacerbate Americas ability to

secure its interests in the region. Within the Arctic Council, the primary venue for promoting
cooperation in the region, the United States remains the only member that has not ratified LOSC. The
Arctic Council is a consensus-based forum which often debates and makes decisions regarding issues already
governed by previous agreements and international law, such as the natural resource exploitation protections provided by LOSC.

Considering agreements

within existing frameworks such as LOSC can make it easier to level the
playing field and hold discussions with countries except the United States. Given its failure to
date to ratify LOSC and subsequent lack of international legitimacy and protections provided
under the International Seabed Authority for its natural resource claims, the United States remains
excluded from important mechanisms for promoting economic cooperation and respect for rightful
natural resource claims by all Arctic countries.
Ratification is key to resource development no alternative ensures access
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)

Convention is a win/win
United States does not have to change its laws, give up any rights, and will only
benefit in a variety of ways. 137
1. The Convention Protects United States Economic Interests in the Arctic
As noted by John D. Negroponte during testimony before the Senate Committee, joining the
proposition because the

The Convention would codify the United States sovereignty rights over all the resources in the ocean, and on and under the ocean
floor, in a 200-nautical mile EEZ off its coastline. 138 Because the United States has one of the longest coastlines and the largest
EEZ of all the countries in the world, it could gain significantly from these provisions. 139
The Convention also gives the United States an opportunity to expand its sovereignty rights over resources on and under the
ocean floor beyond 200 nautical miles to the end of its continental shelf, up to 350 nautical miles. 140 This mechanism is

especially valuable to the United States as it would maximize legal certainty regarding the United States
rights to energy resources in large offshore areas, including the areas of the Arctic Ocean. However, the
United States must ratify the Convention for its claims to be internationally recognized. 141 Not surprisingly, the
American oil companies favor ratification, as it will allow them to explore oceans beyond 200 miles off the coast, where evolving
technologies now make oil and natural gas recoverable.142
If the United States ratifies the Convention it could expand its areas for mineral exploration and production
by more than 291,383 square miles. 143 The United States claim under article 76 would add an area in the Arctic
(Chukchi Cap) roughly equal to the area of West Virginia. 144 With a successful claim the United States would have the sole right to
the exploitation of all the resources on and under the Arctic Ocean bottom. These potential energy resources could make

significant contributions to United States energy independence. Because the Convention is the
only means of assuring access to the mineral resources beneath the Arctic Ocean, American companies wishing to
engage in deep seabed mining operations will have no choice but to proceed under the flag of a country that has adhered to the
treaty. 145
In addition, as discussed in section I, the Commission will soon begin making decisions on the claims

to
the continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean that could affect the United States own claim. For example the United
States is unable to comment on Russias claim to the Arctic Ocean. In order to challenge the
Commissions finding the United States must be a member of the Convention. 146

With the recent energy crisis, it is rather surprising that more Americans are not demanding that the United States join the
Convention and catch up with the other Arctic nations in exploring and securing its extended continental shelf. Although the United
States may decide to refrain from exploiting its continental shelf resources, it seems hard to imagine why it would not want to
maximize its potential ability to do so by ratifying the Convention and by joining the other Arctic nations in pursuit of its own claim
to the Arctic Ocean.
2. The Convention Protects the United States National Security Interest in the Arctic
The opening of the Arctic Ocean could become a source of new drilling, shipping, fishing, and other opportunities to the United
States. However, with more open and accessible waters, the long and unprotected border in the Arctic could also become a potential
terrorist and drug trafficking entry. In order to protect the United States security interests in the Arctic and worldwide, the United
States armed forces must be able to navigate freely on, over, and under the oceans.
The Convention preserves key rights of navigation and overflight. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense John D. Negroponte, the
Convention provides for a legal framework . . . [which] is essential to the mission of the Department of Defense, and the
Department of Homeland Security . . . . 147 The Convention grants American ships the right of innocent passage, allowing ships
transit through the territorial seas of foreign countries without having to provide advance notice or request permission.
Moreover, the Convention establishes the right of transit passage through international straits such as the Straits of Singapore and
Malacca or the Strait of Gibraltar. This right, which is absolutely critical to U.S. national security, may not be suspended, hampered,
or infringed upon by coastal States. 148 Also, the Convention creates the Archipelagic sea lanes passage that allows transit through
routes in archipelagic states, such as Indonesia. 149 Additionally, the provisions creating EEZ give the American military the ability
to position, patrol, and operate forces freely in, below, and above those littoral waters.150
Finally, the Convention secures the right of American warships to operate on the high seas, which is a critically important element
of maritime security operations, counter-narcotic operations, and anti- proliferation efforts. 151 The Conventions navigational

rights led to its support by all branches of the military: Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department
Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard.152
3. The Convention Could Help the United States to Enforce Its Rights in the Arctic Through Peaceful Dispute Settlement
Numerous legal experts believe that the U.S. interests in a clear and stable law of the sea are reinforced

by the
settlement provisions in the Convention. 153 When nations disagree on
boundaries, mineral claims, or other aspects of the Convention, the Convention contains a unique dispute resolution
mechanism that obligates nations to settle their differences peacefully through one of four methods.
comprehensive compulsory dispute

The dispute mechanism is flexible, in that Parties have options as to how and in what fora they will settle their disputes, and
comprehensive, in that most of the Conventions rules can be enforced through binding dispute resolution. 154 For example, the
Convention allows a member to choose arbitration tribunals and does not require any disputes to go to the International Court of
Justice. Consequently, the United States, as part of its accession or anytime thereafter, would have the legal right to choose among
the following adjudicating bodies:
The International Tribunal for The Law of the Sea, a standing tribunal of twenty-one judges, each from different nations, that serve
nine year terms;
The International Court of Justice, a United Nations court of fifteen judges appointed by the General Assembly and Security Council;
A special arbitration tribunal under Annex VII made up of environmental, marine science, navigation, and fisheries experts, of
which the United States would pick two to five arbitrators;
A special arbitration panel under Annex VII composed of five members of whom the United States would be allowed to choose one
and be involved in the appointment of at least three others.155
The Convention also allows the parties to exclude some of the sensitive categories of the disputes, such as military activities, from
the binding dispute settlement procedures. 156
Finally, the Convention would provide the United States with a clear and internationally recognized pathway

for making and disputing claims to Arctic resources. The United States could at last catch up with
other Arctic nations and prepare its own claim to the Commission. Of course, the Conventions dispute settlement
provisions do not guarantee that the United States would win every dispute, but not joining the Convention presents a far
greater risk: that the United States will be left without solid legal protections for its vital national security,
economic, and environmental interests. 157

CONCLUSION
As the global climate is warming up rapidly, leading to ice-free summers in the Arctic Ocean, Arctic nations are confronting the
prospect of new rights over the Arctics vast natural resources. All Arctic nations Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russiaexcept for
the United States, ratified the Convention and have already submitted, or are preparing to submit, proposed limits for their extended
continental shelves to the Commission. The submissions will enable these countries to obtain international recognition over their
extended continental shelves in the Arctic, including exclusive rights over oil and gas reserves.
As a nation with an extensive coastline and a continental shelf with enormous oil and gas reserves, the United States has much more
to gain than lose from joining the Convention. Furthermore, the uncertainties stemming from the customary law

make it a less effective measure to protect American interests. Only a universal regime such as the
Convention can adequately safeguard the United States interest in the Arctic Ocean. The best way to
guarantee access to the Arctics resources is for the United States to become a party to the Convention.

xt: LOST KT Resources

Plan is key to US Arctic access ensures free trade and economic development
otherwise legal uncertainty presents development
Oliver and Venckus, 13 John, Senior Ocean Advisor Emerging Policy Staff U.S. Coast Guard and Steve, Deputy Chief
U.S. Coast Guard Office of Maritime and International Law (The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Now is the time to join,
Coast Guard Journal of Safety and Security at Sea, Summer 2013,
http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2013/Vol70_No2_Sum2013.pdf //blue)

The Arctic region, fundamentally a maritime regime, is one of the world's last frozen frontiers. Moreover, this icy region is
heating up, not just from a warming climate and melting ice, but from changing global priorities and emerging
challenges and opportunities. Extending sovereignty, exploration, and exploitation resonate among nations charting new

courses in and through the Arctic region.

As with any frontier, there must be a common rule of law to guide states in their pursuits. This is critical if we are
to successfully exert maritime governance to ensure mariners may safely and securely approach our shores and travel in our waters.
The 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea1 is the best compass and framework for states to determine their
positions with respect to each other and the emerging opportunities and challenges in that remote part of the world. Eight nations
border the Arctic. Seven of those Arctic nations are party to the convention with the exception of onethe

United States.

UNCLOS: What Are We Waiting For?

Senior military and U.S. national security

leaders involved in Arctic affairs agree2 the time has come to join
provide a uniform governance framework to promote American interests
and dramatically extend our resource-related sovereignty in that region. The convention,
which codifies a broad range of international legal principles applicable to the ocean regime, represents a tremendous
advance in promoting and protecting a broad range of critical interests and goals. Having such a legal regime in
the conventionthis move would

place is vital to the proper management of an increasingly accessible Arctic.

While the Law of the Sea Convention has now been in force for more than 160 states worldwide (plus the European Union),
including virtually all of the major maritime powers and our allies and trading partners,3 the full U.S. Senate has never taken a vote
on the convention.4
However, with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee having held additional hearings in 2004, 2007, and 2012, there is now an

opportunity for the Senate to vote for the United States to regain its natural leadership position in the
development of the international law of the sea. At the same time, joining the convention would promote
critical national security, global mobility, economic, scientific, and environmental interests in the
Arctic region.
Additionally, our national maritime security strategy has long required worldwide mobility. Global

mobility requires
undisputed access through and around international straits such as the Bering Strait, the Northwest
Passage, and the Northern Sea Route from Europe to Asia. The entire international community
would benefit from a final resolution of any disputed points in these critical routes. Moreover,
the relevant provisions of the convention guarantee these critically important transit rights to military and civilian
vessels, aircraft, and submarinesno matter the purpose of the transit, the nature of the cargo, or the means of propulsion.
UNCLOS Economic Benefits
From an economic perspective, the United States emerges a clear winner under the convention's provisions on the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and the continental shelf, due to its lengthy coastline and island possessions that border on
several particularly productive ocean areas such as the Bering Sea. The United States has the largest and richest EEZ in the world.
Also, our extended continental shelf has enormous potential due to oil and gas reserves,

particularly in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas west and north of Alaska.
Discoveries by the crew aboard the USCG icebreaker Healy reveal that the U.S. continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean is
much more extensive than originally thought. Nevertheless, only by becoming party to the
convention and participating in its processes can the United States obtain secure title to these vast resources,
adding an area twice the size of the Louisiana Purchase (some 290,000 square miles) for U.S. sovereign resource exploitation.5
Despite claims from critics of the convention that the United States could and should develop its continental shelf
resources beyond 200 miles without becoming a party to UNCLOS, it stands to reason that any

oil, gas, or
mining company would want the legal certainty of the convention before investing billions of
dollars to develop an offshore field, no matter how rich it might be.6 In addition, the convention's deep seabed

mining provisions, as amended in 1994, would permit and encourage American businesses to pursue free-market-oriented
approaches to deep ocean mining, including in the Arctic Ocean.
The Convention Helps Secure Trade
Another key mission of the Coast Guard is to promote safe and secure international trade. The convention promotes freedom of
navigation and overflight, by which international shipping and transportation fuel and supply the global economy. Some 90 percent
of global trade tonnage, totaling more than $6 trillion in value including oil, iron ore, coal, grain, and other commodities, building
materials, and manufactured goods, are transported by sea every year.7
Currently, little international trade travels through the Arctic, but this is changing and will continue to increase in

the decades ahead as the ice cover continues to recede and marine transportation technology advances. Moreover, there is
considerable desti-national shipping even now, such as to bring critical supplies to the North Slope and Alaskan coastal villages, and
to remove vast amounts of minerals from the treasure trove in the Brooks Range in northwestern Alaska.
By guaranteeing merchant vessels the right to navigate through international straights, archipelagic waters, and
coastal waters, the provisions of the convention promote dynamic international trade. Free navigation reduces
costs and eliminates delays that would occur if coastal states were able to impose various restrictions on navigational rights.

Non-Party Status Impedes International Engagement

The Coast Guard represents the United States at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the specialized body through
which international standards for ship safety, security, and environmental protection are developed and adopted. These standards
are negotiated and implemented under the Law of Sea Convention's framework.
Consequently, we are becoming increasingly challenged in some of these negotiations because we are not a

party to that framework. Moreover, the convention encourages international cooperation to enhance the safety and security
of all ocean-going ships. The IMO is developing a mandatory Polar Code for Arctic shipping, and the Coast Guard is playing a key
role in that effort.8
Furthermore, many states have excessive claims with respect to baselines, historic bays, territorial seas, straits, and
navigational restrictions, which many believe are not permissible under the convention. However, as

a nonparty, our
ability to seek to roll back these excessive claims is severely inhibited. Failure to join the convention will

materially interfere with our ability to engage with other states to improve maritime governancea major part of the Coast Guard's
current strategy for maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
Our non-party status is an obstacle that we must overcome in developing virtually any new multilateral maritime instrument. For
example, the United States has long played a key role in the IMO to promote maritime safety and efficiency and to protect the
marine environment in the Arctic, but our leadership position is undermined by our current "outsider"

status.

The United States has no "seat at the table" in matters concerning the convention, nor does it have a judge on the Law of the Sea
Tribunal, or a decision maker or staff expert on the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that convenes to review and
approve claims to extended continental shelves. Moreover, despite the fact that the 1994 Part XI Implementation Agreement
guarantees the United States a permanent seat on the International Seabed Authority and an effective veto on all key decisions of
that body, as a nonparty, we simply cannot play that critical role. Without joining the convention, we have no means to

formally represent our significant maritime interests as a global power, and guide the discussion
interpreting and developing the law of the sea in the Arctic.

The Coast Guard performs many critical homeland security coastal missions. It needs a comprehensive legal framework to help
influence the development of Arctic issues, and to put our operational activities in protecting America's interests on the strongest
legal footing, whether we are taking enforcement action to ensure that U.S. sovereign rights are respected, human activity is safe and
secure, rescuing those in distress, or protecting the pristine Arctic environment.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2012 and said, " We must

continue to seek out opportunities with our Arctic neighbors and the global community to address the critical
issues of governance, sovereign rights, environmental protection, and security in the Arctic. While
there are many challenges, the increasingly wet Arctic Ocean presents unique opportunities. The convention
provides the key legal framework we need to take advantage of these opportunities. The Coast Guard needs the
convention to ensure America's Arctic future."9
Arctic race is ramping up now LOST as a CEA allows the US to compete
King 7 Andrew King is currently an associate at Archer Norris, a law corporation. Education: University of California, Hastings

College of the Law, San Francisco, J.D., 2007 Witkin Awards for Excellence: Remedies; Mediation; and American West Law,
Culture & Environment CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Pretrial Practice Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Member,
2005 - 2006 Best Moot Court Brief (2005); Best Moot Court Oralist, Honorable Mention (2005) University of York, York, England,
B.A., with first class honors, 2000 Nominated for Royal Historical Society Prize for Undergraduate Dissertation (2007, Andrew,
Thawing a Frozen Treaty: Protecting United States Interests in the Arctic with a Congressional-Executive Agreement on the Law of
the Sea, http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V34/I2/king.pdf - I. Introduction // SM)
I. Introduction The steadily shrinking Arctic ice cap has triggered a feverish interest among the five

nations whose coastlines border the region concerning their respective rights to the ocean and
the seabed below. The possibility of huge reserves of natural gas and oil, and the potential for newly
navigable channels have led to competing claims by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark,

and Norway over large sections of the Arctic.2 The United States, however, is in danger of losing out
due to the obstructionist efforts of a handful of isolationist Senators who consigned a crucial
treaty providing a mechanism to negotiate these claims to the deep freeze of the United States
Senate for nearly twelve years.3 While the other Arctic nations have long since ratified the treaty and
are proceeding to stake out the future of the region, the United States remains seated on the
sidelines.4 Despite the unanimous support of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the backing of the current
administration, Senate leaders, under pressure from a small cadre of anti-internationalist Senators,
have declined to schedule a floor vote on the Law of the Sea.5 It is time for a new approach that will
free this critical law from its icy prison. The president should withdraw the treaty from the Senate
and work with both Houses of Congress to foster a Congressional-Executive agreement to
ensure that America is not left out in the cold.
LOST key to Arctic resource exploration
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.

He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show
whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)
According to RT, a Russian/English news channel,

Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander Gorban last

month stated his hope that there will never be a war for resources or an even hotter conflict in the Arctic Region. In the
next breath, he then went on to reiterate that Russia

is indeed "trying to fight for the Arctic shelf Gorban is

a close Putin ally and his acknowledgement that Arctic conflict is possible demonstrates the global
stakes in play. Russia is not alone in recognizing the value of the LOTS in the fight for global
resource dominance. Five countries border the Arctic: Russia, the U.S. (via Alaska), Canada, Norway
and Denmark (via Greenland). However, only one country is ineligible to mine or drill those resources -- the
U.S. Thats because the U.S. is not a member of the international body that grants title, or property
rights, to countries to engage in the exploration of seabed resources. That body is called the International
Seabed Authority (ISA). Admittance into that body is accomplished via ratification of the Law of the Sea
Treaty. China is also utilizing LOTS and the ISA to aggressively pursue the wealth of the Arctic.
According to a report by Elisabeth Rosenthal in the New York Times last month, The Arctic has risen rapidly on
Chinas foreign policy agenda in the past two years, said Linda Jakobson, East Asia program director at the Lowy
Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Australia. So, she said, the Chinese are exploring how they could get involved.

LOST key to Arctic development

Snow 12 Nick Snow has covered oil and gas in Washington for more than 30 years. He worked in several capacities for The

Oil Daily and was founding editor of Petroleum Finance Week before joining OGJ as its Washington correspondent in September
2005 and becoming its full-time Washington editor in October 2007. (7/9/2012, Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, US should ratify Law of
the Sea treaty, Senate panel told, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-7a/general-interest/us-should-ratify-law-ofthe-sea.html // SM)
It's becoming increasingly urgent for the US to join the Law of the Sea treaty, witnesses from the American Petroleum
Institute and other business organizations told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 28. "This treaty would

give
us an opportunity to develop more of our own Outer Continental Shelf, particularly in the
Arctic where an estimated 25% of the world's remaining energy resources lie," API Pres. Jack
N. Gerard said. He explained that Canada, Russia, Norway, and other countries that already are
active in the Arctic sit on the council of the International Seabed Authority, which the treaty
established. "Some have already filed claims," Gerard said. "We are sitting on the sidelines and
could wake up 30 years from now with less than what we deserve because we didn't come on
board now."

Ratifying LOST is a prerequisite to arctic exploration and development

Gardner 12 [Robert Gardner, Robert recently earned a B.A. in Political Science from Denison
University. Robert focused his studies on foreign policy, US Must Ratify Law of Sea
Convention, June 13 2012, http://www.americansecurityproject.org/us-must-ratify-law-of-seaconvention/, MM]
Tensions over resource claims in the Arctic have come a long way since Russia planted a flag on
the North Poles seabed to claim the entire region in 2007, but challenges remain especially to
United States interests. Five out of six nations bordering the Arctic are settling their claims to
the Arctic seabed while the US is stuck on the sidelines The US could be left out of
valuable Arctic resources if it does not ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS), the legal authority on the status of Arctic resources. 162 nations,
including all nations bordering the Arctic, except the US, are party to the treaty. Nations are
claiming portions of the Arctic seabed based on the extension of the continental shelves they lie
on and existing territorial agreements. The UNCLOS Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf is currently considering states territorial claims to Arctic seabed, where
resources could be recovered. Canada, Denmark (for Greenland), Norway, Iceland, and Russia
have all put fourth claims for Arctic seabed on their extended continental shelves. Without being
party to the treaty, the US cannot make claims to Arctic seabed beyond 200 miles off its coast, as
designated by the treaty. The US is literally on the outside looking in as nations divide valuable
resources it could be legally claiming. The US continental shelf is estimated to extend at least
600 miles into the Arctic Sea off the coast of Alaska. This region, called the Arctic Alaska
Province, is an incredibly recourse richest area, estimated by the USGS to hold 29.96 billion
barrels of oil and 72 billion barrels of natural gas (about 33% of technically recoverable oil and
18% of technically recoverable gas in the Arctic). Supporters of the treaty assert that through
acquiring resource rights, the US could substantially increase its domestic oil and natural gas
production in the long term. Such production would lead to greater US energy security and
greater investment and employment in the energy sector. With the US now having so much to
lose and a great deal to gain, supporters of the treaty have been pushing congress to ratify
UNCLOS. The treaty has been overwhelming backed by US industries, military officials,
previous presidential administrations and the Obama administration as a way to confirm
US sovereignty in Arctic. Yet, a small opposition to the treaty remains. The opposition
asserts that US should be advancing its resource claims without ratifying what they believe to be
a constraining international agreement. Opposition leaders claim that US territorial disputes
over the Arctic (with Canada) should be settled through bilateral treaties, not UNCLOS.
Secretary of State Clinton attempted to debunk this argument in a recent Senate Foreign
Relations Committee hearing. Clinton asserted that companies have expressed their need for
the maximum level of international legal certainty before they will or could make the
substantial investments in expensive and risky Arctic exploration. In addition Clinton stated
our ability to challenge other countries behavior should stand on the firmest and most
persuasive legal footing available. Supporting Clinton, the chairman of Lockheed Martin (along
with other business leaders) has written to the senate supporting the treaty, saying investment
in the region is only going to be secured for rights clearly recognized and protected within the
established treaty-based framework. In sum , companies wont drill in the Arctic until
they are backed by the legal framework of UNCLOS. UNCLOS provides the legal
certainty companies need; bi-lateral treaties wont cut it. Treaty critics and supporters will
continue to debate UNCLOS in a second round of hearings this Thursday. Congressional
supporters hope to stomp out critics claims before holding a vote on legislation that could
change the course of US energy development and international resource management. Further

explanation of UNCLOS can be found in Andrew Hollands Race for Arctic Energy Resources
Shows Need for U.S. to Ratify Law of the Sea Treaty.

Arctic Access Impact Prolif, Drugs,

Terrorism
The aff is key to freedom of the seas solves terrorism, drug trafficking, and prolif
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)
2. The Convention Protects the United States National Security Interest in the Arctic
The opening of the Arctic Ocean could become a source of new drilling, shipping, fishing, and other
opportunities to the United States. However, with more open and accessible waters, the long and unprotected border in the

Arctic could also become a potential terrorist and drug trafficking entry. In order to
protect the United States security interests in the Arctic and worldwide, the United States armed forces must be
able to navigate freely on, over, and under the oceans.
The Convention preserves key rights of navigation and overflight. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense John
D. Negroponte, the Convention provides for a legal framework . . . [which] is essential to the mission of the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security . . . . 147 The Convention grants American ships the
right of innocent passage, allowing ships transit through the territorial seas of foreign countries without having to provide advance
notice or request permission.
Moreover, the Convention establishes the right of transit passage through international straits such as the
Straits of Singapore and Malacca or the Strait of Gibraltar. This right, which

is absolutely critical to U.S. national

security, may not be suspended, hampered, or infringed upon by coastal States. 148 Also, the Convention creates the
Archipelagic sea lanes passage that allows transit through routes in archipelagic states, such as
Indonesia. 149 Additionally, the provisions creating EEZ give the American military the ability to position, patrol,
and operate forces freely in, below, and above those littoral waters.150
Finally, the Convention secures the right of American warships to operate on the high seas, which is a
critically important element of maritime security operations, counter-narcotic operations,
and anti- proliferation efforts. 151 The Conventions navigational rights led to its
support by all branches of the military: Secretary Gates, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Military Department
Secretaries, all of the Combatant Commanders, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard.152

xt: Arctic Tension High

Russia is moving into the Arctic, there is a new cold war rising from this arctic
conflict
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer

http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for

Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)

There Is a New Cold War . Russia and China, two of Americas most powerful strategic foes,
are actively exploring the Arctic and Pacific for oil, gas and seabed mineral riches. The U.S. is
not. Why? Because, Russia and China have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty and the U.S. hasnt.
Without ratifying LOTS, the U.S. has no standing to apply for mining and drilling permits under
international law. Bottom line: there is a new Cold War taking place, and America is not winning.
The seabed holds trillions of dollars of mineral resources. According to RT, a Russian/English news channel,
Russian Foreign Ministry official Alexander Gorban last month stated his hope that there will
never be a war for resources or an even hotter conflict in the Arctic Region. In the next
breath, he then went on to reiterate that Russia is indeed "trying to fight for the Arctic shelf Gorban is a
close Putin ally and his acknowledgement that Arctic conflict is possible demonstrates the global stakes in play. Russia is not
alone in recognizing the value of the LOTS in the fight for global resource dominance. Five
countries border the Arctic: Russia, the U.S. (via Alaska), Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland). However, only
one country is ineligible to mine or drill those resources -- the U.S. Thats because the U.S. is not a
member of the international body that grants title, or property rights, to countries to engage in
the exploration of seabed resources. That body is called the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Admittance
into that body is accomplished via ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Arctic competition is ramping up now
Terry Macalister July 6th, 2011 The Guardian US and Russia stir up political tensions over Arctic

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/06/us-russia-political-tensions-arctic (Terry Macalister is energy editor of the

Guardian. He has been employed at the paper and website for 12 years and previously worked for the Independent and other
national titles.) (MG)
The seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in May looked set be a mundane affair, with its focus on signing a new searchand-rescue agreement and handover of the chairmanship to Sweden. But the atmosphere in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, was
electrified by the first visit to such a forum by the United States, courtesy of the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, secretary of the
interior Ken Salazar, and a host of other heavy-hitters. The message was clear: the US is putting itself at the centre of

the debate about the future of the far north at a time when a new oil and mineral "cold rush" is
under way as global warming makes extraction more easy. And being the US, the soft diplomacy
was backed up with a bit of symbolic hardware. A few weeks earlier two nuclear-powered
submarines were sent to patrol 150 miles north of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Meanwhile Russia
also on the eight-nation council was happy to push off the agenda any idea that countries such
as China could gain observer status. The US navy move comes as Russia is said to have increased
missile testing in the region and Norway has moved its main military base to the far north .
Meanwhile China has started to woo countries such as Greenland, which are rich in rare earth minerals needed for mobile phones
and other hi-tech equipment. The competing commercial interests in the Arctic are complicated by the

lack of a comprehensive agreement on who owns what. Many countries are in the process of
submitting competing land claims to the UN as part of its Law of the Sea Convention a treaty
as yet unsigned by the US . Canada and others were also disturbed when Artur Chilingarov, a veteran
Russian polar explorer, placed a flag on the Arctic seabed in 2007. He told reporters his mission was to show the
Arctic was Russian, adding: "We must prove the north pole is an extension of the Russian
landmass." Canada took exception to the Russian move, seeing it as provocative, but Moscow dismissed the furore, insisting it
was a theatrical gesture by a scientist hired by private companies to make the descent. But it is telling that the following year

Chilingarov also a member of the state parliament was awarded a new title, Hero of the Russian Federation. Concerns

about a new cold war if not just a cold rush have led academics such as Rob Huebert, a professor of
political science at the University of Calgary, to warn in a recent paper prepared for the Canadian Defence
and Foreign Affairs Institute that "an arms race may be beginning". Huebert says he has heard the Russian
prime minister, Vladimir Putin, talking of the need to establish a "zone of peace" in the Arctic but sees contrary actions as
well. "Not withstanding the public statements of peace and co-operation in the Arctic issued by the Arctic states, tThe strategic
value of the region is growing. As this value grows, each state will attach a greater value to their
own national interests in the region. The Arctic states may be talking co-operation, but they are
preparing for conflict." Meanwhile Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's supreme allied commander in Europe, in a foreword to a
recent Whitehall Ppaper published by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London, argued: "For
now, the disputes in the north have been dealt with peacefully, but climate change could alter
the equilibrium over the coming years in the race of temptation for exploitation of more readily
accessible natural resources." Stavridis believes military assets, such as coastguards, have an important role to play with
international co-ordination in the area but mainly for specialist assistance around commercial and other interests. He added:
"The cascading interests and broad implications stemming from the effects of climate change

should cause today's global leaders to take stock, and unify their efforts to ensure the Arctic
remains a zone of co-operation rather than proceed down the icy slope towards a zone of
competition, or worse a zone of conflict." Huebert points out that as well as opening a new ultra-hi-tech operations

centre inside a mountain at Reitan, in the far north of Norway, Oslo is also spending unprecedented money on new military
hardware, not least five top-of-the-range frigates. The class of vessel is called Fridtjof Nansen, after the famous polar explorer, which
perhaps indicates where the navy plans to deploy them. Meanwhile Canada's then foreign minister, Lawrence Cannon, voiced
confidence his nation would win the territory. "We will exercise sovereignty in the Arctic," he told his Russian counterpart in talks in
Moscow. But optimists say the fears are exaggerated and point to positive developments, not least Norway and Russia agreeing a
mutually acceptable boundary line dividing up the Barents Sea. A partnership between Russia, Norway, the US and Britain has been
quietly and successfully working away at decommissioning nuclear submarines and tackling other radioactive waste problems in the
Kola Peninsula and Arkhangelsk regions. One former foreign minister told the Guardian: "We want to avoid complacency but all this
alarmist talk of meltdown should be shunned. The Arctic is quite pacific. It is not a place of turmoil but an area of low tension."
However, Paul Berkman, director of the Arctic Ocean geopolitics programme at the Scott Polar Research Institute, believes the
deluge of books and features highlighting
" You

potential problems cannot be dismissed as melodrama .

have to ask why are these alarming and alarmist headlines being written and

it may be there is unfinished business from the Cold War ." Whether hype or not, he argues that
it is necessary to both promote cooperation and prevent conflict . "There is no room for
complacency and while tensions are low there is opportunity to address the risks of political, economic and cultural instabilities that
are inherent consequences of the environmental state-change in the Arctic Ocean." Inuit leaders are already concerned that the talk
of industrialisation and mineral wealth in the Arctic will increase tension. Aqqaluk Lynge, former chairman of the indigenous
peoples' forum, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, described himself as "nervous" about current developments. " There is a
military build-up and an increase in megaphone diplomacy We do not want a return to the
cold war," he said. This article was amended on 6 July 2011 to make clear that Lawrence Cannon is no longer the Canadian
foreign minister.

Russia/US ties are on the fritz

Richard Galpin March 17, 2014 BBC Echoes of Cold War as US-Russia ties plummet http://www.bbc.com/news/world-

europe-26622299 (Richard graduated from Oxford University in 1985 with a degree in Modern History, before completing a
postgraduate course in journalism at City University in 1987. Richard Galpin is the BBC's Athens correspondent. Prior to his latest
role, he was the BBC's Jakarta correspondent from 1999 to 2002.) (MG)

Not since the end of the Cold War more than 20 years ago have Russia and the West been on
such a collision course. The spiral into which the two sides are descending is gathering momentum now that the referendum
in Crimea is over and officials there say 97% of voters opted to join Russia. You need go no further than Russia's state-run Rossiya 1
TV station to get a sense of the extent to which relations between Moscow and Washington have now

plummeted since the halcyon days of the "reset" in 2009. In a news review programme on Sunday evening, the
presenter - well known for his loyalty to the Kremlin - stood in front of a backdrop photograph of a nuclear bomb exploding.
"Russia is the only country in the world which has the capability of turning the United States

into radioactive dust," he said. And he was not joking. On the other side of the divide, President Obama has
announced that he will travel to Europe next week and his Vice-President Joe Biden will be
visiting Poland and Lithuania. "Our message is clear," said Mr Obama. "As Nato allies we have a solemn commitment to

our collective defence and we will uphold this." The

switch from diplomacy to confrontation was inevitable

after Russia ignored persistent calls from the West to withdraw its troops from Crimea and put a
halt to the referendum there. Since then Moscow has continued to push ahead at a relentless pace, announcing that on
Tuesday afternoon local time, President Putin will address a special gathering in the Kremlin of members of parliament. A few hours
later on Red Square, there will be a concert entitled "We are together". Could it be that just two days after the referendum, President
Vladimir Putin will declare that Russia will begin the process of annexing Crimea? There are other indications this could be the case.
On Monday a senior member of parliament was asked if a decision had already been taken in principle to bring Crimea into the
Russian Federation. "There can be no other decision in principle," he said. As Russia has forged ahead on what seems an
unstoppable course, so the US and EU have responded with a round of sanctions. Both have targeted officials
in Crimea and Russia whom they accuse of involvement in the military intervention in Crimea and the vote on secession. But

Washington has gone for much more powerful politicians and advisers. At the top of its list is Vladislav

Surkov, a close aide of President Putin. In the past decade he was the chief ideologue who helped create the authoritarian brand of
government or "vertical of power", at the top of which Mr Putin still stands. Number two on the list is another top aide, Sergei
Glazyev, the president's point man on Ukraine. The nine others include the head of the upper house of the Russian parliament, the
deputy prime minister and the leader of the ethnic Russians in Crimea. But it is far from clear if any of these officials have assets in
the US such as bank accounts, shares or property, which can now be frozen. And the response from those on the hit-list has been
dismissive. "I view the decision by the Washington administration as recognition of my services to Russia," presidential aide
Vladislav Surkov told the Moskovskiy Komsomolets newspaper. "This is a great honour for me," Mr Surkov said, adding that he did
not have any accounts abroad. And what if Mr Putin does announce on Tuesday that Russia will annexe Crimea? Who or what will be
targeted in the West's next round of sanctions? And what if Mr Putin does send his troops into Eastern Ukraine? What then would
the West's reaction be in this new Cold War?

US-Russia War underway this angers Americans because it causes economic

hardships
Voice Of Russia 7/1/14 paulcraigroberts.org US War Against Russia Is Already Underway PCR Interviewed by

Voice of Russia http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/01/us-war-russia-already-underway-pcr-interviewed-voice-russia/

(MG)

US war against Russia is already underway. How true is the spreading belief that President Obama has ruined US

foreign policy, and how does it actually work? The Voice of Russia is discussing it with Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant secretary
of the US Treasury, currently the chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. VOR: The US media is pointing to a growing
dissatisfaction with President Obamas foreign policy, both among Republicans and Democrats. Speaking at the Faith and Freedom
Coalitions conference in Washington Sen. Ted Cruz said Abroad, we see our foreign policy collapsing and every region in the world
is getting more and more dangerous. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll has registered an increasing lack of
faith in the president and his leadership, with 58 per cent of Americans disapproving of the way Obama is

handling foreign policy. What is it that makes Americans unhappy? Paul Craig Roberts: Well, I think, perhaps, Americans
are catching on to all of the lies. There are now other sources of information, other than the English-speaking Western media. And
the account that the US gives, for example, of Ukraine is clearly a lie. And it takes a while before people catch on to the lies. I dont
think the majority will ever catch on, but enough will. And then many Americans who are dissatisfied would be

dissatisfied for domestic economic reasons. They would want the resources wasted on wars to be
allocated to domestic needs and not used to pay for more wars. For example, the Iraq crisis has
come back and there is so much talk about sending troops to the Baltics, eastern Europe in order
to guard against the Russian threat. So, this alarms people whove had no income growth, who
cant find a job, suffer from heavy debts from borrowed money to attend the universities, cut
backs of unemployment compensation, the threats to the social security system, the threats to
the public medical system (which is not much of a system, but still some people rely on it). So, most Americans,
when they see more trouble abroad involving more wars, understand that the wars mean more
economic hardship for them. The US has been in war for 13 years. Its wasted trillions of dollars and
achieved no result. And so, this is probably the main reason that people are dissatisfied, because
they are suffering here for the sake of wars in which they no longer believe.
Russia poses a huge nuclear threat to the US
CrisisBoom 1/21/12 Russian Threats of Nuclear War Grow Louder http://crisisboom.com/2012/01/21/russian-threatsof-nuclear-war-grow-louder/ (MG)

The most recent threats of nuclear war come from the Russian foreign minister. Foreign minister

Sergey Lavrov is threatening a very big war with suffering across the world if the west encourages anti-government uprisings in
the Middle East and North Africa. Russian threats of nuclear attack started out in Georgia back in 2008. These threats expanded to
the trans-Caspian gas pipeline. Then they moved onto the expansion of NATO. Then onto Iran and Syria.

Now these threats have expanded onto the entire Middle East and North Africa. Does anybody
see a problem here? Back in August of 2008 we got a first taste of Russias nuclear threats: Moscow has issued an

extraordinary warning to the West that military assistance to Georgia for use against South Ossetia or Abkhazia would be viewed as a
declaration of war by Russia. Military help for Georgia is a declaration of war, says Moscow in extraordinary warning to the West.
Later Russia

issues an implied nuclear threat if Georgia joins NATO. Obviously, attack on Georgia

would then be an attack on NATO which would quickly go nuclear . Russias foreign minister
says Georgias
entry to NATO could lead to war. Here Russia threatens to use military force to stop Europes oil pipeline project with
Turkmenistan. This would obviously go nuclear if Europe (NATO) fought back . Was Moscow bluffing? ..
has warned of a repetition of its 2008 war with Georgia if the South Caucasus state joins NATO. Russia

Threats to prevent the construction of a trans-Caspian gas pipeline by military force are also a form of Kremlin art: bluff in their
substance, even if brutal in their form. Pursuant to President Dmitry Medvedev and the Russian Security Councils October 14
decision (see EDM, October 21), Moscow is undertaking diplomatic and political countermeasures to the EU-planned gas pipeline
from Turkmenistan to Europe. Bluff In Substance, Brutal In Form: Moscow Warns Against Trans-Caspian Project Some may forgive
Russia for casually throwing out nuclear threats because Georgia and Turmenistan are right on its border. But the threats keep

expanding. Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces implies that anymore eastward
expansion of NATO could lead to nuclear war. Russia is facing a heightened risk of being drawn
into conflicts at its borders that have the potential of turning nuclear, the nations top military officer said
Thursday. Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, cautioned over NATOs
expansion eastward and warned that the risks of Russia being pulled into local conflicts have
risen sharply. Makarov added, according to Russian news agencies, that under certain conditions local
and regional conflicts may develop into a full-scale war involving nuclear
weapons . A steady decline in Russias conventional forces has prompted the Kremlin to rely
increasingly on its nuclear deterrent. Makarov warned that the planned pullout of NATO forces from
Afghanistan could trigger conflicts in neighboring ex-Soviet Central Asian nations that could
grow into a large-scale war. In its military doctrine, Russia has also described U.S. missile
defense plans as another major security challenge, saying it could threaten its
nuclear forces and undermine their deterrence potential . Russian Military Chief
Warns of Nuclear War Risks. Here we have the Russian ambassador to NATO threatening
nuclear war if the west attacks Iran.
Putin is looking for a new cold war
Olga Oliker March 5th, 14 CNNWorld Does Putin Want a New Cold War?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/does-putin-want-a-new-cold-war/ (MG)

Russian troops appear in control of Crimea. Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly said
the possibility still exists that Russian forces could be sent deeper into Ukraine to defend
the rights of protesting ethnic Russians. Russias much-voiced belief in principles of sovereignty,
it seems, have been trumped by its long-held view that ethnic Russians must be protected,
wherever they may live. Two competing narratives are at work. In the narrative heard in the United States and Europe,
democracy-seeking protesters forced Russias puppet president from office and are building a new government, which represents
Ukraines Western values. In Russias narrative, a freely elected government was illegally deposed as a result

of street violence encouraged by the United States and EU. Ukraine is in chaos, with ultranationalists threatening ethnic Russians throughout the country. Washington and Brussels saw
Russia invade Ukraine. Looking from Moscow, Russian troops are trying to bring peace and stability to a neighboring state

on the verge of civil war. In an ideal universe, all sides could come to the table to hammer out a solution in which Russian troops
leave Crimea (and certainly do not go elsewhere in Ukraine), Ukraine holds free and fair elections to select a new government that
represents its people, and the rights of all Ukrainians are guaranteed to the satisfaction of all parties. But if it were that easy, the
situation would not have escalated to this point. Some believe that the United States and EU should take strong steps, including
possibly the use of force (or at least moving around some military equipment and personnel) to get Russia out. They argue that

in Ukraine today, the United States faces a new Munich, with Crimea as the Sudetenland. But Western military
action is highly unlikely: The United States and Europe have no commitment to defend Ukraine, not because the West didnt think
this could happen, but rather because it knew that it could. Among the myriad reasons Ukraine is not a NATO member is the fact
that Western leaders have known all along that were Russia to take military action against Ukraine, the members of the alliance did

not want to be obligated to fight on Kievs behalf a war that stood the (small but real) risk of nuclear escalation. Thus, while the West
wants Russian forces out of Ukraine, it will try to attain that through diplomatic and economic means, not by adding to the troops on
the ground. This is smart policy not just because of the threat of escalation. While Russia is

genuinely nervous about what has happened in Ukraine, Putins decision to send troops is also a
statement to the West that he will have none of its bullying, and that he is willing to stand up to
any sort of pressure or punishment. From a Western perspective, it makes little sense for Russia
to seek to annex Crimea or East Ukraine. The occupation of the latter, at least, would over time
prove painful and costly, and unless Russia moves quickly towards a political solution, it will
have destroyed all hope of a reasonable relationship with the United States and the EU states
going forward. But from Putins point of view, the deterioration of these relationships may not
be such a terrible thing. Its possible that what Putin wants out of all this, aside from
protection of Russian speakers the world over, is, if not a new Cold War,
something very like one. After all, during the old Cold War, Moscow was strong,
its interests respected, its prestige on par with that of Washington . If this is indeed what
Putin wants, the smart policy, and the long game, is to simultaneously show global anger at his actions while demonstrating that
grabbing bits of Ukraine will not, in fact, get Russia global respect or influence. That said, designing and implementing policies that
effectively send these signals, and continue to do so over time, will be a challenge Brussels and Washington must simultaneously
avoid actions that let Russia feel its being treated as a dangerous enemy, but make it clear that it needs the West more than the
reverse. In the short term, it may not be possible to get Russian troops out of Crimea through economic sanctions, the freezing of
assets, the exclusion of Russia from the G8 or other reasonable steps now on the table. In the long term, the United States has to
make sure that the response to Russia doesnt stop there. The United States and EU states should continue
political, economic, and military cooperation with Ukraine, helping ensure that, even with
Russia occupying Crimea, a new and representative government is elected, takes power, and
moves forward with reforms, while respecting the rights of all ethnic groups and minorities.

Meanwhile, cooperation with Russia in other areas, including those touted as examples of the importance of the partnership, such as
transport routes in and out of Afghanistan, can be scaled down wherever feasible. At the same time, actions that can be interpreted
in Moscow as escalatory and that suggest that Russia poses a true threat should be avoided. Ultimately, the door to improved

relations, following the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine, should be left open. No iron
curtain should be allowed to settle over Europe. Instead, it behooves Western leaders to show Putin that the
invasion of Crimea is not in his, or Russias, best interest.

xt: LOST Solves Conflict

LOST solves Arctic competition the Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf resolves disputes
King 7 Andrew King is currently an associate at Archer Norris, a law corporation. Education: University of California, Hastings

College of the Law, San Francisco, J.D., 2007 Witkin Awards for Excellence: Remedies; Mediation; and American West Law,
Culture & Environment CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Pretrial Practice Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Member,
2005 - 2006 Best Moot Court Brief (2005); Best Moot Court Oralist, Honorable Mention (2005) University of York, York, England,
B.A., with first class honors, 2000 Nominated for Royal Historical Society Prize for Undergraduate Dissertation (2007, Andrew,
Thawing a Frozen Treaty: Protecting United States Interests in the Arctic with a Congressional-Executive Agreement on the Law of
the Sea, http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V34/I2/king.pdf - III. Brief History of UNCLOS, the CLCS Provision for
Resolving Territorial Disputes, and the Tortuous Path of the Treaty in the Senate // SM)
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a long-time work-in-progress international maritime law.
Initially completed in 1982, the treaty provides for governance and dispute resolution on a multitude of issues involving the worlds
oceans. Chief among these are navigational rights, territorial sea limits, economic jurisdiction, legal status of resources on the
seabed. . . , passage of ships through narrow straits, conservation and management of living marine resources, protection of the
marine environment. . . and, a more unique feature, a binding procedure for settlement of disputes between States . . . .27 The
United Nations (U.N.) characterizes

UNCLOS as an unprecedented attempt by the international

community to regulate all aspects of the resources of the sea and uses of the ocean, and thus bring
a stable order to mankinds very source of life.28 Of chief significance for the Arctic region is Article 76 of
the Convention and Annex II, which establishes a Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf to assess each Arctic nations territorial claims. Article 76 appears under Part VI of the Convention, which
is concerned with the continental shelf.3 When the conventions framers debated this topic during the 197os drafting period, they
were pondering the rich bounty of. . . resources and uses . . . found underneath the waves on and under the ocean floor, including
oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, and diamonds. In particular, they were wrestling with the following questions: What should be the
extent of a coastal States jurisdiction over these resources? Where and how should the lines demarcating their continental shelves
be drawn?32 UNCLOS begins to answer these questions in the first section of Article 76. It defines the continental

shelf of a coastal state as comprising the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend
beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer
edge of the continental margin . . . .33 In the alternative, where the outer edge of the continental margin does not

extend up to that distance, the continental shelf will be adjudged a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which
the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.34 Furthermore, where the continental margin extends beyond 200 miles, nations
may claim jurisdiction up to 350 miles from the baseline or 100 miles from the 2,500 metre depth, depending on certain criteria
such as the thickness of sedimentary deposits.35 So why does any of this matter for the realpolitik of the modern Arctic great game?
Well, Article 77, the kicker to its immediate numerical predecessor, declares in simple yet powerful language that [t]he

coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it
and exploiting its natural resources.36 Of course, if, as is the case in the Arctic Ocean, a seabed appears to be a natural
resource treasure trove beyond the standard-issue 200 miles, a coastal state will do its very best to claim jurisdiction all the way up
to the 350-mile limit. Icebreaker and nuclear submarines have surveyed only a small fraction of the Arctic to date, and now various
countries are mounting new mapping expeditions to claim the most territory they can.37 Section 8 of Article 76 provides insight as
to how UNCLOS would evaluate such a claim. It indicates that a U.N. entity known as the Commission on the Limits of

the Continental Shelf (CLCS), established under Annex II to the Convention, will consider [i]nformation
on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles which shall be submitted by
the coastal State.38 CLCS will then review the data and make recommendations to coastal States
on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf. 39 Section 8
states that [t]he limits of the shelf established by a coastal State on the basis of these
recommendations shall be final and binding.4 Annex II requires that the CLCS consist of 21
members who shall be experts in the field of geology, geophysics or hydrography, elected by
States Parties to this Convention from among their nationals, having due regard to the need to
ensure equitable geographical representation, who shall serve in their personal capacities.4' Annex II also
establishes limits on the duties of the CLCS. For example, Annex II requires the CLSC to consider scientific data provided by a
coastal state only where it is claiming jurisdiction in excess of 200 nautical miles, to provide scientific and technical advice on
information gathering, and to render recommendations to party states on their territorial claims within the limits of Article 76.42

Article 76 does not describe CLCS as the final arbiter of international disputes; rather it alludes to the Commission
as something of a dispute- resolution forum . If a coastal state accepts a CLCS recommendation and
the

establishes its continental shelf limit accordingly, it is possible that it could not later argue for enlargement of that limit. In

crowded Arctic Ocean region, the CLCS will likely have to analyze competing claims of natural
prolongation of competitors continental shelves. It appears especially problematic in the Arctic because, as Peter
Croker, current Chair of the CLCS observed: Its the only place where a number of countries encircle an enclosed ocean. There is a
lot of overlap. If you take a normal coastal state, the issues are limited to adjoining states and an outer boundary. In the Arctic, it is
quite different.44 In one of its first acts in the frozen North, the CLCS recently ruled against the 2001 Russian

submission by rejecting its claim to a greater share of the Arctic and instructing it to reconsider
and resubmit its claim.45 When UNCLOS was first completed in 1982 it reflected longstanding U.S. negotiating

objectives but still contained provisions on deep seabed mining at odds with U.S. interests.46 President Ronald Reagan rejected
the treaty due to these concerns but praised its many positive and very significant accomplishments, and in 1983 issued an Ocean
Policy Statement announcing the U.S. intention to generally abide by the terms of UNCLOS. Four years of negotiations on deep
seabed mining began in 1990 and resulted in amendments that resolved the Reagan administrations earlier problems with the
Convention. President Bill Clinton signed the amended UNCLOS on July 29, 1994, and on October 7, 1994 submitted it to the
Senate for its advice and consent as required under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. On November 16, 1994, one year after
Guyana became the sixtieth party to ratify the Convention, UNCLOS officially went into force. Nearly twelve years later, all of

the Arctic coastal states have ratified UNCLOS and have begun to submit claims to CLCS based
on the natural prolongation of their respective continental shelves.

LOST solves SCS and Arctic conflicts

Breed 7/5 (Jonathan Breed, Adjunct Fellow at the ASP and is a veteran U.S. Naval Officer and
serves as a reserve officer for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, was the Executive Assistant
and Special Projects Officer to the Director, Navy International Engagement, "The United States
Must Sign and Ratify the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea", July 5 2014,
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/the-united-states-must-sign-and-ratify-the-u-nconvention-of-the-law-of-the-sea/)
In May, President Obama stood before newly commissioned Army officers at the United States Military Academy and called on the
Senate to ratify the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This appeal is not new. Presidents Clinton and Bush

both understood the importance of this treaty, and since the Convention opened for signature in 1982, our top
military leaders have said that ratification is in the direct interest of U.S. national security. The Senate, however, will not
act. One hundred and sixty-two countries, including China and Russia, are signatory to the treaty that governs the worlds oceans.
It is worth noting that seven coastal nations, including Syria and Venezuela, join the United States in refusing the accord. The
Senates rejection of this important treaty has led top decision and policy makers to operate
under the spirit of the law. This means that the United States abides by the rules and regulations of
the treaty while forfeiting the legal rights, privileges and protections most importantly those dealing with
freedom of navigation, territorial and economic zones and dispute mediation. As a former active duty Naval Officer, I say that it is
time to move forward. During my time at sea in the Western Pacific Ocean, I not only witnessed the rising tensions between
the U.S. and China, but I have also seen how disputes over territories like the Parcel and Senkaku Islands and
the Scarborough and Thomas Shoals have eroded regional security and stability among countries like the
Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, China and Japan. As these Pacific nations increase military spending budges and engage in
hawkish rhetoric, the United States must establish itself as a credible advocate of peace and security.

Not participating in UNCLOS directly undermines our ability to do this. As the President recently stated:
Its a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the Sea
Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it. As the world watches a standoff develop
in the South China Sea, the United States must stay focused on future threats. In the newly released National
Climate Assessment, experts say that warm conditions in the Arctic will yield new sea-lanes through the region by 2030. By mid
century, models predict that the region will be largely ice-free. In simple terms, the United States government must

do
something that it has never done. Plan for a new ocean. If the situation in the South China Sea is to be used as a
model, the rush to claim new territory and establish land boundaries for the purpose of oil, gas and mineral exploration will stress
already fragile relationships between Arctic nations. In particular, Russia and the United States will once again find themselves in a
race for regional power and influence. In Washington, DC, military, diplomatic, and national security planners recognize this fact
and are already formulating new strategies and policies to prepare for this challenge. The United States Congress should also do its
part. With all Arctic countries bound by UNCLOS, nations can enter into this new geopolitical scenario with established and tested
rules. Not having rules by which to operate has the potential to elevate tensions between the

United States and Russia to levels not seen since the Cold War. Regardless of how our politicians feel about
UNCLOS, the United States will be faced with an ice-free Arctic ocean by 2050. The United States will also be force to engage with
Russia and other Arctic countries in new ways. If U.S. lawmakers want to maintain the American

advantage, they must do what the Pentagon, the State Department and the National Security
Council are already doing: understand future challenges facing this country and ensure America
is adequately prepared to confront them. The United States Senate role in this is ratifying the
Convention of the Law of the Sea.
LOST prevents Arctic conflicts and future wars
Burt 12 (Andrew, a Knight Law and Media Scholar at Yale Law School, writes about
international affairs, security policy and American politics for The Atlantic, The Christian
Science Monitor and El Pais, "Why U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty ", May 25
2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/229559-why-us-senate-shouldratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty)
The second reason the treatys importance is increasing is the Arctic. Last summer saw the lowest total

volume of Arctic ice in recorded history, and the U.S. Navy estimates the region will be ice free one month out of the year by 2040.

As the ice melts, the Arctic is changing, opening up new shipping routes and new opportunities
to reach vast resources on the seabed. So long as the U.S. has not ratified the treaty, it will not
have access to the international body created by UNCLOS to delegate rights in these waters
rights that other Arctic countries are already in the process of shoring up. The good news is that, as of last
week, the administration appears to have taken up the cause. Accession to this treaty is absolutely essential,
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. We believe that it is imperative
to act now, said Hillary Clinton. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that the treaty might
even help prevent future wars by providing new venues to stave off conflict with less risk of
escalation.

Arctic Conlfict Scenario China

Signing into lost lets the US gain jobs, China is our main producer of goods, but
they are working their way into the Arctic now, and conflict will arise and we will
lose many of the items that we receive from China
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer
http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for
Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)

China is also utilizing LOTS and the ISA to aggressively pursue the wealth of the Arctic . According

to a report by Elisabeth Rosenthal in the New York Times last month, The Arctic has risen rapidly on Chinas foreign policy agenda
in the past two years, said Linda Jakobson, East Asia program director at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney,
Australia. So, she said, the Chinese are exploring how they could get involved. China is already playing the role of

the Russia of the Pacific. Right now, China is exploring U.S.-based mineral claims in the Pacific and
there is nothing the U.S. can do about it. China is acting within the framework of international
law and the U.S., because we have not ratified LOTS, has no standing in the International
Seabed Authority to challenge Chinas abuses. Another concern about Russia and China centers on rare earth
minerals which are found in abundance in the seabed. The U.S. requires an incredible number of military
products for which rare earth minerals are essential. Those products have historically been manufactured here in
the U.S., and ought to be. The U.S. also faces a serious munitions problem: today, a tremendous number of our bullets are
manufactured in Chinameaning that if we find ourselves cross-wise with the Chinese, they can cut off our supply of bullets.

When it comes to high-end military hardware, it is essential that America be self-reliant, not
reliant on China and Russia for the minerals needed for our own defense products and national
security. Over 160 nations have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty during the past 20
years . The U.S. now stands alone with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and sad smattering of
third world and disreputable nations in turning our backs on the greatest opportunity for wealth
creation available on the globe today. In doing so, the U.S. is not losing jobs and economic
opportunity to BRIC nations and the rest of the world, we are surrendering them .
The Senate still has time to act to ratify LOTS and to set things right. This is the most important
economic agenda item the Congress can take up and they can still do it before the end of the
year. With one vote, the United States Senate has the power to unleash staggering economic
growth and jobs creation .
It is empirically proven, China and the US will go to war over an issue like the
arctic
Michael Vlahos June 26th, 2014 The National Interest History's Warning: A U.S.-China War Is Terrifyingly Possible
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/historys-warning-us-china-war-terrifyingly-possible-10754 (MG)

Many Americans believe that the United States and China have entered a long-term strategic
competition. The way we use competition in many ways resembles a literary trope. At the US Naval
War College, for example, we teach several historical case studies explicitly built around this narrative: Where a rising
power challenges the hegemon, and its aggressive bid only increases tensions
that at some point lead to military conflict . This is the story as much with Athens and
Sparta in classical Greece as with Britain and Germany in the early 20th century. The limitation of

such historical analogies is in how, perhaps unwittingly, they create for us expectations that only go in one direction. It might be
more helpful to contrast America and China today with a strategic competition that did not lead to war. This sort of comparison
encourages us to test our dynamics against similar forces within an historical situation thathowever strategically alarming at the
timedid not end in war. Is our situation similarly stable (at a deep level), or should we really be worried? Happily, there is a
startlingly familiarif mostly forgottenhistorical counterpoint. Here the United States is the British Empire, and China is the
United States: In 1861. Britain and America almost went to war during the winter of 1861-1862. We call it the Trent Affair. Why did

we almost go to war? Because the USin the midst of civil warwas in existential mode and on a strategic hair-trigger. Britain was
supplying high-tech weapons to the Confederacy, and also the delivery vehicles to get them past the Union blockade. Worse yet
Britain (along with France) might recognize the Confederacy at any moment. In the eyes of the Lincoln administration, Britain was a
real strategic threat. This is why the Britain-US analogy (as in the verse fragment above) is relevant: China is challenging

the US; the US is actively containing China across a great ocean; disputes between China and US
local allies threaten an incident, followed by crisis; both nations feel threatened by each other;
and thus, both countries increasingly see each other as strategic threats. Plus, both nations

fought each other in bloody war just a couple long generations back, in Korea , just
like Britain and the US did in 1812. But if Victorians seem too far-fetched and fantastical to tell us anything about today, the Trent
crisis is still the best metaphor we have for thinking through our strategic naval situation with China. The most important question it
asks us is this: When USS San Jacinto stopped and boarded a British flag vessel (Royal Mail Steamer Trent), forcibly (and illegally)
removing Confederate envoys to the United Kingdom and France, why was there no war? Remember, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic wanted war. Amanda Foremans bookA World On Firedescribes this amazingly intense Anglo-

American crisis, much worse that anything that has happened yet between the US and China. But war did not happen. Here are ten
reasons why war between Britain and the US did not happen. In contrast, stacked like historical cordwood, are ten darker indicators
why wardespite everything we saymight just happen between the United States and the Peoples

Republic of China. Number 1: Easy but overlookedBritish elites simply had no narrative of war with the US in 1861. Do no

discount this factor. In every war ever fought, The Narrative is the biggest (and the deepest) factor in the decision to go to war.
Because there was no developed canon of a British-American War, there was no constituency in place for conflict, and no collective
expectation waiting to be activated. There was not even a popular press playing out war stories about fighting Americans. Not so
today. The narrative is strong like a drumbeat, and everywhere you can read the likes of Americas Coming War With China. War
has not only been imagined, it already has its dramatic framing. In a score of breathlesswhat would war look likemedia
narratives, it has already been imagined. For their part, the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA)/ Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)
is lashed on by the dark symbols and legacies of the century of Chinese shame and degradationto ring in a restoration of Chinese
greatness.

Any conflict with China results in a US/China war

Robert Farley June 9th, 2014 The National Interest Asia's Greatest Fear: A U.S.-China War
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/asia-flames-us-china-war-10621 (MG)

How does the unthinkable happen? As we wind our way to the 100th anniversary of the events that culminated in World War I, the
question of unexpected wars looms large. What series of events could lead to war in East Asia, and how would that war play out?

The United States and China are inextricably locked in the Pacific Rims system of international
trade. Some argue that this makes war impossible, but then while some believed World War I inevitable, but

others similarly thought it impossible. In this article I concentrate less on the operational and tactical details of a US-China war, and
more on the strategic objectives of the major combatants before, during, and after the conflict. A war between the United

States and China would transform some aspects of the geopolitics of East Asia, but would also
leave many crucial factors unchanged. Tragically, a conflict between China and the US might be
remembered only as The First Sino-American War. How the War Would Start Fifteen years ago, the only

answers to How would a war between the Peoples Republic of China and the United States start? involved disputes over Taiwan or
North Korea. A Taiwanese declaration of independence, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or some similar triggering event
would force the PRC and the US reluctantly into war. This has changed. The expansion of Chinese interests and

capabilities means that we can envision several different scenarios in which direct military
conflict between China and the United States might begin. These still include a Taiwan scenario and North

Korea scenario, but now also involve disputes in the East and South China Seas, as well as potential conflict with India along the
Tibetan border. The underlying factors are the growth of Chinese power, Chinese dissatisfaction with

the US-led regional security system, and US alliance commitments to a variety of regional states.
As long as these factors hold, the possibility for war will endure. Whatever the trigger, the war does not
begin with a US pre-emptive attack against Chinese fleet, air, and land-based installations.
Although the US military would prefer to engage and destroy Chinese anti-access assets before
they can target US planes, bases, and ships, it is extremely difficult to envisage a scenario in
which the United States decides to pay the political costs associated with climbing the ladder of
escalation. Instead, the United States needs to prepare to absorb the first blow. This doesnt necessarily
mean that the U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S. Air Force (USAF) have to wait for Chinese missiles to rain down upon them, but the
United States will almost certainly require some clear, public signal of Chinese intent to escalate
to high-intensity, conventional military combat before it can begin engaging Chinese forces. If the
history of World War I gives any indication, the PLA will not allow the United States to fully mobilize in order to either launch a first
strike, or properly prepare to receive a first blow. At the same time, a bolt from the blue strike is unlikely. Instead, a brewing crisis

will steadily escalate over a few incidents, finally triggering a set of steps on the part of the US military that indicate to Beijing that
Washington is genuinely prepared for war. These steps will include surging carrier groups, shifting deployment to Asia from Europe
and the Middle East, and moving fighter squadrons towards the Pacific. At this moment, China will need to decide

whether to push forward or back down. On the economic side, Beijing and Washington will both
press for sanctions (the US effort will likely involve a multilateral effort), and will freeze each
others assets, as well as those of any co-belligerents. This will begin the economic pain for
capital and consumers across the Pacific Rim, and the rest of the world. The threat of high
intensity combat will also disrupt global shipping patterns, causing potentially severe
bottlenecks in industrial production.

Russia Containment Good

The American interest in the region is to control Russia
Zachary Fillingham No Date (No later than 2009-sources) Geopolitical Monitor Arctic Ownership Claims

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/arctic-ownership-claims-01990/ (Zachary holds a BA in International Relations from York

University and an MA in Chinese Studies from the University of London (SOAS)) (MG)

American interests in the region include : Limiting Russian economic and

military expansion into the area , pressing for the Northwest Passage to be classified as
international waters, and securing a favorable agreement with Canada on the Alaska-Yukon sea
border, location of the lucrative Arctic Alaska basin. American efforts to legally extend claims to
the Arctic continental shelf are complicated by the fact that America has yet to ratify the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, and is thus excluded from the legal process that other Arctic
states are engaged in.

Russia War Impacts

A Russia/US conflict results in a nuclear conflict, which will result in extinction
Press TV no date http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/20/359387/us-poking-russia-into-nuclear-war/ (MG)
The deployment of US-led NATO forces around Russia are provocations that can quickly
escalate to an all-out nuclear conflict, an analyst tells Press TV. Russia and the United States
and NATO are nuclear powers. If a war starts even on a conventional or a
skirmish level, this can quickly escalate to nuclear war and then all humanity is at
stake , William Jones, from the Executive Intelligence Review newsmagazine, said in an interview. He added that the nuclear
war will not be beneficial to anybody but there are a lot of people, who will push it anyhow thinking that somehow
they can win that war. Jones warned of the ominous consequences of the US-led NATOs plans to
beef up its military forces closer to Russia, saying it would provoke the Russians to react. The
analyst warned that NATO looks to be drawing the borders of the old Cold War pretty steadily and
[is] pushing them further east. He cast doubt on NATOs declared intention to bring stability back to crisis-stricken
Ukraine, saying the Russian government fears that the alliance may have other intentions, including to bring Ukraine into its own
orbit. And I think that is a trip wire. That is a trip wire to war if measures are taken which could effectively pull Ukraine out of all
relations, all effective relationships with Russia, then I think that becomes close to a casus belli, Jones said. The commentators
remarks came after reports said that Washington plans to deploy troops to Poland and Estonia to conduct drills with its allies. The
US is to send 150 troops to participate in nearly two weeks of military exercises. The planned exercises by the US are part of a
broader NATO plan to expand its presence in East Europe. Over the past two months, the US has beefed up its presence

in East Europe as Ukraine grapples with spiraling crisis. Tensions between the Western powers and Moscow

heightened after Crimea declared independence from Ukraine and formally applied to become part of the Russian Federation
following a referendum on March 16, in which nearly 97 percent of voters in Crimea said yes to reunion with Russia. Russia said on
Saturday that NATOs further enlargement will change European security structure, posing a serious threat to Moscow. Relations

between Russia and NATO have been at their worst since Crimea's reunification with Russia.
A nuclear war with Russia is not far off, and will cause destruction
Peter Weber March 5th, 2014 The Week What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like (Peter Weber is a senior editor at TheWeek.com,

and has handled the editorial night shift since the website launched in 2008. A graduate of Northwestern University, Peter has
worked at Facts on File and The New York Times Magazine.) (MG)
The chances that the U.S. and Russia will clash militarily over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine are very, very slim. Ukraine isn't a
member of NATO, and President Obama isn't likely to volunteer for another war. But many of Ukraine's neighbors are NATO
members, including Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Hungary. And so are the the Baltic states Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia
further north and right on Russia's border. If any of those countries come to Ukraine's aid and find themselves in a war with Russia,
NATO is obliged to intervene. That's also true if Russia comes up with some pretext to invade any of those countries, unlikely as that
seems.

If we learned anything from World War I, it's that huge, bloody conflicts can

start with tiny skirmishes, especially in Eastern Europe . Again, the U.S. and Russia almost
certainly won't come to blows over Ukraine. But what if they did? If you asked that question during the Cold War
it would be like those fanciful Godzilla vs. King Kong, or Batman vs. Superman match-ups:
Which superpower would prevail in all-out battle? But Russia isn't the Soviet Union, and
military technology didn't stop in 1991. Here, for example, is a look at U.S. versus Russian/USSR defense spending

since the end of the Cold War, from Mother Jones. The U.S. is much wealthier than Russia and spends a lot more on its military.
That doesn't mean a war would be easy for the U.S. to win, though, or even guarantee a victory: As Napoleon and Hitler learned the
hard way, Russia will sacrifice a lot to win its wars, especially on its home turf. So, what would a war between the U.S. and Russia
look like? Here are a few scenarios, from awful to merely bad: Nuclear Armageddon Even with the slow mutual

nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia each have thousands of
nuclear warheads at the ready. As Eugene Chow noted earlier this year, the entire stockpile of U.S.
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) 448 active is essentially aimed squarely at
Russia. Russia's hundreds of ICBMs are probably returning the favor. In all, the U.S. has about
7,700 nuclear warheads, including 1,950 warheads ready to deploy via ICBM, submarine, and

airplane, plus thousands more in mothballs or waiting to be dismantled, according to the latest
tally by the Federation of American Scientists. Russia has slightly more warheads overall
about 8,500 but a slightly fewer 1,800 of them operational. China, in comparison, has about 250 nuclear
warheads, a bit less that France (300) and a bit more than Britain (225). Nuclear war with Russia is still
mutually assured destruction . Hopefully, that's still deterrent enough. A conventional war in Eastern Europe.
This is the other scenario that never happened in the Cold War. Now, the possibility of scenario one (nuclear Armageddon) makes
this one almost equally unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let's assume this hypothetical U.S.-Russia war breaks out in Ukraine,
and that other NATO forces are supplementing U.S. troops, ships, and aircraft. Unlike in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. keeps
China in check (and vice versa, as Eugene Chow explained), NATO provides the United States with a robust

military alliance set up specifically to take on Soviet Russia. The first dynamic is that Russia would have home
field advantage: The Russian navy has long called Crimea its home, and whatever troops Russia doesn't already have in Ukraine are
right next door, one border-crossing away. The other big starting point is that the U.S. and its NATO allies

have Russia effectively surrounded. By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along

with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories. Along with its large number of bases in Germany, the U.S. has major military
installations in Qatar and the Diego Garcia atoll to Russia's south and Japan and South Korea to its east. NATO allies France and
Britain are even closer, as this map from Britain's The Telegraph shows: On top of that, NATO has bases around Russia's western
perimeter and in Turkey, right across the Black Sea from Ukraine. What about Russia? "They have a presence in Cuba,"

more a way station than a base, NYU professor Mark Galeotti tells The Washington Post. And Russia has a naval base in

Tartus, Syria. But otherwise "they have no bases outside the former Soviet Union." Russia has an estimated 845,000 active-duty
troops, with as many as 2.5 million more in reserve. NYU's Galeotti isn't very impressed. Russia's military is "moderately

competent," he tells The Washington Post. "It's not at the level of the American or British or German military,
but it's better than in the 1990s." The Russian troops, especially the Spetsnaz special forces, are "good at
bullying small neighbors, but it would not be effective against NATO. It would not be able to
defeat China." Galeotti is even more brutal about Russia's Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet: As a war-fighting force, it's not

particularly impressive. Its main vessel was basically built to fight other ships and so is only useful in fighting a naval war. It's got the
Moskva, an aging guided-missile cruiser; a large anti-submarine warfare cruiser very dated; a destroyer and two frigates, which
are more versatile; landing ships; and a diesel attack submarine. It's not a particularly powerful force. The Italian navy alone could
easily destroy it. [Washington Post] The U.S. military's 1.4 million active duty troops and 850,000 reservists, but it can't just throw
all of them at Russia somebody has to maintain those 598 bases around the world, as well as defend the U.S. NATO's Response
Force (NRF), which would probably be the first armed unit to engage the Russians, has 13,000 troops at the ready and thousands
more in reserve. Here's NATO describing its first-response team, right before NRF war games last fall: If Russia would have

the advantage at sea Sevastopol is its home port, and the U.S./NATO would have to dislodge
its navy the U.S. would have an edge in the skies, mostly. "The U.S. planes have better radar,
missiles, and electronic warfare equipment, while the Russian planes are judged to have
superior handling and thrust-to-weight ratio, which would give them an edge in a classic
dogfight," says Charles Clover at the Financial Times. But classic dogfights are at least as dated as Top Gun, Russian defense

analyst Ruslan Pukhov tells FT. "Ever since Soviet days we have been lagging behind the U.S. in military aviation." Because of that
gap, he adds, Soviet and Russian military planners have invested heavily in air defense systems, and the S-300 and S-400 systems
are the best in the world. "It's like boxing," Pukhov says. "If you have a weak right arm, you need to compensate by a strong left arm.
Soviet strategists made up for a weakness in aviation by investing heavily in air defense systems." A U.S.-Russia war probably
wouldn't end up a draw, but it would

be a bloody mess. The site Global Firepower ranks the U.S. the most
powerful conventional military in the world, and that's without NATO, but Russia is a pretty
close second (here it differs with Galeotti). If you look down the list of military assets, the U.S. beats Russia in

almost every category Russia has more tanks, ground artillery, and mine warfare craft. There's a wild card, though:
Since 2010, the U.S. and Russian militaries have been increasingly cooperating, including engaging
in joint military exercises. Unlike in Soviet times, or even the 1990s, U.S. and Russian military commanders know one
another and are familiar with each other's armaments and strategies. Until the U.S. put all U.S.-Russian military engagements on
hold Monday, the relationship was good and improving. There's "a very robust, cooperative effort between our militaries," Rear
Admiral Mark C. Montgomery, deputy director for plans, policy, and strategy at U.S. European Command (EUCOM), told Foreign
Policy in 2012, as Russian officers were in NORAD headquarters in Colorado, practicing counterinsurgency tactics. The naval
exercises "tend to be fairly deep in their level of technical engagement," Montgomery said, "where say, the ground ones and [special
operations forces] ones are still fairly young exercises that do a lot more walk-thru than detailed exercising. But as they go

year to year, they get more complicated." A proxy war Short of a negotiated peace with no
casualties, this is the best of the bad options. The U.S. and Russia have already fought a string of
proxy wars, the big ones being Vietnam to Afghanistan. In this scenario, the U.S. might finance
Ukrainian forces to fight Russian soldiers, with the probable goal of driving them out of

Ukrainian territory. Or, should the U.S. or NATO back the Ukrainian army, Russia might fund pro-Moscow separatist

movements in Ukraine against it. Russia helped the North Vietnamese beat the U.S. in Southeast Asia, and the U.S. helped the
Mujahideen defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. If that pattern holds, and Ukraine is the battleground, then it's bad news for the
occupying army.

Advantage: America .

A US/Russia nuclear war would result in extinction

Nucleardarkness.org 2014 Consequences of a Large Nuclear War

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/ (MG)

Following a large U.S.-Russian nuclear war, enormous fires created by nuclear explosions in
cities and industrial areas cause 150 million tons of smoke to be lofted high into the
stratosphere. The smoke is quickly spread around the world and forms a dense smoke layer
around both Hemispheres; the smoke will remain in the stratosphere for many years and act to
block sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth. New studies predict this level of stratospheric smoke

deposition will still be possible even after planned reductions in U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals are completed under the SORT Treaty
in 2012. Summary of consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke: 2600 U.S. and

Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched (in 2 to 3 minutes) at targets in
the U.S., Europe and Russia (and perhaps at other targets which are considered to have strategic value). Some
fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear
warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which
burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers. 150 million tons
of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly
spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain
there for many years to block and absorb sunlight. The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight
from reaching the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is
also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere. In the absence of warming sunlight, surface
temperatures on Earth become as cold or colder than they were 18,000 years ago at the height of
the last Ice Age There would be rapid cooling of more than 20C over large areas of North
America and of more than 30C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions 150
million tons of smoke in the stratosphere would cause minimum daily temperatures in the
largest agricultural regions of the Northern Hemisphere to drop below freezing for 1 to 3 years.
Nightly killing frosts would occur and prevent food from being grown. Average global
precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold. Growing seasons would be
virtually eliminated for many years. Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also
occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the
surface of the Earth. Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The
targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes. Gigantic ground-hugging clouds
of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals
would also enter the environment. It would be impossible for many living things to
survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and
precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive
fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals . Already stressed land and
marine ecosystems would collapse. Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.

A mass extinction

event would occur, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, when the
dinosaurs were wiped out

following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all

animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight). Even

humans living in shelters equipped with many years

worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile
post-war environment.

SCS Advantage

1ac South China Sea

Advantage __ is the South China Sea
Ratifying the LOST mediates the South China Sea and solves tensions.
Hachigian 12. Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress with expertise in National security, U.S.

foreign policy, U.S.-China relations, Asia geopolitics. Chinas Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention; Center
for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-big-reason-toratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/ MMG.
Finally, the

United States will have a stronger hand when it comes to the other issues at play in the
South China Sea if it ratifies Law of the Sea. The United States has strong interests there in
freedom of navigation and the maintenance of peace and stability. Brunei, Cambodia, China,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam all have overlapping and conflicting claims over
islands and shoals in the South China Seaand thus over the substantial maritime rights that go along with them. While those
disputes have been in the news lately with the standoff between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal, there are

many similar contests. Huge food and energy resources are at stake. Fish stocks in the region
are horribly depleted and badly managed, but there is soaring demand for fish from growing
populations in neighboring countries with rising wealth and more appetite for animal protein.
The South China Sea has nearly one-tenth of the worlds Hostile incidents are on the rise, as
fishing boats enter disputed waters more often in search of their fisheries used for human
consumption, which is impressive considering its relatively small size. quarry, backed (tacitly or
not) by their governments. The stakes go even higher in terms of energy extraction.
New technologies are now making it possible to explore and extract oil and natural gas from the
deep ocean. And according to a recent report, the South China Sea likely holds about 15.6 billion barrels of petroleum, of which
about 1.6 billion barrels are recoverable. Some Chinese estimates are higher by a factor of 10. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates
that the seabed also holds nearly 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These numbers are speculative, but even if they are partially
accurate, they make the South China Sea a significant potential source for energy resources. China claims as their historical
waters more than three-fourths of the South China Sea, delineated by the so-called ninedash line, pictured below. Competing
country claims in the South China Sea These claims are generally considered outrageous by everyone except the Chinese, who have
kept the justification for them (and the nature of the claims themselves) ambiguous. The Obama administration has done an
admirable job of standing with other Southeast Asian countries trying to resist Chinas pressure in these territorial disputes. The
administration has called for a multilateral process based on the rule of law, rather than the bilateral approach Beijing prefers. But

the U.S. position would be much stronger if the United States could simply say
that, The U.N. Law of the Sea Convention should govern this dispute. As Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton explained in her recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Im sure you have followed
the claims countries are making in the South China Sea. Although we do not have territory there, we have vital
interests, particularly freedom of navigation. And I can report from the diplomatic trenches that as a party to the
convention, we would have greater credibility in invoking the conventions rules and a greater
ability to enforce them. The Chinese get a lot of mileage in conversations with Southeast Asian nations from the United

States not being a party to the convention. (How can the Americans tell us that Law of Sea Convention applies when they havent
even ratified it?) Thats why Secretary Clinton was joined by five Republican predecessors, who penned an op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal this past month asking for Senate ratification.

Specifically, its key to US diplomatic credibility China will comply with LOST if
pressured, but only US engagement can do that
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)
Ratifying LOSC

will give the United States added legitimacy as it seeks to defend the interests of allies and partners in
the Asia Pacific, particularly countries involved in disputes over the South China Sea. Tensions between China
and Southeast Asian states over historical territorial claims and jurisdiction over potentially lucrative seabed natural resources
are escalating because of increasingly assertive behavior on all sides. LOSC is central to

mitigating tensions and avoiding conflict in the South China Sea, which involve territory demarcation,
maritime navigation and other issues covered by the convention. Without ratifying LOSC, the United States will be
unable to credibly encourage efforts of allies like the Philippines as it attempts to mediate a dispute with
China over the joint development of resources in the South China Sea using the LOSC dispute settlement mechanism.
Moreover, U.S. failure to ratify LOSC will leave America hamstrung as countries in the region
promote new international maritime norms that may conflict with U.S. interests. Legal scholars and
military and political leaders in China, Thailand and elsewhere are interpreting the treaty in ways that
bolster their own interests, but the United States cannot effectively counter these interpreta - tions or
promote new ones without ratifying LOSC and availing itself of the conventions legal bodies. 28 These interpretations
could harm U.S. maritime security activities in the region if these counties successfully build consensus with others that conflict with
the U.S. interpretation of customary international law.
Although critics of LOSC rightly argue that the treaty will not bind Chinas assertive behavior in the South
China Sea, 29 evidence

suggests that despite attempts to interpret the treaty in ways that promote its own interests, China
is willing to work within the LOSC framework. According to one expert, recent statements by
the ministry of foreign affairs reaffirm that China will advance maritime claims that are consistent and
compliant with UNCLOS, which may allow states to press China to clarify its claims through the
treatys dispute settlement mechanism and bring the region closer to a negotiated settlement. 30 However,
countries in the region may be reluctant to press China to clarify its claims lest they strain relations with their largest
trading partner. As a party to LOSC, the United States could support its partners by pressing China to clarify its
maritime claims, which are legitimately tied to U.S. maritime interests in the region, including freedom of navigation rights for the
U.S. Navy.

That checks Chinese aggression and enhances US credibility in the region

Vanecko 11 [Jonathan J. Vanecko, Liutenant CMDR USN at US Naval War College and worked
in the pentagon, May 11 2011, Time to Ratify UNCLOS; A New Twist on an Old Problem,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a546081.pdf, MM]
In order to be prepared to counter specific threats as they arise across the globe, operational
commanders continuously conduct shaping activities in order to give U.S. forces the most
favorable operating conditions across the spectrum of conflict. As defined by Joint Publication
3-0, shaping operations are intended to dissuade or deter adversaries, assure or solidify
relationships, enhance international legitimacy, and gain multinational cooperation.51
Therefore, collectively, shaping operations are arguably the most important activity undertaken
within an area of responsibility (AOR). In the PACOM AOR, this note rings especially true. With
no major combat operations currently underway, the majority of operations conducted directly
support shaping operations. Furthermore, strategic guidance put forth by ADM Robert F.
Willard, Commander U.S. Pacific Forces, seeks to protect and defend U.S. interests in the region
while promoting regional security and deterrence of aggression; all functions within or
underpinned by the effectiveness of shaping operations.52 Specifically, for the South China Sea
this means maintaining forward presence, providing for extended deterrence, and concentrating
on the focus areas of allies and partners, China, and transnational threats.53 In every instance,
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea and the 1994 Implementation
Agreement support those objectives . In fact, for the South China Sea, Freedom of
Navigation assertions and the Proliferation Security Initiative would benefit immediately .
Even though as the worlds most powerful Navy the United States has had very little difficulty
asserting freedom of navigation around the world, it is becoming increasingly challenging given
Chinas aggressive enforcement of legal interpretations in the South China Sea (SCS) that are
inconsistent with international norms. This is particularly true with respect to their EEZ, which
China views as a buffer zone for defense.63 Furthermore, China considers any military or
surveillance (electronic attack) activity hostile and in violation of UNCLOS provisions that
require maritime users to refrain from any threat or use of force against coastal states.64 One
need only look at the 2001 EP-3 and 2009 Impeccable incidents off Hainan Island to see that
the stakes are high for both sides,65 but it doesnt need to be this way. As mentioned previously,

the enhanced legitimacy gained through ratification of UNCLOS would aid PACOM in several
ways. First, legitimacy gives FON assertions and diplomatic protests more weight ,
and leaves nations such as China constrained in their ability to challenge U.S. action. Because
UNCLOS is almost universally accepted, U.S. actions would receive tacit support from the 160
nations party to the convention allowing commanders to more aggressively assert navigational
rights within the approved framework of UNCLOS should diplomacy fail.66 In other words,
after military capability, legitimacy is the second prong necessary to unilaterally conduct
effective FON assertions in the SCS. Unilateral action is always the last resort, and ratification of
UNCLOS helps dramatically increase the legitimacy of U.S. FON assertions when
viewed from a multinational vantage point. Rhetoric marching lock step with action will
decrease PACOM difficulties convincing SCS nations that U.S. interests are not just self-serving.
Although self interest plays a part, the externalities of the U.S. FON program help all coastal and
maritime nations, especially those like the Philippines who do not have a strong blue water navy
able to conduct these assertions on their own. Restated, ratification of the convention shows our
allies and partners that we are committed to international law and a global partnership of
maritime nations sharing common goals and values.67
South China Sea is a hotbed for East Asian Conflict.
Business Insider 6/10/14. This Map Shows Why The South China Sea Could Lead To The Next World War.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-south-china-sea-graphic-2014-7. MMG

The South China Sea is a powder keg of territorial claims mixed with oil and gas resources.
Almost every country in the area has a longstanding animus towards at least one of its
neighbors. China claims 90% of the Sea, and Beijing is viewed with fear and suspicion
throughout the region. The U.S. and Chinese militaries are both entrenched there
Japan is slowly building its military capabilities in the face of a perceived Chinese
threat while Vietnam and the Philippines are emerging as regional players. The
South China sea is where the worlds next major interstate power struggle will play out. Any
blowup there will almost necessarily involve China and the U.S., which have the two largest
economies on earth. But the confrontation has already begun, with China claiming everything within its now-infamous

"nine-dash line," and nearly all of its neighbors involved in disputes along the line's edges. Between April and June of 2014, Japan
scrambled its fighter jets 340 times "in response to feared incursions on its airspace." What's still unclear is just how

bad things could plausibly get there.

Extinction- maritime conflict and Chinese aggression escalate to full blown

US/China nuclear war
Lowther, 2013 (William, 3/16/13, Taiwan could spark nuclear war: report,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211, Accessed:
6/27/14 FG)
Taiwan is the most likely potential crisis that could trigger a nuclear war between China and the
US, a new academic report concludes. Taiwan remains the single most plausible and dangerous source of
tension and conflict between the US and China, says the 42-page report by the Washington-based Center for

Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Prepared by the CSIS Project on Nuclear Issues and resulting from a year-long study, the
report emphasizes that Beijing continues to be set on a policy to prevent Taiwans independence ,

while at the same time the US maintains the capability to come to Taiwans defense. Although
tensions across the Taiwan Strait have subsided since both Taipei and Beijing embraced a policy of engagement in
2008, the situation remains combustible, complicated by rapidly diverging cross-strait military
capabilities and persistent political disagreements, the report says. In a footnote, it quotes senior fellow
at the US Council on Foreign Relations Richard Betts describing Taiwan as the main potential
flashpoint for the US in East Asia. The report also quotes Betts as saying that neither Beijing
nor Washington can fully control developments that might ignite a Taiwan crisis. This is a classic

recipe for surprise, miscalculation and uncontrolled escalation, Betts wrote in a separate study of his own.
The CSIS study says: For the foreseeable future Taiwan is the contingency in which nuclear weapons
would most likely become a major factor, because the fate of the island is intertwined both with the legitimacy of the
Chinese Communist Party and the reliability of US defense commitments in the Asia-Pacific region. Titled Nuclear Weapons and
US-China Relations, the study says disputes in the East and South China seas appear unlikely to lead to major conflict
between China and the US, but they do provide

kindling for potential conflict between the two nations

because the disputes implicate a number of important regional interests, including the interests of treaty allies of the US. The
danger posed by flashpoints such as Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula and maritime

demarcation disputes is magnified by the potential for mistakes , the study says. Although
Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military Maritime Consultative
Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the bases for

miscommunication and misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historical reservoirs of suspicion,
the report says. For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions would result in a military or
even nuclear response by the other party. To make things worse, neither side seems to believe the others

declared policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very
uncertain endeavor, could be especially difficult in any conflict, it says. Although conflict mercifully

seems unlikely at this point, the report concludes that it cannot be ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we are unwise or
unlucky. The report says: With both sides possessing and looking set to retain formidable nuclear

weapons arsenals, such a conflict would be tremendously dangerous and quite possibly devastating.

Goes nuclear fast

Goldstein, 13 Avery, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the
Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the
University of Pennsylvania (First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations, International
Security, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring 2013, Muse //Red)

Two concerns have driven much of the debate about international security in the post-Cold War era. The first is the potentially deadly mix of nuclear
proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists, a worry that became dominant after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001.1 The second concern, one whose prominence has waxed and waned since the mid-1990s, is the potentially disruptive impact that China will
have if it emerges as a peer competitor of the United States, challenging an international order established during the era of U.S. preponderance.2
Reflecting this second concern, some analysts have expressed reservations about the dominant post-September 11 security agenda, arguing that China
could challenge U.S. global interests in ways that terrorists and rogue states cannot. In this article, I raise a more pressing issue, one to which not
enough attention has been paid. For

at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak, the gravest danger in
Sino-American relations is the possibility the two countries will find themselves in a crisis that
could escalate to open military conflict. In contrast to the long-term prospect of a new great power rivalry between the
United States and China, which ultimately rests on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain forecasts about big shifts in
their national capabilities, the

danger of instability in a crisis involving these two nuclear-armed states is a

tangible, near-term concern.3 Even if the probability of such a war-threatening crisis and its escalation to the use of significant military
force is low, the potentially catastrophic consequences of this scenario provide good reason for
analysts to better understand its dynamics and for policymakers to fully consider its implications. Moreover, events since
2010especially those relevant to disputes in the East and South China Seassuggest that the danger
of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific that could lead to a U.S.-China standoff
may be on the rise. In what follows, I identify not just pressures to use force preemptively that pose the most serious risk should a SinoAmerican confrontation unfold, but also related, if slightly less dramatic, incentives to initiate the limited use of force to gain bargaining leveragea
second trigger for potentially devastating instability during a crisis.4 My discussion proceeds in three sections. The first section explains why, during

the next decade or two, a serious U.S.-China crisis may be more likely than is currently recognized. The
second section examines the features of plausible Sino-American crises that may make them so dangerous. The third section considers general features
of crisis stability in asymmetric dyads such as the one in which a U.S. superpower would confront an increasingly capable but still thoroughly
overmatched Chinathe asymmetry that will prevail for at least the next decade. This more stylized discussion clarifies the inadequacy of focusing onesidedly on conventional forces, as has much of the current commentary about the modernization of China's military and the implications this has for
potential conflicts with the United States in the Western Pacific,5 or of focusing one-sidedly on China's nuclear forces, as a smaller slice of the
commentary has.6 An

assessment considering the interaction of conventional and nuclear forces

indicates why escalation resulting from crisis instability remains a devastating
possibility. Before proceeding, however, I would like to clarify my use of the terms "crisis" and "instability." For the purposes of this article, I
define a crisis as a confrontation between states involving a serious threat to vital national interests for both sides, in which there is the expectation of a
short time for resolution, and in which there is understood to be a sharply increased risk of war.7 This definition distinguishes crises from many
situations to which the label is sometimes applied, such as more protracted confrontations; sharp disagreements over important matters that are not
vital interests and in which military force seems irrelevant; and political disputes involving vital interests, even those with military components, that
present little immediate risk of war.8 I define instability as the temptation to resort to force in a crisis.9 Crisis stability is greatest when both sides
strongly prefer to continue bargaining; instability is greatest when they are strongly tempted to resort to the use of military force. Stability, then,

describes a spectrumfrom one extreme in which neither side sees much advantage to using force, through a range of situations in which the balance of
costs and benefits of using force varies for each side, to the other extreme in which the benefits of using force so greatly exceed the costs that striking
first looks nearly irresistible to both sides. Although the incentives to initiate the use of force may not reach this extreme level in a U.S. China crisis,

the capabilities that the two countries possess raise concerns that escalation pressures will exist
and that they may be highest early in a crisis, compressing the time frame for diplomacy to
avert military conflict.
Rising tensions over the SCS independently kill the US Japan Alliance
Carnegie 4/10/14. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; a Global Think Tank. Obamas Quiet Priority in Japan:
The East China Sea. http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/04/10/obama-s-quiet-priority-in-japan-east-china-sea/h7ss. MMG.

If a conflict did eruptintentional or accidental, large or smallJapan would have the initial
frontline responsibility for defending itself and the islands, but the incident would trigger
immediate alliance consultations regarding what form of U.S. involvement is desired and
appropriate. While a U.S. ally usually wants to showcase U.S. support and firepower
early and often in a crisis for its deterrent effect, U.S. officials might worry that
this could seem escalatory to Beijing or contribute to Japanese overconfidence
and tempt Tokyo to make excessive demand s. If Washington is too careful and equivocal, however, it
could lead to a Chinese miscalculation that the allies are not willing or able to defend their
position, perhaps causing Beijing to gamble on a Senkaku takeover or otherwise sharper military
conflict. The worst situation would have the United States appearing to hold back Japan from
defending itself or urging it to concede, which would no doubt create serious cracks in the oftcited alliance cornerstone for U.S. security policy in the Asia-Pacific. Japanese confidence in
U.S. security commitments would plummet, and the same effect would echo in Seoul and Manila. Clearly, U.S.
political and operational support for Japan will be required in such a crisis. But the U.S. president and the Japanese prime minister
must strike the right balance between resolve and restraint, and this can only come from mutual understanding and clear
communication. Any misunderstanding at the highest levels could have serious adverse

consequences for the alliance.

Japan alliance is key to stability solves democracy, warming

Campbell 10. Kurt M. Campbell Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs Statement before the House
Armed Services Committee Washington, DC. U.S. Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2010/07/145191.htm>. MMG

The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of our engagement in the Asia-Pacific. The alliance
has provided a basis for peace and security in the Asia-Pacific for a half-century and has -- in
many ways -- underwritten the Asian economic miracle and the spread of democratic
governance throughout the region. This year the United States and Japan are celebrating the 50th anniversary of our

Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, a historic milestone that offers both an opportunity to reflect on the successes of the past
and, perhaps more importantly, to chart a forward-looking course for this relationship to ensure that it is well positioned to manage
issues of consequence both in the region and beyond. The Obama administration entered office with a deep

appreciation of the strategic importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance. Then-Prime Minister Taro Aso was the

first foreign leader to meet with President Obama. Japan was President Obamas first stop on his first visit to East Asia as President.
Secretary Clintons maiden voyage as Secretary of State was to Asia, and it was no coincidence that her first stop was in Japan. As

the worlds first and second largest economies the U.S. and Japan have worked closely to
contribute to the global economic recovery. Together, the United States and Japan bring
tremendous capability and creativity to bear on the challenges the world faces

today . Our economic relationship is strong, mature, and increasingly interdependent, firmly
rooted in the shared interest and responsibility of the United States and Japan to promote global
growth, open markets, and a vital world trading system. Our bilateral economic relationship is
based on enormous flows of trade, investment, and finance. In previous decades our economic
relationship was often characterized by conflict over trade issues. Today, even as we continue to address
trade irritants such as beef and Japan Post, we are able to prioritize new modes of cooperation that allow us to pursue common
interests such as innovation and entrepreneurship, the internet economy and cloud computing as building blocks to improve

opportunities for our trade and economic growth .

We have a shared interest in greener, more

sustainable growth. Climate change is a trend that obviously presents enormous

challenges for both the United States and Japan, but also creates opportunities
for us both to leverage our comparative advantage in innovation to develop new,
growth-inducing energy technologies . We were also very pleased that our two nations initialed the text of an
Open Skies aviation agreement in December of last year. It is a landmark agreement that is a pro-consumer, pro-competitive, progrowth accord. The agreement will strengthen and expand our already strong trade and tourism links with Japan. As our
security and economic relationship has evolved, so has our cultural relationship matured and
grown. We have a longstanding tradition of exchange and cooperation between our two
countries, and between the people of our two nations. We have cooperation in the fields of education and

science, and through traditional programs such as the Fulbright Exchange and the JET (Japan Exchange and Teaching Program).
The global challenges we face today require a complex, multi-dimensional approach to public diplomacy. As President Obama said
recently, "... cooperation must go beyond our governments. It must be rooted in our people - in the studies we share, the business
that we do, the knowledge that we gain, and even in the sports that we play." The Secretary echoed the Presidents views when she
said, What we call people-to-people diplomacy has taken on greater significance, as our world has grown more interdependent, and
our challenges, more complex. Government alone cannot solve the problems that we face. We have to tap into the challenge of our
people, their creativity and innovation, and their ability to forge lasting relationships that build trust and understanding. The
historic elections in late August of 2009 ushered in the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). It should come as no surprise that over the
past 10 months the relationship has had its shares of ups-and-downs. Some commentators have even suggested that the U.S.-Japan
alliance is in a period of strategic drift --- nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, public opinion polling shows

support in Japan for the U.S.-Japan alliance is the highest it has ever been over 75 percent.

After spending over half of my professional career thinking about the U.S.-Japan alliance I feel confident in saying that our alliance
will continue to grow stronger. I would now like to take this opportunity to lay out three elements of our relationship that I believe
underscore the bilateral, regional and global depth and breadth of our relationship. It is now more than 10 months since Japans
historic change of government in September 2009. The new ruling coalition came to power with a manifesto calling for a review of
many of the policies of its LDP predecessors, including aspects of the alliance with the United States, with some envisioning an
alliance without bases. However, in practice the Japanese government has continued to reaffirm the crucial

role of the Alliance in ensuring Japans security and maintaining peace and security in the AsiaPacific region. This past January, then-Prime Minister Hatoyama, in a statement celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
signing of the revised U.S-Japan Security Treaty, said that it is not an exaggeration to say that it was thanks to
the U.S.-Japan security arrangements that Japan has maintained peace, while respecting
freedom and democracy, and enjoyed economic developmentsince the end of the last World War to this

day. To celebrate this 50th anniversary year, and to deepen and broaden our alliance, we and our Japanese allies are meeting at all
levels and across government bureaucracies to share views and assessments of Asias dynamic strategic environment and charting a
course to seize opportunities while minimizing potential for conflict. Over the last fifteen years, the United States and

Japan have worked together to update our alliance, through efforts ranging from the force
posture realignment to the review of roles, missions, and capabilities. The alliance has grown in scope, with
cooperation on everything from missile defense to information security. Additionally, Japan provides approximately
$1.7 billion annually in host nation support to the U.S. military, a key Japanese contribution to
our alliance. There are more than 48,000 American military personnel deployed in Japan,

including our only forward deployed carrier strike group, the 5th Air Force, and the III Marine Expeditionary Force. Through the
Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), the United States and Japan made a landmark alliance commitment under the 2006 U.S.Japan Realignment Roadmap, which was reaffirmed by the 2009 Guam International Agreement, to implement a coherent package
of force posture realignments that will have far-reaching benefits for the Alliance. These changes will help strengthen the flexibility
and deterrent capability of U.S. forces while creating the conditions for a more sustainable U.S. military presence in the region. The
transformation includes the relocation of approximately 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam, force
posture relocations and land returns on Okinawa, and other realignments and combined capability changes on mainland Japan (e.g.,
increased interoperability, as well as collaboration on ballistic missile defense). This realignment will strengthen both countries
ability to meet current responsibilities and create an Alliance that is more flexible, capable, and better able to work together to
address common security concerns

Warming causes extinction

Hill Henderson March 16th, 2005 Countercurrents.org Racing To Extinction http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-

henderson160305.htm (MG)
There are tragic stories of death and injury every day in all our local papers involving young guys in souped up cars racing recklessly,
loosing control and killing themselves, their passengers, or, sadly in too many cases, innocent families in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Us old codgers ask Why take the chance of possible death or a life of remorse and jail in reckless, speeding behavior?
Why get even close to taking such risks everything considered? Now this isnt an op-ed on street racers, on

reckless youthful behavior in sports cars or muscle cars, but on global warming. It is an attempt to
wake you up to recognize our reckless behavior in risking the very future of humanity and maybe even
all life as we know it by going too fast and behaving extremely recklessly. Most of us know a little about
global warming: the burning of fossil fuels and other side effect products of industrial societies combine to produce greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increasing global mean temperatures leading to heretofore unprecedented climate change. It seems

that most of us think of this as a gradual warming, a far off in the future, perhaps even
beneficial, unimportant background warming. In reality it is an almost unbelievably tragic
disaster risking everything we value; a catastrophic accident we are already in, sliding towards a
cliff. In BC where I live the forest in two thirds of the province, plus parts of the Yukon and Alaska an area equal to the American

south-west are dying due to a mountain pine beetle epidemic. The beetles are part of these forest ecosystems but their populations
were kept in check by cold winter temperatures (more than thirty degrees below zero for at least two weeks). Two decades of

unprecedented warm winters have uncorked a pathogen whose effects can be easily seen from
space: an evolving, rapidly spreading disaster for lifeforms including us who live in these
forests. Warmer temperatures also mean deadly water temperatures in rivers and creeks for
salmon both beginning their journey or returning to spawn. Combined with warmer waters disrupting feeding

and introducing new predators and food competition in the North Pacific where they will spend most of their lifecycle, global
warming may mean the end of the estimated hundred million year history of salmon in what we have so recently labeled the northeast Pacific. I have used local, BC examples but global warming accidents are happening everywhere, every day. Like salmon and the
flora and fauna in our forests, we are adapted for a very slender range of temperature to survive. We are nested in and dependent
upon historic climates and interacting ecosystems. Global warming even now promises wrenching dislocation

and death. But these immediate effects of global warming pale before the possibility of runaway
global warming where warming due to our greenhouse gas emissions causes greatly increased
greenhouse gas production from normal terrestrial sources the release of CO2 stored in
tundra, for example - creating positive feedback loops which overwhelm regular biosphere
regulation and lead to temperatures possibly hundreds of degrees warmer then present.
Runaway global warming that could lead to an atmosphere like Venus . In September
2000, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking was widely quoted in the press as being very worried about runaway global
warming: "I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with

boiling sulfuric acid," said Hawking. "I am worried about the greenhouse effect." If we go over this cliff no more
humanity; the extinction of almost every existing species except some bacteria; the end of life on
Earth as we know it. I have a re-occurring dream: Im a young guy again, in a car with some friends traveling at night along

the mountain two lane blacktop of my youth. Were going way too fast, way too fast. Were doing things like passing blind and almost
loosing it on corners. In the moonlight I can see the lake far below. I know an accident is going to happen but they wont listen to me:
shut up chicken. They are focused on the speed, the rush, on keeping the car on the road. It is insane and Im trapped into going
along with them. Wake up. An exponential increasing population with an economy growing at two

percent, compounding in mere decades after centuries of industrialization based upon fossil fuel
use, has us speeding recklessly, growing way, way too fast in a finite world. Science has a
convincing understanding of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, a cause and
effect first postulated more then a century ago. We are already in the skid the accident is happening. The already
existing greenhouse gases will continue to trap heat over the next century. It might be too late already to overt runaway global
warming. If we know that reckless street racing leads to death, why do we allow the production and merchandising of cars designed,
engineered and promoted to street race? If we know that continuing fossil fuel use risks our lives today and maybe human
extinction, why do we still have an economy almost totally dependent upon fossil fuels while possible alternative renewable energy
sources languish relatively ignored? Where fossil fuel exploitation is still subsidized by governments? Why are we expanding car
economies (now in China and India as well as the developed world) when we should be aware of the global warming danger and
know of other possible economic and social configurations that dont require intensive fossil fuel use? Other ways of organizing our
lives that dont need the fossil fuel addiction? Why do young guys continue to race recklessly when they see wrecks and pictures of
the dead in the media and guys like themselves remorseful in the manslaughter trial coverage? Why does everybody in our business
community still demand exponential rates of growth and the wasteful use of what are now becoming very precious resources needed
by future generations? Rates of material growth that can clearly be understood as risking catastrophic death and mayhem and
perhaps even the extinction of humanity on this planet? Why arent our captains of industry, our economic-centric politicians and
commerce focused governments and all of us that own businesses (or work in or are financially dependent upon them) in the dock,
right now, today, for risking unbelievable calamity just because of our personal, incredibly ignorant and unethical addiction to
reckless speed? When there are (when there were?) so many other possible ways of driving, of operating our economies, that dont
risk extinction?

Democracy checks extinction

Diamond, 95 Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, founding co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, Professor of

Political Science and Sociology and Coordinator of the Democracy Program at the the Center on Democracy at Stanford University (Larry, "Promoting

Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives : a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict",
December 1995, June 26th 2010, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm)

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia

nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal
drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of
tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate.
The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of
these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular
sovereignty, and openness.

1ac China Relations

US-China tensions highprevents climate cooperation
Denyer 7/7 (Denyer, Simon [Simon Denyer received his M.A. in Economics from Trinity College in 1987. He is currently the
Bureau Chief in China at the Washington Post.]. "China's rise and Asian tensions send U.S. relations into downward spiral."
Washington Post, July 7th, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-rise-and-asian-tensions-send-usrelations-into-downward-spiral/2014/07/07/f371cfaa-d5cd-4dd2-925c-246c099f04ed_story.html [accessed July 13th,
2014])//ALepow

BEIJING Hundreds of rocky islands, islets, sandbanks, reefs and cays lie scattered across
Asias eastern waters, unimportant-looking to the naked eye but significant enough to spark
what may be the most worrying deterioration in U.S.-China relations in decades. Chinas
military rise, and its increasingly assertive claims to sovereignty over these largely uninhabited
lumps of rock, coral and sand, have set it on a possible collision course with its neighbors, which
also make various claims on the archipelagos, and with the United States, which has important
alliances with three of the rival claimants and would be obliged to defend them in the event of an
attack. As Chinese and Vietnamese ships ram each other in the contested waters, and Chinese and Japanese fighter jets play
games of chicken in Asias disputed skies, the risk of military escalation is growing. Even more significantly, the
standoff is generating bad blood between Washington and Beijing and could
torpedo cooperation on important global issues, including the Middle East,
climate change and nuclear proliferation. Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew
will visit Beijing on Wednesday and Thursday for the sixth annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue. And while Washington
has been focused more on Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and Russia, some say the U.S.-China relationship
is facing its stiffest test since President Richard M. Nixon traveled to Mao Zedongs China in
1972. U.S.-China relations are worse than they have been since the normalization of relations,
and East Asia today is less stable than at any time since the end of the Cold War, said Robert
Ross, a political science professor at Boston College and associate of Harvards John King
Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. The Obama administrations foreign policy rebalance, or
pivot, to Asia has been widely interpreted in China as an attempt to contain its rise. U.S. efforts to
bolster ties with regional states such as Vietnam and to reassure nervous Asian allies such as Japan and the Philippines that it stands
ready to defend them militarily have created a new narrative in Beijing that the United States has encouraged Chinas neighbors to
push their territorial claims more aggressively. It is clear that the disputes are between two sides, but the

United States is taking sides, and it is not impartial, Adm. Sun Jianguo, deputy chief of the
general staff of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, said in an interview. In Washington, a
rival narrative is taking hold: that China is intent on pushing its territorial claims through the
threat of military force and that it ultimately wants to push the United States out of Asia. There

have been more intense crises in U.S.-China relations, including the fallout from the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of prodemocracy protesters, but none, perhaps, as fundamental and structural as this. In November, China spooked its neighbors by
announcing an air defense identification zone over the East China Sea, including over islands administered by Japan. In March, the
Chinese coast guard tried to block Philippine vessels from resupplying soldiers stationed on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal. Two
months later, it deployed a $1 billion deep-sea oil drilling rig into disputed waters off the Vietnamese coast. It has also been building
artificial islands in the South China Sea that U.S. officials say are meant to enhance its stance on sovereignty. China says it has
historical claims to a huge swath of the South China Sea, but its recent assertiveness has puzzled experts, appearing to undermine
last years efforts to promote a more cooperative, development-focused relationship with its neighbors. Some argue that

President Xi Jinping may see external threats as useful in ushering in tough reforms, including
of the military; others say that China is simply baring its fangs as it seeks to build a new Asian
order in which it, not the United States, is the major player in the region. Most agree, though,
that China is asserting itself partly because it now possesses a modern deep-water navy and
professional coast guard. Whatever the reason, Chinas rise has left the United States caught between its commitments to
allies and its desire to maintain a constructive relationship with China. In recent months, it has seemed to emphasize the former,
sending B-52 bombers to fly through Chinas air defense zone and threatening to reevaluate its military posture in Asia if China
extends the zone to the South China Sea.

US-China Cooperation key to mitigate global warming

Initiative for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate 09 (Initiative for U.S.-China

Cooperation on Energy and Climate [Initiative for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate is a Partnership between the Asia
Society Center on U.S.-China Relations and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.]. A Roadmap for U.S.-China Cooperation on
Energy and Climate Change. January 2009. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/US-China-Roadmap-Feb09.pdf [accessed July 13th,
2014])//ALepow

The challenge of global climate change is unprecedented in world history. The fact that a
molecule of carbon dioxide emitted in the United States is just as harmful to Chinese as one
emitted in China is to Americansor, indeed, to anyone on our planetmeans that no human
being is exempt from our inescapable commons. This new reality begs a completely new set of
global responses. One of the most critical response must come from the United States and
China. For without the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world forging a new and
extensive collaborative relationship, this global problem will remain intractable and unsolvable.
Whatever our disagreements may be, failure of the United States and China to cooperate
successfully on this unique issue will jeopardize any hope the world community as a
whole may have of heading off ever more dire impacts from a changing global
climate. While a Sino-U.S. bilateral effort is a critical effort in any overall global climate strategy, it is not an alternative to the
multilateral UN climate change process. Collaboration between the United States and China will be crucial
to both achieving significant greenhouse gas reductions in both countries, and to creating the
joint momentum that will inevitably be required for a larger multilateral solution to this
collective challenge. The time is late and the task daunting, but there are some trends and signs
that nonetheless give cause for new hope, if not outright optimism. Chinas leadership has shown a growing
awareness of the concrete threats that global warming poses to China and the world. With new government policy pronouncements
and bureaucratic restructuring to focus on climate change as well as regular public discussion of the issue, there is reason to be
optimistic that China is in the process of becoming a more receptive partner with the United States and other to take increasingly
concrete and meaningful climate change remedies. In Washington, the new administration of President-elect Barack Obama also
portend a sea change in both awareness of the seriousness of this threat and a commensurate change in government policy. And
while the recent global financial crisis will mean even greater competition for government resources, the various economic recovery
packages now being adopted in both capitals may well provide opportunities for funds to scale clean tech industries that will be the
engines if the next technological revolution, as well as the generators of new jobs, Moreover, while at first blush the faltering global
economy may seem to present an inhospitable environment in which to confront such a massive and costly challenge, historically it
has been precisely during such times of stress and crisis that rigid structures and systems that have outlived their usefulness have
often become malleable and susceptible to change or replacement. This change will, of course, take wise

leadership. If such leadership is forthcoming, however, there will be an incomparable

opportunity not only to reformat the energy systems of both countries, but also to gain a new
and welcomed measure of energy security.
Warming causes extinction
Hill Henderson March 16th, 2005 Countercurrents.org Racing To Extinction http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-

henderson160305.htm (MG)
There are tragic stories of death and injury every day in all our local papers involving young guys in souped up cars racing recklessly,
loosing control and killing themselves, their passengers, or, sadly in too many cases, innocent families in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Us old codgers ask Why take the chance of possible death or a life of remorse and jail in reckless, speeding behavior?
Why get even close to taking such risks everything considered? Now this isnt an op-ed on street racers, on

reckless youthful behavior in sports cars or muscle cars, but on global warming. It is an attempt to
wake you up to recognize our reckless behavior in risking the very future of humanity and maybe even
all life as we know it by going too fast and behaving extremely recklessly. Most of us know a little about
global warming: the burning of fossil fuels and other side effect products of industrial societies combine to produce greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere increasing global mean temperatures leading to heretofore unprecedented climate change. It seems

that most of us think of this as a gradual warming, a far off in the future, perhaps even
beneficial, unimportant background warming. In reality it is an almost unbelievably tragic
disaster risking everything we value; a catastrophic accident we are already in, sliding towards a
cliff. In BC where I live the forest in two thirds of the province, plus parts of the Yukon and Alaska an area equal to the American

south-west are dying due to a mountain pine beetle epidemic. The beetles are part of these forest ecosystems but their populations
were kept in check by cold winter temperatures (more than thirty degrees below zero for at least two weeks). Two decades of

unprecedented warm winters have uncorked a pathogen whose effects can be easily seen from

space: an evolving, rapidly spreading disaster for lifeforms including us who live in these
forests. Warmer temperatures also mean deadly water temperatures in rivers and creeks for
salmon both beginning their journey or returning to spawn. Combined with warmer waters disrupting feeding

and introducing new predators and food competition in the North Pacific where they will spend most of their lifecycle, global
warming may mean the end of the estimated hundred million year history of salmon in what we have so recently labeled the northeast Pacific. I have used local, BC examples but global warming accidents are happening everywhere, every day. Like salmon and the
flora and fauna in our forests, we are adapted for a very slender range of temperature to survive. We are nested in and dependent
upon historic climates and interacting ecosystems. Global warming even now promises wrenching dislocation

and death. But these immediate effects of global warming pale before the possibility of runaway
global warming where warming due to our greenhouse gas emissions causes greatly increased
greenhouse gas production from normal terrestrial sources the release of CO2 stored in
tundra, for example - creating positive feedback loops which overwhelm regular biosphere
regulation and lead to temperatures possibly hundreds of degrees warmer then present.
Runaway global warming that could lead to an atmosphere like Venus . In September
2000, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking was widely quoted in the press as being very worried about runaway global
warming: "I am afraid the atmosphere might get hotter and hotter until it will be like Venus with

boiling sulfuric acid," said Hawking. "I am worried about the greenhouse effect." If we go over this cliff no more
humanity; the extinction of almost every existing species except some bacteria; the end of life on
Earth as we know it. I have a re-occurring dream: Im a young guy again, in a car with some friends traveling at night along

the mountain two lane blacktop of my youth. Were going way too fast, way too fast. Were doing things like passing blind and almost
loosing it on corners. In the moonlight I can see the lake far below. I know an accident is going to happen but they wont listen to me:
shut up chicken. They are focused on the speed, the rush, on keeping the car on the road. It is insane and Im trapped into going
along with them. Wake up. An exponential increasing population with an economy growing at two

percent, compounding in mere decades after centuries of industrialization based upon fossil fuel
use, has us speeding recklessly, growing way, way too fast in a finite world. Science has a
convincing understanding of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels, a cause and
effect first postulated more then a century ago. We are already in the skid the accident is happening. The already
existing greenhouse gases will continue to trap heat over the next century. It might be too late already to overt runaway global
warming. If we know that reckless street racing leads to death, why do we allow the production and merchandising of cars designed,
engineered and promoted to street race? If we know that continuing fossil fuel use risks our lives today and maybe human
extinction, why do we still have an economy almost totally dependent upon fossil fuels while possible alternative renewable energy
sources languish relatively ignored? Where fossil fuel exploitation is still subsidized by governments? Why are we expanding car
economies (now in China and India as well as the developed world) when we should be aware of the global warming danger and
know of other possible economic and social configurations that dont require intensive fossil fuel use? Other ways of organizing our
lives that dont need the fossil fuel addiction? Why do young guys continue to race recklessly when they see wrecks and pictures of
the dead in the media and guys like themselves remorseful in the manslaughter trial coverage? Why does everybody in our business
community still demand exponential rates of growth and the wasteful use of what are now becoming very precious resources needed
by future generations? Rates of material growth that can clearly be understood as risking catastrophic death and mayhem and
perhaps even the extinction of humanity on this planet? Why arent our captains of industry, our economic-centric politicians and
commerce focused governments and all of us that own businesses (or work in or are financially dependent upon them) in the dock,
right now, today, for risking unbelievable calamity just because of our personal, incredibly ignorant and unethical addiction to
reckless speed? When there are (when there were?) so many other possible ways of driving, of operating our economies, that dont
risk extinction?

Ratification dissolves tensionstwo internal links:

First is international support
Ashfaq 10 (Ashfaq, Sarah [Sarah Ashfaq received her B.B.A in accounting from Bernard College in 2002 and her J.D. from the
University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2008. Is a member of the New York State Bar and is currently an Associate at Davis Polk
and Wardwell LLP.]. "Something for Everyone: Why the United States Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty." Journal of
Transnational Law and Policy, 19.2 (2010): 384-386. http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnati onal/vol19_2/ashfaq.pdf
[accessed July 13th, 2014])//ALepow

Chinas growing economic influence and covert plans to expand its military power, namely on
the seas, threaten the dominant position the United States has secured in the international
community. Given the historically unstable relationship between China and the United States,
this is a particularly alarming from a national security perspective. Ratification of the
Convention would allow the United States to mitigate and contain the Chinese threatat least
on the seasin a systematic manner with the support of the international community. The

tumultuous political history between the United States and China forces both parties to be on the offensive when dealing with one

another.

Because of the potential dangers, the United States watches closely over Chinese military
growth, including the aggressive expansion of its capabilities on the seas. Militarily, the
Convention provides the United States with a key strategic advantage that its armed services rely
upon. That advantage is the ability to navigate freely on, over, and under the worlds oceans.
In an urgent situation, the United States would be free to enter the territorial sea of any party to
the Convention, including China, without losing momentum by halting to obtain permission,
enter into negotiations, or weight the benefits of violating international law. This is increasingly
important given the recent skirmish between China and the United States on the seas. In March of
2009, U.S. ships were collecting information in what China claimed was an illegal manner in its exclusive economic zone. Chinese
and U.S. naval ships had a brief standoff that was peacefully resolved. Because such incidents can be expected in the future, U.S.

ratification of the Convention is essential. If the United States were a party to the Convention, it
could argue that it was freely navigatingan activity that is permissible in Chinas exclusive
economic zone under the Convention. Critics of ratification argue that U.S. military flexibility under the Convention is
compromised because it will need to bend to the will of Convention guidelines. As discussed above, however,
Convention provisions enhance flexibility by allowing access to a vast array of territorial seas.
Additionally, the U.S. military enthusiastically supports the Convention, giving it perhaps the
strongest endorsement in the interest of national security. Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, in
2004 stated, I fully support the Convention because it preserves our navigational freedoms, provides the operational maneuver
space for combat and other operations for out warships and aircraft, and enhances our own maritime interests. Furthermore, the
Vienna Convention, which governs international treaties, provides that where a states national security is threatened (or
circumstances fundamentally change it may suspend its obligations under a treaty. In the unlikely event that the Conventions
inhibits the United States from ensuring national security, the U.S. would be no worse off since it would not be bound by the
convention in those instances. Finally, the Convention also offers the United States a diplomatic and

political solution should a dispute with China arise. Although the United States traditionally
resists dispute resolution mechanisms, it would be in its interest to embrace them here. As a
non-party to the Convention, a potential dispute between China and the United States could
escalate into an explosive situation. By ratifying the Convention, the U.S. will have the support
of the international community to exert pressure on Chinaeither for peaceful dispute
resolution or to adhere to the provisions of the Convention that it too has ratified.

Second is credibility
Haider 13 (Haider, Ziad [Ziad Haider has a JD from Georgetown Law, an MPA from Harvard Kennedy School and a BA from
Yale College. He is a member of the bar in both New York State and the District of Columbia. He is currently an associate at White
and Case LLP where he is a member of the Firms International Arbitration and International Trade groups.]. US Must Adopt Law
of the Sea: To lead on Asian disputes, the US must combine diplomacy and embrace of UNCLOS. Yale Global, March 13th, 2013.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-must-adopt-law-sea [accessed July 14th, 2014])//ALepow

Ratification of UNCLOS to which

the US de facto adheres is essential, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before
the Senate last year, to ensure that US navigational rights and its ability to credibly challenge
other countries behavior are on the strongest legal footing. Given that the contesting parties are
actively resorting to the Convention to bolster their claims, ratification is critical for US
credibility. Even China whose claims are largely based on historical record cites UNCLOS to which it is a party, for example, in
adopting a straight base line approach to its claim in the East China Sea. In January, the Philippines filed a claim
with an UNCLOS tribunal alleging that Chinas nine-dash claim to the South China Sea is
contrary to UNCLOS. Conceding that China has not accepted the tribunals jurisdiction on sovereignty claims and maritime
Third, the administration must elevate its legal strategy for managing these disputes.

boundaries, the Philippines has argued that the tribunal can assess the interpretation and application of Chinas obligations under
UNCLOS. While China has stated that it will not participate in the proceeding, the Philippines intends to pursue its claim. Whether
other parties bring such claims remains to be seen. Although arbitration offers a clean and contained

alternative to fluctuating diplomacy and skirmishes, precluding US interference as China

desires, China does not view arbitration as a bilateral solution and, moreover, assumes that time
is on its side. As such, for the United States to have the standing to call for a much needed rulesbased approach to these disputes, it must formally adopt the rules. Asias maritime disputes are
a disruptive force for US interests; however, they present an opportunity. A shortsighted view would
conclude that the opportunity presented is a strategic opening for the United States and a regional tilt given recent Chinese heavy
handedness. The reality is that states in the region have no interest in choosing sides. According to the National Intelligence

Councils Global Trends 2030 report, they will instead increasingly be pulled in both directions: economically toward China and
security-wise toward the US. Moreover, given Sino-US economic interdependence, a China that

perceives itself subject to containment and doubles down militarily is not in US interests. The
opportunity presented instead is for the United States to demonstrate leadership in the region
that combines deft diplomacy, considered military engagement and an adherence to
international law as an enabling rather than enfeebling force. Doing so will test its ability to remain an
effective Pacific power while navigating the rise of another all this to preserve an order with which US security and economic
interests are inextricably linked in this century.

Independently that solves US-China war

Denmark 14 (Denmark, Abraham M. [Abraham M. Denmark is Vice President for Political and Security Affairs at the

National Bureau of Asian Research, where he manages a team of resident and non-resident experts and staff to bring objective,
detailed analysis of geopolitical trends and challenges in Asia to the attention of policymakers in Washington, D.C.]. Could Tensions
in the South China Sea Spark a War? The National Bureau of Asian Research, May 31st, 2014. http
://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=458 [accessed July 15th, 2014])//ALepow

The future of these disputes is not promising for long-term peace and stability. Neither side has
demonstrated any interest in backing down or compromising, and the potential for future
escalation and crisis is high. Chinas approach to these disputes is particularly problematic. Its refusal to compromise,
its continued reliance on escalation, and its commitment to change the status quo (no matter how gradually) is a recipe for
persistent tension. Most troubling is the confidence with which China approaches escalation. Beijing

appears to see escalation as a tool that can be used with absolute control and predictability.

Chinas strategists and policy makers are fairly new to major power geopolitics, and have not learned the lessons their American and
Russian counterparts learned during the Cold War: that escalation is a dangerous tool, that an adversary can respond in very
unpredictable ways, and that tension can quickly spiral out of control. One problem on the near horizon is how

China will react to the arrest of Chinese fishermen by the Philippines. Beijing will certainly react,
and will again seek to punish Manila and strengthen Chinas claims in the process. One option would
be to arrest Philippine fishermen operating in waters claimed by China. Another more likely and more provocative response would
be to evict the Philippine forces currently on the grounded Sierra Madre on the Second Thomas Reef China has already harassed
routine efforts by the Philippines to resupply those sailors, and may seek to tighten the blockade on the ship in order to force the
sailors to withdraw. The potential for shots to be fired or another ship to be rammed and sunk would

be high, and lives may be lost. Without serious engagement, China is unlikely to back down.
Beijing has painted this issue as directly related to its territorial integrity and national
sovereignty, and its recent public marking of the 95th anniversary of the May 4 movementin
which the existing government was overthrown by a popular uprising that judged Beijing as
weak in the face of foreign exploitationstrongly suggests that Chinas leaders are sensitive to
linkages between perceived weakness abroad and instability at home. With the growth of Chinas economy
likely to slow dramatically in coming years, Beijing appears to see incidents like these as useful in stirring nationalist sentiments at
home to buttress the popular legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. Should China use force against the

Philippines, no matter how much Beijing may try to describe the act as defensive or reactive, the
United States would probably be drawn into the crisiscertainly in a diplomatic sense, and
potentially in a military sense as well. The United States will be unlikely to back down in such a
situation, as the credibility of Americas willingness to intervene overseas has already come into
question after decisions to not intervene in Russias invasion of Ukraine or Assads crossing the
chemical weapons redline in Syria. While Washington would certainly attempt to de-escalate any crisis and prevent

the use of force, it will also be sure to demonstrate will and resolve in order to both deter hostilities and reassure its allies. While the
United States is not a party to these disputes per se, it has a major interest in seeing them resolved peacefully. A conflict in the

South China Sea would be disastrous for regional trade and for U.S.-China relationsboth of
which are of singular importance to the United States. The United States could enhance deterrence for Beijing

by raising the costs to China for additional incidentspotential initiatives include further strengthening military cooperation with
the other claimants in the South China Sea, building their military capabilities, and enhancing mechanisms for multinational
training and exercises. Additionally, Washington should work as an honest broker among all parties to identify opportunities for deescalation and to develop a roadmap to the peaceful resolution of disputes. The upcoming Strategic and Economic Dialogue is an
important opportunity for Beijing and Washington to speak directly about these issues and the dangers they post, and to find a way
to prevent a crisis. China and other claimants in the South China Sea are on a collision course, and it

is incumbent on the United States to demonstrate leadership by forestalling a future crisis that
could throw the entire region into conflict. Unless the claimants are able to turn away from

aggression and see de-escalation as a useful tool of strategy, it is only a matter of time until
Beijing miscalculates and escalates over a redline that leads to crisis and raises the potential for
conflict. A mix of countries with incompatible, apparently nonnegotiable interests willing to use force and unwilling to
acknowledge any way out than the absolute capitulation of the other side is a highly dangerous mixthis is how wars start.

Goes nuclear fast

Goldstein, 13 Avery, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the
Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the
University of Pennsylvania (First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations, International
Security, vol. 37, no. 4, Spring 2013, Muse //Red)

Two concerns have driven much of the debate about international security in the post-Cold War era. The first is the potentially deadly mix of nuclear
proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists, a worry that became dominant after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September
11, 2001.1 The second concern, one whose prominence has waxed and waned since the mid-1990s, is the potentially disruptive impact that China will
have if it emerges as a peer competitor of the United States, challenging an international order established during the era of U.S. preponderance.2
Reflecting this second concern, some analysts have expressed reservations about the dominant post-September 11 security agenda, arguing that China
could challenge U.S. global interests in ways that terrorists and rogue states cannot. In this article, I raise a more pressing issue, one to which not
enough attention has been paid. For

at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak, the gravest danger in
Sino-American relations is the possibility the two countries will find themselves in a crisis that
could escalate to open military conflict. In contrast to the long-term prospect of a new great power rivalry between the

United States and China, which ultimately rests on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain forecasts about big shifts in
their national capabilities, the

danger of instability in a crisis involving these two nuclear-armed states is a

tangible, near-term concern.3 Even if the probability of such a war-threatening crisis and its escalation to the use of significant military
force is low, the potentially catastrophic consequences of this scenario provide good reason for
analysts to better understand its dynamics and for policymakers to fully consider its implications. Moreover, events since
2010especially those relevant to disputes in the East and South China Seassuggest that the danger
of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific that could lead to a U.S.-China standoff
may be on the rise. In what follows, I identify not just pressures to use force preemptively that pose the most serious risk should a SinoAmerican confrontation unfold, but also related, if slightly less dramatic, incentives to initiate the limited use of force to gain bargaining leveragea
second trigger for potentially devastating instability during a crisis.4 My discussion proceeds in three sections. The first section explains why, during

the next decade or two, a serious U.S.-China crisis may be more likely than is currently recognized. The
second section examines the features of plausible Sino-American crises that may make them so dangerous. The third section considers general features
of crisis stability in asymmetric dyads such as the one in which a U.S. superpower would confront an increasingly capable but still thoroughly
overmatched Chinathe asymmetry that will prevail for at least the next decade. This more stylized discussion clarifies the inadequacy of focusing onesidedly on conventional forces, as has much of the current commentary about the modernization of China's military and the implications this has for
potential conflicts with the United States in the Western Pacific,5 or of focusing one-sidedly on China's nuclear forces, as a smaller slice of the
commentary has.6 An

assessment considering the interaction of conventional and nuclear forces

indicates why escalation resulting from crisis instability remains a devastating
possibility. Before proceeding, however, I would like to clarify my use of the terms "crisis" and "instability." For the purposes of this article, I

define a crisis as a confrontation between states involving a serious threat to vital national interests for both sides, in which there is the expectation of a
short time for resolution, and in which there is understood to be a sharply increased risk of war.7 This definition distinguishes crises from many
situations to which the label is sometimes applied, such as more protracted confrontations; sharp disagreements over important matters that are not
vital interests and in which military force seems irrelevant; and political disputes involving vital interests, even those with military components, that
present little immediate risk of war.8 I define instability as the temptation to resort to force in a crisis.9 Crisis stability is greatest when both sides
strongly prefer to continue bargaining; instability is greatest when they are strongly tempted to resort to the use of military force. Stability, then,
describes a spectrumfrom one extreme in which neither side sees much advantage to using force, through a range of situations in which the balance of
costs and benefits of using force varies for each side, to the other extreme in which the benefits of using force so greatly exceed the costs that striking
first looks nearly irresistible to both sides. Although the incentives to initiate the use of force may not reach this extreme level in a U.S. China crisis,

the capabilities that the two countries possess raise concerns that escalation pressures will exist
and that they may be highest early in a crisis, compressing the time frame for diplomacy to
avert military conflict.

xt: Lost Solves SCS

Legitimacy solves SCS disputes
Vanecko 11 [Jonathan J. Vanecko, Liutenant CMDR USN at US Naval War College and worked
in the pentagon, May 11 2011, Time to Ratify UNCLOS; A New Twist on an Old Problem,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a546081.pdf, MM]
Additionally, legitimacy serves to underpin United States assertions that we are committed to the
rule of law; critical if the U.S. hopes to achieve maritime security goals in the SCS.
Looking closely at the EP-3 incident from 2001, notably absent is any real resolution of the underlying issues. Mainly the serious
disconnect between Chinese and U.S. interpretations of UNCLOS provisions as related to
military activities in the EEZ. Moreover, other than saber rattling by the U.S. and China, our closest allies in the region
failed to lodge strong protests against this clear violation of UNCLOS. At best this shows other regional powers at least
marginally acknowledge Chinese EEZ regulations, and at worst brings into question whether
international powers fully believe U.S. actions are completely legitimate. Ratification eliminates
that seam and the increased legitimacy gained helps U.S. allies come to our defense should
similar issues arise in the future. Finally, legitimacy is the key to future dialog with China
over freedom of navigation in the SCS . UNCLOS already provides the framework for
communication and resolution of varying interpretations of convention provisions. With an economy
increasingly dependent on maritime freedom in the global commons, China may be receptive to multilateral dialog
and change internal laws to better conform to the UNCLOS.68 This would be a win-win for PACOM as it
would significantly decrease the requirement for, and probability of miscalculation during, FON assertions. Moreover, dialog could
lead to multilateral security cooperation activities with the PRC Navy, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative.69

Chinese hegemony in the South China sea directly trades off with the United
States.
Kelly 2/10/14. Dr. Robert E. Kelly is an associate professor of international relations in the
Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University in South Korea.
What Would Chinese Hegemony Look Like? http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/what-wouldchinese-hegemony-look-like/. MMG
Until recently, China pursued a peaceful rise strategy, one of accommodation and mutual
adjustment. This approach sought to forestall an anti-Chinese encircling coalition. Chinas rapid growth unnerves many states

on its perimeter, from India, east to Vietnam, Indonesia and Australia, north to Taiwan, Japan, and Russia. Were these states to
align, they might contain China in the same way the Japan, China, and NATO all worked to contain the U.S.SR. The peaceful rise
seemed to work, especially in southeast Asia, where Chinese generosity has successfully blocked a united ASEAN position on South
China Sea issues .

Since 2009 however, China has increasingly resorted to bullying and

threats. The 2008 Olympics appears to have been read in Beijing as a sign of Chinas newfound might and sway. In the
South China Sea it has pushed a very expansive definition of its maritime zone of control, and it
recently faced down the Philippines in a dispute over the Scarborough Shoal in that sea. Indeed, one
possible explanation for Chinas expansion of its air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea is that a hard line
seems to be working in the South China Sea. But Chinas northeast Asian neighbors are far stronger and more capable than its
southeast Asian ones. Most observers expect Japan, South Korea and the U.S. to push back, as indeed they have. The U.S. flew
bombers through the new ADIZ without warning, and both Japanese and South Korean civilian airlines have been instructed by
their respective governments not to comply. All this then sets up a bipolar contest between China and Japan, in the context of
Chinas rapid rise toward regional dominance. A common theme in the literature on Chinas rise is its apparent inevitability.
Westerners particularly tend to get carried away with book-titles such as Eclipse (of the U.S. by China), When China Rules the
World, or Chinas New Empire. History is indeed filled with the rise to dominance of powerful states.
China and Japan both sought in the past to dominate Asia. Various European states including the U.S.SR, Germany, and France did
the same.

But frequently these would-be hegemons collided with a counter-

hegemonic coalition of states unwilling to be manipulated or conquered . Occasionally

the hegemonic aspirant may win; Europe under Rome was unipolar, as was feudal Asia now-and-again under the strongest

Chinese dynasties. But there

is nothing inevitable about this. Hegemonic contenders as various as

Napoleon or Imperial Japan have been defeated. To be fair, it is not clear yet if indeed China seeks regional
hegemony. But there is a growing consensus among American and Japanese analysts
that this is indeed the case . By Chinese hegemony in Asia we broadly mean something akin to the United States
position in Latin America. We do not mean actual conquest. Almost no one believes China intends to annex even its weakest
neighbors like Cambodia or North Korea. Rather, analysts expect a zone of super-ordinate influence over
neighbors. For example, in 1823, U.S. president James Monroe proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine, which warned all non-

American powers to stay out of the Western Hemisphere on pain of U.S. retaliation. This has worked reasonably well for almost 200
years. The U.S. has variously used force, aid, covert CIA assistance, trade, and so on to eject foreign powers from what Washington
(condescendingly) came to call Americas backyard. Today, of course, such language seems disturbingly neocolonial, but many
assume that the fundamental illiberalism of such spheres of influence do not worry non-democracies like China. A Sinic Monroe
Doctrine would likely include some mix of the following: - the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Japan and Korea, - U.S. naval
retrenchment from east Asia, perhaps as far back as Hawaii, - a division of the Pacific into east/U.S. and west/China zones with a
Chinese blue-water navy operating beyond the so-called second island chain running from Japan southeast to New Guinea, - an
RMB currency bloc in southeast Asia and possibly Korea, - a regional trading zone, - foreign policies from Chinas neighbors
broadly in sync with its own. - the isolation, if not absorption, of Taiwan This is not going to happen soon of course. This is a
project for the next several decades, just as U.S. power over Latin America came slowly through the nineteenth century. But such

goals would broadly fit with what we have seen in the behavior of previous hegemons, including
Imperial Japan and China, Rome, the British Empire, the U.S. in Latin America, and various
German plans for Eastern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. The era of U.S.
preponderance in Asia is coming to an end.
Ratification of LOST are the only way to resolve SCS disputes
RSIS 7/2 (S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Commentaries intended to provide
timely and, where appropriate, policy relevant background and analysis of contemporary
developments, "CHANGING POWER, CHANGING INTERESTS: FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION
IN SOUTH CHINA SEA ANALYSIS", July 2 2014, http://www.eurasiareview.com/02072014changing-power-changing-interests-freedom-navigation-south-china-sea-analysis/)
Since 2011, US

strategies in the South China Sea can be generalised through five different channels: (i) to
oppose, or even threaten Chinas aggressive behaviours in multilateral forum; (ii) to urge
involved parties to find a pacific conflict settlement based on international law (in this case, to support
the formation of a full Code of Conduct, COC, and to call for utilisation of the 1982 UNCLOS ); (iii) to assist regional allies
by providing warships and military facilities for naval defence; (iv) to support cooperation
amongst US allies and potential partners; (v) to communicate with China (regarding not only the South
China Sea but also the East China Seas associated issues) about the costs of their expansion policy. These approaches
do not seem to fully serve US interests. A more active policy , therefore, is needed . If the US desires
to establish a rules-based order in the South China Sea, it should prioritise its own
ratification of UNCLOS , the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. This spirit was shared by
President Obamas commencement speech at the US Military Academy Graduation Ceremony at West Point on May 28 2014:
We cant try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure
that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate, despite the fact that our top
military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. The treaty provides not only a legal basis but also
the moral credibility and strategic weapon of the US in the South China Sea.
UNCLOS solves China and SCS disputes
Ku 1/16 (Julian Ku, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of International Programs at Hofstra
law, B.A., Yale University, J.D., Yale Law School, primary research is the relationship of
international law to national law, both in the public and the private sphere, "Will Ratifying
UNCLOS Help the U.S. Manage China?", January 16 2014,
http://opiniojuris.org/2014/01/16/will-ratifying-unclos-help-u-s-manage-china/)

A subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee held a much-needed hearing to educate
themselves on Chinas recent activity in the East and South China Seas. Professor Peter Dutton of the Naval War College, along with
two other experts on Asian affairs, gave interesting and useful testimony on the nature of Chinas maritime disputes with Japan, the
Philippines, Vietnam, and other Asian countries. There is a lot of interesting stuff here, but my attention was particularly caught by
Professor Duttons recommendation (seconded by Bonnie Glaeser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies) that the

U.S. ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as part of a multifaceted
strategy to manage Chinas sort-of-aggressive strategy to expand its power and influence in the
region. Here is Professor Duttons argument: Accordingly, to ensure its future position in East Asia, the United
States should take specific actions to defend the international legal architecture pertaining to the
maritime and aerial commons. Acceding to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
and once again exercising direct leadership over the development of its rules and norms is the
first and most critical step. The Department of State should also re-energize its Limits in the Seas series to publicly and
repeatedly reinforce international law related to sea and airspace. A good place to begin the new series would be
with a detailed assessment of why international law explicitly rejects Chinas U-shaped line in
the South China Sea as the basis for Chinese jurisdiction there. Others could be written to describe why
Chinas East China Sea continental shelf claim misapplies international law and why Chinas ADIZ unlawfully asserts jurisdiction in
the airspace. My sense is that East Asian states, indeed many states around the world, are desperate for

active American leadership over the norms and laws that govern legitimate international action.
I understand the force of this argument. The U.S. already adheres the key principles in UNCLOS,
so joining UNCLOS will allow the U.S. to push back more effectively against
Chinas aggressive and expansionary activities.
LOST prevents SCS conflict
AFP 5/28 (Agence France Presse, oldest and largest international news agency, "Obama Warns
Against Aggression In South China Sea And Advocates Law Of The Sea Treaty Ratification",
May 28 2014, http://thenewsdoctors.com/obama-warns-against-aggression-in-south-chinasea-and-advocates-law-of-the-sea-treaty-ratification/)
President Barack Obama warned Wednesday that the

United States was ready to respond to China's "aggression" toward its

lead by example by ratifying a key treaty. In a wide-ranging speech
on foreign policy to US military cadets at West Point, Obama said that the United States should shun isolationism
and that its military must be prepared for crises. "Regional aggression that goes unchecked -- whether it's southern
neighbors at sea but said Washington should

Ukraine, or the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world -- will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military,"
Obama said. But Obama emphasized caution on any decision to use force and said: "American

influence is always stronger when we lead by example." "We can't try to resolve the problems in
the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is
ratified by the United States -- despite the fact that our top military leaders say that the treaty advances
our national security," Obama said, not naming China directly as he diverted from his prepared text. "That's not
leadership; that's retreat. That's not strength; that's weakness," Obama said. Senators of the rival Republican
Party have refused to ratify the treaty, saying that the UN convention would override US sovereignty. Tensions have been
rising for months between China and its neighbors at sea, with Vietnam on Tuesday accusing Beijing of
ramming and sinking one of its fishing boats in the South China Sea. Japan and the Philippines also have tense
disputes at sea with China. Japanese commentators have voiced concern that the US failure to
prevent Russia from annexing Ukraine's Crimea peninsula in March sent the wrong signal to
China.
Ratifying LOST prevents SCS conflict
Burt 12 (Andrew, a Knight Law and Media Scholar at Yale Law School, writes about
international affairs, security policy and American politics for The Atlantic, The Christian
Science Monitor and El Pais, "Why U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty ", May 25
2012, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/229559-why-us-senate-shouldratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty)

The first reason: China. Over the last few years, the

Chinese government has grown more assertive over its

territorial claims to the South China Sea, attempting to enforce ownership of long- disputed
islands in the region and seeking to keep U.S. Navy ships from surveying those waters. The U.S.
government, along with Chinas neighbors, has pushed back, conducting naval exercises and
publicly strengthening regional ties. The problem, however, is that the heart of the conflict between
China and the U.S. boils down to different interpretations over UNCLOS and the rights the
treaty provides. Its those same officials who, in the course of negotiating with the Chinese, are calling UNCLOS Uncle Sams
black eye. As John Norton Moore, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School and the head of the Center for Oceans Law
and Policy, told me: Its very difficult for the United States to protect its interests when were not a

party. Theres only so much officials can say when the Chinese point out that the U.S. is
attempting to enforce its interpretations of laws it hasnt even ratified. As long as the U.S. remains on the
list of countries that have yet to pass the treaty keeping company with such notables as Burundi, Iran and Ethiopia the
Chinese have a point.
LOST prevents SCS escalation
CSM 12 (Christian Science Monitor, independent international news organization that delivers
thoughtful, global coverage, "Law of the Sea Treaty as a peace tool for US", May 9 2012,
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2012/0509/Law-of-the-SeaTreaty-as-a-peace-tool-for-US)
To prevent wars, the United States needs the best tools of peace. But right now it is missing a
critical one in not approving the Law of the Sea Treaty. Adopting this international pact, which 153
nations now follow, could come in very handy as the US tries to help end a heated conflict in East Asian
waters. Since early April, China and the Philippines have been in a tense, ship-to-ship standoff over
control of a disputed shoal in the South China Sea. As a defense ally of the Philippines, the US could be obligated
to assist the Philippines if China forcibly takes Scarborough Shoal. In the past, China has shown it is willing to kill
the soldiers of other countries in taking various islands in the sea. Even on Wednesday, China stated that it
has ... made all preparations to respond to any escalation of the situation by the Philippine
side. Chinas aggressive tactics to assert maritime rights and claims in the seas around its shores
could be better countered if the US were on firm legal ground with a rules-based approach to
resolving such disputes. To achieve that, the Senate must approve the Law of the Sea Treaty soon. The
six nations that contest the islands, reefs, and waters of the South China Sea are all signatories to the pact. But Chinas
interpretation of it is often vague or not widely accepted. It relies on its economic muscle to gain
concessions or reject international mediation of a dispute. Even the map that China uses to assert a claim

hundreds of miles from its mainland consists of only a few ill-defined lines. In addition, it seems to prefer dealing with each claimant
nation individually in hopes of avoiding a multilateral approach. This current dispute is not just over a wave-battered shoal. The

South China Sea is home to one-third of the worlds traffic in the shipping trade. Half of the
worlds oil and gas runs through it. The sea may contain large stores of petroleum. In fact, China is ready to start its first
deepwater oil drill in the area. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made a plea Wednesday for the Senate to approve the
treaty. He is backed up by military commanders who seek the legal protection for Navy ships to
travel the high seas without harassment, as China has shown it will do. By moving off the
sidelines and leading the discussion, we would be able to influence those treaty bodies that
develop and interpret the Law of the Sea, Mr. Panetta said. Critics of the treaty contend it would
unfairly restrict the US too much in mining the seabed for minerals. But under rules of the
treatys International Seabed Authority, the US would be able to veto any proposed
implementation of such provisions. In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that resolution of
the disputes in the South China Sea is in Americas interest. This assertion at first angered China, but it has
since shown some moderation in its behavior. Now would be a good time to further that momentum by
joining the treaty. It might help bring China into honoring the international norms of the sea. Without the US
officially endorsing such rules and principles, disputes like those in the South China Sea could
easily escalate to war. Tools of peace are needed before that happens.

Ratification solves removes Chinas excuse for not abiding by UNCLOS

Esmaquel 7/15 Cites Paul Reichler, an international lawyer for more than 25 years and lead counsel for the Philippines,

and Bing Bing Jia, an an international law professor at Tsinghua University in China, who co-authored a book designed to explain
China's arguments to the arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Esmaquel is a journalist for Rappler. (2014,
Paterno Esmaquel II, Rappler, Ratify UNCLOS, Philippines' lawyer tells US, http://www.rappler.com/nation/63390-ratify-unclosphilippines-lawyer-reichler-us // SM)
MANILA, Philippines The

Philippines' lead counsel in its case against China, Washington-based Paul

Reichler, challenged the United States to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to
pressure China to heed it. In a forum organized by the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on
Friday, July 11, Reichler said it is a disgrace that the US has not ratified the so-called Constitution for the Oceans, even as the US,
one of the UNCLOS' "main architects," postures itself as a key player in the disputed waters. Reichler, who handles Manila's historic
arbitration case against Beijing, said China makes a somewhat sympathetic political argument in

disregarding the UNCLOS despite having ratified it in 1996. For China to heed the UNCLOS is
important for Reichler's client, the Philippines, because the Southeast Asian country accuses China of
disregarding the UNCLOS by asserting its 9-dash line, a non-UNCLOS-based demarcation to claim
virtually the entire South China Sea. Explaining the Chinese point-of-view, Reichler said: Why should they
be bound by the convention; why should they have to comply with it, when the United States which is a great
power and asserts important strategic interests in the South China Sea, and has pivoted in that direction
when the United States is free of it, and doesn't have to comply with it? Why should China be subject to
different rules than the United States? I said that's a political argument, not a legal one, the lawyer said. China's bound
by the convention because they're a party. But why shouldn't the United States engage in that argument? Reichler: 'Mystifying,
anomalous' An international lawyer for more than 25 years, he said: Why shouldn't the United States

remove China's excuse, and why shouldn't the United States ratify the convention? More than 180 states
had done it. Every other great power is a party to it. It's really mystifying. It's anomalous, and frankly it's a
disgrace that the United States has not ratified the convention. Reichler's arguments find basis in the views of
Bing Bing Jia, an international law professor at Tsinghua University in China, who co-authored
a book designed to explain China's arguments to the arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, which is hearing the Philippines' case. (READ: China's strategy vs PH: Trial by publicity) Speaking at
the CSIS forum, Jia downplayed the UNCLOS by pointing out that many countries, for one, have not ratified this convention. The
Law of the Sea Convention cannot cover everything in international law, isn't it? You cannot deal with, for instance, the use of force
in Iraq or Syria. You cannot expect too much from very specialized conventions such as this. That says one thing, Jia said. He
explained: The Law of the Sea Convention is one treaty. It parallels customary international law in many areas. That's why in the
preamble of the convention, it states very clearly: For all the matters unregulated in this convention, customary international law
will help, will aid, will regulate. If it is not so, how can you explain there are so many countries standing outside the Law of the Sea
Convention? The Chinese government itself has said the South China Sea dispute is none of America's

business because the US is not a party concerned, and has not ratified the UNCLOS either. Obama: 'That's

not leadership' The Obama administration, for its part, has said it wants the UNCLOS ratified. Michael Fuchs, US deputy assistant
secretary of state for Strategy and Multilateral Affairs at the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said US officials have made
our views very clear on the need to ratify UNCLOS. US President Barack Obama, in fact, in a commencement speech at the US
Military Academy at West Point, New York on May 28, stressed the need to ratify the UNCLOS. You see, American influence is
always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else, Obama said. He
added: We cant try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea
Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national
security. Thats not leadership. Thats retreat. Thats not strength; thats weakness. It is not enough to say all these, however,
according to Reichler. If everyone supports it, why isn't it a priority to get it done? It's not enough to say that we support it, to pay
lip service to it. What's required is to make it a priority, Reichler said. He explained: Now in the South China Sea, we see why it is a
priority, and why it should have been a priority over the last 30 years. But it's not too late. There is this crisis, and there will be
others. And we

need to be a party to the convention so that we, with moral and political authority,
can encourage with greater prospects of success, compliance with the rule of the law in
international relations. Rappler.com
Ratification solves resolves competing interpretations over UNCLOS, only the
plan solves the root cause of the conflict
Burt 12 Burt, a former national security reporter, attends Yale Law School. (5/25/2014,
Andrew, The Hill, Why U.S. Senate should ratify Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/229559-why-us-senate-should-ratifylaw-of-the-sea-treaty // SM)

The first reason: China. Over the last few years, the Chinese government has grown more
assertive over its territorial claims to the South China Sea, attempting to enforce ownership of
long- disputed islands in the region and seeking to keep U.S. Navy ships from surveying those
waters. The U.S. government, along with Chinas neighbors, has pushed back, conducting naval
exercises and publicly strengthening regional ties. The problem, however, is that the heart of the
conflict between China and the U.S. boils down to different interpretations over UNCLOS and
the rights the treaty provides. Its those same officials who, in the course of negotiating with the
Chinese, are calling UNCLOS Uncle Sams black eye. As John Norton Moore, a professor at the
University of Virginia Law School and the head of the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, told
me: Its very difficult for the United States to protect its interests when were not a party.
Theres only so much officials can say when the Chinese point out that the U.S. is attempting to
enforce its interpretations of laws it hasnt even ratified. As long as the U.S. remains on the list
of countries that have yet to pass the treaty keeping company with such notables as Burundi,
Iran and Ethiopia the Chinese have a point.
Ratification solves provides legal basis and moral credibility
Vu and Thao 7/2 Truong-Minh Vu is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Centre for Global Studies,
University of Bonn (Germany) and a lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, College of
Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University. Nghiem Anh Thao is a graduate
student in Political Science at VU University Amsterdam/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. (2014, Truong-Minh Vu and Nghiem Anh Thao, Eurasia Review, Changing Power,
Changing Interests: Freedom Of Navigation In South China Sea Analysis,
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02072014-changing-power-changing-interests-freedomnavigation-south-china-sea-analysis/ // SM)
If the US desires to establish a rules-based order in the South China Sea, it should prioritise its
own ratification of UNCLOS, the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. This spirit was shared by
President Obamas commencement speech at the US Military Academy Graduation Ceremony at
West Point on May 28 2014: We cant try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we
have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States
Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national
security. The treaty provides not only a legal basis but also the moral credibility and strategic
weapon of the US in the South China Sea.

xt: SCS Escalates

SCS Impact Laundry List

Resolving the SCS conflict is key to US hegemony and energy access failing leads
to Chinese regional hegemony and additional Chinese conquests
Corr et al. 7/8 Dr. Anders Corr is Principal of Corr Analytics Inc. in New York City. Ms.
Huong Mai Nguyen works as a public sector East Asia analyst at the World Bank in Washington,
D.C. Dr. Priscilla Tacujan worked for over a year as a social scientist in Afghanistan for the U.S.
Army. (2014, Anders Corr, Huong Mai Nguyen, and Priscilla Tacujan, Forbes, U.S. Should Act
Unilaterally To Protect The Smaller Nations Of The South China Sea,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/protect-the-smaller-nations-of-the-southchina-sea/ // SM)
The Philippines and Vietnam have strong and mutually-reinforcing economic and security
interests in defending their resource-rich seas. The South China Sea holds oil reserves of 28 to
213 billion barrels of oil, the upper estimate of which would make the sea the third-largest
oil depository after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The South China Sea also holds 190
trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 3% of proven global reserves. Economic and security
implications of the South China Sea are mutually reinforcing. Protecting islands in the
Philippines and Vietnam not only protects the immediate security and sovereignty of these
nations, but has tremendous economic implications for future growth and access to
resources . Revenues from oil and gas resources will in turn be used to strengthen the
security and military powers of whichever countries secure them. The economic and political
costs of inaction are grave, as failing to protect these resources means loss of resource revenue
for Vietnam and the Philippines, and gain of those revenues by China. Loss of the South China
Sea to China would tip the regional balance of power heavily in Chinas favor , thereby
whetting its appetites for additional destabilizing conquests in the Asia-Pacific . The
stronger China relative to its neighbors, the more China will want to project power Eastward
including potentially Taiwan, South Korea, and naval patrols East of Hawaii.

Japan Impact Chinese Agression

US Japan relationship can quell Chinese militarism and conflict escalation.
Foreign Affairs Magazine 6. Published by the Council on Foreign Relations. China and Japan's Simmering Rivalry.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61515/kent-e-calder/china-and-japans-simmering-rivalry. MMG
Many contentious

issues confront China and Japan. Among the most pressing is their thirst for
energy. Japan depends on imports for 99 percent of its oil and natural gas; coastal China is similarly bereft of resources.
Thus, the offshore oil and gas fields under the East China Sea are attractive
"domestic" sources of energy for both Beijing and Tokyo -- and both have laid
claim to them . China argues that the entire East China Sea continental shelf, extending eastward nearly all the way to
Okinawa, is a "natural prolongation" of the Chinese mainland. Japan has declared its boundary to be a median line between its
undisputed territory and China -- a line that runs roughly 100 miles west of the Okinawa Trough, which lies undersea just west of
Okinawa and is where the richest petroleum deposits in the area are believed to be concentrated. The conflict began
escalating in May 2004 when China started serious exploratory operations in the Chunxiao gas
fields, only four kilometers from the median line. Actions by both parties have since raised
tensions. In November 2004, a Chinese nuclear-powered attack submarine intruded into Japanese waters near Okinawa for more

than two hours, ostensibly by accident. Since the spring of 2005, the number of flights into disputed airspace by Chinese military
surveillance aircraft has risen to record levels. In May 2005, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) authorized
Japanese companies to explore contested areas for natural gas. On the eve of the Japanese elections in September 2005, Chinese
warships patrolled near the now-active Chunxiao fields. In response, both Japan's ruling coalition, led by the Liberal Democratic
Party (LDP), and the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) have prepared bills proposing to protect the operations of
Japanese drillers and fishermen in disputed waters -- by force, if necessary. The Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait also
present challenges for the Sino-Japanese relationship and for regional stability. Since the Pyongyang summit in June 2000, trade
between South Korea and North Korea has grown by 150 percent, cross-border tourism has boomed, railway lines across the
demilitarized zone have been reconnected, and a special economic zone in the peninsula's ancient capital of Kaesong, now in North
Korea, has begun to flourish with South Korea's backing. As the likelihood of inter-Korean conflict declines, the long-term rivalry
between China and Japan for influence on the peninsula may be rekindled -- a rivalry that helped spark the first Sino-Japanese War,
of 1894-95. Unification or reconciliation could also deepen the sense Japan has that its position in Northeast Asia is under siege.
Were the military forces of North Korea and South Korea to be combined, they would number close to ten times those in Japan's
Self-Defense Forces (SDF). Like the Koreas, Taiwan and China have grown more intertwined economically. According to most
estimates, investment across the Taiwan Strait now totals over $100 billion. More than 70 percent of Taiwan's foreign investment
went to the mainland in 2004, 10 percent of Taiwan's labor force works in China, and four Taiwanese-owned firms are among the
mainland's top ten exporters. (Taiwan now trades substantially more with China than it does with the United States.) There have
also been signs of an emerging political dtente between Beijing and Taiwan's opposition parties: Lien Chan, chair of the
Kuomintang Party (KMT) that Chiang Kai-shek led to Taiwan at the end of 1949, went to the mainland in April 2005, where he
visited his ancestors' graves and the former KMT capital of Nanjing and met with China's president, Hu Jintao. Meanwhile, both
countries' military capabilities have increased. China has deployed dozens of submarines and frigates, 800 short-range missiles, over
1,200 fighter aircraft, and tens of thousands of troops along the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan has countered by deploying its own missiles
and nearly 300 top-of-the-line fighter planes, mainly U.S.-built F-16s. Beijing's military buildup has implications for Tokyo: the
missiles China has aimed at Taiwan could easily reach Japan's main islands as well as Okinawa, where 70 percent of U.S. defense
facilities in Japan, including the indispensable Kadena Air Force Base, are located. Both U.S. and Japanese defense

specialists thus view neutralizing this potential threat as a vital goal. The United States and
Japan will conduct missile tests in Hawaii during the spring of 2006 to establish the efficacy of
ballistic missile defenses . If a missile defense system were deployed, the U.S.Japanese alliance's capabilities would be enhanced -- and Beijing would be

alarmed by the weakening of its relative position . The issue is therefore emerging as yet another area
As Sino-Japanese tensions increase, it is becoming more and
more likely that Japan will revise its constitution in ways that will allow the SDF greater
freedom of action, even as other nonmilitary reforms are achieved as well. (The constitution, written in
1947, limits the SDF to a narrowly defensive role.) Beyond the regional tensions themselves, important long-term
structural changes in Japanese politics are at work: the combined socialist and communist representation in the
of controversy in Sino-Japanese relations.

Diet has fallen from 14 to 3 percent over the past decade, leaving the conservative LDP and its coalition partner with the two-thirds
majority needed to begin amendment of the constitution and leaving the left with only 16 of 480 seats in the Diet's dominant lower
house. The recent ascendancy of defense hawks in the DPJ has also amplified the left's collapse. The current LDP draft amendment,
published in October 2005, would retain the historic Article 9, which states that "the Japanese people forever renounce war as a

sovereign right of the nation." But the proposal would also clearly legitimate the SDF (an institution whose role has been
constitutionally ambiguous); clarify Japan's prerogative to participate in collective self-defense, the

linchpin of the security cooperation between Japan and the United States; and simplify
procedures for amending the constitution in the future. This procedural change could further
exacerbate Sino-Japanese tensions by increasing uncertainty regarding Japan's future
rearmament.

Japan Impact Taiwan Conflict

Chinese invasion of Taiwan quickly draws in the United States.
CBN News 09. Chinese Attack on Taiwan: War for U.S.? http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/March/Chinese-Attackon-Taiwan-War-for-US-/> MMG

How might a Chinese attack unfold? The prospect of a giant Normandy-like invasion has been jokingly dismissed as the
"million man swim" because China doesn't yet have enough naval vessels to transport a large invasion force across the Taiwan
Strait. Experts say a quick decapitation strike is more likely. "China's strategy I think would be a missile attack

on Taiwan's airfields, which are not well defended, hoping to seize air dominance," Pike added.

Allowing for the insertion of Special Forces who would seize key command and control sectors. The publication Janes Defense
suggests that Chinese sleeper cells already on the island would move into action, assassinating key leaders and attacking radar and
communication facilities. It says

China might even preemptively hit U.S. bases in the pacific,

believing war with the U.S is inevitable . Chinese forces would then seek to install a new government within a
week, one that would tell the U.S. Navy to go home. Dan Blumenthal was senior director for China and Taiwan under Defense
Secretary Don Rumsfeld. "Beijing strategists are thinking about it this way: Taiwan will fold quickly. That you can make them come
to their knees quickly, not necessarily by invading Taiwan, but by launching ballistic missiles at Taiwan, there are many many
pointed at Taiwan right now," Blumenthal said. "By trying to bring down their critical infrastructure. By making it seem like the
Taiwan government has lost control. Using Information and computer network attacks. Blockading the island, starving it from its
economic resources," he added. Pike said Taiwan's strategy is to wait. "I think that Taiwan's military strategy is to
hold out for the week that it would take American forces to arrive in large numbers. China's military
strategy has to be to have a government in power in Taipei before the end of that first week that tells the American military to go
away, we're happy that we've rejoined China," he said.

This war would go nuclear and escalate, causing extinction

The Straits Times, June 25, 2000 (Regional Fallout: No One Gains in the War Over Taiwan, Pg. L/N)
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.

The US-Japan alliance prevents China from invading Taiwan

Yukio Okamoto, Security Adviser to Japanese Cabinet, 2002 (Washington Quarterly 25.2 p. 59-72)
The U.S.-Japan alliance represents a significant hope for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan
problem. Both Japan and the United States have clearly stated that they oppose reunification by
force. When China conducted provocative missile tests in the waters around Taiwan in 1996, the United States sent two aircraft
carrier groups into nearby waters as a sign of its disapproval of China's belligerent act. Japan seconded the U.S. action,
raising in Chinese minds the possibility that Japan might offer logistical and other support to its
ally in the event of hostilities. Even though intervention is only a possibility, a strong and close tie between
Japanese and U.S. security interests guarantees that the Chinese leadership cannot afford to
miscalculate the consequences of an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. The alliance backs up
Japan's basic stance that the two sides need to come to a negotiated solution.

at: Hard Power Solves SCS

Hard power approach to the SCS fails
Vu and Thao 7/2 Truong-Minh Vu is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Centre for Global Studies,
University of Bonn (Germany) and a lecturer at the Faculty of International Relations, College of
Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University. Nghiem Anh Thao is a graduate
student in Political Science at VU University Amsterdam/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. (2014, Truong-Minh Vu and Nghiem Anh Thao, Eurasia Review, Changing Power,
Changing Interests: Freedom Of Navigation In South China Sea Analysis,
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02072014-changing-power-changing-interests-freedomnavigation-south-china-sea-analysis/ // SM)
And thirdly, the US seeks to assure American hegemony in the Asia-Pacific and at the same time
has to deal with domestic economic challenges by cutting the defence budget and concentrating
on saving the economy (creating jobs and the federal governments debt as an example).
Consequently, the US is in need of a policy which does not heavily lean on hard power and
require massive defence expenditures, but can be employed through other channels such as
diplomacy and international law.

at: Squo Solves SCS

The US assistance in insufficient in the status quo
Corr et al. 7/8 Dr. Anders Corr is Principal of Corr Analytics Inc. in New York City. Ms.
Huong Mai Nguyen works as a public sector East Asia analyst at the World Bank in Washington,
D.C. Dr. Priscilla Tacujan worked for over a year as a social scientist in Afghanistan for the U.S.
Army. (2014, Anders Corr, Huong Mai Nguyen, and Priscilla Tacujan, Forbes, U.S. Should Act
Unilaterally To Protect The Smaller Nations Of The South China Sea,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/protect-the-smaller-nations-of-the-southchina-sea/ // SM)
While assistance from the United States in defending the Philippine maritime territory would be
optimal, this cannot be solely relied upon. The United States signed the Mutual Defense Treaty
of 1951 with the Philippines, but is arguably neglecting its obligations to defend the
Philippines in the South China Sea against Chinese incursions. While China militarizes and
builds structures on islands and shoals within the Philippine exclusive economic zone, such as
Panatag Shoal, the United States is conducting joint military exercises, and developing new
trade agreements, with China. The United States limits its response to token military aid
and cheap talk about Chinese violation of international law . Since the 2012 standoff,
neither has the Philippines done anything significant militarily to stop China. While the
Philippine military cannot come close to defeating China in a conventional naval battle, the
Philippines could use special operations tactics against structures and Chinese naval assets on
Panatag shoal to make Chinas incursions prohibitively costly.

Heg/Leadership Advantage

1ac Leadership
Advantage __ is Freedom of Navigation
Challenges to US leadership are inevitable LOST ratification strengthens
international institutions that are key to continued strength
Allen, Armitage, and Hamre 11 (Allen, Thad W. [Admiral Thad W. Allen holds a Master of
Public Administration degree from George Washington University and a Masters degree in
Management from the MIT Sloan School of Management. He served for four decades in the
United States Coast Guard and is now a senior fellow of the RAND Corporation.]. Armitage,
Richard L. [Richard L. Armitage graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1967 with
the rank of ensign. He was the United States Deputy Secretary of States for five years and is now
the president of a consulting firm.]. Hamre, John J. [John J. Hamre earned a B.A. in political
science and economics from Augustana College and Ph.D. in 1978 from the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He was the Deputy Secretary of Defense
from 1997 to 2000 and is now the president of the Center for Strategic and International
Studies.]. Odd Man Out at Sea. The New York Times, April 24th, 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04 /25/opinion/25allen.html?_r=0 [accessed July 11th,
2014])//ALepow
But the United States
has yet to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a result, the United
States, the worlds leading maritime power, is at a military and economic disadvantage. The
Its been in place for nearly 30 years; nearly 160 countries (plus the European Union) have signed it.

convention codifies widely accepted principles on territorial waters (which it defines as those extending 12 miles out to sea),
shipping lanes and ocean resources. It also grants each signatory exclusive fishing and mining rights within 200 miles of its coast
(called the exclusive economic zone). Although the United States originally voted to create the convention and negotiated many
provisions to its advantage, Congress has never ratified it. With nearly 12,500 miles of coastline, 360 major commercial ports and
the worlds largest exclusive economic zone, the United States has a lot to gain from signing the convention. It is the only legal
framework that exists for managing international waters; joining it would allow us to secure international recognition of a claim to
the continental shelf as far as 600 miles beyond our exclusive economic zone in order to explore and conserve the resource-rich
Arctic as the polar ice cap recedes. It would also provide American companies with a fair and stable legal framework to invest in
mining projects in the deep seabed. Ratification makes sense militarily as well. According to the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, the convention codifies navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms
that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces. In other words, it enhances
national security by giving our Navy additional flexibility to operate on the high seas and in
foreign exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. This is particularly important in the Asia
Pacific region and the South China Sea, where tensions among China, Japan and Southeast
Asian nations have increased because of conflicting interpretations of what constitutes
territorial and international waters. Perhaps most important of all, ratification would prove to
be a diplomatic triumph. American power is defined not simply by economic and military might,
but by ideals, leadership, strategic vision and international credibility. Of course, there are those who
would prefer that we have nothing to do with the United Nations, who believe that international treaties hurt our national interests
and restrain our foreign policy objectives. All three of us have struggled while working with and through international organizations
they are unwieldy and not always responsive to American interests. But as we see in Libya today, the United

Nations and other international alliances are indispensable in providing legitimacy and
reinvigorating American partnerships in times of crisis. And they will ensure needed balance as
rising powers inevitably challenge Americas economic and military strength. Last July, Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton gained much respect by reassuring the Southeast Asian nations that the United States strongly
supported multilateral efforts to address those territorial disputes in the South China Sea, and denounced Chinas heavy-handed,
unilateral tactics. But strong American positions like that are ultimately undermined by our failure

ratify the convention; it shows we are not really committed to a clear legal regime for the seas.
For all of these reasons, ratification is more important today than ever before. At a

to

time when Americas military and economic strengths are tested, we must lead on the seas as
well as on land.
Absent the aff rising powers will redefine key components of international law to
undermine US naval power
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

The United States should ratify the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). To date, the United States has
protected its maritime interests successfully without ratifying this treaty. However, the rise of modern
navies and unconventional security threats are making this approach ever more risky and will
increasingly imperil U.S. national security interests. 1 Failure to ratify LOSC will cede to other countries Americas
ability to shape the interpretation and execution of the convention and protect the provisions that support
the existing international order. It will also complicate Americas ability to address maritime challenges in the Arctic and
South China Sea, inhibit Americas ability to drill for oil and gas offshore and allow other countries to lay claim to strategic energy
and mineral reserves located in the high seas. The United States can ill afford to continue forgoing LOSC and the
benefits that accrue to American interests
LOSC and Maritime Security
Civilian and military leaders across the U.S. security community support LOSC ratification. 2 Joining the Convention will advance
the interests of the U.S. military, said former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in January 2005. 3 As the worlds leading
maritime power, the United States benefits more than any other nation from the navigation provisions of the Convention. More
recently, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, stated that U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention would benefit the U.S. militarys mission in the Asia-Pacific region by enabling the United States to reinforce and assert
the Conventions rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea. 4 Beyond the support from these government leaders, the treaty also enjoys
widespread support among American private companies and non- governmental organizations, from the American Petroleum
Institute to the World Wildlife Fund. 5
This support is not new. American political leaders and military strategists have long recognized the need for a multilateral
framework setting rules for maritime activities since the early to mid-1900s, when increasing maritime activity and commercial
efforts to tap undersea resources prompted concerns over the potential for maritime conflict. The United Nations (U.N.), with
American support, convened the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1973 to begin preparing a multilateral treaty. The confer
- ence produced the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which became available for signature and ratification as of
December 1982 and entered into force in 1994. Today, 161 countries and the European Union have ratified the convention, with the
United States remaining one of the few holdouts, despite its key role in the negotiations. 6
U.S. naval and Coast Guard forces benefit from the fact that most countries in the world operate according to
international norms enshrined in LOSC. These norms include freedom

of navigation on the high seas for vessels and

passage in territorial waters and straits used for international transit.
Such norms benefit a range of U.S. operations, including joint counter-piracy activities, humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief missions with international partners and power projection. The convention also
established specific dispute resolution processes. Although these processes are voluntary and nonbinding, they provide a formal
avenue for cooperation a critical means of preventing violent conflict from emerging.
aircraft of all countries, as well as their innocent

Perhaps most notably, the convention clarifies the difference between military activities and innocent passage, an increasingly
important distinction in international disputes over freedom of navigation rights. 7 For example, surveying and using weapons or
intelligence-gathering capabilities (e.g., tapping into seabed fiber optic cables) in territorial waters are activities that violate innocent
passage as described in the convention. 8 LOSC also specifies norms and duties for submarines and other underwater vehicles,
surface vessels and aircraft that must be met to ensure innocent passage in territorial waters and international straits. Submarines or
other underwater vehicles operating in another states territorial waters, for example, are required to surface and show their flag in
order to signal innocent passage. 9
LOSC critics often argue that the treatys navigational provisions are redundant given that countries including the United States
comply with customary international law. However, as navies around the world modernize, states may seek to

redefine or reinterpret customary international law in ways that directly conflict with U.S.
interests, including freedom of navigation. Ratification will help the United States counter
efforts by rising powers seeking to reshape the rules that have been so beneficial to the global economy and to
U.S. security. China, for example, seeks to alter customary international law and long-held interpretations of
LOSC in ways that will affect operations of the United States as well as those of many of its allies and

partners. Some U.S. partners and allies share Chinas view on some of these issues. Thailand, for example, has adopted Chinas view
that foreign navies must have consent of the coastal state before conducting military exercises in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
a view that runs counter to traditional interpretation of the treaty. 10 LOSC provides a legitimate and recognized

framework for adjudicating disagreements that will enable the United States to sustain access to
the global commons.

Ratification will also help the United States deflate Irans recent challenges to U.S. freedom of navigation through the Strait of
Hormuz. Historically, Iran has stated that the right to freedom of navigation does not extend to non-signatories of the convention
and has passed domestic legislation that is inconsistent with international law, specifically by requiring warships to seek approval
from Iran before exercising innocent passage through the strait. 11 Ratifying LOSC would nullify Irans challenges should it ever
choose to close the strait to U.S. or other flagged ships. Moreover, ratifying LOSC will provide the U.S. Navy the strongest legal
footing for countering an Iranian anti-access campaign in the Persian Gulf.

Naval power deters great conflict - prevents extinction

Conway et al 7 - General of U.S. Marine Corps and Commandant of the Marine Corps, Admiral
of U.S. Navy and Chief of Naval Operations ("A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century
Seapower", Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps, United States Coast Guard,
http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf) //Laura T
This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore.
The expeditionary character and versatility of maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric
advantage of enlarging or contracting its military footprint in areas where access is denied or
limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas often has unintended
economic, social or political repercussions. The sea is a vast maneuver space, where the
presence of maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches
to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of conflicts. The speed, flexibility, agility and
scalability of maritime forces provide 6755 joint or combined force commanders a range of
options for responding to crises. Additionally, integrated maritime operations, either within
formal alliance structures (such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more informal
arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to
would-be aggressors that we will act with others to ensure collective security and prosperity.
United States seapower will be globally postured to secure our homeland and citizens from
direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and prosperity are
inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to protect and
sustain the peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance,
information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach, persistent presence,
and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or strategic
imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies
our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will be characterized by
regionally concentrated, forward-deployed task forces with the combat power to limit regional
conflict, deter major power war, and should deterrence fail, win our Nations wars as part of a
joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces will be
globally distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain
cooperative relationships with an expanding set of international partners, and prevent or
mitigate disruptions and crises. Credible combat power will be continuously postured in the
Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our
friends and allies of our continuing commitment to regional security, and deter and dissuade
potential adversaries and peer competitors. This combat power can be selectively and rapidly
repositioned to meet contingencies that may arise elsewhere. These forces will be sized and
postured to fulfill the following strategic imperatives: Limit regional conflict with forward
deployed, decisive maritime power. Today regional conflict has ramifications far beyond the
area of conflict. Humanitarian crises, violence spreading across borders, pandemics, and the
interruption of vital resources are all possible when regional crises erupt. While this strategy
advocates a wide dispersal of networked maritime forces, we cannot be everywhere, and we
cannot act to mitigate all regional conflict. Where conflict threatens the global system and our
national interests, maritime forces will be ready to respond alongside other elements of national
and multi-national power, to give political leaders a range of options for deterrence, escalation
and de-escalation. Maritime forces that are persistently present and combat-ready provide the
Nations primary forcible entry option in an era of declining access, even as they provide the
means for this Nation to respond quickly to other crises. Whether over the horizon or powerfully

arrayed in plain sight, maritime forces can deter the ambitions of regional aggressors, assure
friends and allies, gain and maintain access, and protect our citizens while working to sustain
the global order. Critical to this notion is the maintenance of a powerful fleetships, aircraft,
Marine forces, and shore-based fleet activitiescapable of selectively controlling the seas,
projecting power ashore, and protecting friendly forces and civilian populations from
attack.Deter major power war. No other disruption is as potentially disastrous to global stability
as war among major powers. Maintenance and extension of this Nations comparative seapower
advantage is a key component of deterring major power war. While war with another great
power strikes many as improbable, the near-certainty of its ruinous effects demands that it be
actively deterred using all elements of national power. The expeditionary character of maritime
forcesour lethality, global reach, speed, endurance, ability to overcome barriers to access, and
operational agilityprovide the joint commander with a range of deterrent options. We will
pursue an approach to deterrence that includes a credible and scalable ability to retaliate against
aggressors conventionally, unconventionally, and with nuclear forces.
Ratification uniquely props up US legitimacy within multilateral institutions- it
legitimizes US freedom of navigation and enhances credibility, our ev is reverse
causal
Vanecko 11 [Jonathan J. Vanecko, Liutenant CMDR USN at US Naval War College and worked
in the pentagon, May 11 2011, Time to Ratify UNCLOS; A New Twist on an Old Problem,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a546081.pdf, MM]
Certainly ratification will place the United States on firm legal standing, but more importantly ,
ratification will add significantly to the legitimacy of U.S. operations conducted
under the framework of UNCLOS. But does obtaining legitimacy carry enough weight to warrant
ratification? And would ratification increase the legitimacy of U.S. action? Absolutely. Through
theory and practical application, legitimacy, like the other principles of war, has come to form
the bedrock foundation by which joint operations are planned and conducted.38 Legitimacy
isnt, however, just an other principle of warfare that can be brushed aside when
inconvenient. Instead, and rightfully so, legitimacy concerns often times drive commanders to
operate within a multinational construct.39 Thus , sustaining legitimacy is, and will
remain, a priority for leaders at all levels of the military and must be included in the
planning and execution phases to ensure operations are viewed in a favorable light post
implementation.40 Moreover, legitimacy is no longer an imperative solely for the politician or
diplomat; that line has become hopelessly blurred.41 Instead, legitimacy has become a prime
example of the nexus between politics and war.42 In other words, it sends a clear message to
the world that military actions match rhetoric with respect to the rule of law.43 Furthermore,
speaking to the issue of UNCLOS directly, legitimacy is the seam created when U.S. policy is to
operate within international law, but not as part of it. Thus, legitimacy is not legality, although
the law is certainly a component.44 Clearly U.S. Freedom of Navigation and Proliferation
Security Initiatives, both underwritten by UNCLOS provisions, are at least debatably legal under
current practice but still they fail to achieve widespread international approval . This
is exactly the problem with the U.S. position on UNCLOS and the disconnect between stated
intentions and the ultimate failure to ratify. As John B. Bellinger III points out, treaty partners
lose confidence in the ability of the United States to make good on its word when we negotiate
and sign treaties but dont ultimately become party to them.48 Specifically what Mr. Bellinger
is referring to is the loss of U.S. credibility, or in other words the rightness of actions.
Furthermore, because the United States is so successful at negotiating treaties, when
representatives push hard for and are in turn granted changes within the document (as is the
case with the 1994 agreement on implementation), but then ultimately fail to accede, it is very

frustrating for the other nations involved.49 Again, this erodes U.S credibility and in turn
legitimacy of action. With this in mind, the U.S. Senate must take the earliest opportunity to
harvest this low hanging fruit and free PACOM from a barrier that detracts from shaping
operations in the South China Sea (SCS).50
Institutional legitimacy is the only way to exercise hegemony to prevent extinction
Kromah 9 (Lamii Moivi Kromah, Department of International Relations University of the
Witwatersrand, February 2009, The Institutional Nature of U.S. Hegemony: Post 9/11,
http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/7301/MARR%2009.pdf, MM)
A final major gain to the United States from the Pax Americana has perhaps been less widely
appreciated. It nevertheless proved of great significance in the short as well as in the long term: the pervasive cultural influence
of the United States. This dimension of power base is often neglected. After World War II the
authoritarian political cultures of Europe and Japan were utterly discredited, and the liberal
democratic elements of those cultures revivified. The revival was most extensive and deliberate in the occupied powers of
the Axis, where it was nurtured by drafting democratic constitutions, building democratic institutions, curbing the power
of industrial trusts by decartelization and the rebuilding of trade unions, and imprisoning or
discrediting much of the wartime leadership; post war reconstruction of Germany and Japan
exhibit all these features. Moderates were giving a great voice in the way government business was done Constitutions in
these countries were changed and amended to ensure democratic practices and martial elites were
prosecuted. American liberal ideas largely filled the cultural void. The effect was not so dramatic in the "victor" states
whose regimes were reaffirmed (Britain, the Low and Scandinavian countries), but even there the United States and its culture
was widely admired. The upper classes may often have thought it too "commercial," but in many respects American mass consumption
culture was the most pervasive part of America's impact. American styles, tastes, and middle-class consumption
patterns were widely imitated, in a process that' has come to bear the label "coca-colonization."34
After WWII the U.S. established organizations such as the United Nations, NATO and others. In each these new regimes it make Germany a member
and eventual an integral partner. Germany's

freedom of movement has been limited by domestic

institutional constraints overlain by a dense network of external institutional constraints on
autonomous decision making in the domains of security and economy. Thus a powerful
combination of constitutional design, membership in integrative international institutions and the
continued division of Germany achieved the post-war American objective of 'security for Germany and security from
Germany'.35 Others are even more sanguine about the prospect of an active German hegemony. One body of literature, such as Simon Bulmer and
William E. Paterson, 'Germany in the European Union: Gentle Giant or Emergent Leader?' International Affairs, 72 (1996), 9-32., focuses upon the
constraining effects of Germany's 'exaggerated multilateralism' or a reliance upon 'indirect institutional power'." The

institutionalization
of German power has produced an empowered but non-threatening Germany that sets the
European agenda and dominates the institutional evolution of the European Union (EU) and its governance structures.36 The cornerstone of
German security policy is the perpetuation of NATO, including the maintenance of U.S. forces in Europe and the U.S. nuclear guarantee. In 1994
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl described the U.S. presence as an "irreplaceable basis for keeping Europe on a stable footing," and that sentiment is
echoed routinely by high German officials. German participation in the Western European Union and the Eurocorps has been based on the
presumption that European military forces must be integrated into NATO rather than standing as autonomous units.37For industrial societies, the
Second World War destroyed more wealth than it created because it disrupted the global trade on which wealth had come to depend. No longer could
states gain in wealth by seizing territory and resources from each other as they had done during the mercantilist period in the seventeenth and
eighteenth century. WWII broke the world power of the Western European states. Even without the advent of nuclear weapons, it drove home the
lesson of the First World War that the major European states could no longer wage war amongst themselves without bringing about the political and
physical impoverishment of their societies, and perhaps destroying them completely. By

1945 it was clear that all out war had

become an irrational instrument in relations among major powers. Almost no conceivable
national objective short of lastditch survival justified the costs of undertaking it. This lesson was as

manifestly true for revolutionary workers states like the Soviet Union as it was for conservative, bourgeois, capitalist states like Britain and France.38 A
final major gain to the United States from the benevolent hegemony has perhaps been less widely appreciated. It nevertheless proved of great
significance in the short as well as in the long term: the pervasive cultural influence of the United States.39 This dimension of power base is often
neglected. After World War II the authoritarian political cultures of Europe and Japan were utterly discredited, and the liberal democratic elements of
those cultures revivified. The revival was most extensive and deliberate in the occupied powers of the Axis, where it was nurtured by drafting
democratic constitutions, building democratic institutions, curbing the power of industrial trusts by decartelization and the rebuilding of trade unions,
and imprisoning or discrediting much of the wartime leadership. American liberal ideas largely filled the cultural void. The effect was not so dramatic in
the "victor" states whose regimes were reaffirmed (Britain, the Low and Scandinavian countries), but even there the United States and its culture was
widely admired. The upper classes may often have thought it too "commercial," but in many respects American mass consumption culture was the most
pervasive part of America's impact. American styles, tastes, and middle-class consumption patterns were widely imitated, in a process that' has come to
bear the label "coca-colonization."40 After

WWII policy makers in the USA set about remaking a world to

facilitate peace. The hegemonic project involves using political and economic advantages gained

in world war to restructure the operation of the world market and interstate system in the
hegemon's own image. The interests of the leader are projected on a universal plane: What is good for the hegemon is good for the world.
The hegemonic state is successful to the degree that other states emulate it. Emulation is the
basis of the consent that lies at the heart of the hegemonic project.41 Since wealth depended on
peace the U.S set about creating institutions and regimes that promoted free trade, and peaceful
conflict resolution. U.S. benevolent hegemony is what has kept the peace since the end of WWII.
The upshot is that U.S. hegemony and liberalism have produced the most stable and durable political order
that the world has seen since the fall of the Roman Empire. It is not as formally or highly integrated as the European
Union, but it is just as profound and robust as a political order, Kants Perpetual Peace requires that the system be diverse and not monolithic because
then tyranny will be the outcome. As

long as the system allows for democratic states to press claims and
resolve conflicts, the system will perpetuate itself peacefully. A state such as the United States
that has achieved international primacy has every reason to attempt to maintain that primacy
through peaceful means so as to preclude the need of having to fight a war to maintain it.42 This view of the posthegemonic Western world does not put a great deal of emphasis on U.S. leadership in the
traditional sense. U.S. leadership takes the form of providing the venues and mechanisms for
articulating demands and resolving disputes not unlike the character of politics within domestic pluralistic systems.43
America as a big and powerful state has an incentive to organize and manage a political order that
is considered legitimate by the other states. It is not in a hegemonic leader's interest to preside
over a global order that requires constant use of material capabilities to get other states to go
along. Legitimacy exists when political order is based on reciprocal consent. It emerges when
secondary states buy into rules and norms of the political order as a matter of principle, and not
simply because they are forced into it. But if a hegemonic power wants to encourage the
emergence of a legitimate political order, it must articulate principles and norms, and engage in
negotiations and compromises that have very little to do with the exercise of power.44 So should this
hegemonic power be called leadership, or domination? Well, it would tend toward the latter. Hierarchy has not gone away from this system. Core states
have peripheral areas: colonial empires and neo-colonial backyards. Hegemony, in other words, involves a structure in which there is a hegemonic core
power. The problem with calling this hegemonic power "leadership" is that leadership is a wonderful thing-everyone needs leadership. But sometimes I
have notice that leadership is also an ideology that legitimates domination and exploitation. In fact, this is often the case. But this is a different kind of
domination than in earlier systems. Its difference can be seen in a related question: is it progressive? Is it evolutionary in the sense of being better for
most people in the system? I think it actually is a little bit better. The trickle down effect is bigger-it is not very big, but it is bigger.45 It is to this theory,
Hegemonic Stability that the glass slipper properly belongs, because both U.S. security and economic strategies fit the expectations of hegemonic
stability theory more comfortably than they do other realist theories. We must first discuss the three pillars that U.S. hegemony rests on structural,
institutional, and situational. (1) Structural leadership refers to the underlying distribution of material capabilities that gives some states the ability to
direct the overall shape of world political order. Natural resources, capital, technology, military force, and economic size are the characteristics that
shape state power, which in turn determine the capacities for leadership and hegemony.

If leadership is rooted in the

distribution of power, there is reason to worry about the present and future. The relative decline
of the United States has not been matched by the rise of another hegemonic leader. At its hegemonic
zenith after World War II, the United States commanded roughly forty five percent of world production. It
had a remarkable array of natural resource, financial, agricultural, industrial, and technological
assets. America in 1945 or 1950 was not just hegemonic because it had a big economy or a huge military; it had an unusually wide range of
resources and capabilities. This situation may never occur again. As far as one looks into the next century, it is
impossible to see the emergence of a country with a similarly commanding power position. (2)
Institutional leadership refers to the rules and practices that states agree to that set in place
principles and procedures that guide their relations. It is not power capabilities as such or the
interventions of specific states that facilitate concerted action, but the rules and mutual
expectations that are established as institutions. Institutions are, in a sense, self-imposed constraints that states create to
assure continuity in their relations and to facilitate the realization of mutual interests. A common theme of recent discussions of the management of the
world economy is that institutions will need to play a greater role in the future in providing leadership in the absence of American hegemony. Bergsten
argues, for example, that "institutions

themselves will need to play a much more important role.46

Institutional management is important and can generate results that are internationally greater
than the sum of their national parts. The argument is not that international institutions impose outcomes on states, but that
institutions shape and constrain how states conceive and pursue their interests and policy goals.
They provide channels and mechanisms to reach agreements. They set standards and mutual
expectations concerning how states should act. They "bias" politics in internationalist directions
just as, presumably, American hegemonic leadership does. (3) Situational leadership refers to
the actions and initiatives of states that induce cooperation quite apart from the distribution of

power or the array of institutions. It is more cleverness or the ability to see specific opportunities
to build or reorient international political order, rather than the power capacities of the state,
that makes a difference. In this sense, leadership really is expressed in a specific individual-in a
president or foreign minister-as he or she sees a new opening, a previously unidentified passage
forward, a new way to define state interests, and thereby transforms existing relations. Hegemonic stability
theorists argue that international politics is characterized by a succession of hegemonies in which a single powerful state dominates the system as a
result of its victory in the last hegemonic war.47 Especially after the cold war America can be described as trying to keep its position at the top but also
integrating others more thoroughly in the international system that it dominates. It is assumed that the differential growth of power in a state system
would undermine the status quo and lead to hegemonic war between declining and rising powers48, but I see a different pattern: the

U.S.
hegemonic stability promoting liberal institutionalism, the events following 9/11 are a brief
abnormality from this path, but the general trend will be toward institutional liberalism. Hegemonic
states are the crucial components in military alliances that turn back the major threats to mutual sovereignties and hence political domination of the
system. Instead of being territorially aggressive and eliminating other states, hegemons respect other's territory. They aspire to be leaders and hence
are upholders of inter-stateness and inter-territoriality.49 The nature of the institutions themselves must, however, be examined. They were shaped in
the years immediately after World War II by the United States. The American willingness to establish institutions, the World Bank to deal with finance
and trade, United Nations to resolve global conflict, NATO to provide security for Western Europe, is explained in terms of the theory of collective
goods. It is commonplace in the regimes literature that the United States, in so doing, was providing not only private goods for its own benefit but also
(and perhaps especially) collective goods desired by, and for the benefit of, other capitalist states and members of the international system in general.
(Particular care is needed here about equating state interest with "national" interest.) Not only was the United States protecting its own territory and
commercial enterprises, it was providing military protection for some fifty allies and almost as many neutrals. Not only was it ensuring a liberal, open,
near-global economy for its own prosperity, it was providing the basis for the prosperity of all capitalist states and even for some states organized on
noncapitalist principles (those willing to abide by the basic rules established to govern international trade and finance). While such behaviour was not
exactly selfless or altruistic, certainly the benefits-however distributed by class, state, or region-did accrue to many others, not just to Americans.50

For the truth about U.S. dominant role in the world is known to most clear-eyed international
observers. And the truth is that the benevolent hegemony exercised by the United States is good
for a vast portion of the world's population. It is certainly a better international arrangement
than all realistic alternatives. To undermine it would cost many others around the world far more than it would cost Americans-and far
sooner. As Samuel Huntington wrote five years ago, before he joined the plethora of scholars disturbed by the "arrogance" of American hegemony; "A
world without U.S. primacy will be a world with more violence and disorder and less democracy
and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to have more influence
than any other country shaping global affairs.51 I argue that the overall American-shaped system is still in place. It is
this macro political system-a legacy of American power and its liberal polity that remains and
serves to foster agreement and consensus. This is precisely what people want when they look for
U.S. leadership and hegemony.52 If the U.S. retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it, not Europe, not China, not the
Muslim world and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a
multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a New Dark Age. Moreover, the alternative to unipolarity would
not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity a global vacuum of power.53 Since the end of WWII the United States
has been the clear and dominant leader politically, economically and military . But its leadership as been unique; it has not
been tyrannical, its leadership and hegemony has focused on relative gains and has forgone
absolute gains. The difference lies in the exercise of power. The strength acquired by the United States in the
aftermath of World War II was far greater than any single nation had ever possessed, at least since the Roman Empire. America's share of
the world economy, the overwhelming superiority of its military capacity-augmented for a time
by a monopoly of nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them--gave it the choice of
pursuing any number of global ambitions. That the American people "might have set the crown of world empire on their brows,"
as one British statesman put it in 1951, but chose not to, was a decision of singular importance in world history and recognized as such.54 Leadership is
really an elegant word for power. To exercise leadership is to get others to do things that they would not otherwise do. It involves the ability to shape,
directly or indirectly, the interests or actions of others. Leadership

may involve the ability to not just "twist arms"

but also to get other states to conceive of their interests and policy goals in theory thus shifts
from the ability to provide a public good to the ability to coerce other states. A benign hegemon in this sense
coercion should be understood as benign and not tyrannical. If significant continuity in the ability of the United States
to get what it wants is accepted, then it must be explained. The explanation starts with our noting that the institutions
for political and economic cooperation have themselves been maintained. Keohane rightly stresses the role of institutions as "arrangements permitting
communication and therefore facilitating the exchange of information. By providing reliable information and reducing the costs of transactions,

institutions can permit cooperation to continue even after a hegemon's influence has eroded.
Institutions provide opportunities for commitment and for observing whether others keep their
commitments. Such opportunities are virtually essential to cooperation in non-zero-sum
situations, as gaming experiments demonstrate. Declining hegemony and stagnant (but not
decaying) institutions may therefore be consistent with a stable provision of desired outcomes, although

the ability to promote new levels of cooperation to deal with new problems (e.g., energy supplies,
environmental protection) is more problematic. Institutions nevertheless provide a part of the necessary explanation.56 In
restructuring the world after WWII it was America that was the prime motivator in creating and supporting the various international organizations in
the economic and conflict resolution field. An example of this is NATOs making Western Europe secure for the unification of Europe. It was through
NATO institutionalism that the countries in Europe where able to start the unification process. The U.S. working through NATO provided the security
and impetus for a conflict prone region to unite and benefit from greater cooperation. Since the United States emerged as a great power, the new ways.

This suggests a second element of leadership, which involves not just the marshalling of power
capabilities and material resources. It also involves the ability to project a set of political ideas or
principles about the proper or effective ordering of po1itics. It suggests the ability to produce
concerted or collaborative actions by several states or other actors. Leadership is the use of power to orchestrate
the actions of a group toward a collective end.55 By validating regimes and norms of international behaviour the
U.S. has given incentives for actors, small and large, in the international arena to behave
peacefully. The uni-polar U.S. dominated order has led to a stable international system. Woodrow Wilsons zoo of managed relations among
states as supposed to his jungle method of constant conflict. The U.S. through various international treaties and organizations as become a quasi world
government; It resolves the problem of provision by imposing itself as a centralized authority able to extract the equivalent of taxes.

The focus of
the identification of the interests of others with its own has been the most striking quality of
American foreign and defence policy. Americans seem to have internalized and made second nature a conviction held only since
World War II: Namely, that their own wellbeing depends fundamentally on the well-being of others; that American prosperity cannot occur in the
absence of global prosperity; that American freedom depends on the survival and spread of freedom elsewhere; that aggression anywhere threatens the
danger of aggression everywhere; and that American national security is impossible without a broad measure of international security.57

Heg without legitimacy causes violent transitions and economic volatility

voluntary limits on power maintain relative international stability
Martin Griffiths January 2004; Associate Professor and Head of School at School of Government and International

Relations, Griffith University (coincidence, as it turns out) BEYOND THE BUSH DOCTRINE: AMERICAN HEGEMONY AND
WORLD ORDER AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF AMERICAN STUDIES
www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/a.j.a.s/Articles/1_04/Griffiths.pdf

In international relations, an established hegemony helps the cause of international peace in a

number of ways. First, a hegemon deters renewed military competition and provides general
security through its preponderant power. Second, a hegemon can, if it chooses, strengthen
international norms of conduct. Third, a hegemons economic power serves as the basis of a
global lending system and free trade regime, providing economic incentives for states to
cooperate and forego wars for resources and markets. Such was the nature of British hegemony in the nineteenth
century, hence the term Pax Britannica. After the Second World War, the United States has performed the roles that Britain once
played, though with an even greater preponderance of power. Thus, much of the peace between democracies after

World War Two can be explained by the fact that the political-military hegemony of the United
States has helped to create a security structure in Europe and the Pacific conducive to peaceful
interaction. Today, American hegemony is tolerated by many states in Europe and Asia, not
because the United States is particularly liked, but because of the perception that its absence
might result in aggression by aspiring regional hegemons. However, Chalmers Johnson has argued that this is
a false perception promoted from Washington to silence demands for its military withdrawal from Japan and South Korea.8 It is
true that hegemonic stability theory can be classified as belonging in the realist tradition because of its focus on the importance of
power structures in international politics. The problem is that power alone cannot explain why some states choose to follow or
acquiesce to one hegemon while vigorously opposing and forming counter-alliances against another hegemon. Thus when

international relations theorists employ the concept of hegemonic stability, they supplement it
with the concept of legitimacy.9 Legitimacy in international society refers simply to the perceived
justice of the international system. As in domestic politics, legitimacy is a notoriously difficult factor to
pin down and measure. Still, one cannot do away with the concept, since it is clear that all
political orders rely to some extent on consent in addition to coercion. Hegemony without
legitimacy is insufficient to deter violent challenges to the international order, and may provoke
attempts to build counter-alliances against the hegemon. Hegemonic authority which accepts
the principle of the independence of states and treats states with a relative degree of
benevolence is more easily accepted. The legitimacy of American hegemony during the cold war was facilitated by two
important characteristics of the era. First, the communist threat (whether real or imaginary) disguised the tension between the
United States promotion of its own interests and its claim to make the world safe for capitalism.10 Second, American

hegemony managed to combine economic liberalism between industrialised states with an

institutional architecture (the Bretton Woods system) that moderated the volatility of transaction flows
across borders. It enabled governments to provide social investments, safety nets and
adjustment assistance at the domestic level.11 In the industrialised world, this grand bargain
formed the basis of the longest and most equitable economic expansion in human history,
from the 1950s to the 1980s. And it provided the institutional foundation for the newest wave of
globalisation, which began not long thereafter and is far broader in scope and deeper in reach
than its nineteenth century antecedent. The system that the United States led the way in creating after 1945 has fared
well because the connecting and restraining aspects of democracy and institutions reduce the incentives for Western nations to
engage in strategic rivalry or balance against American hegemony. The strength of this order is attested to by the longevity of its
institutions, alliances and arrangements, based on their legitimacy in the eyes of the participants. Reacting against the

closed autarchic regions that had contributed to the world depression and split the globe into
competing blocs before the war, the United States led the way in constructing a post-war order
that was based on economic openness, joint management of the Western political-economic
order, and rules and institutions that were organised to support domestic economic stability and
social security.12 This order in turn was built around a basic bargain: the hegemonic state
obtains commitments from secondary states to participate in the international order, and the
hegemon in return places limits on the exercise of its power. The advantage for the weak state is
that it does not fear domination or abandonment, reducing the incentive to balance against the
hegemon, and the leading state does not need to use its power to actively enforce order and
compliance. It is these restraints on both sides and the willingness to participate in this mutual
accord that explains the longevity of the system, even after the end of the cold war. But as the
founder and defender of this international order, the United States, far from being a
domineering hegemon, was a reluctant superpower.
And turns are wrong LOST shores up military power without linking to any of
their offense
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he
writes the blog The Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions
and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The
U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-usshould-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty/258301/ // SM)
All of the uniformed services--and especially the U.S. Navy--are solidly behind UNCLOS. American
military leaders have always been discriminating when it comes to treaties, traditionally resisting those (like the Rome Statute
of the ICC) that might put U.S. servicemen and women at risk. But they support UNCLOS because it will enable,
rather than complicate, their mission. Because the United States was the principal force behind the
negotiation of UNCLOS, it contains everything the U.S. military wants, and nothing that it fears. The
treaty's primary value to the U.S. military is that it establishes clear rights, duties, and jurisdictions of
maritime states. The treaty defines the limits of a country's "territorial sea," establishes rules for
transit through "international straits," and defines "exclusive economic zones" (EEZs) in a way
compatible with freedom of navigation and over-flight . It further establishes the
"sovereign inviolability" of naval ships calling on foreign ports, providing critical
protection for U.S. vessels. More generally, the treaty allows states party to exempt their
militaries from its mandatory dispute resolution provisions--allowing the United States to retain
complete military freedom of action. At the same time, the treaty does nothing at all to interfere
with critical U.S.-led programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Nor does it
subject

any U.S.

military personnel to the jurisdiction of any international court .

xt: LOST KT Credibility

Russia and China are filling in the power vacuum created by the US the plan
solves national security
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a
BA in International Relations. He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings
have appeared in both national and international publications. He frequently appears on talk
radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al
Jazeera. He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the
host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show whose guests have included presidential candidates,
actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is President at Small
Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National
Federation of Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise
Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_
of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html // SM)
Myth: Ratifying the treaty will erode U.S. sovereignty. Fact: False. Ratifying the Treaty does not
give one ounce of U.S. power to any other nation or to the United Nations. In fact, the opposite
is true. Once the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty, America has 100% veto power over all
other ISA expenditures and activities. Once we join the ISA, the U.S. can assert our sovereign
will over every other nation unilaterally. Put another way, if the Law of the Sea Treaty is
ratified, the ISA will be forced to ask U.S. permission for all expenditures. Right now, the
power vacuum created by Americas absence in the ISA is being filled by Russia
and China an extremely dangerous proposition. Also, Russia and China certainly did
not ratify this treaty in order to erode their own sovereignty. If Russias and Chinas leaders are
smart enough to ratify this treaty while preserving their national sovereignty, the U.S. can
certainly do the same. Myth: Ratifying the treaty will give aid and comfort to U.S. enemies. Fact:
The opposite is true. Ratifying LOTS and joining the ISA will strengthen national
security. By NOT ratifying the treaty, Russia, China and other U.S. adversaries are in control
of the ISA and they control where ISA funds flow. Conversely, if the U.S. ratifies LOTS, then the
U.S. will have 100%, unilateral veto power over all ISA funding and can prevent resources from
flowing to Americas enemies. That is why every single Republican Secretary of State dating back
to the treatys inception supports ratification from Henry Kissinger forward. Among the most
vocal in support of the treatys ratification are Condoleezza Rice and her Senior Advisor John
Bellinger III. Rice and Bellinger fought for Guantanamo Bay and the holding of terror detainees
indefinitely, they defended water-boarding on behalf of the U.S. and the White House. Nobody
can accuse them of ever once supporting anything that would give aid and comfort to Americas
enemies or rouge states. They unequivocally support ratification of LOTS and U.S. admission to
the ISA because ratification strengthens US national security.
UNCLOS is the key Internal Link to US credibility- it increases US power and
legitimizes US influence in multilateral institutions
Bower and Poling 12 [ Ernest Z. Bower, Gregory B. Poling, Bower: Senior Adviser and
Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies. Poling: Fellow, Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia
Studies and Pacific Partners Initiative. May 25 2012, Advancing the National Interests of the

United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea, http://csis.org/publication/advancingnational-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea, MM]

The credibility of the United States in the Asia Pacific is at stake on a decision whether to ratify
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While there are other
compelling arguments for ratification, none is as urgent as the requirement for the United States
to solidify its commitment to the rule of international law, including in the Asia Pacific. This is
particularly true in regard to one of the worlds most important foreign policy and security
challenges: resolving disputes in the South China Sea. This week, the Obama administration
went all in on UNCLOS and sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta, and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, to testify before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of ratification. The ball is now in the Senates
court. A decision to anchor the United States in UNCLOS is one that cannot be
delayed . The president has wisely refocused the country on Asia to advance U.S. interests,
from economic recovery and growth to regional peace and security to developing new sources of
innovation. Countries around the Asia Pacific are assessing whether the United States has the
political will, the pocketbook, and the commitment to further institutionalize its presence in the
region. UNCLOS ratification is necessary to answer those important questions in
the affirmative. The debate over ratifying of the treaty began in 1982 when President Ronald
Reagan refused to send it to Congress even for a discussion. The argument grew more heated
following the renegotiation of the treaty leading to its entering into force in 1994. Those
renegotiations addressed most of Reagans concerns and drew the active support of President
Bill Clinton, though not of his opponents in the Congress. More recently, the treaty was
vigorously advanced by President George W. Bush and brought before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in 2007. That effort failed to reach the Senate floor and the bill was
shelved again. This month, a new effort is under way amid a substantially changed international
context. Senator John Kerry, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, has scheduled a series of
hearings, led off by strong statements from both Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta May 23.
General Dempsey also testified, asking the Senate to act to support the national security
interests of the United States. Among other reasons given, Dempsey noted that joining the
convention would provide us another way to stave off conflict with less risk of escalation. That
message of support for ratification is consistent with the views of every chairman of the Joint
Chiefs since 1994. What sets the upcoming hearings apart from those that preceded them is that
the United States is entering an era when leadership and credulity are earned by actions and
influence sustained through consistency. A rising China will continue to test the limits of its
power in the Asia Pacific. History shows that nations, including our own, have consistently
explored converting economic power to political might. We do not know what China wants or
what it wants to be. So U.S. strategy involves convincing China and other nations in the AsiaPacific region that Chinas interests will be most effectively and sustainably advanced by
engaging in regional frameworks in which it makes the rules along with others, by abiding by
international laws, and by promoting and investing in public goods. This process will take time,
but it can be successful only if other countries believe the United States is willing to commit
itself to these standards and norms. The other factor that is different this time as the Senate
considers ratification is the overwhelming support of U.S. business. Manufacturers along with
oil, telecommunications, and shipping companies, and every other sector of the economy with a
stake in access to sea lines of communication and undersea resources support ratification of the
convention. Both the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have
voiced their support. Senator Kerry is taking advantage of this support from U.S. businesses by
including their representatives in upcoming hearings. In a rare show of solidarity, American
labor and the environmental community have joined hands in supporting accession. The AFLCIO and the Seafarers International Union of North America both sent letters to the

administration in the last year expressing support. A group of nine environmental conservation
groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
Ocean Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund, sent a letter to Secretary Clinton in October
voicing support for ratification. The Law of the Sea has been ratified by 162 countries, including
every other member of the UN Security Council and every other industrialized nation on the
planet. It undergirds the modern international order in the maritime domain, an order built by
the United States and its allies. It is the only comprehensive treaty recognized worldwide that
lays out the rules for vessels on the high seas. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, recognizing
its value, operate under its guidelines even in the absence of ratification. So why has it
repeatedly failed to receive Senate approval? Opponents have presented four general arguments:
The Law of the Seas restrictions would interfere with U.S. military interests. The International
Seabed Authority (ISA), which determines rights to seabed mining, would block U.S. economic
interests. The Law of the Seas taxation scheme for exploitation of resources within a nations
exclusive economic zone would redistribute revenues unfairly. The treaty would limit U.S.
sovereignty. Fortunately for the laws proponents, each of these ideological battles has been
fought and won, especially following the treatys renegotiation. The first objection has largely
been dropped in the face of more than two decades of overwhelming support from every branch
of the U.S. military. The second is clearly not a concern to the U.S. industries actively pushing
U.S. ratification. The ISAs 39 staff and narrow jurisdiction have little chance of bullying the
United States or anyone else. U.S. mining interests meanwhile are sitting on the sidelines while
the oceans resources are claimed by others, and U.S. telecom companies lack the protections
and dispute resolution mechanisms for undersea cables that all their international competitors
enjoy. Regarding the third concern, the taxation on resource extraction in exclusive economic
zones amounts to just over 2 percent on average, a price that mining and hydrocarbon
companies have signaled they are willing to pay as the worlds energy markets hunger for new
resources and prices of commodities climb. As for revenue redistribution, opponents too often
overlook the fact that following renegotiation of the Law of the Sea, the United States is
guaranteed the only permanent veto on how funds are distributed. It is also exempt from any
future amendments to the treaty without Senate approval. In other words, the United States
would enjoy a position of unequaled privilege, not unfair treatment, within UNCLOS. The final,
and currently most prominent, argument against ratification surrounds sovereignty. Opponents
say that, by limiting itself to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone and whatever extended
continental shelf it can claim, the United States is restricting its jurisdictional sovereignty. What
this argument misses, however, is that the United States continental shelf is the largest of any
up to 600 miles offshore in the Arctic alone. John Norton Moore of the University of Virginia
School of Law has argued that ratification would massively increase [U.S.] sovereign
jurisdiction by more than the size of the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska combined. The
arguments against ratification have been steadily weakened in the last three decades and were
overwhelmingly addressed in 1994. The most important reason, however, for U.S. accession has
remained unchanged for 30 years: a rules-based international order is in the United States
interests. The current global order and the U.S. preeminence within it are built upon legal
norms and rules. Those rules do not unfairly constrain the United States. They constrain those
that would overturn the system, and they prevent a return to an earlier era of great-power
competition and might-makes-right diplomacy. General Dempsey said May 9 at a forum on the
Law of the Sea, Force of arms should not be our only national security instrument. [A] stable
legal framework has never been more important to the United States. Much attention
surrounding the Law of the Sea debate has focused on the Arctic. But the waters that best
illustrate the need for an agreed-upon system of rules for the worlds oceans and a U.S. seat at
the table are in the South China Sea, where a rising great power, China, decided to assert its
maritime claims over smaller neighbors. It did so most aggressively when it submitted the
infamous 9-dash line claim to the United Nations in 2009. That claim has no basis in

international lawa fact acknowledged by experts in Chinaand instead recalls an earlier era
when the only rule of international relations was the prerogative of the mighty. Beijing has
walked back its assertive claims. But it did so not because of its ASEAN neighbors opposition to
the 9-dash line in May 2009. It did so only when Washington made clearfirst with Secretary
of State Clintons statements at the ASEAN Regional Forum in July 2010 and most recently with
President Barack Obamas appearance at the East Asia Summit last Novemberthat preserving
international maritime law, embodied in the Law of the Sea, is a vital U.S. national interest
.Without accession, however, the U.S. position is considerably weakened by charges of
hypocrisy, a fact not lost on Beijing and of real concern to Chinas neighbors who rely on the
United States. The United States need not take a position on the claims of parties in the South
China Sea dispute or in any other dispute. It need only ensure that whatever resolutions are
reached are within the bounds of international law. If China or any other party is permitted to
simply ignore the rules of one facet of the international systemin this case the Law of the Sea
then the entire system loses legitimacy. Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Robert Papp
said it best at the same May 9 forum: Our legitimacy as a sovereign state and as a world
leaderrests with the rule of law. The Senate should act to assert the national interests of the
United States and ratify UNCLOS as soon as possible. Asserting U.S. credibility in the Asia
Pacific and globally by standing by the rule of law is in our economic and security interests. In
fact, U.S. ratification of UNCLOS will determine whether the twenty-first century resembles the
relatively stable order of the late-twentieth century or is more like the competitive free-for-all of
the nineteenth.
Ratification is key to maintain favorable interpretations of international law and
demonstrate commitment thats key to legitimacy
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

Regional Security Challenges

Beyond these specific security issues, LOSC ratification plays a key role in several regional security
challenges with serious implications for American security. In particular, the rise of regional powers and their
ascendant modern navies may challenge the existing international order and U.S. interests . The
United States has long championed a rules-based international order. Ratifying the convention will
both demonstrate U.S. commitment to the existing international order and enable the United
States to rebuff attempts to alter international maritime law in ways that conflict with its
national interests. The Arctic, the South China Sea, and the North Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea exemplify how LOSC
could secure U.S. interests in the maritime domain.

Not ratifying the law of the sea treaty undermines US credibility and demonstrates
a disregard for international law and no alt causes.
CSIS 12. Center for Strategic & International Studies May 25, 2012. Advancing the National
Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea.
http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea.
MMG
The credibility of the United States in the Asia Pacific is at stake on a decision whether to ratify
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While there are other
compelling arguments for ratification, none is as urgent as the requirement for
the United States to solidify its commitment to the rule of international law , including
in the Asia Pacific. This is particularly true in regard to one of the worlds most important foreign policy and security challenges:
resolving disputes in the South China Sea. This week, the Obama administration went all in on UNCLOS and sent Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, to testify before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of ratification. The ball is now in the Senates court. A

decision to anchor the United States in UNCLOS is one that cannot be delayed. The president has

wisely refocused the country on Asia to advance U.S. interests, from economic recovery and growth to regional peace and security to
developing new sources of innovation. Countries around the Asia Pacific are assessing whether the United States has the political
will, the pocketbook, and the commitment to further institutionalize its presence in the region.

UNCLOS ratification

is necessary to answer those important questions in the affirmative.

xt: LOST KT FON

UNCLOS provides a legal framework for FON
Belinger 13 [John B. Bellinger III, He was a legal adviser for the national security council and
Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law, Nov 11 2013, Adjunct
Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law, http://www.cfr.org/treaties-andagreements/should-united-states-ratify-un-law-sea/p31828, MM]
Yes, the Senate should approve, and the United States should join, the Law of the Sea
Convention, to which 166 countries are already party. When I was the legal adviser for the
National Security Council, the Bush administration concluded after a careful interagency review
that the Convention clearly serves U.S. national security, economic, and
environmental interests. As a result, the Bush Administration strongly supported Senate
approval of the Convention, as does the Obama administration. I testified in favor of the
Convention in both 2007 and 2012. The Convention provides clear, treaty-based rights for U.S.
ships and aircraft to travel through and over the territorial seas of other coastal states. This is
why the U.S. Navy, with the largest fleet in the world, has long supported the treaty. In this time
of shrinking defense budgets, the Navy wants clear legal rights to freedom of navigation when it
cannot have more ships to assert these rights in practice. The Convention would also codify U.S.
legal rights to exploit vast oil and gas resources on our extended continental shelf off the coast of
Alaska (an area the size of two Californias), to mine valuable minerals on the deep seabed, and
to lay and service submarine telecommunications cables. U.S. companies are not willing to
invest the billions of dollars necessary to exploit Arctic resources unless they have the clear legal
rights guaranteed by the Convention. As a result, the treaty is also strongly supported by the
U.S. business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, major oil companies, the
shipping and fishing industry, and telecommunications companies. Unfortunately, some
Republican Senators have blocked Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Convention based on
myths and misperceptions about the treaty, including concerns that president Reagan opposed
the treaty when it was originally drafted in 1982, and that it might now infringe on U.S.
sovereignty. But the flaws identified by president Reagan were fixed by amendments to the
treaty in 1994 (which led all other major industrial countries to join the treaty). And far from
infringing on U.S. sovereignty, joining the Law of the Sea Convention would codify U.S.
sovereignty over vast new oil and gas resources in the Arctic. Other countries have benefited
greatly by joining the Convention, and the United States is losing out by remaining on the
sidelines.
UNCLOS justifies freedom of navigation operations- it increases US legitimacy and
facilitates US sovereignty
Vanecko 11 [Jonathan J. Vanecko, Liutenant CMDR USN at US Naval War College and worked
in the pentagon, May 11 2011, Time to Ratify UNCLOS; A New Twist on an Old Problem,
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a546081.pdf, MM]
Nearly 7,000 years after man first took to the sea,1 the maritime domain has become the
linchpin of the world economy.2 Today, the sea still offers an opportunity to expand borders,
gather resources, and undertake unimpeded movement, and the extent of its use has risen
sharply over the past century. Technology such as airplanes, telephones, and the Internet has
flattened the world and increased reach, but the importance of the ocean has not diminished in
the least. At present, shipping continues to move 90 percent of globally traded goods, and the
oceans remain a major source of organic and inorganic resources.3 Thus, control over the
oceans has been a priority for every major world power since the age of sail, and it will retain a
prominent place in the future. Freedom of the seas and access to the maritime commons is

almost entirely guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) negotiated in 1982.4 Curiously, despite the United States position as a
negotiator and major proponent of the convention we remain a non-party, choosing instead to
follow the rules of the convention as a matter of customary international law. Although
opponents bring up several points against ratification addressed in later analysis, none present a
compelling or legally sound argument. On the other side of the same coin, some argue that with
no notable adverse affects after twenty-nine years outside the convention, little reason exists
today to support ratification. The arguments submitted by both opponents and status quo
advocates could not be more wrong. The reality is that the increased legitimacy obtained
through ratification of UNCLOS can be leveraged to enhance PACOM shaping
operations in the South China Sea . Specifically, increased legitimacy would improve the
legal standing of U.S. operations conducted under the Freedom of Navigation (FON) Program,5
and break down barriers currently restricting recruitment to the Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI).6,7 In both cases this could potentially reduce the operational requirements of the theater
commander and result in increased multilateral maritime security cooperation. Barring one
exception, to enter into a full legal analysis of UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement is beyond the
scope of this paper and would add little value to an area already thoroughly studied and debated
by international and maritime legal scholars. There are, however, take-aways for the operational
commander. First, government officials and industry leaders have proven every opposition
argument baseless through expert testimony during SFRC hearings and analysis documented in
official reports and public discussion.20 Second, and contrary to many of the myths
surrounding UNCLOS, the convention in no way handcuffs military commanders executing
national objectives. More specifically, UNCLOS imposes no limitations on the U.S.
militarys freedom of movement over, on, or below the sea .21 In fact, it legally
protects units operating on the high seas or within another countries contiguous zone /
economic exclusion zone (EEZ) and guarantees specific transit rights that would actually restrict
them.22 Furthermore, contrary to what vocal critics have maintained, secretary level
Congressional testimony has shown that military survey, reconnaissance, and intelligencegathering activities conducted by U.S. forces are in full compliance with all aspects of
UNCLOS.23,24 Additionally, opponent claims that UNCLOS undermines overseas contingency
operations (formerly GWOT) and their associated maritime interdiction operations (MIO) are
simply untrue.25,26 As the above discussion clearly shows, UNCLOS does not cede any
portion of U.S. sovereignty ; but that begs the question, what advantages would the U.S.
gain through ratification?
UNCLOS fosters freedom of navigation
CIMSEC 12[Center for International Maritime Security, This is a major maritime security
organization that consists of authors who serve and work in naval operations of command. It
also consists of top DOD officials. May 18 2012, LAW OF THE S.E.A. http://cimsec.org/lawof-the-s-e-a, MM]
With the recent statements from U.S. Secretary of Defense Panetta and the U.S. Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) advocating the ratification of the three decade-old UN Law of the
Sea Convention (UNCLOS), it is clear that U.S. policy will continue to support a cooperative
approach to maritime security. Besides Secretary Panettas detailed justification for UNCLOS in
providing economic jurisdiction and a seat at the table (sans hypocrisy) for future
international maritime dispute resolutions, UNCLOS supports freedom of navigation
and access to the global commons (unless restricted by historical treaties such as the Montreux
Convention).UNCLOS ratification enshrines the principles of freedom of navigation

and access, thereby strengthening the U.S. position in the pacific region and the U.S.
pivot to South East Asia (S.E.A.). Ratification supports future S.E.A. diplomatic developments
through its focus on the regions most prominent domain. Maritime territorial claims continue
to inflict tension in S.E.A. and with UNCLOS as the primary legal guidance, the U.S. would be
forced to stay on the diplomatic sidelines for a multilateral discussion without ratification. Yet,
U.S. accession and ratification would result in isolation and a decline in future cooperation with
those remaining maritime countries that have maintained disputes over UNCLOS and chose not
to accept or ratify it, namely: Cambodia, Colombia, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Iran, Israel, Libya, Peru, Syria, Timor-Leste, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, Venezuela [1]
UNCLOS doesnt infringe upon freedom of navigation
Hollis 13 [Daniel Hollis, Daniel Hollis is currently a student at Pace University School of Law
and the Lubin School of Business where is he pursuing his JD with certificates in Environmental
Law and International Law as well as his MBA with a dual concentration in Accounting and
Strategic Management, Feb 26 2013, United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156775/, MM]
Waters beyond a nation's EEZ are considered to be the high seas.[43] The high seas are still
governed the "freedom of the seas" concept, albeit a modified version. Just as with the classical
version, no nation my lay claim to any portion of the high seas.[44] Per the terms of the treaty,
"[t]he high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked."[45] On the high seas,
nations are permitted freedom of navigation and overflight, freedom to lay
submarine cables and pipelines, freedom to construct artificial islands, freedom
of fishing, and freedom of scientific research. [46] Other provisions regarding the high
seas include a prohibition on the transport of slaves, piracy, illegal drug trafficking, and the
suppression of unauthorized radio or television broadcasting.[47]

FON Impact Hormuz

Specifically, LOST is key Hormuz access
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

Ratification will also help the United States deflate Irans recent challenges to U.S. freedom of navigation
through the Strait of Hormuz. Historically, Iran has stated that the right to freedom of navigation does not
extend to non-signatories of the convention and has passed domestic legislation that is inconsistent with international law,
specifically by requiring warships to seek approval from Iran before exercising innocent passage through the strait. 11 Ratifying
LOSC would nullify Irans challenges should it ever choose to close the strait to U.S. or other flagged ships. Moreover,
ratifying LOSC will provide the U.S. Navy the strongest legal footing for countering an Iranian
anti-access campaign in the Persian Gulf.

REM Scenario
LOST ratification is key to certainty for excavation of REM in the deep-seabed and
solve Chinese REM export restrictions no environmental detriments REM is
key to manufacturing, national security and the economy
Haigler 12 Executive Assistant/Office Manager at the Wyss Foundation. Previously a Congressional intern drafted letters

urging Representatives support of legislation. Educated at Duke University (7/16/2012, Lauren, ASP, The US Needs Domestic
Access to Rare Earth Minerals, http://www.americansecurityproject.org/the-us-needs-domestic-access-to-rare-earth-minerals/ //
SM)

Supporters referenced the lack of American production of rare earth minerals as a

national security and economic threat to the United States. China currently produces
97% of the set of 17 rare earth minerals that are used in defense equipment, advanced
electronics and computing systems, and clean, renewable energy technologies .
Recently,

China has been trying to control the rare earth market by placing restrictions

on exports. The US, Japan, and EU have filed a complaint against China with the World Trade
Organization over Chinas attempts at export restrictions on rare earths. In 2010, China suspended exports to
Japan and, in 2011, Chinas largest producer of rare earths suspended production for a month .
Chinas monopoly on rare earth minerals is an avoidable situation. Rare earth minerals are actually not that
rare. And, the US has the second-biggest deposit of rare earth minerals in the world but they are
not being used. The problem is the rare earths are very difficult to extract from ore and the process is costly and more
environmentally damaging than for other elements. Despite this, they are vital for manufacturing and depending
on China for them is a risky venture. The legislation passed in the House but it is seen as unlikely to be taken up by the
Senate. However, there is something more important the Senate should do to make domestic mining a
more attractive investment: ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. The Law of the Sea Treaty
would provide US companies the legal certainty they need to invest in deepseabed mining, where it is projected that vast deposits of rare earth minerals lie. Without
ratification of the treaty, companies are not willing to invest in the expensive venture because the
US would not have internationally recognized claims over the resources in the waters. Mining
for rare earths in the deep-seabed has economic and environmental advantages over land
mining. Some research has suggested that deep-sea mining will be cheaper than land
mining and yield higher profits.
concentrated

than those on land

Also, the

and would

seafloor deposits are much more

therefore

take less processing to extract the

minerals, which is the most environmentally destructive part of mining . New

technology has

also

reduced the environmental risk of deep-sea mining. More than

one metal can be obtained at one deep-sea site. Land mines leave a substantial footprint
but deep-sea mines have no roads, surface ore-transport systems, or other
infrastructures. Jay Timmons, President and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, explained the
importance of domestic access to rare earths in his testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations supporting LOTS:
Without those rare

earth materials manufacturing

succeed in the world marketplace

simply

The bottom line is if

will not be able to compete and

we cant access rare earth materials

on the floor of the sea, were going to be put at a significant competitive

disadvantage . The Senate has an opportunity to help jump-start the US rare earth
minerals market and create jobs in a way that is more environmentally friendly

than

the House legislation. Plus, there are many, many more advantages that would be afforded to the US economy and national security
through ratification of the treaty besides deep-sea mining.

Chinas near-monopoly on REM leads to escalating trade disputes over exports

the plan solves
The News 12 - (6/29/2012, The News International, Businesses push US to ratify law of the sea treaty,
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-3-117318-Businesses-push-US-to-ratify-law-of-the-sea-treaty // SM)
American businesses are urging the United States to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, saying it is needed

to
boost crucial domestic energy production and end China's near-monopoly on rare

earths. Stepping up pressure on legislators to sign off on the 30-year-old pact, a broad alliance of
manufacturers, miners, shippers and oil explorers said doing so would guarantee their exclusive
access to economic resources reaching up to 600 miles (1,000 km) from the US shoreline. With
China controlling 95 percent of the world's rare earths production, ratification of
the treaty "offers the best path to break China's dominance," Roger Ballantine, a
board member of The Association for Rare Earth (RARE), said Wednesday. Ballantine, speaking
to ratify the treaty "will only worsen a
very troubling disadvantage America has." His comments came against the backdrop of an
at a news forum on the eve of a Senate hearing on the treaty, said that failure

escalating trade dispute with China over restrictions on its rare earths exports . On
Wednesday, the US, European Union and Japan ratcheted up their complaint at the World Trade
Organization by asking for a dispute settlement committee after consultations failed. The United States is
the only industrialized power which has yet to ratify the treaty. RARE has joined a broad coalition of the National Association of
Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Shipping of America, defense contractors, energy industry and other
groups to press for ratification. Supporters argue that ratification will give US businesses the legal framework

for investment in costly, high-tech exploration and development. Key among its advantages, they say,
would be to legitimize US claims to vast areas of the energy-rich Arctic, and unfettered access to
lay and maintain undersea communications cables. It would also give great er access to
undersea rare earth minerals , which are widely used in smartphones, flat-screen TVs,
medical equipment and US defense systems. Opponents say the treaty could actually limit US
businesses' access to undersea mineral wealth , by giving power to the International Seabed
Authority to decide access rights; they also say the treaty could impinge on the movements around the world of the US

Navy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General
Martin Dempsey have all argued in favor of the treaty. Jeff Pike, who leads The American Sovereignty Campaign, the lobby in favor
of the treaty, said ratification was now more than ever urgent, citing the importance of global

communications links and also the melting ice in the Arctic that was opening up shipping.

Ratification is key to REM access thats key to the military

Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.

He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show
whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)
China is already playing the role of the Russia of the Pacific. Right now, China is exploring U.S.-based mineral

claims in the Pacific and there is nothing the U.S. can do about it. China is acting within the
framework of international law and the U.S., because we have not ratified LOTS, has no standing in
the International Seabed Authority to challenge Chinas abuses. Another concern about Russia and China centers
on rare earth minerals which are found in abundance in the seabed. The U.S. requires an

incredible number of military products for which rare earth minerals are essential. Those products
have historically been manufactured here in the U.S., and ought to be. The U.S. also faces a serious munitions
problem: today, a tremendous number of our bullets are manufactured in Chinameaning that
if we find ourselves cross-wise with the Chinese, they can cut off our supply of bullets. When it
comes to high-end military hardware, it is essential that America be self-reliant, not reliant on
China and Russia for the minerals needed for our own defense products and national security.
Ratification key to mineral development solves US manufacturing
Snow 12 Nick Snow has covered oil and gas in Washington for more than 30 years. He worked in several capacities for The

Oil Daily and was founding editor of Petroleum Finance Week before joining OGJ as its Washington correspondent in September
2005 and becoming its full-time Washington editor in October 2007. (7/9/2012, Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, US should ratify Law of
the Sea treaty, Senate panel told, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-7a/general-interest/us-should-ratify-law-ofthe-sea.html // SM)
National Association of Manufacturers Pres. Jay Timmons said US Senate ratification of the treaty

would help US manufacturers by opening up more resources for development, and by providing
access to new rare earth deposits to produce rare earth minerals used to make a wide range of
goods including petroleum refining catalysts. "If we don't ratify the treaty and businesses don't
start mining more rare earths from the seabed floor, China could start to use all the rare earths it
mines for its own industries," Timmons warned, adding, "That would be devastating."
Sustained manufacturing growth spills over to advanced manufacturing
Lind and Freedman 2012 (Policy director of New Americas Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New
America Foundation AND program associate in New Americas Economic Growth Program (Michael, Joshua, Value Added:
Americas Manufacturing Future, New America, http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/ newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lin
d,%20Michael%20and%20Freedman,%20Joshua%20-%20NAF%20-%20Value%20Added%20 America%27s %20
Manufacturing%20Future.pdf)//NR
Manufacturing, R&D and the U.S. Innovation Ecosystem Perhaps

the greatest contribution of

manufacturing to the U.S. economy as a whole involves the disproportionate role
of the manufacturing sector in R&D. The expansion in the global market for high-valueadded services has allowed the U.S. to play to its strengths by expanding its trade
surplus in services, many of them linked to manufacturing, including R&D, engineering, software
production and finance. Of these services, by far the most important is R&D. The United States has long led the
world in R&D. In 1981, U.S. gross domestic expenditure on R&D was more than three times as large as that of any other country in
the world. And the U.S. still leads: in 2009, the most recent year for which there is available data, the United States spent more than
400 billion dollars. European countries spent just under 300 billion dollars combined, while China spent about 150 billion dollars.14
In the United States, private sector manufacturing is the largest source of R&D. The private sector itself accounts for 71 percent of
total R&D in the United States, and although U.S. manufacturing accounts for only 11.7 percent of GDP in 2012, the manufacturing
sector accounts for 70 percent of all R&D spending by the private sector in the U.S .15 And R&D and

innovation are inextricably connected: a National Science Foundation survey found that 22 percent of
manufacturers had introduced product innovations and the same percentage introduced process innovations in the period 20062008, while only 8 percent of nonmanufacturers reported innovations of either kind.16 Even as the manufacturing industry in the
United States underwent major changes and suffered severe job losses during the last decade, R&D spending continued to follow a
general upward growth path. A disproportionate share of workers involved in R&D are

employed directly or indirectly by manufacturing companies; for example, the US

manufacturing sector employs more than a third of U.S. engineers.17 This means that
manufacturing provides much of the demand for the U.S. innovation ecosystem, supporting
large numbers of scientists and engineers who might not find employment if R&D
were offshored along with production. Why America Needs the Industrial Commons Manufacturing creates
an industrial commons, which spurs growth in multiple sectors of the economy through linked industries. An industrial
commons is a base of shared physical facilities and intangible knowledge shared
by a number of firms. The term commons comes from communallyshared pastures or fields in premodern Britain.
The industrial commons in particular in the manufacturing sector includes not
only large companies but also small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), which
employ 41 percent of the American manufacturing workforce and account for 86
percent of all manufacturing establishments in the U.S. Suppliers of materials,

component parts, tools, and more are all interconnected; most of the time, Harvard Business

School professors Gary Pisano and Willy Shih point out, these linkages are geographic because of the ease of interaction and
knowledge transfer between firms.18 Examples of industrial commons surrounding manufacturing are evident in the United States,
including the I-85 corridor from Alabama to Virginia and upstate New York.19 Modern economic scholarship

emphasizes the importance of geographic agglomeration effects and co-location

synergies. 20 Manufacturers and researchers alike have long noted the symbiotic
relationship that occurs when manufacturing and R&D are located near each other: the
manufacturer benefits from the innovation, and the researchers are better positioned to
understand where innovation can be found and to test new ideas. While some forms of
knowledge can be easily recorded and transferred, much know-how in industry is tacit knowledge. This valuable tacit
knowledge base can be damaged or destroyed by the erosion of geographic
linkages, which in turn shrinks the pool of scientists and engineers in the national
innovation ecosystem. If an advanced manufacturing core is not retained, then the economy stands to lose not only the

manufacturing industry itself but also the geographic synergies of the industrial commons, including R&D. Some have warned that
this is already the case: a growing share of R&D by U.S. multinational corporations is taking

place outside of the United States.21 In particular, a number of large U.S. manufacturers have opened up or
expanded R&D facilities in China over the last few years.22 Next Generation Manufacturing A dynamic
manufacturing sector in the U.S. is as important as ever. But thanks to advanced manufacturing
technology and technology-enabled integration of manufacturing and services, the very nature of manufacturing is

changing, often in radical ways. What will the next generation of manufacturing look like? In 1942, the economist Joseph
Schumpeter declared that the process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. By creative destruction,
Schumpeter did not mean the rise and fall of firms competing in a technologically-static marketplace. He referred to a process of
industrial mutation if I may use that biological termthat incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within,
incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating the new one. He noted that these revolutions are not strictly incessant; they
occurred in discrete rushes that are separated from each other by spaces of comparative quiet. The process as a whole works
incessantly, however, in the sense that there is always either revolution or absorption of the results of revolution.23 As Schumpeter
and others have observed, technological innovation tends to be clustered in bursts or waves, each dominated by one or a few
transformative technologies that are sometimes called general purpose technologies. Among the most world-transforming general
purpose technologies of recent centuries have been the steam engine, electricity, the internal combustion engine, and information
technology.24 As epochal as these earlier technology-driven innovations in manufacturing processes and business models proved to
be, they are rapidly being superseded by new technologydriven changes as part of the never-ending process of Schumpeterian
industrial mutation. The latest wave of innovation in industrial technology has been termed

advanced manufacturing . The National Science and Technology Council of the Executive Office of the President
defines advanced manufacturing as a family of activities that (a) depend on the use and coordination of information, automation,
computation, software, sensing, and networking, and/or (b) make use of cutting edge materials and emerging capabilities enabled by
the physical and biological sciences, for example, nanotechnology, chemistry, and

biology. It involves both new ways to manufacture existing products and the
manufacture of new products emerging from new advanced technologies.25 Already computer-

aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) programs, combined with computer numerical control (CNC), allow
precision manufacturing from complex designs, eliminating many wasteful trials and steps in finishing. CNC is now ubiquitous in
the manufacturing sector and much of the employment growth occurring in the sector requires CNC skills or training. Information
technology has allowed for enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other forms of enterprise software to connect parts of the
production process (both between and within a firm), track systems, and limit waste when dealing with limited resources. Other
areas in which advanced manufacturing will play a role in creating new products and sectors and
changing current ones are:

Supercomputing. Americas global leadership in technology

depends in part on whether the U.S. can compete with Europe and Asia in the race to
develop exascale computing, a massive augmentation of computer calculating power that has the potential to
revolutionize predictive sci ences from meteorology to economics. According to the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory
Committee (ASCAC), If the U.S. chooses to be a follower rather than a leader in exascale

computing, we must be willing to cede leadership in industries including

aerospace, automobiles, energy, health care, novel material development, and
information technology.26 Robotics: The long-delayed promise of robotics is
coming closer to fulfillment. Google and other firms and research consortiums are testing robotic cars, and Nevada
recently amended its laws to permit autonomous automobiles.27 Amazon is experimenting with the use of robots in its
warehouses.28 Nanotechnology may permit manufacturing at extremely small scales

including the molecular and atomic levels.29 Nanotechnology is also a key research component in the

semiconductor indusmanutry, as government funding is sponsoring projects to create a new switch capable of supplanting current

semiconductor technology.30 Photonics or optoelectronics, based on the conversion of information carried by electrons to photons
and back, has potential applications in sectors as diverse as telecommunications, data storage, lighting and consumer electronics.

Biomanufacturing is the use of biological processes or living organisms to create

inorganic structures, as well as food, drugs and fuel. Researchers at MIT have genetically modified a

virus that generates cobalt oxide nanowires for silicon chips.31 Innovative materials include artificial metamaterials with novel
properties. Carbon nanotubes, for example, have a strength-to-weight ratio that no other material can match.32 Advanced
manufacturing using these and other cuttingedge technologies is not only creating new products and new methods of production but
is also transforming familiar products like automobiles. The rapid growth in electronic and software content in automobiles, in
forms like GPS-based guidance systems, information and entertainment technology, anti-lock brakes and engine control systems,
will continue. According to Ford, around 30 percent of the value of one of its automobiles is comprised by intellectual property,
electronics and software. In the German automobile market, electronic content as a share of production costs is expected to rise
from 20-30 percent in 2007 to 50 percent by 2020.33

Advanced manufacturing is K2 an effective defense industrial base

OHanlon et al 2012 (Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute Rebecca Grant, IRIS Research Robert P. Haffa,

Haffa Defense Consulting Michael O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution Peter W. Singer, The Brookings Institution Martin Sullivan,
Commonwealth Consulting Barry Watts, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments The Arsenal of Democracy and How to
Preserve It: Key Issues in Defense Industrial Policy January 2012, pg online @ http://www.brookings.edu/~/
media/research/files/ papers/2012/1/26%20defense%20industrial%20base /0126_defense_industrial_base_ohanlon)//NR
The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely industrial impact, as the

U.S. d efense i ndustrial b ase is in a much different place

than it was in the past. Defense industrial

issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet projects to protect in congressional districts. But the overall health
of the firms that supply the technologies our armed forces utilize does have national security resonance. Qualitative

superiority in weaponry and other key military technology has become an essential
element of American military power in the modern era not only for winning wars but for
deterring them . That requires world-class scientific and manufacturing
capabilities - which in turn can also generate civilian and military export opportunities for the United States in a
globalized marketplace.
That makes war obsolete its the ultimate deterrent
Taylor 04 (Mark, Professor of Political Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Politics of Technological
Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions, 4-1, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor)//NR
Technological innovation

is of central importance

to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost

every aspect of the sub-field. 2 First and foremost, a nations technological capability has a significant effect on its economic
growth, industrial might,
necessarily

and military prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities

influence the balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of

war and alliance formation. Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nations trade profile, affecting which

products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. 3 Third, insofar
as innovation-driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nations technological ability will
also affect international financial flows and who has power over them. 4 Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is
important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone
does not convince, then history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding and
dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first industrial revolution, the United States and
Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth century. 5 Conversely, great powers which fail to
maintain their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene. 6 This is not to
suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that
shifts in both relative and absolute technological capability have a major impact on international relations, and therefore need to be
better understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the politics. 7 At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of
material capabilities across nations, or an indirect source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above,

technology is the very cornerstone of great power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle
by which war and change occur in world politics. 8 Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and

defensive military

technology affects the incentives for war . 9 Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a
states aggregate power, and thereby affect both alliance formation and the international balance of threats. 10 Liberals are less

directly concerned with technological change, but they must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological
progress affects the rational attractiveness of international cooperation and regimes. 11 Technology also lowers information &
transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory. 12 And in
fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological change can lead to Keohanes interdependence 13 or Thomas
Friedman et als globalization. 14 Meanwhile, over at the third debate, Constructivists cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from
Katzensteins cultural norms which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological innovation; 15 to Wendts stripped
down technological determinism in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state. 16 However most
Constructivists seem to favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes peoples identities within society, and sometimes even
creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby affecting international politics. 17 Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as
determining all social relations and the entire course of history, though they describe mankinds major fault lines as running
between economic classes rather than nation-states. 18 Finally, Buzan & Little remind us that without advances in the technologies
of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place.

LOST ensures access to oil, gas and rare earths that insulates the economy from
price shocks and ensures growth
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

Maritime natural resource exploitation from oil and natural gas to seabed minerals has strategic implications for the United
States. Ratifying LOSC will put the United States in a position to secure internationally recognized claims to
those important natural

resources.
The United States is committed to exploring for additional domestic reserves of oil and natural gas in an effort to
bolster domestic production and provide assured access to energy resources. Increasing production from domestic
reserves will not necessarily help reduce higher oil prices, since these prices are set by the global market, but it can help
close the U.S. trade deficit and provide more assured access to energy if a major crisis chokes off
access to foreign energy imports for any length of time.
Offshore oil and natural gas exploration along the

extended continental shelf an area beyond the 200-nauticalexpected to increase U.S. reserves over the next decade. However, the United States cannot
secure internationally recognized sovereign rights to those resources unless it ratifies LOSC. While the United
mile EEZ is

States enjoys national jurisdiction over living and non-living resources above and below the seabed out to 200 nautical miles, claims
to resources beyond the EEZ must be formally made to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the
international body established by LOSC for parties to adjudicate claims to the extended continental shelf. Without the United
States ratifying LOSC,

U.S. companies operating beyond the EEZ would be considered on the high seas and beyond
the formal legal protection of the United States. As a result, offshore drilling companies have increasingly
expressed their concern about the lack of legal protections afforded to U.S. companies and have indicated
a reluctance to assume significant risk in operating in areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction. In short, U.S. failure to
ratify LOSC could have a chilling effect on commercial resource exploration and exploitation on the

extended continental shelf.

Ratifying LOSC will allow the United States to make a claim to the extended continental shelf an area estimated to be twice the size
of California and bring the potential oil and natural gas resources beyond the existing EEZ under U.S. jurisdiction. 20
Furthermore, these sovereign resources would be beyond the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which only
has authority over resources in the deep seabed beyond other national jurisdictions. 21 While critics often cite concerns about the
ISA and its administration of U.S. companies drilling under the deep seabed, such concerns will be assuaged by bringing the
extended continental shelf under internation - ally recognized U.S. jurisdiction.
Seabed mining, in the Arctic and elsewhere, is also becoming an important strategic interest for the

United States. U.S. companies increasingly seek to engage in seabed mining for minerals such as rare
earth elements and cobalt that are critical to the broad U.S. economy and used in producing defense
assets. However, as long as the United States remains outside the international legal protections afforded by LOSC,
the private sector remains hesitant to invest in seabed mining investments that would reduce
U.S. vulnerabilities to external pressure and supply disruption. Indeed, since few suppliers provide such
minerals and they are prone to intentional or unintentional disruptions and price spikes,
increasing U.S. production will help prevent suppliers from exerting political and economic
leverage over the United States and its allies. 22
LOST key to access trillions of dollars worth of minerals
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a
BA in International Relations. He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings
have appeared in both national and international publications. He frequently appears on talk

radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al
Jazeera. He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the
host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show whose guests have included presidential candidates,
actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is President at Small
Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National
Federation of Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise
Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_
of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html // SM)
I am tired of losing out to China and Russia on the world stage. By not ratifying LOTS, the U.S.
loses access to resources that lie in undersea regions that are outside of the current U.S. sphere
of legal access much in the same way that China and Russia are accessing oil that we have
prevented ourselves from going after, now China and Russia are accessing vast amounts of rare
earth minerals, and other critical minerals, that are essential to our economy and national
security. There Is a New Cold War Russia and China, two of Americas most powerful strategic
foes, are actively exploring the Arctic and Pacific for oil, gas and seabed mineral riches. The U.S.
is not. Why? Because, Russia and China have ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty and the U.S.
hasnt. Without ratifying LOTS, the U.S. has no standing to apply for mining and drilling
permits under international law. Bottom line: there is a new Cold War taking place, and America
is not winning. The seabed holds trillions of dollars of mineral resources.

Add-Ons

Overfishing 2ac
Ratification key to solve overfishing
Bode 2k (Bode, Thilo [Thilo Bode studied sociology and economics and wrote his Ph. D. dissertation on direct investments in

developing countries. He was the Head of Greenpeace International from 1995 to 2001.]. Sea Changes. Share The Worlds
Resources: sustainable economics to end global poverty, November 2000. http://www.stwr.org/land-energy-water/the-law-of-thesea-preventing-an-underwater-land-grab.html [accessed July 14th, 2014])//ALepow
Sea fishing, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reports, generates approximately 1 per cent of the
global economy and, together with related industries, supports the livelihoods of some 200 million people around the world. Yet

most major fisheries are already overexploited, and the pressure that fishing exerts on the seas
continues to increase. Overfishing does not only affect the targeted fish stocks, but impacts
whole ecosystems. A recent analysis of FAO fisheries data over the past 40 years by Daniel Pauly
and his colleagues has revealed the trend of progressively fishing down food chains: when highvalue, top predator species have been overfished and depleted, those lower in the chain are
targeted. This strategy could bring wholesale changes to marine ecosystems: to take one hypothesis, the southern North Sea
could become dominated by jellyfish, rather than commercially exploitable fish, as the top predators. Every year some 27
million tonnes of unwanted fish are discarded after being caught one-third of the total from
shrimp fishing alone and this also contributes to altering the species balance. Overfishing also
affects whales, sea turtles and birds, as well as life on the seabed. Every year longlining in the Southern
Ocean traps an estimated 100,000 seabirds; some albatross populations have been driven almost to extinction. The
consequences of overfishing, climate change, pollution, habitat degradation and other problems
threaten to degrade the oceans irreparably. Yet they are a common heritage of humanity. Marine
law may place much of the oceans under national control, but the problems facing the seas are common to us all. Solving the
environmental problems facing the oceans and ensuring sustainable fisheries is one of the
greatest challenges facing humankind in the 21st century. No single nation or region can do this
alone: it will require comprehensive international cooperation as required by the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Overfishing leads to BioD collapse
Lee and Safina 95 (Lee, Mercedes [Mercedes Lee is the assistant director of the National Audubon Societys Living Oceans
Program.]. Safina, Carl [Carl Safina holds a Ph. D. in ecology from Rutgers University.]. The Effects of Overfishing on Marine
Biodiversity. Current: The Journal of Marine Education, 13: 5-9, 1995. http://www.seaweb.org/resources/articles/writin
gs/safina1.php [accessed July 15th, 2014])//ALepow

Overfishing can deplete biological diversity by causing extinctions. While no marine species is known to
have gone extinct due solely to fishing, the Atlantic gray whale was hunted to extinction, and other marine
mammals were placed close to extinction by overexploitation. For example, between 1920 and
1986, the population of humpback whale was reduced to five percent of its former level
(Butman, et al., 1993). Several fish species are being reduced to very low levels by fishing,
especially species that have concurrent habitat problems, such as many sturgeons, several North
American salmon stocks, and the totoaba of the Gulf of California, suggesting biological
extinction may become a possibility. Overfishing can affect biological diversity by reducing
species richness. When an animal's population is depressed to such low levels that the species
no longer fulfills its role as prey, predator, or competitor in the ecosystem, it has essentially
become ecologically or functionally extinct. This can have the effect of relaxing competition or predation, allowing
other species to become more dominant in the ecosystem. This affects the naturally evolved numerical and
functional relationships--which may be called the ecological integrity--among species in a
community. Overfishing of wrasses and triggerfishes off the coasts of Haiti, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Hainan Island, China,

provide an example of how overexploitation can disrupt predator-prey relationships. Wrasses and triggerfishes feed on sea urchins.
Overexploitation of these wrasse and triggerfish populations resulted in sea urchins reproducing unchecked. As sea urchins are
herbivores dependent on algae as a major food source, the increased population of urchins over-grazed the areas' seagrass beds to
the point of obliteration (Norse, 1993). Somewhat conversely, removal of most herbivorous reef fish from some Caribbean coral reefs
appears to have had consequences during a natural die-off of algae-eating urchins there. With the urchins reduced to very low levels

and few herbivorous fish to compensate for their absence, algae overgrew corals, causing large-scale mortality, with consequences
for the coral-dependent community (Robertson, 1991). The effects of overfishing on humans, as top predators,

is a good indicator, on a qualitative level, of when the richness of species is diminished and a
biological community becomes changed. For example, as much as ten pounds of unwanted creatures are killed for

every pound of shrimp caught in the southern U.S. This bycatch, according to the President's Council on Environmental Quality, has
contributed over the last 20 years to an 85 percent decline in the Gulf of Mexico population of bottom fishes like snappers and
groupers--which themselves support commercial fisheries. Some people who once fished for adult snappers in the Gulf have been
forced to fish for other species or driven out of the fishing business altogether. Georges Bank once supported one of the richest cod
and haddock fisheries in the world. However, decades of overfishing drove these groundfish to such low populations that spiny
dogfish and skates now dominate the ecosystem. This ecological shift may well be permanent, as the recovery

of cod and other groundfish populations may not be possible if they are unable to successfully
compete with the spiny dogfish, skates, and other opportunistic species to regain their ecological
niche. Fishermen and fisheries managers are now discussing the possibility of redirecting the overcapitalized fishing fleet to target
the now-dominant dogfish and skates; but uncertainty remains as to whether sufficient markets can be found for these species,
which were once considered "trash" fish. Ironically, humans suffer the major effects of overfishing long

before the animals themselves completely vanish.

That causes extinctionmultiple warrants

Coyne and Hoekstra 07 (Coyne, Jerry [Jerry Coyne is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the

University of Chicago.]. Hoekstra, Hopi E. [Hopi E. Hoekstra is John L. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic
and evolutionary biology at Harvard University and curator of mammals at Harvards Museum of Comparative Zoology.]. Diversity
lost as we head towards a lonely planet: Waiting in the wings is a fate worse than global warming. The Australian, November 10th,
2007. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/ne ws/diversity-lost-as-we-head-towards-a-lonely-planet/story-e6frg8gf1111114841209?nk=7fc1471795f047865a7e8c8874391ccb [accessed July 15th, 2014])//ALepow

To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming which is,
after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why? One reason is

that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly
how many species exist on Earth. Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50million, and that doesn't count
microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate of extinction, either; how could we
be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species

will affect the ecosystems in which they're embedded, since the intricate connection between
organisms means that the loss of a single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things.
Tropical rainforests are disappearing at a rate of 2 per cent a year. Populations of most large fish are 10 per cent of what they were in
1950. Many primates and all great apes, our closest relatives, are nearly gone from the wild. And we know that extinction

and global warming act synergistically. Extinction exacerbates global warming: by burning
rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but
destroying the plants that can remove this gas from the air. Conversely, global warming
increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly (destroying the habitats of Arctic and
Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does global warming, which in turn causes
more extinction and so on, into a downward spiral of destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start

with the most celebrated case: rainforests. Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures, melting icecaps and flooding
coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between organisms that have not evolved together, a
scenario played out many times and one that is never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with
humans as prime recipients. We have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets and Ebola from fruit bats.
Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a real possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that
should trouble us. Healthy ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal,

nutrient cycling, soil formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are
best rendered by ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through intention and accident, humans have
introduced exotic species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example,

have outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have damaged harbours and watertreatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks
to these developments, soils will erode and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish agricultural
yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify
water, and a shortage of clean water spells disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all.

As overfishing eliminates important predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off
phytoplankton, the intricate aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so
many humans depend, will be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of
the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is

made by phytoplankton, with the rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also
imperilling coral reefs, a big problem since these reefs have more than recreational value: they
provide tremendous amounts of food for human populations and buffer coastlines against
erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden services provided by ecosystems - those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't

bought and sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $US50 thousand billion ($53.8 thousand billion) a year,
roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined. And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and
timber. Life as we know it would be impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're

heading if species extinction continues at its present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on
medicine. Who really cares if, say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer from

cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike
other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of worm: its
wriggly relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential anti-cancer agent), decorsin and
ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical goldmines. The bark of
trees, for example, has given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective against ovarian and breast
cancer) and aspirin. More than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy shelves were originally

derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a
powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth,
fewer than 5 per cent have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what lifesaving drugs remain to be discovered? Given present extinction rates, it's estimated that we're
losing one valuable drug every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving

only in proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is strongly ingrained, especially in
Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that
there are deeper and equally compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and intellectual values that
transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other creatures? And what could be more thrilling
than looking around us, seeing that we are surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all got here by the same
simple process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the genetic kinship and common
origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But whether

or not one is moved by such concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to
stem this sixth extinction. We are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural
medicinal cures are lost; a world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources
dwindle; a world of sweltering heat, failing crops and impure water. In the end, we must accept
the possibility that we are not immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain,
scratching out a grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem
when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature; not just another
Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

Overfishing High
Rampant overfishing is happening nowinternational efforts key to solve
The Economist 14 (The Economist [The Economist offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news,

politics, business, finance, science, technology, and the connections between them.]. In deep water: Humans are damaging the high
seas. Now the oceans are doing harm back. The Economist: Governing the high seas, February 22nd, 2014. http://www.economist
.com/news/international/21596990-humans-are-damaging-high-seas-now-oceans-are-doing-harm-back-deep-water [accessed July
15th, 2014])//ALepow

The biggest failure, though, is in the regulation of fishing. Overfishing does more damage to the
oceans than all other human activities there put together. In theory, high-seas fishing is overseen by an array of

regional bodies. Some cover individual species, such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT, also known as the International Conspiracy to Catch All Tuna). Others cover fishing in a particular area, such as the northeast Atlantic or the South Pacific Oceans. They decide what sort of fishing gear may be used, set limits on the quantity of fish that can
be caught and how many ships are allowed in an area, and so on. Here, too, there have been successes. Stocks of northeast Arctic cod are now the highest of any cod species and the highest they have been since 1945even though the permitted catch is
also at record levels. This proves it is possible to have healthy stocks and a healthy fishing industry.

But it is a bilateral, not an international, achievement: only Norway and Russia capture these
fish and they jointly follow scientists advice about how much to take. There has also been some progress

in controlling the sort of fishing gear that does the most damage. In 1991 the UN banned drift nets longer than 2.5km (these are nets
that hang down from the surface; some were 50km long). A series of national and regional restrictions in the 2000s placed limits on
bottom trawling (hoovering up everything on the seabed)which most people at the time thought unachievable. But the overall
record is disastrous. Two-thirds of fish stocks on the high seas are over-exploitedtwice as much as in

parts of oceans under national jurisdiction. Illegal and unreported fishing is worth $10 billion24 billion a yearabout a quarter of the total catch. According to the World Bank, the
mismanagement of fisheries costs $50 billion or more a year, meaning that the fishing industry
would reap at least that much in efficiency gains if it were properly managed.

Overfishing Econ Impact

Overfishing leads to economic collapseon the brink now
Coner et al. 07 (Coner, Chris [Chris Coner graduated from the University of Vermont.]. Harrigan-Anderson, Will [Will

Harrigan-Anderson graduated from the University of Vermont.]. Jolley, Mike [Mike Jolley graduated from the University of
Vermont.]. Schles, Jeff [Jeff Schles graduated from the University of Vermont.]. Ecosystem Collapse in Global Fisheries due to
Chronic Over-Fishing. University of Vermont, 2007. http://www2.uvm.edu/~wbowden/Teaching/Risk
_Assessment/Resources/Public/Projects/Project_docs2007/REPORT_Over-fishing.doc. [accessed July 15th, 2014])//ALepow

The global fisheries industry is one of the worlds major sources of revenue. Many coastline
nations depend in some way or another on the fishing industry. This has led to chronic over
fishing of the surrounding marine ecosystem. The economic effect that this can have on a nation
can be extremely destructive. The following evidence provides a case for the economic
importance of over fishing with regard to the global market. In Southeast Asia, the increased over fishing has
caused a tremendous stress not only on the ecosystem, but on the economies of the dependent nations. The live reef fish
trade is one of the most important fisheries in the world. Comprised of nations in the vicinity of
Indonesia, it generates revenues of about 1 billion US dollars each year to supply Hong Kong
(largest consumers of reef fish in the world), Taiwan, and mainland China with live fish for
consumption (Cesar et al 2000). The species most often consumed in these areas are large groupers and small amounts
of Humphead Wrasse. Current commercial fishing practices involve harvesting the fish in their fry or fingerling stages, growing
them to maturity in captivity, and finally selling them on the market to consumers. This method of fishing has led to

an
enormous decrease in fish populations as the amount of groupers and wrasse capable of
reproducing in the wild is greatly reduced. Continued use of this method has caused many of the over fished grouper
species to be placed on the World Conservation Unions Red List, a list comprised of species that are either threatened, endangered,
or on the verge of extinction. The demand is so high in places such as Hong Kong for these fish that their market value is
significantly higher than in the United States. The table below illustrates the comparison. The demand stems from the
Chinese/Cantonese ideas that the fresher the fish is when killed and cooked, the more flavorful the dish will become. This has led to
the need to keep fish alive until minutes before cooking, raising their market value. These fish account for 1 billion dollars of revenue
and 38 million fish annually (Cesar et al 2000). Almost all of the high value fish originate from fisheries off the coast of Indonesia
and the Philippines. However, as these are depleted, the fisheries are moving to more remote islands of Micronesia. Due to the Asian
economic downturn, there has been decreased effort to police these over fishing practices, and both the grouper and wrasse species
are suffering severely. The loss of these fisheries could mean a potential 1 billion dollar swing in the

economic stability of Southeast Asia, which some lesser developed fishing nations may not be
able to recover from (Cesar et al 2000). It is clear that the problem of over fishing these
reef ecosystems is not only removing key species from the systems, but will
eventually cause an economic collapse on an international level if there is not
more done to protect them. Other cases, in the Atlantic Ocean, are those of Ghana and Iceland. Though not

experiencing the same crisis as Southeast Asia, they too are nations that will feel the economic effects of their unsustainable fishing
practices if left unchecked. In Ghana, on the West Coast of Africa, fisheries have annually accounted for

over 380 million dollars to the economy, and have supported 56 million people through
employment in the industry (Atta-Mills et al 2004). The weak fishing regulations have, however,
allowed the exploitation and over fishing of species such as the Trigger Fish, Sardinellas, and
Club Mackerel. The reduction of these species, being some of the primary species fished in the
region, is causing not only ecosystem degradation, but is leading to a collapse in the fishing
industry. The people of Ghana were once able to fish in the waters of other neighboring countries to sustain their businesses, but
are now limited only to their own immediate coastline. This has helped to perpetuate the over fishing issue, and once they have
depleted their resources the fishing industry will collapse entirely. With nowhere else to fish, 56 million people

dependent on the fisheries for employment will be out of work (Atta-Mills et al 2004). Iceland is

facing a similar situation as Ghana. Over fishing of Cod in their waters is leading to both trophic collapse, as well as the potential
collapse of its fishing industry. Theses industries in Iceland account for 63% of its total exports along with 10% of its entire
workforce. The practice of over fishing young Cod is causing the number of reproducing adults to decline every year. Icelands goal
was to harvest 25% of the fishable stock, but they report fish landings approaching 45% (Planet Ark 2001). This case is similar to
Ghanas in that Iceland has defended its waters with regulations barring any outside interest from fishing there. Iceland allows no
one but its own people to operate there. This will lead to issues in the future if they continue to over fish the region, as there will be
less hospitality for them when seeking permission to fish in foreign waters. As 10% of the population relies on the fishing industry,
and 63% of the exports are from fisheries, Iceland is facing major issues in the future unless the problem of over fishing is

addressed.

On the overall global scale, annual harvests could rise 10 million metric tons, and add
$16 billion to worldwide gross revenues. In the United States, if a sustainable commercial
fishing was reached, the nation could add an additional $2.9 billion, nearly doubling the current
revenue (Somma 2003). However, the worlds fishing harvests are growing at approximately
half the rate of its fishing fleets, causing 75% of the worlds fisheries to be considered fully
exploited. The costs to the public in this vary from minimal to direct impacts. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) consists of approximately 30 governments worldwide. Recently, the OECD ran a survey inquiring as to the
public cost of fisheries among these various governments. The results showed that the fishing industry accounts

for about 36% of total government fund transfers from one sector to the other, approximately
$2.5 billion (Somma 2003). The source of this money is the tax dollars submitted by the public.
This type of indirect impact, coupled with the direct impact of a loss in employment, places a
substantial amount of people in financial jeopardy if the over fishing issue is not addressed
soon. The economic impacts of this issue are clearly not specific to any one nation. The current practices of over
fishing are causing this resource to become non-renewable. Millions of people worldwide rely on
this industry to sustain their lives and families, and unless something is done to address this
problem, these people face almost certain unemployment in the future. Along with the collapse
of the fisheries may come a collapse in the economic status of a nation whose chief exports rely
on those fisheries. The economic ramifications of this problem are vast, and warrant further investigation.
Economic collapse causes war
Royal 10 (Royal, Jedidiah [Jedidiah Royal is the Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction Policy at the United States

Department of Defense.]. "Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises." In Economics of War
and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, edited by Benjamin E. Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, 213-14. 2010 [accessed
July 15th, 2014])//ALepow
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behavior of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons

(1996) work on leadership cycle, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with
the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent
leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a
redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power
balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively
certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising
power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also
shows that global economic combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of
conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between

global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dynamic level, Copelands (1996, 2000) theory of
trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviors of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade regulations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly

for difficult to replace items, such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increase, as
states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be
the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist
moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed
conflict at a national level. Bloomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour.
Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and
external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Bloomberg & Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline
has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Bloomberg, Hess, &
Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions.

Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary

theory suggests that,

when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external; military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect. Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995), and Bloomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997),
Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that
democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of
domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity are
statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively

correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links
economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic, and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crises
and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.

Sea Turtle 2ac

Poaching of sea turtles rampant in the South China sea.
Larano 5/7/14. Chris Larano, writer for WSJ. Sea Turtles a Flash Point in South China Sea Dispute;
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304885404579547713724997806. MMG

How did turtles become a flash point in the territorial spat in the South China Sea? Many would
argue that it's because the endangered creatures are worth a fight. In the Philippineswhere five of the
world's seven species of sea turtle livepoaching sea turtles is a crime that can come with up to 12 years in
prison and fines of up to $22,500, depending on the type of turtle. Still, poachers seek them out for their meat, which is
believed in some cultures to enhance virility, and their shells, which are used for jewelry. On Wednesday, the Philippines
arrested the crew of a Chinese fishing vessel near the disputed Spratly Islands after receiving
reports of poachers in the area. The Chinese vessel contained around 500 sea turtles, some of
them dead, the police said. The arrest prompted rebuke from Beijing, which called on the
Philippines to release the crew. In recent years, other Chinese fishermen have been caught by Philippine authorities for
poaching turtles or other endangered species such as clams and anteaters. "Even if those turtles didn't come from the Philippines,
[the alleged poachers] could still be prosecuted here because sea turtles are globally protected animals," said Theresa Mundita Lim,
director of the Biodiversity Management Bureau of the Philippines' Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The

Southeast Asian country is a hotbed for poaching. Ms. Lim said all five species of sea turtles in
the country are considered endangered, but more so the Hawksbill and Leatherback that are
valued for their shells, which are used for ornaments and jewelry. The other species found in the country

are the Olive Ridley, Green Sea Turtle and the Loggerhead. The two other species not found in the Philippines are Kemp's Ridley and
the Flatback. Leatherback and Hawksbill are considered the most threatened by possible extinction. It takes decades before a sea
turtle reaches maturity, and only then will females breed and return to the beaches where they hatched to lay their eggs. Aside from
natural predators, including humans, loss of habitat and other environmental threats mean as few as one in every 1,000 hatchlings
will reach adulthood. Each female can lay as many as 150 eggs per clutch, and can lay several times a season. According to the
World Wildlife Fund, poachers take around 30,000 green turtles in California alone while

more than 50,000 sea

turtles are killed in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. In the 1960s, over a million Olive
Ridley turtles were butchered in Mexico. Sea turtle eggs are considered an aphrodisiac in some countries, including China, and
eaten raw or sold as snacks in bars and restaurants, WWF said. Chinese and other East Asian cuisines use the meat, skin and
innards of soft-shell turtles for soup. Turtles are also used in Chinese medicine. Japan is a major buyer of sea turtle shells, known as
bekko.
Reptiles are key stone species that help to preserve the health and stability of their
environments
Howard Young, Associate Editor of Zoogoer Magazine, 1997 (Neglected Elders, questia)
Many reptiles share the plight of the chameleon, in that they engender intense fear or
fascination in people - whether through physical encounters or through the archetypal role they
play in the legends and lore of human cultures. Some cultures regard reptiles as powerful religious symbols. The
cobra plays a prominent role in Hindu religion, representing Shiva, the god of fertility and death; the plumed serpent Quetzalcoatl
was the chief object of worship in Aztec culture, representing fertility, death, and resurrection; the turtle generously agrees to
support the earth on its shell in Mohawk and other Native American creation myths; and Australian Aborigines associate a giant
rainbow serpent with the creation of life. But perhaps the most telling portrayal of reptiles - reflecting a widely prevalent attitude
toward reptiles today - is the serpent described in the Book of Genesis that deceived Adam and Eve, and prompted their fall from
innocence. This stigma of reptilian evil has retained a strong grip on the popular imagination, as

reflected, for example, in the recent Hollywood film Anaconda, a horror-filled tale of a 12-meterlong, human-eating snake. But today, reptiles have much more to fear from humans than
humans do from them. Reptiles tend to keep low profiles - crouching under rocks, crawling
through undergrowth, hiding under water, or perching in trees - and often, especially in the case
of research and conservation priorities, out of sight has been out of mind. Unlike birds or frogs, reptiles

do not burst into song, and they do not capture the attention of as many biologists as charismatic large mammals do. Consequently,
the distribution, ecology, and basic biology of most species remain poorly studied. In fact, the scientists who compiled the Red List
were only able to fully assess three of the six reptile orders: the crocodilians, the testudines (turtles, tortoises, and terrapins), and the
lizard-like tuataras, each of which ranked high in the number of threatened species - 43 percent, 38 percent, and 50 percent,

respectively. But the two largest orders - those of snakes and lizards - were not fully analyzed, nor was the order of legless
amphisbaenians. Given these research gaps, and the high number of threatened species in the three fully assessed orders, the Red
List's authors surmise that "the overall estimate of 20 percent of reptiles species as threatened is probably low for the entire class."

Although relatively little research has been done to reveal the magnitude of their ecological
contributions, reptiles are an indispensable part of many ecosystems - helping to assure the
health and stability of their habitats. From clothespin-sized anolis lizards hunting on the walls of Caribbean hotels to

eight-meter-long pythons living in the jungles of Southeast Asia, reptiles act as critical links in ecological food chains. We are just
beginning to appreciate their roles in regulating pest and insect populations, providing habitat for other species, and maintaining the
stability of ecosystems as key predators. For exacapitalismple, in North America, owls, foxes, and rat snakes all prey on white-footed
mice, but only the rat snake can crawl into a small burrow to catch a mouse and its young. The rat snake, which is common
throughout much of the mouse's range, plays a major role in controlling populations of these abundant rodents.

Biodiversity collapse causes extinction.

David N. Diner, Winter 1994 (Military Law Review, 43 Mil. L. Rev. 161 THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT:
WHO'S ENDANGERING WHOM? Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army)

The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has
progressed, the world's biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the
number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications.
78 [*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist

species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The
more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in
which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse
better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a
whole." 79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic
simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the
dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend
continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and

intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new
extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings,
80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Ratifying LOST solves irresponsible marine destruction of Sea Turtles.

Salz 98. Ronald Salz, University of Mass. Nov. 2, 1998. Sea Turtle Mortality, Shrimp Fisheries, and International Trade: A Case
Study of a Global Natural Resource Conflict. http://www.umass.edu/hd/research/turtle.pdf. MMG

In the past thirty years there has been a growing movement in the United States towards the preservation and protection of natural
resources. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was one of several pieces of legislation that provided environmentalists with the
leverage necessary to achieve such goals. Some of the most high profile and contentious natural resource

conflicts during this time have involved the protection of species on thebrink of extinction. The
environmental movement in the U.S., and in particular the focus on saving endangered species, has been paralleled by similar
concerns abroad. Due to the trans- boundary, migratory behavior of many animals, protection

of
endangered species often involves international cooperation. This is especially true of marine
animals ( such as sea turtles , whales, dolphins, sharks, and tuna) which swim thousands of miles as part of their
normal life cycles. As a result, several concerned nations have signed multi-lateral environmental agreements with provisions that
further the objectives of the ESA. These include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES),

United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , Rio Declaration Convention on Biodiversity, and the InterAmerican Convention on the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles.

Ocean Pollution 2ac

Ratification solves ocean pollution
Kass 12 (Kass, Stephen L. (Stephan L. Kass received his B.A. from Yale University in 1961 and
his LL.B. from Harvard Law School in 1964. He is currently a Partner at Carter Ledyard and
Milburn LLP where his is the Co-director of the environmental Practice Group.]. United
Nations Convention on Law of the Sea and Climate Change. Carter Ledyard and Milburn LLP:
Publications, August 31st, 2012. http://www.clm.com/publication.cfm?ID=396 [accessed July
13th, 2014])//ALepow
It is not sufficiently recognized just how much the Earth's oceansas much or more than its
atmosphereare at risk from accelerating climate change. While the atmosphere absorbs about
half of the world's carbon dioxide emissions and can take decades (or even centuries) to
overcome the warming effects of these and other emissions, the oceans absorb almost one-third
of carbon dioxide emissions and can take centuries or millennia to achieve a more "normal"
state. During this period, the world's weather patterns can be severely affected in ways not yet
fully understood (but which are clearly linked to both more rain and more drought in foodproducing areas), warming seas expand to erode coastlines and flood coastal cities, the
increased acidity of ocean waters threatens coral reefs and, in turn, the marine life on which
people also depend for food. In addition to these long-term climate impacts, the Earth's oceans
are increasingly threatened by land-based pollution from industrial effluent, fertilizer and
pesticide runoff from farms, untreated urban sewage, solid waste in the form of plastic, pollution
from vessels and overfishing that has reduced many of the oceans' principal fishstocks nearly to
extinction. UNCLOS, which was drafted before the effects of climate change were widely
recognized, seeks to curtail these ocean threats through a variety of techniques, ranging from
regional agreements on threatened fishstocks to both generalized and, in some cases, specific
obligations on UNCLOS parties to avoid polluting the parties' territorial seas, their EEZs and the
high seas. Articles 192-206 of UNCLOS set forth a broad range of general obligations of the
parties to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution, to cooperate on a global or regional
basis, to notify other parties of imminent or actual damage to the oceans and to adopt
contingency plans and provide technical assistance to developing countries in combatting
marine pollution. Articles 207-211 and 213-221 contain more specific obligations with respect to
pollution from land-based sources, seabed activities, ocean dumping and maritime vessels and
the obligations of parties to enforce their respective laws and any applicable international rules
and standards relating to such activities, including the enforcement obligations of "flag states,"
"port states" and "coastal states" with respect to vessels flying their flag, visiting their ports or
transiting their waters. However, UNCLOS treats atmospheric pollution more summarily.
Article 212(1) requires parties to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment "from or through the atmosphere, applicable to the air
space under their sovereignty and to vessels flying their flag or vessels or aircraft of their
registry, taking into account internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices
and procedures and the safety of air navigation." Articles (2) and (3) require parties to take
other necessary measures and to endeavor to establish global and regional rules, standards,
practices and procedures with respect to "such pollution." Article 222 provides that parties shall
enforce the laws and regulations referred to in Article 212 against all vessels flying their flags
and within their air space and take other actions to control atmospheric pollution "in conformity
with all relevant international rules and standards concerning the safety of air navigation." The
purpose of these provisions is clearly to require parties to regulate emissions from aircraft and
marine vessels, which were seen in 1982 as the most significant sources of atmospheric pollution
affecting the oceans.

Emerging Threats 2ac

LOST is key to address a variety of emerging threats that includes piracy and
prolif failure to ratify kills leads to international constraints that undermine
capabilities
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)
Emerging Maritime Challenges

The maritime threat from transnational and non- state actors has risen considerably. The U.S. Navy, Marine
Corps and Coast Guard cautioned in their 2007 maritime strategy that the global security environment is increasingly characterized
by a hybrid blend of traditional and irregular tactics, decentralized planning and execution, and non-state actors using both simple
and sophisticated technologies in innovative ways. 12 Given that many emerging maritime challenges do not fit
squarely within the realm of customary

international maritime law, LOSC is the only regime that the

United States can rely on to work with its global partners to overcome a range of new and
unconventional maritime threats. Piracy, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation and natural
resource exploitation are three key areas where ratifying LOSC will benefit the United States.
Piracy

Piracy threatens vital shipping routes in the Horn of Africa, the Indian Ocean and elsewhere, and the U.S. military
works closely with regional partners to address this threat. LOSC signatories have a duty to interdict ships
suspected of piracy anywhere beyond the territorial sea of a coastal state. 13 The convention also enumerates the
rights of states to board ships suspected of piracy and legally defines what constitutes an act of piracy, providing the United
States the strongest legal footing possible in conducting its counter-piracy operations and bringing violators
to justice. 14 The continued failure to ratify LOSC will not prohibit the United States from taking action against piracy. The United
States conducts counter- piracy operations today despite its reluctance to ratify LOSC. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard often execute
such operations using the legal authorities granted under the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence
Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention) to which the United States is a party. 15 Regardless, U.S. Navy and
Coast Guard officials continually argue that LOSC adds legitimacy to counter-piracy efforts. In an era of

hybrid threats in the maritime domain, this added legitimacy will make it easier for the United
States to cooperate with international partners in this area.
Ratifying LOSC will also enhance U.S. counter-piracy efforts by improving Americas ability to shape the
legal authorities the international community relies on to combat piracy, especially in instances where existing
agreements do not account for advancements in technology. The United States, for example, relies increasingly on remote
sensing systems and a fleet of low-and high-altitude remotely piloted vehicles to provide persistent
surveillance where the United States lacks a sustained maritime presence. These technologies may help U.S. maritime officials
track piracy activities and facilitate a faster response. However, as one analyst notes, use of these technologies may not
be clearly protected within existing international maritime treaties, including LOSC: [R]emote sensing from
satellites and high-flying surveillance aircraft have for decades undertaken maritime scientific research and surveys in others[]
EEZs without the permission or even the advance knowledge required by the 1982 UNCLOS. 16 As the United States
continues to field remotely piloted or semi-autonomous vehicles and sensors including maritime ones it will need

to be
prepared to challenge efforts to constrain or prohibit their use.
Ratifying LOSC will allow the United States to participate in international fora such as the Law of the Sea Tribunal,
which would enable it to challenge states that may seek to constrain American use of remote sensing and
remotely operated technologies, or otherwise seek to adopt narrow legal definitions that prevent
U.S. law enforcement officials from combating piracy. Since debates at this tribunal will occur whether or not the United
States is a member, U.S. interests will be better served by ratifying LOSC so that it can shape and participate in these
debates, and try to prevent less favorable rules and norms from being adopted.
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Ratifying LOSC will bolster the U.S. ability

to create bilateral and multilateral agreements with other countries

to counter WMD proliferation, one of the biggest threats to U.S. security according to numerous analysts both in and
outside of government. 17 Government efforts to strengthen land-based interdiction efforts are increasing
maritime transit of dual-use technologies critical to developing and deploying WMD. In just one striking

example, in June 2011 a U.S. Navy destroyer trailed a Belize-flagged ship suspected of carrying missile components to Burma and
pressured the vessel to return to its origin in North Korea. 18
In particular, ratifying LOSC will strengthen programs such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), since key

partner and potential partner countries often voice skepticism over U.S. commitments to these
transnational programs in light of the U.S. failure to ratify the convention. President George W. Bush

launched PSI in 2003 to leverage existing national laws to improve interception of materials in transit and halt WMD-related
financial flows. LOSC ratification will give PSI a stronger legal foundation under international law by removing
the bogus argument that PSI is a renegade regime that flies in the face of international law, according to Rear Admiral William D.
Baumgartner, former U.S. Coast Guard Judge Advocate General. The net result will be more partners, more

intelligence, more preemptive actions that help protect us from this most serious threat. 19 Indeed, removing this
excuse for other countries non-participation in programs to counter proliferation would benefit the United States
diplomatically and could help in negotiating future innovative solutions and programs.

Oil 2ac
Ratifying the LOST mediates the South China Sea and revitalizes oil and natural
gas development.
Hachigian 12. Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress with expertise in National security, U.S.

foreign policy, U.S.-China relations, Asia geopolitics. Chinas Rise Is A Big Reason to Ratify the Law of the Sea Convention; Center
for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/china/news/2012/06/12/11698/chinas-rise-is-a-big-reason-toratify-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/ MMG.
Finally, the

United States will have a stronger hand when it comes to the other issues at play in the
South China Sea if it ratifies Law of the Sea. The United States has strong interests there in
freedom of navigation and the maintenance of peace and stability. Brunei, Cambodia, China,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam all have overlapping and conflicting claims over
islands and shoals in the South China Seaand thus over the substantial maritime rights that go along with them. While those
disputes have been in the news lately with the standoff between the Philippines and China over the Scarborough Shoal, there are

many similar contests. Huge food and energy resources are at stake. Fish stocks in the region
are horribly depleted and badly managed, but there is soaring demand for fish from growing
populations in neighboring countries with rising wealth and more appetite for animal protein.
The South China Sea has nearly one-tenth of the worlds Hostile incidents are on the rise, as
fishing boats enter disputed waters more often in search of their fisheries used for human
consumption, which is impressive considering its relatively small size. quarry, backed (tacitly or
not) by their governments. The stakes go even higher in terms of energy extraction.
New technologies are now making it possible to explore and extract oil and natural gas from the
deep ocean. And according to a recent report, the South China Sea likely holds about 15.6
billion barrels of petroleum, of which about 1.6 billion barrels are recoverable.
Some Chinese estimates are higher by a factor of 10. The U.S. Geological Survey
estimates that the seabed also holds nearly 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
These numbers are speculative, but even if they are partially accurate, they make

the South China Sea a significant potential source for energy resources . China claims as
their historical waters more than three-fourths of the South China Sea, delineated by the so-called ninedash line, pictured below.
Competing country claims in the South China Sea These claims are generally considered outrageous by everyone except the
Chinese, who have kept the justification for them (and the nature of the claims themselves) ambiguous. The Obama administration
has done an admirable job of standing with other Southeast Asian countries trying to resist Chinas pressure in these territorial
disputes. The administration has called for a multilateral process based on the rule of law, rather than the bilateral approach Beijing
prefers
Cheap oil necessary engine for world economic growth
Andrew McKillop, energy economist, April 19, 2004 (Oil & Gas Journal, p. 18, A counterintuitive notion: economic growth
bolstered by high oil prices, strong oil demand)

Cheap oil is seen by the decision-making elite in the richer nations as a necessary "passport" to economic growth. This is a pure
fantasy. Only extreme oil prices (probably above $ 75-$ 100/bbl) will abort or cancel the global economy expansionary impacts of
higher oil prices. Since about 1995, demand shock has begun to operate in the world economy for a

number of economic, social, or secular and technical reasons, leading to considerably higher
underlying growth rates of world oil demand. Current demand trend growth rates for world energy and world oil
are about 2.25%/year for oil and about 2.5%/year for energy. Cheap oil and energy remain the essential base of
conventional economic development and social progress anyplace in the world. This in turn is a
powerful motor for continued and strong demand growth for fossil energy worldwide. Upward
potential for personal consumption of fossil fuels is essentially unlimited in this context. Conventional or classic economic
growth is enabled and facilitated at the world, or composite, level by oil prices rising to high levels. This also

underpins, or even increases, world demand for fossil energy supplies, indicating that concerted international action is
needed to plan for the effects of persistent underestimates of real demand growth trends.

Sustainable oil resources are key to prevent extinction

Dr. Malcolm Riddoch, Faculty of Communications and Creative Industries, Edith Cowan University, June 19, 2004
(http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/72000_comment.php)

There are lots of recent 2004 reports speculating about the Saudi's ability to increase production
suggesting that the peak plateau may already have arrived with midpoint by 2008. OPEC is
apparently pumping at its full rate, while everyone else from the Russians, US, North Sea to our
own oil fields are apparently depleting already. The first major oil shock could be as early as the
fourth quarter of this year and some analysts suggest that the Saudi's are on the verge of a
collapse in their major Gawar oil field, the largest in the world. The oil Beyond the current oil
wars and the short term economic effects of unstable oil supply and prices over the next 5 years,
peak oil threatens an irreversible global economic decline that will force a massive, radical and
sustained change in our way of life as we transition to alternative energy sources and the
economic/political order they support. The cost of everything will rise and rise with the poorest
of us the first to start suffering. A terminal economic decline will begin with a recession in
Australia the size of the one that occurred in WW2, and this possibility is already being
discussed in our mainstream media. Think an end to public welfare across the board, food
stamps and eventually food riots, massive rising unemployment, the collapse of Medicare and
public hospitals, a severe crisis in the cost and delivery of water ... but at least the roads will be
less congested, more room for the ultra wealthy and their gas guzzling limousines. At worst
peak oil could mean a complete global economic collapse sometime after 2010, middle class
poverty and the breakdown of law and order, truly gigantic starvation in the third world and the
unrestrained outbreak of global warfare with the risk of numerous 'limited' nuclear
conflagrations. It could ultimately mean the extinction of the human species through global
nuclear war and its companions famine and pestilence.

Atlantic Oil
Its also necessary to protect offshore oil reserves
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

The North Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea is an important maritime domain that directly
affects U.S. security and economic interests. Cuba, for example, is located only 90 miles away from Florida. As
Cuba moves to develop its offshore oil and natural gas resources, it has reportedly signed contracts with oil
companies from Brazil, India, Italy, Russia and Spain, and is negotiating with Chinese oil companies for leasing
rights in its coastal waters. This could create additional diplomatic challenges for the United States if drilling
occurs along the U.S. continental shelf. 31 As more oil companies including national oil companies begin
to operate off the U.S. coast to exploit Cubas offshore oil and natural gas reserves, ratifying LOSC will strengthen
the ability of the United States to challenge claims to resources that may overlap with U.S. reserves in its continental
shelf by adjudicating those claims in the conventions legal bodies. The likelihood of this challenge manifesting is
far from remote, and the United States must be prepared to secure its interests.

Solvency

US Ratification Key
Signing onto LOST lets the US maximize legal certainty and best secure
international recognition
NOAA 6/26/14 LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_los.html (MG)
U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention has received support from current and past
Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, military leaders, and various other highranking U.S. government officials. See Department of State Law of the Sea Convention. U.S. accession to the
treaty has similarly received strong support from a wide variety of businesses, organizations,
and individuals, including those in the fishing, energy, telecommunications, legal, and
environmental fields. See Supporters. Of the many benefits to be gained from U.S. accession to the
UN LOSC, establishing an internationally recognized legal foundation to support U.S. rights and
claims is perhaps the most commonly cited. As stated by President Barack Obama in the 2013 National
Strategy for the Arctic Region, "Only by joining the convention can we maximize legal certainty and best
secure international recognition of our sovereign rights with respect to the U.S. extended
continental shelf in the Arctic and elsewhere." The widespread benefits are not limited to the
continental shelf and its resources, however.

Now Key
Ratification now is key to check abusive interpretations of the treaty
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he writes the blog The

Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The
Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-us-should-ratify-the-law-of-the-seatreaty/258301/ // SM)

Some have argued that UNCLOS has already become "customary international law," and thus the
United States has little to gain from formal accession. But custom and practice are far more
malleable and subject to interpretation. Other states may soon push the Law of the Sea into new,
antithetical directions if the United States does not ratify the treaty. China, a party to UNCLOS, rejects
U.S. interpretations of the treaty's freedom of navigation provisions, and continues to assert
outlandish claims to control over virtually the entire South China Sea. But it is hardly alone. Countries as
diverse as Brazil, Malaysia, Peru, and India have resisted freedom of navigation within their
EEZs, in contravention of their obligations. As it has for years, the United States Navy regularly conducts
Freedom of Navigation Operations (so-called FONOPS) to challenge excessive claims of territorial
exclusivity. But as non-party to the treaty, the United States lacks any legal standing to bring its
complaints to an international dispute resolution body. More broadly, U.S. Navy and Coast Guard
officials complain, non-membership complicates everyday bilateral and multilateral cooperation
with scores of international partners.

Certainty Key
UNCLOS key to US rights to the ECS and certainty for deep sea-bed mining
investors
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he
writes the blog The Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions
and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The
U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-usshould-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty/258301/ // SM)
If these security benefits were not enough, the U.S. business community is unified in its support
for the treaty for two reasons. First, UNCLOS would protect U.S. rights to sole commercial
exploitation to all resources on and under its extended continental shelf (that is, beyond two
hundred miles). This area--estimated to be twice the size of California--is rich in oil, gas, and
other exploitable resources. Second, accession to the treaty would allow the United States to
sponsor its own national companies to engage in deep sea-bed mining. Last week, the chairman
of Lockheed Martin sent a strongly worded letter to the Senate saying his company wanted to
join the race for undersea riches, but could not assume investment risks until it was clear that it
would have a clear legal title to its findings.
Certainty is key no investment without it
Snow 12 Nick Snow has covered oil and gas in Washington for more than 30 years. He
worked in several capacities for The Oil Daily and was founding editor of Petroleum Finance
Week before joining OGJ as its Washington correspondent in September 2005 and becoming its
full-time Washington editor in October 2007. (7/9/2012, Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, US should
ratify Law of the Sea treaty, Senate panel told, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol110/issue-7a/general-interest/us-should-ratify-law-of-the-sea.html // SM)
Gerard said the US would benefit since the treaty would extend the nation's control of the
continental shelf from 200 to 600 miles. " Certainty is the key ," he maintained. "Our
industry goes through every kind of calculation because billions of dollars can be involved in
projects over long periods. Unless we are certain which country controls an area, our companies
won't go there." Timmons said, "The world has changed from 40 years ago. Companies are
global and don't want to make major investments without the certainty about risks that this
treaty provides."

International LOST Inev

LOST is inevitable ratification is key to participation in the amendment process
Snow 12 Nick Snow has covered oil and gas in Washington for more than 30 years. He worked in several capacities for The

Oil Daily and was founding editor of Petroleum Finance Week before joining OGJ as its Washington correspondent in September
2005 and becoming its full-time Washington editor in October 2007. (7/9/2012, Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, US should ratify Law of
the Sea treaty, Senate panel told, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-7a/general-interest/us-should-ratify-law-ofthe-sea.html // SM)
Ranking Minority Member Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said

the treaty already forms the basis of global

maritime law regardless of whether the US is a party. "International decisions related to resource
exploitation, navigation rights, and other matters will be made in the context of the convention
whether we join or not," he observed. "We will not even be able to participate in the treaty's
amendment process, which is far more likely to impose new requirements on our Navy and ocean
industries if the US is absent."

at: UN Bureaucracy
Ratifying LOST does not create a UN bureaucracy
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty:
Andrew Langer http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrewlanger (Langer is the president of the Institute for Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an
organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is currently
involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using
conservative principles, like private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging
problems.)(MG)
Fact: Not true. Ratifying the LOTS creates nothing. Ratifying the treaty will give the United
States a seat on the already-formed International Seabed Authority. The International Seabed
Authority has existed for over 20 years. The ISA is the international authority that grants
exploration and mining and drilling permits to all nations. The ISA also creates clear, legally
binding, protocols for ships while navigating foreign waters. This is long established, current
international law. The U.S. opting not to join the ISA does nothing except prevent America from
receiving mining and drilling permits, while also creating a gray area legally for our military and
for U.S. companies when dealing with waterways belonging to foreign nations. That is why every
U.S. business association, including the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association
of Manufacturers, and every sitting military leader of a U.S. Command including the
Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports the treatys ratification.

at: Not Key To Resources

The US needs LOST to explore mineral claims
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer

http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for

Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)
Fact: False. This

is the issue of property rights, which is of tantamount importance in forging

political stability and global prosperity. Right now, U.S. business mineral claims are imperiled
because of our inability to participate in the International Seabed Authority. If other nations can
lay claim to these regions, and have the lawful backing of the treaty and the ISA, then our
businesses can legally be forced off these claims. U.S. businesses cannot subject themselves to a
potential taking scenario where once that have developed a resource, it is taken by China or
Russia.

Neg Authors Biased

Their authors spread lies to gain political favors
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a
BA in International Relations. He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings
have appeared in both national and international publications. He frequently appears on talk
radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al
Jazeera. He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the
host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show whose guests have included presidential candidates,
actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is President at Small
Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National
Federation of Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise
Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_
of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html // SM)
Disinformation Decoded There have been some troubling Ailinsky-esque tactics at play by those
who would rather raise money from, and get their names in front of, the grassroots conservative
movement by spreading disinformation -- than acknowledge that this particular treaty is not
like others, and is actually critical to U.S. national security interests and to rebuilding our badly
damaged economy. Here are the most common ways that conservatives have been misled about
the facts of this treaty, along with the facts that the conservative movement needs to know in
order to help in this urgent course correction:

LOST Good

General LOST Good

LOST promotes sovereignty, does not add climate change regulations, and results
in a net positive economic benefit
Snow 12 Nick Snow has covered oil and gas in Washington for more than 30 years. He worked in several capacities for The
Oil Daily and was founding editor of Petroleum Finance Week before joining OGJ as its Washington correspondent in September
2005 and becoming its full-time Washington editor in October 2007. (7/9/2012, Nick, Oil & Gas Journal, US should ratify Law of
the Sea treaty, Senate panel told, http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-7a/general-interest/us-should-ratify-law-ofthe-sea.html // SM)
Critics have warned that ratifying the treaty might compromise US sovereignty, indirectly impose

climate-change requirements under protocols that the US has not accepted, and cost the federal
government mineral development royalties. Supporters responded that the treaty actually
promotes sovereignty, does not add climate-change regulations because of its provision barring
this unless a country has formally ratified such a protocol, and potentially would generate greater
revenue and other economic benefits than any mineral royalty share it would require.
LOST key to everything
Kissinger et al. 12 All of the authors were Secretary of States under Republican administrations. Henry Kissinger was a

famous American diplomat, political scientist, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, and has had a prominent role in US foreign policy.
George Shultz was an American economist, statesman, and businessman, James Baker III was an American attorney, Colin Powell
was a retired 4-star general in the US Army, and Condoleezza Rice was a political scientist and diplomat (5/30/12, The Wall Street
Journal, Time to Join The Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303674004577434770851478912 // SM)
The Convention of the Law of the Sea is again under consideration by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. finally becomes party to

this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will
codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests. The convention's

primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation, allocate resource rights, establish the certainty
necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea, and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deepseabed mining, which prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, because it is in the best interest of our
nation. Yet the U.S. remains one of the few major countries not party to the convention. The treaty provides substantial

economic benefits to the U.S. It accords coastal states the right to declare an "Exclusive Economic Zone" where they have

exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, living and nonliving resources extending 200
nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation's exclusive zone would be larger than that of any

country in the worldcovering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. In addition, the zone can be
extended beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met; this has significant potential
benefits where the U.S.'s continental shelves may be as broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, where vast natural
resources lie. As the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more than any other
country to gainand to losebased on how the convention's terms are interpreted and applied. By becoming party to
the treaty, we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations and

negotiations involving other nations' attempts to extend their continental boundaries. The
U.S. currently has no input into international deliberations over rights to the Arctic, where rich
energy and mineral resources are found more than 200 nautical miles from any country's shoreline. Russia has
placed its flag on the North Pole's ocean floor. This is a largely symbolic act, but the part of the Arctic
Ocean claimed by Russia could hold oil and gas deposits equal to about 20% of the world's current oil and gas reserves. As a
nonparty to the treaty, the U.S. has limited options for disputing such claims and is stymied
from taking full advantage of resources that could be under U.S. jurisdiction. Lack of
participation in the convention also jeopardizes economic opportunities associated with
commercial deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones
opportunities now pursued by Canadian, Australian and German firms. Some say it's good
enough to protect our navigational interests through customary international law, and if that
approach fails then we can use force or threaten to do so. But customary law is vague and doesn't provide
a strong foundation for critical national security rights. What's more, the use of force can be risky

and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis, gaining
legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone. The
continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation's
authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our national and
economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy. Our
planet's environment is changing, and there is an increasing need to access resources responsibly. We can
expect significant change and resulting economic benefit as the Arctic opens and delivers
potentially extraordinary economic benefit to our country. Our coastline, one of the longest in the world, will
increase. These changes and the resulting economic effects are the substance of serious
international deliberations of which we are not a part. Time moves on and we are not at the
table. This is a serious problem and a significant cost for future generations of Americans. Maritime claims not only in the
Arctic but throughout the world are becoming more contentious. As aggressive maritime behavior
increases, the U.S. military has become more, not less, emphatic on the need to become party to
this treaty. Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the
convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving
disputes.

We have been on the sidelines long enough. Now

is the time to get on the field and lead.

Ratifying LOST will only benefit US interests abroad

John T. Bennett 5/9/12 US NEWS White House Calls High Seas Treaty a Tool Against Iran, Russia,

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/05/09/white-house-calls-high-seas-treaty-a-tool-against-iran-russia (MG)

The Obama administration on Wednesday used an obscure high-seas treaty to take aim at global
rivals Iran, for its threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, and Russia, for its rush to claim
natural resources exposed by the Arctic ice melt, while also dangling an olive branch before a
domestic rival in hopes of winning the treaty's passage in the U.S. Senate. The White House
deployed top Pentagon leaders to make the point that approving the treaty, the United Nations'
Convention on the Law of the Seas, would give Washington a new tool to combat Iran, China,
and Russia. And in a deft political move, the defense brass also noted that U.S. firms stand to
rake in greater profits if the Senate acts. First adopted in 1982, the treaty sets a broad range of rules intended to guide
how nations act on the open seas and establishes economic zones exclusive to certain nations. The European Union and 161 nations
have signed onto the pact. The United States is the lone industrial nation and the lone member of the

United Nations Security Council that has yet to ratify it. "The time has come for the United States to have a seat
at the table, to fully assert its role as a global leader, and accede to this important treaty," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said
during a forum in Washington. "It is the bedrock legal instrument underpinning public order across the

maritime domain." [Gallery: New Wave of Violence Hits Afghanistan] The Senate would have to ratify the
treaty before the U.S. would officially join that list. U.S. lawmakers and past presidents have resisted approving it,
raising concerns that it would hurt America's national security by limiting its military options and also cause economic harm. "We
would become the leader in the convention as soon as we enter it," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin

Dempsey said. Panetta and Dempsey assured a crowded hotel ballroom that joining the oceans group would not prevent Washington
from using its military in any way, nor would it hinder U.S. intelligence-gathering efforts. Taking a seat at the table

would allow the U.S. to influence rules the global body makes, and bend them toward
Washington's goals, he said. After a decade of war in the Middle East, the U.S. faces "a range of
security challenges that are growing in complexity," Panetta said. Those include terrorism, the
nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, Middle East and North African instability, and
China military buildup . "These real and growing challenges are beyond the ability of any single nation to resolve
alone," the defense secretary said. "That is ... why the United States should be exerting a leadership role in the
development and interpretation of the rules that determine legal certainty on the world's
oceans." Panetta opaquely sent a message that joining the convention would allow the U.S. a new tactic in countering the anti-

Washington whims and actions by Iran, China, and Russia. Approving the treaty would hinder Iran's ability to close the Strait of
Hormuz, a key oil transit route, which Tehran has recently threatened to do. "We are determined to preserve freedom of transit there
in the face of Iranian threats to impose a blockade," Panetta said. "U.S. accession ... would help strengthen worldwide transit passage
rights under international law and isolate Iran." The Obama administration is in the midst of shifting the focus of U.S. foreign and

national security policies toward the Asia-Pacific region. Yet, Washington's shunning of the ocean's pact hurts its credibility with
Asian friends, foes, and business partners, he said. "How can we argue that other nations must abide by

international rules when we haven't officially accepted those rules," Panetta said. On the Arctic region,
where Russia has been claiming more and more land in the global race for natural resource
revenue, Panetta sent a message to Moscow. "We already see countries posturing for new shipping routes
and natural resources as Arctic ice cover recedes," Panetta said. "We are the only Arctic nation that is
not party to the Convention," meaning Russia now has a leg up on America in shaping international
rules about that region--and its ever-more accessible natural resources. "The United States stands with
Turkey as the only NATO members that have not ratified Law of the Sea, a U.S.-initiated treaty that protects American interests off
U.S. shores and around the world," says former Nebraska GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel, now chairman of the Atlantic Council. "Senate

ratification this year would allow America to take its rightful place and enjoy the benefits and
protections of this important treaty." But opponents, like Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, have long claimed

that joining the group would give other nations too much say over activities off U.S. coastlines. For instance, the U.S. government
can now collect royalty revenues from oil and gas projects along the extended U.S. continental shelf--but joining the treaty would
send as much as 7 percent of those collections to the U.N., Brookes wrote in a July 2011 op-ed. Meantime, Panetta devoted a good bit
of his pitch to noting U.S. industry would benefit from joining the global pact. U.S. firms "need this treaty to do business," Panetta
insisted. The defense secretary argued that joining the oceans-based club is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as
energy, shipbuilding, communications, fishing, and shipping sectors. Panetta's olive branch to industry comes after the White House
has repeatedly clashed with big business on a range of issues. Even the government-reliant defense business sector remains leery of
the Obama administration. The global pact "would provide clear legal rights and protections to

American businesses to transit, lay undersea cables, and take advantage of the vast natural
resources in and under the oceans off the U.S. coasts and around the world," Bruce Josten, Chamber
executive vice president for government affairs, said in a statement.

LOST solves a laundry list of impacts--US primacy, the economy, and the
environment
Bellinger 12 (John, a partner in the international and national security law practices at Arnold
& Porter LLP and an Adjunct Senior Fellow in International and National Security Law at the
Council on Foreign Relations, "Testimony of John B. Bellinger III", June 14 2012,
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bellinger-Law-of-the-SeaTestimony-final.pdf)
Let me emphasize that the Bush Administration

did not decide to support the Law of the Sea Convention

out of a blind commitment to multilateral treaties or international organizations. No one has ever
accused the Bush Administration of an over-abundance of enthusiasm for the United Nations or multilateralism. Indeed, the Bush
Administration was especially skeptical of the United Nations and many U.N. bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. And the
Bush Administration

was especially committed to defending U.S. sovereignty and international

freedom of action, particularly after September 11.Bellinger Law of the Sea Testimony (final).docx Page 3 The Bush

Administration decided to support the Law of the Sea Convention and to provide senior Administration officials to testify in favor of
the Convention only after weighing the Conventions benefits against its risks. We ultimately concluded that, on balance,

the treaty was clearly in the U.S. national security, economic, and environmental interests. First
and foremost, the Bush Administration concluded that the Convention was beneficial to the United States
military, especially during a time of armed conflict, because it provided clear treaty-based
navigational rights for our Navy, Coast Guard, and aircraft. This was especially important for the Bush
Administration as we asked our military to take on numerous new missions after the 9-11 attacks during the Global War on
Terrorism; several countries had challenged U.S. military activities in their territorial waters,

and
the Administration concluded that it was vital to have a treaty-based legal right to support our
freedom of movement and activities. We also concluded that joining the Convention would support our
Proliferation Security Initiative. Second, the Administration concluded that the Convention was in the U.S.
commercial and economic interests because it codified U.S. rights to exploit the vast and
valuable resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone -- the largest in the world -- and on its
substantial extended continental shelf (ECS), to lay and service submarine telecommunications
cables, and to engage in mining in the deep seabed outside the sovereign jurisdiction of the
United States. Later, as the melting Arctic ice opened up new commercial opportunities on the U.S. extended continental shelf
off of Alaska, the Administration concluded that codifying U.S. rights in the Arctic and participating on the

Continental Shelf Commission created by the Convention was even more important than before.
Third, the Administration concluded that joining the Convention supported important U.S. environmental
interests in the health of the worlds oceans and the living resources in them.
LOST promotes strong private property rights that leads to political stability
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a
BA in International Relations. He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings
have appeared in both national and international publications. He frequently appears on talk
radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al
Jazeera. He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the
host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show whose guests have included presidential candidates,
actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is President at Small
Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National
Federation of Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise
Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_
of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html // SM)
Myth: Conservatives have never supported any treaty or international policy framework that
mirrors the Law of the Sea Treaty. Fact: Conservatives laud the work of Peruvian economist and
political scientist, Dr. Hernando DeSoto, who theorized about why states with strong property
rights protections are economically prosperous and politically stable. DeSoto talks about the
importance of "clearing title" in his research. He writes quite favorably about the settlement of
the American West, in which territory acquired by the United States was parceled out by the
federal government, who in turn, cleared title to the to those parcels in order to secure
settlement. And while the state governments could have done this themselves when they
transformed from territories to states, they decided to send that title clearing and parceling
responsibility to the federal government. Had they not, chaos would have ensued, and the West
would not have been settled. That is, in essence, what the Law of the Sea Treaty does. It puts the
responsibility for clearing title and parceling out the commons in the hands of the International
Seabed Authority, allowing for a strong framework of property rights to give interested parties
the certainty to make their investments. The use of property rights to inform public policy
problems isn't limited to land and conservatives are working on certain projects to prevent
degradation of commonly-held resources by applying the principles of private property rights
within the oceans. Building on the work of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other
libertarian organizations, IFL has been involved in the effort to apply private property rights to
species conservation and replenishment. The work of former CEI Scholar Michael D'Alessi on
oceanic fishery conservation has led to the creation of the Catch Shares program, which IFL has
worked on in its "FairestCatch.org" initiative. In that effort, federal agencies are responsible for
working with fishing councils to create private property rights in oceanic fish stocks-essentially
parceling out the fish that can be caught and clearing title to those fish.

at: Business Turn

Ratifying the treaty has no bad effects, there will be no taxes on US buisnesses
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer

http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for

Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)
Fact: Wrong. The

treaty creates U.S. property rights for vast mineral and oil wealth. The ISA simply
grants permits to countries to mine and drill for resources thereby giving companies and
countries title something vital to the very foundation of property rights. One cannot hold a
property right if one does not first have title. Once title is granted and resource development
takes place, certain Reagan amendments go into effect. Ronald Reagan fought for certain mineral rights for the
U.S. and he got them in the 1994 amendments to the treaty. Thats why Reagans former Chief of Staff, James Baker, supports
ratifying the LOTS. Just as with any other resource development project, there is a royalty schedule:

no royalty payments of any kind for the first five years of resource development and after five
years the royalties cap at 7%. Right now, Russia, China and 161 other countries are eligible to
exploit global resources, enrich their nations, fill the ISA coffers with royalties, and then direct
ISA expenditures around the world. Once the U.S. ratifies the treaty, we would be granted 100%
veto power as to how all ISA resources from all countries are allocated. That is why Condoleezza Rice
endorses the treaty the U.S. pays up to 7% for just our country, but we get veto power over 100% of
the ISA coffers for every royalty from every country. That means zero global mineral and oil
wealth payments from anywhere in the world going to rouge states. The only way the U.S. can
accomplish this is by ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty and taking our seat at the ISA.

at: Sovereignty Turn

Ratifying the treaty will not erode US sovereignty, in fact, it gives us more
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer

http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for

Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)
Fact: False. Ratifying

the Treaty does not give one ounce of U.S. power to any other nation or to the
United Nations. In fact, the opposite is true. Once the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Treaty,
America has 100% veto power over all other ISA expenditures and activities. Once we join the
ISA, the U.S. can assert our sovereign will over every other nation unilaterally. Put another way, if
the Law of the Sea Treaty is ratified, the ISA will be forced to ask U.S. permission for all
expenditures. Right now, the power vacuum created by Americas absence in the ISA is being filled
by Russia and China an extremely dangerous proposition. Also, Russia and China certainly did
not ratify this treaty in order to erode their own sovereignty. If Russias and Chinas leaders are
smart enough to ratify this treaty while preserving their national sovereignty, the U.S. can
certainly do the same.

at: Russia/China Leverage Turn

Ratifying LOST will strengthen national security
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer

http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for

Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)
Fact: The opposite is true. Ratifying

LOTS and joining the ISA will strengthen national security. By NOT
ratifying the treaty, Russia, China and other U.S. adversaries are in control of the ISA and they
control where ISA funds flow. Conversely, if the U.S. ratifies LOTS, then the U.S. will have 100%,
unilateral veto power over all ISA funding and can prevent resources from flowing to Americas
enemies. That is why every single Republican Secretary of State dating back to the treatys inception supports ratification from
Henry Kissinger forward. Among the most vocal in support of the treatys ratification are Condoleezza Rice and her Senior Advisor
John Bellinger III. Rice and Bellinger fought for Guantanamo Bay and the holding of terror detainees indefinitely, they defended
water-boarding on behalf of the U.S. and the White House. Nobody can accuse them of ever once supporting

anything that would give aid and comfort to Americas enemies or rouge states. They
unequivocally support ratification of LOTS and U.S. admission to the ISA because ratification
strengthens US national security.

at: Hurts Oil/Gas/Industry

LOST is not an environmentalist ploy the treaty is supported by almost
everybody
Andrew Langer 1/6/14 OceanLaw.org The Case for Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: Andrew Langer

http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/case-ratification-law-sea-treaty-andrew-langer (Langer is the president of the Institute for

Liberty. The Institute for Liberty is an organization dedicated to promoting American exceptionalism around the world. It is
currently involved in projects focused on promoting free trade and global prosperity, as well as using conservative principles, like
private property rights, to address the worlds most challenging problems.)(MG)
Fact: False. This

treaty is backed by the US military; by the mining, oil and gas industries; by
manufacturers; by the defense industry; and, by every living Republican Secretary of State and
by every Republican president essentially, this treaty is backed by everyone the
environmentalist community loathes, sues and pickets. The supporters of this treaty are amongst
the most vocal critics of so-called global warming and have fought the Kyoto Protocol tooth
and nail. This treaty is about trillions of dollars of US wealth creation, hundreds of thousands of
American jobs, and about the national security benefits that arise from the 100% veto power the
U.S. gains over all other nations via ratification.

at: ISA Turn

LOST adherence key to control those organizations gives US veto power
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)
In addition, critics of the Convention argue that by ratifying the

Convention, the United States would set the wrong

precedent by subjecting itself to the authority of international organizations created by the Convention, i.e., the
ISA and the Commission. 105 Because the decision- making process in these organizations usually requires a majority vote, the
United States would have to face regional, economic, or political blocs that coordinate their votes to support outcomes counter to
U.S. interests. 106 However, if the United States ratifies the Convention, it would permit the United States to

nominate members for such bodies. As a result, the United States would either have veto power or
would have to get concurring votes to prevent an adverse decision. 107 Moreover, having American representation in
the bodies created by the Convention would ensure that the Convention is interpreted and applied in
a manner consistent with United States interests.

Furthermore, critics claim that the Convention creates unaccountable international bureaucracies susceptible to corruption. 108
The ISA is particularly pertinent considering that the Authority could oversee significant resources through fees and charges on
commercial activities within its authority and potentially create a system of royalties and profit sharing. 109 Although it is true that
American companies interested in the deep seabed mining beyond U.S. jurisdiction would have to pay an application fee for the
administrative expenses of processing the application, any unused amount would be returned to them. 110 Moreover, the United

States would have an absolute veto over the distribution of all revenues by the Seabed Authority.
111

ISA only effects resources outside national jurisdictions which companies wont
exploit anyway the plan solves
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)

Offshore oil and natural gas exploration along the extended continental shelf an area beyond the 200-nautical-mile EEZ is
expected to increase U.S. reserves over the next decade. However, the United States cannot secure internationally recognized
sovereign rights to those resources unless it ratifies LOSC. While the United States enjoys national jurisdiction over living and nonliving resources above and below the seabed out to 200 nautical miles, claims to resources beyond the EEZ must be formally made to
the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the international body established by LOSC for parties to adjudicate
claims to the extended continental shelf. Without the United States ratifying LOSC, U.S. companies operating beyond

the EEZ would be considered on the high seas and beyond the formal legal protection of the United States. As a
result, offshore drilling companies have increasingly expressed their concern about the lack of legal
protections afforded to U.S. companies and have indicated a reluctance to assume significant risk in
operating in areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction. In short, U.S. failure to ratify LOSC could have a chilling effect on

commercial resource exploration and exploitation on the extended continental shelf.

Ratifying LOSC will allow the United States to make a claim to the extended continental shelf an area
estimated to be twice the size of California and bring the potential oil and natural gas resources beyond the existing EEZ under
U.S. jurisdiction. 20 Furthermore, these sovereign resources would be beyond the jurisdiction of the
International Seabed Authority (ISA), which

only has authority over resources in the deep seabed beyond

other national jurisdictions. 21 While critics often cite concerns about the ISA and its
administration of U.S. companies drilling under the deep seabed, such concerns will be
assuaged by bringing the extended continental shelf under internationally
recognized U.S. jurisdiction.
Seabed mining, in the Arctic and elsewhere, is also becoming an important strategic interest for the United States. U.S. companies
increasingly seek to engage in seabed mining for minerals such as rare earth elements and cobalt that are critical to the broad U.S.
economy and used in producing defense assets. However, as long as the United States remains outside the

international legal protections afforded by LOSC, the private sector remains hesitant to invest in
seabed mining investments that would reduce U.S. vulnerabilities to external pressure and supply disruption. Indeed, since
few suppliers provide such minerals and they are prone to intentional or unintentional disrup - tions and price spikes, increasing
U.S. production will help prevent suppliers from exerting political and eco - nomic leverage over the United States and its allies. 22

No link to ISA bad args - Ratification gives the US veto power over ISA actions and
royalties are modest
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he writes the blog The
Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The
Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-us-should-ratify-the-law-of-the-seatreaty/258301/ // SM)

One enduring shibboleth is that the International Seabed Authority (ISA) created under
UNCLOS is an unaccountable supranational bureaucracy that will defy U.S. wishes and
redistribute undersea wealth to developing countries. This is pure nonsense, since the United
States is the only country guaranteed (if it accedes to the treaty) a permanent seat on the ISA, a
body that takes decisions by consensus--giving the United States an effective veto over its
decisions. It is true that the ISA collects royalties for deep sea mining, but these remain
extremely modest--as one would expect from an arrangement that was effectively negotiated by
U.S. oil companies.
Ratification is net positive miniscule royalty payment and veto power over ISA
fund distribution outweighs
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.

He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show
whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)

Myth: Ratifying the treaty will create a tax on US businesses. Fact: Wrong. The treaty creates
U.S. property rights for vast mineral and oil wealth. The ISA simply grants permits to countries
to mine and drill for resources thereby giving companies and countries title something vital to
the very foundation of property rights. One cannot hold a property right if one does not first
have title. Once title is granted and resource development takes place, certain Reagan
amendments go into effect. Ronald Reagan fought for certain mineral rights for the U.S. and he
got them in the 1994 amendments to the treaty. Thats why Reagans former Chief of Staff,
James Baker, supports ratifying the LOTS. Just as with any other resource development project,
there is a royalty schedule: no royalty payments of any kind for the first five years of resource
development and after five years the royalties cap at 7%. Right now, Russia, China and 161 other
countries are eligible to exploit global resources, enrich their nations, fill the ISA coffers with
royalties, and then direct ISA expenditures around the world. Once the U.S. ratifies the treaty,
we would be granted 100% veto power as to how all ISA resources from all countries are
allocated. That is why Condoleezza Rice endorses the treaty the U.S. pays up to 7% for
just our country, but we get veto power over 100% of the ISA coffers for every
royalty from every country. That means zero global mineral and oil wealth
payments from anywhere in the world going to rouge states. The only way the U.S. can
accomplish this is by ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty and taking our seat at the ISA.
Ratification does not lead to the creation of a UN bureaucracy allows the US a
seat on the ISA
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.
He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show

whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)

Myth: Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will create a United Nations bureaucracy. Fact: Not
true. Ratifying the LOTS creates nothing. Ratifying the treaty will give the United States a seat
on the already-formed International Seabed Authority. The International Seabed Authority has
existed for over 20 years. The ISA is the international authority that grants exploration and
mining and drilling permits to all nations. The ISA also creates clear, legally binding, protocols
for ships while navigating foreign waters. This is long established, current international law. The
U.S. opting not to join the ISA does nothing except prevent America from receiving mining and
drilling permits, while also creating a gray area legally for our military and for U.S. companies
when dealing with waterways belonging to foreign nations. That is why every U.S. business
association, including the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Manufacturers, and every sitting military leader of a U.S. Command including the Secretaries
of the Army, Navy and Air force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - supports the
treatys ratification.
US companies cant safely explore unless the US ratifies LOST
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.

He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show
whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)

Myth: U.S. companies can explore mineral claims without ratifying the treaty and joining the
ISA. Fact: False. This is the issue of property rights, which is of tantamount importance in
forging political stability and global prosperity. Right now, U.S. business mineral claims are
imperiled because of our inability to participate in the International Seabed Authority. If other
nations can lay claim to these regions, and have the lawful backing of the treaty and the ISA,
then our businesses can legally be forced off these claims. U.S. businesses cannot subject
themselves to a potential taking scenario where once that have developed a resource, it is taken
by China or Russia.

at: PSI Turn

LOST bolsters the PSI creates diplomatic credibility
Rogers, 12 Will, Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security (Security at Sea: The Case for Ratifying the
Law of the Sea Convention, Center for a New American Security, April 2012, http://dc-9823-983315321.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_SecurityAtSea_Rogers_0.pdf //blue)
In particular, ratifying LOSC

will strengthen programs such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), since key
partner and potential partner countries often voice skepticism over U.S. commitments to these
transnational programs in light of the U.S. failure to ratify the convention. President George W. Bush

launched PSI in 2003 to leverage existing national laws to improve interception of materials in transit and halt WMD-related
financial flows. LOSC ratification will give PSI a stronger legal foundation under international law by removing
the bogus argument that PSI is a renegade regime that flies in the face of international law, according to Rear Admiral William D.
Baumgartner, former U.S. Coast Guard Judge Advocate General. The net result will be more partners, more

intelligence, more preemptive actions that help protect us from this most serious threat. 19 Indeed, removing this
excuse for other countries non-participation in programs to counter proliferation would benefit the United States
diplomatically and could help in negotiating future innovative solutions and programs.

2ac Stuff

at: T LOST Ed Good

UNCLOS is the basis for all topical action that makes inclusion in the topic
uniquely important
Hollis 10

(Daniel Hollis is currently a student at Pace University School of Law and the Lubin School of Business where is he pursuing his JD
with certificates in Environmental Law and International Law as well as his MBA with a dual concentration in Accounting and
Strategic Management, United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156775/, 6/22/10)

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the most
comprehensive attempt at creating a unified regime for governance of the rights of nations with
respect to the world's oceans. The treaty addresses a number of topics including navigational
rights, economic rights, pollution of the seas, conservation of marine life, scientific exploration,
piracy, and more. The treaty, one of the longest in history, is comprised of 320 articles and 9
annexes, representing the codification of customary international law and its progressive
development. Historical Background Since humanity first set forth upon the seas, the issue of sovereign control over the oceans has been an ongoing concern. Prior to the 20th century, the oceans
Introduction

had been subject to the freedom of the seas doctrine. This principle, adopted in the 17th century, limited national rights and jurisdiction over a narrow band of water along a nations coast, the rest of the sea being
free to all and belonging to none. Nearly a century later, the "cannon-shot" rule became the basis for determining how much of the adjacent oceans were under the jurisdiction of a nation. The cannon-shot rule set
forth that a nation controlled a territorial sea as far as a projectile could be fired from a cannon based on shore. In the 18th century this range was approximate three nautical miles. As time progressed, three miles
became the widely accepted range for the territorial sea.[1] Due to the slow pace of technological developments prior to the Industrial Revolution, these simple rules provided effective governance of the world's
oceans. With the technological developments of the mid-19th and early-20th centuries, however, not only did ships become more powerful, but technology allowed humanity to exploit ocean resources that had
never before been envisioned. Fishermen, once limited to areas near their own coasts, were now equipped with vessels that could allow them to stay at sea for months at a time and capture fish harvests that were
far from their native waters. Virtually unrestrained, fleets from around the world traveled to areas rich in fish-stocks. The lack of restraint on the part of these fishermen resulted in fish stocks around the world
being depleted without regard to the stability of their numbers.[2] Evolving technology also allowed for the exploitation of previously inaccessible off-shore resources, most notably oil (but also diamonds, gravel,
and precious metals). To illustrate the rapidity of these developments, in 1947 off-shore oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was still less than 1 million tons. By 1954, production had grown close to 400 million
tons.[3] As a matter of perspective, just in the Gulf of Mexico, the United States alone currently produces 218,192 tons daily, for a total of 79.6 million tons annually, reflecting a steadily decreasing trend that began
in the 1970's.[4] In order to protect local resources, be they biological or mineral, nations began expanding their claims of sovereignty beyond the traditional 3 mile limit. The first nation to challenge the longstanding freedom of the seas doctrine was the United States. On September 28, 1945, President Harry S. Truman signed what has become commonly known as the Truman Proclamation. The proclamation set a
claim of sovereignty by the United States to the outer continental shelf (OCS) and the resources therein as well as establishing the right of the U.S. to establish conservations zones "in areas of the high seas
contiguous to the coasts of the United States."[5] While recognizing some limited sovereignty over an expanded region of the sea, the proclamation was careful to stipulate that the new US policy did not affect "the
right [of] free and unimpeded navigation."[6] After the United States expanded its claim, it was not long before other nations followed suit. By 1950, Argentina was actively claiming its continental shelf as well as
the water column above it, Ecuador, Chile, and Peru were asserting rights over a 200-mile zone in order to protect its biological resources from foreign fleets, and a spate of Arab and Eastern European nations
were laying claim to a 12-mile territorial sea. There was a growing understanding, however, that such a fractured regime could not continue.[7] UNCLOS I Recognizing the conflicts that were resulting from the
current regime, the General Assembly adopted resolution 1105 (XI), which called for the convening of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in Geneva in 1858. Eighty-six nations participated (now
commonly referred to as UNCLOS I). The meeting produced four separate conventions [8]: 1) the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (established sovereignty rights and rights of passage
through the territorial sea, established the Contiguous Zone to extend 12 nautical miles from the baselines, but failed to set standards of limits on the territorial sea);[9] 2) the Convention on the High Seas
(established access for landlocked nations, expounded on the concept of "flag state," outlawed the transport of slaves, covered piracy, established safety and rescue protocols, established a national duty to prevent
pollution, and established rights to laying of undersea cables and pipelines);[10] 3) the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas (established the right of coastal nations to
protect living ocean resources, required nations whose fleets leave their territorial sea to establish conservation measures, and established measures for dispute resolution);[11] 4) and the Convention on the
Continental Shelf (established the regime governing the superjacent waters and airspace, the laying and maintenance of submarine cables or pipelines, the regime governing navigation, fishing, scientific research
and the coastal nation's competence in these areas, delimitation, and tunneling).[12] The Convention also produced an Optional Protocol of Signature Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (provides
for the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, or for submission of the dispute to arbitration or conciliation).[13] While UNCLOS I saw a significant development in the international legal
regime governing the oceans, there were still many issues left unsettled. UNCLOS II In an attempt to deal with the issues that remained unresolved after UNCLOS I, the General Assembly called for a second
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (now commonly referred to as UNCLOS II). The parties met for just over a month in early 1960 with the objective of settling the question on the breadth of the
territorial seas and fishery limits. While the conference adopted two resolutions, the parties were unable to come to consensus on the issues at hand.[14] UNCLOS III Frustrated by the continuing inconsistency in
the ocean governance regime, Malta's ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, called upon the General Assembly to take action and called for "an effective international regime over the seabed and the
ocean floor," that clearly defined national jurisdiction.[15] One month later, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2467 A (XXIII) and resolution 2750 C (XXV), which created the Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction and called for the convening of a third Law of the Sea meeting to be held in 1973.[16] The deliberations lasted for nine years,
saw the participation of 160 nations, and concluded in 1982 with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is now commonly referred to as simply "UNCLOS" or the Law of the Sea Treaty.[17]

UNCLOS is one of the largest, and

likely one of the

most important, legal agreements in

history . The treaty contains 320 articles and 9 annexes. It synthesizes and builds upon the agreements that were developed at the first conference (see UNCLOS I above). The agreement addresses a
myriad of issues including navigational rights of ships and aircraft, limits on the extension of national sovereignty over the oceans, environmental protection of the oceans, conservation of living resources and
mining rights. While UNCLOS was first signed in December of 1982, the agreement did not come into force until November of 1994, a period of nearly 12 years.[18] UNCLOS required 60 signatures for ratification
and could only enter into force one year after the final nation had ratified or acceded to the treaty.[19] The main reason many nations took so long to sign the treaty is because of Article 309, which prohibits
nations from taking out reservations to any part of a treaty. A reservation is a statement made by a nation when accepting a treaty, whereby it excludes or modifies the legal effect of certain provisions of a treaty as
those terms apply to the nation accepting the treaty.[20] The inability of a nation to take out reservations to particular terms of the treaty caused many nations to hesitate. UNCLOS represented a significant
number of compromises and some of the terms of the agreement did not sit well with various nations. However, in order to establish a unified doctrine of the law of the sea, UNCLOS necessarily had to prevent
reservations or risk maintaining a fractured regime. Divisions of Ocean Areas One of the most powerful features of UNCLOS is that it settled the question of the extent of national sovereignty over the oceans and
seabed. Parts II, V, VI, and VII establish the various regions of the oceans, who has sovereignty over each, and to what degree. The following sections explain both how the maritime regions are divided and the
sovereign powers that nations may exercise over each region. Baselines caption Diagram of the various regions of the ocean over which a State may exercise sovereignty. The baseline is the boundary from which a
nation may begin measurements to determine the portion of the adjacent oceans or continental shelf over which it may exercise sovereignty. Except in some special cases, the baseline is the low-water line along
the coast.[21] Detailed explanations of how baselines are determined are provided in Articles 5-7 and 9-14. Special rules have been established for determining the baselines of archipelagic nations (nations that
consist of a number of small islands such as the Philippines) and can be found in Article 47. Internal Waters Internal waters are those that are contained on the landward side of the baseline.[22] These waters fall
under the exclusive sovereignty of the nation in which they are contained. Territorial Sea Article 3 of UNCLOS declares that a nation may establish a territorial sea that extends up to 12 nautical miles from the
baselines. Within the territorial sea, a nation has exclusive sovereignty over the water, seabed, and airspace.[23] The treaty establishes that all nations have the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea
of another nation and that, outside certain conditions, the nation laying claim to the territorial sea cannot hamper innocent passage of a foreign vessel.[24] UNCLOS adopted the basic concepts of the territorial sea
and the right of innocent passage that had been codified in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, but the new treaty went a step further by establishing the limits of a nation's territorial
sea. By the late 1960's many nations recognized a 12-mile limit to the territorial sea. At the start of the UNCLOS, only twenty-five nations maintained the traditional claim of 3 nautical miles. Sixty-six nations were
claiming 12 nautical miles, fifteen nations claimed between 4 and 10 nautical miles, and eight nations were claiming an astounding 200 nautical miles. Smaller nations, including those without large navies or
merchant fleets, favored a larger territorial sea in order to protect their coastal waters from infringements by more powerful nations. The world's major naval and maritime powers, however, pressed for the 3-mile
rule because the 12-mile rule would have placed over 100 straits used for international navigation under the exclusive sovereignty of other nations. Some of these included the Strait of Gibraltar (the only open
access to the Mediterranean), the Strait of Hormuz (the only passage to the oil-producing Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman nations), and the Strait of Malacca (the main route connecting the Pacific and Indian
Oceans).[25] Remembering that the Cold War was still ongoing during the Convention, smaller nations were particularly concerned about the possibility of threats to their national security posed by warships of
foreign nations or even the possibility of becoming embroiled in the conflicts of foreign powers. In an attempted compromise, the small nations offered the larger maritime powers the right of innocent passage,
however the maritime powers were not satisfied with this offer. The problem, in the view of the great powers, was that restrictions to innocent passage would prohibit covert movements of vessels (such as
submarines) and did not guarantee overflight rights, thereby creating a security risk.[26] In the end, the parties came together to form a compromise known as "transit passage." Applied specifically to straits that
would otherwise fall within the territorial sea of a nation, transit passage applies to straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas to another and allows for "navigation and overflight
solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of [a] strait...."[27] In all other ways aside transit passage, the waters of a strait still remain the territorial sea of the adjacent nation.[28] Contiguous
Zone The Contiguous Zone is a region of the seas measured from the baseline to a distance of 24 nautical miles. Within this region, a nation may exercise the control necessary to prevent the infringement of its
customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea, and punish infringement of those laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.[29]
Exclusive Economic Zone The Exclusive Economic Zone or "EEZ" is a region that stretches a distance of no more than 200 nautical miles from a nation's baselines.[30] Generally, the rules regarding the High

Within its EEZ, a nation may explore and exploit the natural
resources (both living and inanimate) found both in the water and on the seabed, may utilize
the natural resources of the area for the production of energy (including wind and
Seas, set forth in Articles 88 to 115, apply to the EEZ.[31]

wave/current), may establish artificial islands, conduct marine scientific research, pass laws for
the preservation and protection of the marine environment, and regulate fishing.[32] One of the primary
purposes behind establishing the EEZ was to clarify the rights of individual nations to control the fish harvests off their shores. The 200-mile limit established by
UNCLOS is not an arbitrary number. It is derived from the fact that the most lucrative fishing grounds lie within 200 nautical miles from the coast as this is where the richest phytoplankton (the basic
food of fish) pastures lie.[33] The creation of the EEZ gave coastal nations jurisdiction of approximately 38 million square
nautical miles of ocean space. The world's EEZs are estimated to contain about 87% of all of the
known and estimated hydrocarbon reserves as well as almost all offshore mineral resources. In
addition, the EEZs contain almost 99% of the world's fisheries, which allows nations to work to conserve the oceans vital and limited living resources.[34]

UNCLOS is the Constitution of the Sea its fundamental to all exploration and
development
Yanai 12
(Shunji Yanai is the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Rule of Law over the Seas and Oceans,
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/yanai/Yeosu_Korea_UNCLOS_at_30_1113_Aug_2012__2_.pdf, 13 August 2012)

The role of the sea has never been as important as it is today in all fields of human activities
including fishing, exploitation of mineral resources, transportation, energy production and
environmental protection. It is therefore vital to maintain peace and order on the seas and to
encourage the sustainable development of marine resources for the future of mankind. For the
past thirty years UNCLOS, which is often referred to as the Constitution of the Sea, has been
the mainstay in the efforts to achieve these objectives.

at: T Lost Prerequisite

Resolution of jurisdictional confusion via ratification is the precondition for a
variety of ocean development specifically key to offshore wind
Dwyer, 9

(Kieran Dwyer Minnesota Journal of International Law, Kieran is an Associate in Dorsey & Whitneys Regulatory Affairs Group.
His practice involves a wide range of environmental, regulatory, and land use matters in transactional, administrative, and litigation
settings, UNCLOS: Securing the United States Future in Offshore Wind Energy,
http://www.law.umn.edu/uploads/kH/cm/kHcm863sHDK0gmvvpVWaMw/Dwyer-Final-Online-PDF-03.30.09.pdf, 2009)

UNCLOS contains provisions that provide rights necessary or advantageous to the development
of offshore wind power. The treaty contains requirements that pose hurdles to offshore wind as
well. The advantages, however, far outweigh the hurdles. Any downsides the treaty might create
can be accommodated and will not block development, while the benefits of the treaty are
necessary for the development of wind power, especially outside the territorial
waters. Because UNCLOS has significant benefits and only limited burdens, the United States
should ratify UNCLOS to secure offshore wind interests. The future of offshore wind will likely
depend on ratification of UNCLOS. Offshore wind is in its infancy in the United States, but has
great potential to supply a large portion of the nations energy needs.66 To accomplish this
development, the United States will need to expand farther offshore.67 While expansion would
require new advances in offshore wind technology, such expansion is economically viable.68
The incentives to pursue such expansion will likely increase as the pressure to combat global
warming increases and fossil fuel prices continue to rise.69 By ratifying UNCLOS now, the
United States can secure its future in offshore wind energy.

at: T Military
Ratifying LOST is a direct increase in non-military exploration and development
creates EEZs for legal resource extraction military violations are based off
asserted interpretations, not codified ones
Geng 12 - LL.M. Candidate in Public International Law, Postdoctoral Fellow at Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute,
previously a research assistant at Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (3/9/2012, Jing,
Utrecht University School of Law, The Legality of Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone Under UNCLOS,
Merkourios, Vol. 28 No. 74, pg. 23-5 // SM)

A. UNCLOS A Constitution for the Seas On December 10, 1982, in Montego Bay, Jamaica, UNCLOS was presented for signature.
Over 115 countries signed that same day.9 UNCLOS came into force on November 16, 1994, and has been broadly accepted by the
international community.10 To date, 161 States and the European Union have joined the convention.11 UNCLOS is a

comprehensive treaty that creates a legal regime governing the peaceful use of the ocean and its
resources.12 UNCLOS provides guidance on various maritime matters such as pollution,
environmental protection, and resources rights.13 In many ways, UNCLOS has provided clarity and reliability
in the maritime context,14 however, it is either silent or ambiguous about issues concerning military operations
and the use of force in the oceans.15 The Convention does not explicitly regulate military
activities in the EEZ or the high seas, though Article 88 requires that the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful
purposes.16 B. Development of the EEZ In some ways, the law of the sea has always had a tension between
states supporting the doctrine of an open sea (mare liberum) and states that seek control over a more
closed sea (mare clausum).17 This struggle has been continuous throughout the evolution of the law of the sea and many
UNCLOS provisions reflect this balance between coastal state and maritime state interests.18

UNCLOS provides for different maritime zones with varying substantive regimes. For instance, the coastal state has sovereignty over
the territorial sea,19 which extends up to 12 nm from the baseline.20 Foreign warships must follow the conditions of Article 19 for
innocent passage if they are to navigate through the territorial seas of a coastal state.21 Article 25 permits the coastal state to
protect itself and take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.22 On the other hand, all
states equally enjoy the freedom of navigation and overflight in the high seas,23 an area beyond national jurisdiction.24 Situated
between these two substantive regimes is the EEZ, which is arguably the most complicated of the maritime zones in terms of
regulation and enforcement.25 The concept of an EEZ developed early in the course of negotiations during the third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III).26 Asian and African states adopted the 1972 Addis Ababa Declaration recognizing
the right of a coastal state to establish an EEZ up to 200 nm in which the coastal state would exercise permanent sovereignty over
all resources without unduly hampering other legitimate uses of the sea, including freedom of navigation, of overflight and laying
cables and pipelines.27 During UNCLOS III, there was considerable debate regarding the EEZs legal status.28 Maritime powers
maintained that the EEZ should have the traditional freedoms of the high seas,29 while coastal states argued for more rights and
control over the zone.30 The result is an EEZ that is a compromise between the varying positions.31

UNCLOS

Article 56

establishes the substantive regime of the EEZ. This maritime zone begins where the territorial sea
ends and is to extend no more than 200 nm from the baseline.32 The coastal state has the sovereign
rights for the economic exploitation and exploration of all resources in the EEZ, including,
for instance, energy production.33 The coastal state also has jurisdiction over artificial islands and installations, marine scientific
research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.34 In its regulation of the EEZ, the coastal state is obliged
to give due regard to the rights and duties of other states and must act in a manner compatible with the Convention.35 It is
important to note that sovereign rights does not mean sovereignty.36 Other states enjoy freedoms in the EEZ similar to those of the
high seas, such as navigation and overflight.37 Article 58 outlines the rights and duties of other states in the EEZ and mandates a
similar obligation upon maritime states to have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal state.38 Thus, articles 56 and 58
strike a balance between the interests of the coastal states, and the right to the freedom of navigation of all other states. The crossreference to Articles 88 to 115 in Article 58 applies certain high seas provisions to the EEZ, so long as they

are compatible with this regime.39 Therefore, Article 58(2) envisions that other states may need to engage in certain

non-economic, high-seas activities in the EEZ, such as hot pursuit, counter-piracy efforts, assistance and rescue missions, and the
suppression of drug trafficking.40 C. Varying State Interpretations Since the conclusion of UNCLOS in 1982, the general concept of
an EEZ and the right for a coastal state to exercise sovereign rights over economic activity and resources have become customary
international law.41 However, as a relatively new concept in international law, the specific scope of rights

and responsibilities in the EEZ is dynamic and ever-evolving.42 UNCLOS does not clarify the
specific issue of military activities in the EEZ and a major source of contention continues to be whether maritime states
may unilaterally conduct certain military operations in the EEZ of the coastal state without permission.43 Some maritime powers
support unfettered military activity in the EEZ by emphasizing the freedom of navigation.44 Conversely, some coastal states object

to military activity in their EEZ by expressing concern for their national security and their resource sovereignty.45 This

divergence in perspective regarding the legality of foreign military activities in the EEZ is partly due to
varying interpretations of Article 58 , which permits maritime states to engage in other
internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships,
aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.46 Thus,
nations such as the U nited S tates perceive this provision to permit naval operations
in the EEZ as an activity associated with the operation of ships and more generally, as protected within the scope of the
freedom of navigation.47
LOST is seen as a non-military foreign policy instrument
Foust 12 Joshua Foust is a fellow at the American Security Project, where he focuses on asymmetric operations and national

security strategy, as well as a columnist for The Atlantic. (5/16/2012, Joshua, PBS, Its time for the U.S. to ratify the Law of the Sea,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/opinion/its-time-for-the-u-s-to-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea/13842/ // SM)

It seems bizarre to deny Americas one of the few non-military foreign policy instruments at
its disposal. Ratifying LOTS would open up tremendous economic opportunity for American
businesses, protect and advance American security, and establish a framework for
resolving territorial disputes (in a non-violent way) . Its supported by business leaders and the
military brass. It is past time to ratify this vital component of Americas future.

LOST dispute settlement deals with non-military ocean interests

Committee on Foreign Relations 4 (3/11/2014, Senatorial Committee the report was submitted by Lugar,

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108erpt10/html/CRPT108erpt10.htm // SM)

The United States would obtain the benefit of third party dispute settlement in dealing with nonmilitary oceans interests. The United States was one of the principal proponents in the law of the sea negotiations for

compulsory third party dispute settlement for resolution of conflicts other than those involving military activities. We supported
such mechanisms both to assist in conflict resolution generally and because we understood that third party dispute resolution was a
powerful mechanism to control illegal coastal state claims. Even the Soviet Union, which had traditionally opposed such third party
dispute settlement, accepted that in the law of the sea context it was in their interest as a major maritime power to support such
third party dispute settlement.\14\

at: T Exploration/Development
We meet As a legal framework, UNCLOS facilitates sustainable
development of ocean resources its execution is dependent upon
international participation which makes the mandate of the plan
topical
IISD 12

(The International Institute for Sustainable Development is a Canadian-based, international public policy research institute for
sustainable development, UNGA Highlights UNCLOS as Tool for Conservation, Sustainability, http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/ungahighlights-unclos-as-tool-for-conservation-sustainability/, December 10, 2012)//dt

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) held a session to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the
launch of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Addressing the meeting, UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted the Convention's contribution to international peace and
security, as well as to the equitable and efficient use of ocean resources. Ban underlined that
UNCLOS is an important tool for sustainable development, as affirmed by the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio+20). He listed the challenges
currently faced by oceans, including pollution, ocean acidification, over-exploitation of
resources, piracy and maritime boundary disputes, and stressed the need to strive for the full
implementation of UNCLOS. Concluding, he called for reaching the goal of universal
participation to the Convention set out by the UNGA. Rodney Charles, Permanent
Representative of Trinidad and Tobago to the UN and UNGA Vice-President, said UNCLOS has
become a critical element of the international legal framework. He highlighted the role of the
Convention in setting a global development agenda focused on sustainable resource use,
stressing that the Rio+20 outcome document recognizes that it provides the legal
framework for achieving the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans.
Use the original T files Development includes regulations and legal frameworks
block
Ocean development involves the transference and regulation of resources
Pinto 94 (Christopher W. Pinto Former Secretary-General of Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Former Member of the
Sri Lankan Delegation to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Ocean governance: sustainable development
of the Seas, Part I: The existing framework for ocean governance, edited by Peter Bautista Payoyo (1994),
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu15oe/uu15oe06.htm#ii. the 1982 un convention on the law of the sea // JJ)

II. The 1982 un convention on the law of the sea In considering the extent to which existing
international institutions are adequate to the task of making a reality of the concept of
sustainable development in the field of marine resources, the obvious starting point is the 1982
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Designed to reflect elements of the "New International
Economic Order" and to establish the legal content of the concept of the "common heritage of
mankind," the Convention gives expression precisely to those elements of universal
participation, equity and balanced reciprocal obligation, transference of funds,
science and technology to the developing countries, and regulation of access to
shared natural resources, that are also inherent in the concept of sustainable
development. The Convention, moreover, adopts a holistic approach to marine resources.
Recognizing that "the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be
considered as a whole," it deals with a comprehensive range of subjects and issues of the law of
the sea. Some (for example concerning seabed mining) are treated in detail, while in respect of
others (e.g. marine environment, marine science, and technology) the Convention serves as an

"umbrella" or "framework" treaty, laying down broad cooperative undertakings, foreseeing that
detailed commitments would be negotiated and included in supplementary agreements.
Regulating and managing ocean resources as per the UNCLOS constitutes ocean
development
Willis et al. 2 (Gerard Willis former Ministerial adviser to the Minister for the Environment of New Zealand, Oceans
Policy Stocktake: Part 1 Legislation and Policy Review, Prepared for the Oceans Policy Secretariat (November 2002),
https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/oceans/stocktake-report-dec02/report.pdf // JJ)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the overarching
international policy framework for all oceans policies . Countries that have ratified
are bound by its 320 articles and 9 annexes. This is critical as the convention itself establishes
a key policy principle in its objective of providing for the optimum utilisation of living
resources (among other objectives) and access to them in terms of specified rights according to
the spatial dimensions of the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone,
continental shelf and area beyond the EEZ. While the concept of optimum utilisation is not
explicitly discussed in UNCLOS, it is clear that states are obliged to provide for the utilisation
of living resources and that attention must be paid to how this might be best achieved having
regard to the future of the resource and the maximisation of benefit. Articles of the convention
that refer to states environmental responsibilities would seem to suggest that optimisation
may include both the notion of sustainable yield and broader consideration of marine
environmental values. (That is, long run commercial use and non-commercial values). It is of
note that the principle of optimum utilisation does not apply to non-living resources
(although when exercising sovereign rights over non-living resources states have obligations in
terms of environmental protection). The development of oceans policies in other jurisdictions
is also clearly influenced by Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Chapter 17 includes 7 programmes that
have formed major themes in the development of comprehensive and integrated
oceans policy elsewhere . The themes are: Integrated management and sustainable
development of coastal and Marine Areas Marine environmental protection Sustainable
use and conservation of the marine resource of the high seas Sustainable use and
conservation of the marine resources under national jurisdiction Addressing critical
uncertainties for the management of the marine environment and climate change;
Strengthening international, including regional, cooperation and coordination; Sustainable
development of small islands.
Ocean development includes the creation of laws regulating ocean research and
technology
Department of Ocean Development 83 (Department of Ocean Development Government of India, New

Delhi, Annual Report: Creation of a New Development, Government of India (1982-83), http://dod.nic.in/ann82-83.pdf // JJ)

The Government of India, with above aspects in view, created a new Department of Ocean
Development (DOD) through President's Notification No.CD 800/81 dated 24th july 1981
directly under the Prime Minister. The various activities to be dealt by DOD as notified are : 1.
Matters relating to the ocean and not specifically allocated to any Department/ Ministry 2.
Policies Including coordinations. security, regulatory measures and
development relating to the ocean and covering (i) research (including fundamental
research) and the development of uses relatable thereto; (ii) technology development; (iii)
surveys to map and locate the availability of non-living and living resources; (iv) preservation,
conservation and protection; (v) development of appropriate skills and manpower; (vi)
collaboration, including technical collaboration; and (vii) laws relatable to the above J.

Ocean Commission 4. The Pan-Indian Ocean Science Association 5. Ocean Science and
Technology Agency or Board
Ocean development is legal recognition and resource use
Canadian International Development Agency No Date (Canadian International Development Agency
Policy Branch, Strategy for Ocean Management and Development: Introduction,
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/canada/strategy.htm // JJ)

This document presents a strategic framework for the Canadian International Development
Agency's (CIDA) Official Development Assistance (ODA) in ocean policy, management and
development, and in fisheries, including aquaculture and mariculture. The purpose of the
framework is to serve as a tool in the planning of ODA-related activities. Specifically, it provides
CIDA with guidelines for designing and implementing of programs in ocean policy,
management and development , as well as in fisheries, where such activities fit into the
wider development strategy for a given country or region. The framework will also serve as
an information source for all those interested in ocean development The need for CIDA to
develop this strategy reflects three global trends: Vastly-increased international
recognition of the importance of oceans and their resources to global sustainable
development and of specific related issues, such as climate change, sea-level rise and food from
the sea. In recent years, this concern has been expressed in many international agreements and
other instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the UN Conventions on
Biodiversity and Climate Change, the 1995 UN Agreement on the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly-Migratory Fish Stocks, the Global
Programme of Action (GPA) on land-based sources of marine pollution, and the 1995 Kyoto
Declaration and Plan of Action, which deals with the sustainable contribution of fisheries to food
security; Increased potential value of ocean resources to developing countries. Considerable
potential value has been transferred to the developing world by the creation, under the
UNCLOS, of 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), in which coastal and smallisland developing states have jurisdiction over their off-shore resources. This has brought
valuable social and economic assets under the control of many developing countries while
confronting them with new responsibilities and opportunities; and Increased pressure on
oceans and their resources. There has been a relentless increase in world fish harvests, edging
toward unsustainable levels, as well as environmental impacts on oceans caused by population
growth and development in coastal areas.
Legal recognition and designation is a key part of ocean exploration policy
NOAA 13 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum,

Aquarium of the Pacific and NOAA (July 19-21, 2013), http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf //

JJ)

OCEAN EXPLORATION POLICIES In 2020, clear priorities are identified by the exploration
community and revisited on a regular basis. Having a clear, focused set of ocean
exploration priorities is a critical element in developing and sustaining a national
program of ocean exploration. No group is better qualified to identify these priorities than the
community of ocean explorers. The community identified the polar regions, particularly the
Arctic; ocean acidification; and the water column (noting that exploration extends from the subseafloor to the surface) as important exploration priorities. The Indo-Pacific and Central Pacific
regions are also important for further exploration. Participants agreed that a clear mission

statement for national ocean exploration is critical as is a process to engage ocean exploration
stakeholders on a recurring basis in determining priorities.
Ratifying LOST is a direct increase in ocean exploration and development
UN 12 (November 2012, The United Nations, UNCLOS at 30,
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/pamphlet_unclos_at_30.pdf // SM)

Under the Convention, a coastal State is entitled to a territorial sea not exceeding 12 nautical miles
measured from its baselines. Within its territorial sea, the coastal State exercises sovereignty, including
over its resources. Subject to the provisions of the Convention, ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through
the territorial sea. The Convention also grants a coastal State the right to establish a contiguous zone not
extending beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines. Within its contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the
control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations that have
occurred within its territory or territorial waters and to control, in specified circumstances, the trafficking of archaeological and
historical objects. In addition, a coastal State may establish an exclusive economic zone not extending
beyond 200 nautical miles from its baselines, where

the coastal State has sovereign rights for

the purposes of

exploring and exploiting , conserving and managing natural living or non-living resources of
the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other
activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from
the water, currents and winds. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has jurisdiction with regard to the establishment
and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research and protection and preservation of the marine
environment. Further, under the Convention a coastal State exercises sovereign rights over its continental
shelf for

the purpose of exploring and exploiting its mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed
and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species. These rights are inherent and
do not depend on occupation , effective or notional, or on any express proclamation. The
Convention also gives coastal States jurisdiction over their continental shelf with regard to the
establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; drilling of the continental shelf; cables and
pipelines constructed or used in connection with exploration of the continental shelf and exploitation of its natural resources or
to the operations of artificial islands, installations and structures; marine scientific research; and the prevention,
reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment arising from or in connection with seabed
activities

LOST is one of the nine areas of ocean development (eh)

Hajost 87 SCOTT A. HAJOST, Office of the Legal Adviser U.S. Department of State

American Journal of International Law

April, 1987 81 A.J.I.L. 527 BOOK REVIEW: Ocean Yearbook 5. Edited by Elisabeth Mann Borgese and Norton Ginsburg. The
University of Chicago Press, 1985. Pp. xvi, 544. Index. $ 49. lexis
This work, sponsored by the

International Ocean Institute of Malta, is the fifth in a series of volumes of

collected essays and documents concerning ocean development and affairs. The present volume covers
nine general subjects: the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and its
Preparatory Commission , living resources, nonliving resources, transportation and
communication, marine science and technology, the environment, coastal management, military
activities and regional developments.
Law of the Sea is a framework for ocean development
Laffoley 13 Professor Dan Laffoley, Senior Advisor Marine Science and Conservation Global Marine and Polar Programme
and Vice Chair of the World Commission on Protected Areas. Commonwealth Secretariat (UK) Discussion Paper Number 14
May 2013 A New Approach to Ocean Governance Practical ways to fast track the Green Economy,
http://www.secretariat.thecommonwealth.org/files/254813/FileName/ Ocean_Governance_Discussion_Paper_14.pdf

The existing international ocean governance framework is complex, comprising a network of international and regional agreements,
intergovernmental and civil society organisations and economic/market-based drivers. The basic international framework governing
the oceans is provided by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC)3,which

establishes a comprehensive framework for the use and development of the oceans. The Convention

defines jurisdictional zones and sets out rights and obligations of countries on the basis of those zones.There are also complementary
international agreements that address specific activities or regions. These include the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)and Chapter 17 ofAgenda21. Four sectoral conservation treaties are also relevant: the
Ramsar Convention on wetlands, the World Heritage Convention on sites of universal value, the CITES Convention on endangered
species, and the Bonn Convention on migratory species. The World Trade Organization is concerned with trade restrictive policy
measures affecting market access (subsidies) and labelling (fishing practices). At the regional level, the UNEP Regional Seas
Programme and a range of regional marine environmental programmes address the use and protection of the marine environment.
In certain regions, regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) have been established to develop and implement
conservation and management measures for fisheries.

Modern ocean development policies include international agreements like

UNCLOS
CIDA, 2001 (Canadian International Development Agency Policy Branch, Strategy for Ocean Management and
Development: Introduction, http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/canada/strategy.htm)
This document presents a

strategic framework for the Canadian International Development Agency's

(CIDA) Official Development Assistance (ODA) in ocean policy, management and development, and in

fisheries, including aquaculture and mariculture. The purpose of the framework is to serve as a tool in the planning of ODA-related
activities. Specifically,

it provides CIDA with guidelines for designing and implementing of

programs in ocean

policy, management and

development , as well as in fisheries, where such activities

fit into the wider development strategy for a given country or region. The framework will
also serve as an information source for all those interested in ocean development The need for
CIDA to develop this strategy reflects three global trends: Vastly-increased international
recognition of the importance of oceans and their resources to global sustainable
development and of specific related issues, such as climate change, sea-level rise and food from the sea. In recent years,
this concern has been expressed in many international agreements and other instruments,
including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the UN Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED), the UN Conventions on Biodiversity and Climate Change, the 1995 UN Agreement on the
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly-Migratory Fish Stocks, the Global Programme of Action (GPA)
on land-based sources of marine pollution, and the 1995 Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action, which deals with the sustainable
contribution of fisheries to food security; Increased potential value of ocean resources to developing

countries. Considerable potential value has been transferred to the developing world by the creation, under the UNCLOS, of 200

nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), in which coastal and small-island developing states have jurisdiction over their offshore resources. This has brought valuable social and economic assets under the control of many developing countries while
confronting them with new responsibilities and opportunities; and Increased pressure on oceans and their

resources. There has been a relentless increase in world fish harvests, edging toward unsustainable levels, as well as
environmental impacts on oceans caused by population growth and development in coastal areas.

at: Politics Plan Popular

LOST is extremely popular bipartisan support and massive private sector lobby
push
King 7 Andrew King is currently an associate at Archer Norris, a law corporation. Education: University of California, Hastings

College of the Law, San Francisco, J.D., 2007 Witkin Awards for Excellence: Remedies; Mediation; and American West Law,
Culture & Environment CALI Excellence for the Future Award: Pretrial Practice Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Member,
2005 - 2006 Best Moot Court Brief (2005); Best Moot Court Oralist, Honorable Mention (2005) University of York, York, England,
B.A., with first class honors, 2000 Nominated for Royal Historical Society Prize for Undergraduate Dissertation (2007, Andrew,
Thawing a Frozen Treaty: Protecting United States Interests in the Arctic with a Congressional-Executive Agreement on the Law of
the Sea, http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V34/I2/king.pdf - III. Brief History of UNCLOS, the CLCS Provision for
Resolving Territorial Disputes, and the Tortuous Path of the Treaty in the Senate // SM)

Despite support from both political parties and the express urging of Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush, the Senate has thus far failed to ratify the Convention by the constitutionally
required two-thirds majority. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee-through the actions of
then Chariman Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.), himself a staunch UNCLOS opponent-stalled the
Convention for almost a decade. Helms, a persistent critic of the U.N. and various international
compacts, refused to even hold hearings on the treaty during his tenure. On February 7, 2002,
President Bush designated UNCLOS as one of five treaties in urgent need for Senate
approval.55 Following Helms retirement in 2003, vocal UNCLOS supporter Senator Richard
Lugar (R.- Ind.) assumed the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Under
his stewardship, the Committee finally held hearings on the Convention in 2003 and 2004.57
On February 25, 2004, the Committee voted nineteen to zero to recommend ratification of the
treaty and submit it to the full Senate for approval. During this most recent push for
ratification, officials from the Department of State, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Commerce Department all testified in support of
UNCLOS. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (appointed by President Bush) strongly
endorsed U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea.6 And Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice
strongly encouraged ratification at her January 18, 2005 confirmation hearing before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. In the private sector, every major ocean industry, including
shipping, fishing, oil and natural gas, drilling contractors, ship builders, and
telecommunications companies that use underwater cables, support U.S. accession to the Law of
the Sea and are lobbying in favor of it.62 Finally, several prominent environmental
organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Ocean Conservancy,
formed an unlikely alliance with big oil and gas to support UNCLOS because its provisions
protect and preserve the marine environment and establish a framework for further
international action to combat pollution. Despite this apparent vote of confidence during the
Republican control of the Senate prior to the congressional elections in November 2006, then
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) refused to schedule a floor vote on this critical
agreement. Frist remained evasive as to when or even if there will ever be an opportunity for an
up-or-down vote, claiming there is an inadequate understanding of what Law of the Sea Treaty
actually is, what it does.65 Apparently, unanimous approval of the Convention by the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee was not enough to convince then Senate Majority Leader, that the
Senate understood the ramifications of the Convention. Instead, Frist thought that not enough
senators paid adequate attention to it.66 Senator Frist, under pressure from the most
conservative members of his party, reprised the role of Senator Helms but from a higher
position of power in the Senate. As such, a small band of Republicans held UNCLOS, or LOST
as its opponents disparagingly call it, hostage in the labyrinthine halls of Senate procedure. As
one congressional aide observed, [b]asically, we have a bunch of fringe, armchair, isolationist
ideologues who are holding up this treaty . . . .68 Another congressional aide noted that Frist is
supposed to be the leader of the Senate Republicans, but hes doing the bidding of a radical

few.69 As to the treatys chances, should it ever make it to a floor vote, the latter aide believed
we could get well over the 70 votes necessary to pass this treaty. Guaranteed.4
Many groups and influential leaders support Law of Sea Treaty
Better World Campaign 12 (Better World Campaign: Key issues of international security, 2012,
http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/international-security/law-of-the-sea.html) Akshay Bapat

Who supports Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty? Virtually all major environmental groups,
including the World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council,
and the Scripps and Woods Hole oceanographic institutes. All major U.S. ocean industry
groups, including the American Sport Fishing Association; the National Fisheries Institute; the
oil and offshore drilling industries, including Chevron and Marathon Oil; undersea cable
providers, including AT&T; and the World Shipping Council. All major players in the U.S.
government, including former Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and
Barack Obama. It is supported by all United States military branches and 16 former Cabinet
Secretaries from both political parties. Former President George W. Bush: "Joining (the Law of
the Sea Convention) will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the
maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over
extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they containpromote U.S.
interests in the environmental health of the oceans," and "give the United States a seat at the
table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." Vice President
Joseph Biden: "Do we join a treaty that establishes a framework to advance the rule of law on
the oceans, that is clearly in our military, economic, and environmental interests, and that has
broad acceptance among the major maritime powers? Or do we remain on the outside, to the
detriment of our national interests? I strongly believe that we should become a party to the
Convention, and that any risks it poses are far outweighed by the benefits." Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Ranking Member Richard Lugar (R-IN): "The Senate this year has an
opportunity to plug a large hole in our national security structure by approving the Law of the
Sea Treaty." General Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "The
Convention remains a top national security priorityIt supports efforts in the War on Terrorism
by providing much-needed stability and operational maneuver space, codifying essential
navigational and overflight freedoms." The Environmental Community: "The Natural
Resources Defense Council, The World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, Oceana, The
Wildlife Conservation Society, The National Environmental Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, The
Ocean Conservancy, Deep Search International, Deep Ocean Exploration and Research Inc.,
IUCN-US, and the Marine Conservation Biology Institute together represent more than one
million members, supporters and activists concerned with the conservation of marine resources
both here in the United States and on the high seas. We believe prompt U.S. accession to the
Convention is essential to the ability of the United States to exercise leadership in key upcoming
debates and decisions on international fisheries policy, biodiversity conservation, and
appropriate management of rapidly expanding human activity on the high seas."
LOST is popular -- key to defending national interests
OGC 6/26 (THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, The Office of General Counsel provides
legal advice and counsel for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of
the U.S. Department of Commerce, "LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION", June 26 2014,
http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_los.html)
U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention has received support from current and past
Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, military leaders, and various other highranking U.S. government officials. See Department of State Law of the Sea Convention. U.S. accession to the

treaty has similarly received strong support from a wide variety of businesses, organizations,
and individuals, including those in the fishing, energy, telecommunications, legal, and
environmental fields. See Supporters. Of the many benefits to be gained from U.S. accession to the UN LOSC, establishing an
internationally recognized legal foundation to support U.S. rights and claims is perhaps the most commonly cited. As stated by
President Barack Obama in the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region, "Only by joining the convention can we maximize legal
certainty and best secure international recognition of our sovereign rights with respect to the U.S. extended continental shelf in the
Arctic and elsewhere." The widespread benefits are not limited to the continental shelf and its resources, however. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, alongside Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff General Martin Dempsey, testified in support of U.S. accession to the Convention in a May 2012
hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emphasizing that as the "world's foremost maritime power" and country with
the largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the United States stands to gain more from this treaty in terms

of economics, security, and international influence than any other nation. That same month, while giving
a speech on the national security benefits of the treaty at the Forum on the Law of the Sea Convention, General Dempsey stated,
"The Convention gives us another tool to effectively resolve conflicts at every level. It provides a common language, and therefore a
better opportunity, to settle disputes with cooperation instead of cannons." Department of Defense. Secretary of State John Kerry

has similarly reiterated support for U.S. accession to the Convention throughout his time in office. While

acting as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Secretary Kerry authored an article published in the Huffington Post
highlighting the widespread bipartisan support for U.S. accession to the treaty, writing: "It's a treaty that boasts an unprecedented
breadth of support from Republican foreign policy experts, the United States military, and the hard-nosed, bottom line American
business community." See US Leaders Support Law of the Sea Treaty. In Executive Order 13547 (July 19, 2010), President Barack
Obama established a National Policy for Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts and the Great Lakes, commonly referred to as the
"National Ocean Policy". The Executive Order identifies U.S. accession to LOSC as a key priority in implementing the National
Ocean Policy, while also adopting the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. The Final
Recommendations reflect that the Task Force "strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the
Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement." Furthermore, while speaking with the Seattle Times in
September 2009, NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco and Commandant of the Coast Guard

Admiral Thad Allen issued a statement advocating U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea
Convention, emphasizing the many ways in which the treaty will preserve "our ability to protect our domestic interests,

including our extended continental shelf claims" and allow the U.S. to "address the changing realities of the global maritime
environment."

Plan is popular - bipartisan support

Harris 12 (Capt. Gail Harris, former U.S. naval officer and the highest-ranking African
American female in the United States Navy upon her retirement. She was also the first female
and African American to lead the Intelligence Department for Fleet Air Reconnaissance
Squadron in Rota,Spain the largest US Navy aviation squadron, "U.S. Must Remove UNCLOS
Handcuffs", March 23 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/03/u-s-must-remove-uncloshandcuffs/)
The treaty went into effect in 1994 and has more than 160 countries signed on, including Canada, Australia and all of Europe. The
costs of not ratifying it are growing by the day. Until the U.S. Congress ratifies the treaty, we lack the international legitimacy to
prevent Beijing from bullying Asia and bending economic and security laws in its favor. The strange thing is that the treaty

actually has widespread, bi-partisan support a rarity in Washington these days. Both
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush pushed for its approval. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee approved it, including through a unanimous decision to recommend the treaty in
March 2004. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, chiefs of
naval operations, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are for it. When business interests line up
with national security objectives, it signals how important and pressing the issue is.

at: Politics Emperics =/= Link

Inherency doesnt prove the link its been blocked by small factions and
procedural maneuvers, not lack of support
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)

Recently, President Bush again publicly insisted on the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the Convention. 92 Shortly
after the Presidents recommendation, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Convention. 93 During the
hearings before the Committee, Deputy Secretary John D. Negroponte warned members of the Committee: We must join the Law of
the Sea Convention, and join it now, to take full advantage of the many benefits it offers the United States and to avoid the increasing
cost of being a non-party. 94 There was little doubt that if the Convention was put to a vote,

the Senate would give its advice and consent to accession. 95 Once again, however, the full
Senate did not get the opportunity to vote. 96 Adversaries were yet again successful in keeping it
from reaching the Senate floor by making it clear that a debate on U.S. accession would trigger every possible
procedural maneuver and thereby take up maximum floor time. 97 The Senate Majority Leader decided not to send the
treaty forward under those circumstances, and the treaty has languished [once again] on the Senate calendar . . . . 98
In addition to the bipartisan support received from the past and current administration, the

Convention is widely supported by diverse groups in the private sector including

shipping, fishing, oil and natural gas, drilling contractors, ship builders, telecommunications
companies, several important environmental organizations, and the oceanographic research
community. 99
Although, the United States has acted for over twenty years in accordance with the Convention, [d]ue to
other important business, it has been easy to put consideration of the Convention off to the future. 100 Given
that the Convention has a wide and diverse group of supporters from the public sector to private
industry, military, and environmental organizations, is there a persuasive argument why the United States
should not ratify the Convention? The following section will analyze the accuracy of arguments that opponents of the Convention
invoke to block the ratification of what they believe is a LOST Convention. 101

at: Politics No GOP Fight

Past Republican opposition has been solved theyre pushing for ratification now
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.

He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show
whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)

There has been a tremendous amount of disinformation about this treaty. In fact, just earlier
this year, IFL thought we knew the truth about what was termed LOST and we signed a letter
opposing ratification. We, like so many other conservatives, were given bad information. In light
of the facts, IFL dropped our opposition to the treaty and we are now leading the conservative
charge for its ratification. I am meeting everyday with conservative grassroots leaders to ask
them to join me in this imperative course correction and we are making a great deal of progress.
Conservatives love to debate, but we hate to be misled. Given what we know now, the treatys
appropriate moniker should be LOTS.
The treaty is literally backed by the epitome by conservatism
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a BA in International Relations.

He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings have appeared in both national and international publications. He
frequently appears on talk radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera.
He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show
whose guests have included presidential candidates, actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is
President at Small Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National Federation of
Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of
Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html //
SM)

Myth: This treaty is an environmentalist ploy. Fact: False. This treaty is backed by the US
military; by the mining, oil and gas industries; by manufacturers; by the defense
industry; and, by every living Republican Secretary of State and by every
Republican president essentially, this treaty is backed by everyone the environmentalist
community loathes, sues and pickets. The supporters of this treaty are amongst the most vocal
critics of so-called global warming and have fought the Kyoto Protocol tooth and nail. This
treaty is about trillions of dollars of US wealth creation, hundreds of thousands of American
jobs, and about the national security benefits that arise from the 100% veto power the U.S. gains
over all other nations via ratification.

at: Politics Link N/U

Link non-unique Obama just pushed LOST
Stearns 6/2 Scott Stearns is VOAs State Department correspondent. He has worked as VOAs Dakar Bureau Chief, White

House correspondent, and Nairobi Bureau Chief since beginning his career as a freelance reporter in the Liberian civil war. He has
written for the BBC, UPI, the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and The Economist. Scott has a Bachelors and Masters in
Journalism from Northwestern University. (2014, Scott, Voice of America, Obama Pushes Law of the Sea to Help Settle S. China
Sea Claims, http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-pushing-un-law-of-the-sea-to-help-settle-south-china-seaclaims/1928052.html // SM)

STATE DEPARTMENT U.S. President Barack Obama says a U.N. Convention on the Law of
the Sea would help ease tensions in the South China Sea if is ratified by U.S. lawmakers China is
facing a series of maritime disputes with its neighbors in the South China Sea. Speaking to Army
Cadets at West Point, President Obama says it's more difficult for the U.S. push for a resolution
of rival claims because it exempts itself from rules that apply to everyone else. "Its a lot harder
to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the Sea Convention when the
United States Senate has refused to ratify it - despite the repeated insistence of our top military
leaders that the treaty advances our national security," he said. "Thats not leadership; thats
retreat."
U.S Leaders support the Law of Sea Treaty
Block 13 (Ben Block, staff writer for World Watch institute: vision for a sustainable world, 2013,
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5993) Akshay Bapat

Newly appointed U.S. leadership is promising to join a longstanding international agreement

that oversees ocean resource and pollution disputes. During last week's Cabinet confirmation
hearings, leaders in both the U.S. Senate and the administration of newly elected President
Barack Obama conveyed support for the treaty, known as the United Nations Law of the Sea
Convention, suggesting an end to decades of dispute over U.S. accession. The treaty already has
support from a diverse coalition of U.S. interest groups that represent national security,
industry, and the environment. Yet continued opposition from Republican lawmakers may stall
ratification, in a test for whether the Obama administration can galvanize support for
international environmental agreements, observers said. The Law of the Sea has set
international standards for fishing, deep sea mining, and navigation since the majority of the
world's countries signed it in 1982. It provides coastal nations with exclusive rights to ocean
resources within 200 nautical miles of their borders - areas known as "exclusive economic
zones," or EEZs. The agreement also oversees an international tribunal to settle fishing,
pollution, and property rights disputes, as well as the International Seabed Authority, a body
formed to assign mining rights beyond the EEZs. If the United States approves the treaty, the
agreement would include the country with the largest EEZ in the world, while also potentially
clearing the way for U.S. oil companies to mine the Arctic Ocean. U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton
and George W. Bush supported the treaty during their tenures, but conservative members of
Congress repeatedly blocked its ratification due to concerns that it would limit commerce and
allow international bodies to wield greater control over U.S. interests. President Obama's
administration and current Senate leaders have already expressed support for the treaty. During
the confirmation hearing for Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Republican Senator Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska asked whether the treaty would be a priority. "Yes, it will be, and it will be
because it is long overdue," Clinton said in response. "If people start drilling in areas that are
now ice free most of the year, and we don't know where they can and can't drill or whether we
can, we're going to be disadvantaged. So I think that you will have a very receptive audience in
our State Department and in our administration." Democratic Senator John Kerry of
Massachusetts, chair of the foreign relations committee, followed Clinton's response with his
own support for the treaty. "We are now laying the groundwork for and expect to try to take up

the Law of the Sea Treaty. So that will be one of the priorities of the committee," Kerry said.
"The key here is just timing." President Obama and the Congress are focusing foremost on
national economic recovery. The House of Representatives is debating an $825 billion financial
bailout that would provide $550 billion for government spending in several environmentally
related infrastructure projects and $275 billion in tax cuts for families and businesses. Among
the international treaties that President Obama supported during his campaign - including a
nuclear test ban, a global bill of rights for women, biodiversity accords, and a renewed climate
change agreement - the Law of the Sea is likely to face less opposition, according to observers. It
is supported by a wide array of interest groups, including the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard,
international environmental groups, and the mining, fishing, shipping, and telecommunications
industries. "The fact is, if you can't get the Law of the Sea treaty through the Senate with the
breadth of support it currently has...it will be very difficult to really run the trap [lines] on any of
these other treaties," said Don Kraus, Chief Executive Officer of the lobbying group Citizens for
Global Solutions. In his final week in office, former President George W. Bush issued a
directive calling for the Senate to ratify the treaty "promptly." Yet conservatives insist that
approval will not be simple. "If [Democratic leaders] start cramming a bunch of controversial
treaties down the Senate's throat with the thinking that Republicans will just take it, I think
they're wrong," said Steven Groves, a Heritage Foundation international law fellow. "So many of
these treaties are objectionable, and Law of the Sea is one of them." Industry groups support
the treaty largely for its clarification of rules regarding the high seas - ocean waters beyond
national jurisdiction - and the Arctic Ocean. Russia, Canada, the United States, and several
Scandinavian countries have all claimed territorial rights to Arctic maritime regions as ice caps
recede. Environmental groups oppose oil drilling in much of the Arctic due to concerns about
oil spills and habitat destruction. Yet groups such as the Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature still support the treaty for the clarity and
negotiating space it can provide. "The fear is that oil drilling and mining will happen even if it
doesn't happen by U.S. companies," said Roberta Elias, senior program officer for marine and
fisheries policy at World Wildlife Fund-U.S., a Law of the Sea supporter. "It's about getting the
U.S. a seat at the table and, by proxy, getting environmentalists a seat at the table." The
opposition from some Republican members of Congress is mostly a reflection of their deepseated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies. "This seems to me a bit of a
Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country's environmental policy,"
Groves said. "That's generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans." The
Clinton administration renegotiated the treaty in 1994 so it would be more favorable to U.S.
interests, yet Congress still failed to support it. If another political fight prevents ratification,
other efforts such as international climate negotiations may potentially be at risk, said Caitlyn
Antrim, executive director for Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans, an advocate of the Law of
the Sea treaty. "As we move forward to serious climate negotiations, countries will be very
skeptical the administration can deliver on an agreement if we can't deliver on the Law of the
Sea, which everyone knows was negotiated in our interest," Antrim said.
Obama and others want to ratify the Law of Sea Treaty
Esmaquel 14 (Paterno Esmaquel II, July 15, 2014, Rappler News, http://www.rappler.com/nation/63390-ratify-unclosphilippines-lawyer-reichler-us) Akshay Bapat

For all the matters unregulated in this convention, customary international law will help, will
aid, will regulate. If it is not so, how can you explain there are so many countries standing
outside the Law of the Sea Convention? The Chinese government itself has said the South
China Sea dispute is none of America's business because the US is not a party concerned, and
has not ratified the UNCLOS either. Obama: 'That's not leadership' The Obama
administration, for its part, has said it wants the UNCLOS ratified. Michael Fuchs, US deputy

assistant secretary of state for Strategy and Multilateral Affairs at the Bureau of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, said US officials have made our views very clear on the need to ratify
UNCLOS. US President Barack Obama, in fact, in a commencement speech at the US Military
Academy at West Point, New York on May 28, stressed the need to ratify the UNCLOS. You
see, American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We cannot exempt
ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else, Obama said. He added: We cant try to
resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the
Sea Convention is ratified by the United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military
leaders say the treaty advances our national security. Thats not leadership. Thats retreat. Thats
not strength; thats weakness. It is not enough to say all these, however, according to
Reichler. If everyone supports it, why isn't it a priority to get it done? It's not enough to say
that we support it, to pay lip service to it. What's required is to make it a priority, Reichler
said. He explained: Now in the South China Sea, we see why it is a priority, and why it should
have been a priority over the last 30 years. But it's not too late. There is this crisis, and there will
be others. And we need to be a party to the convention so that we, with moral and political
authority, can encourage with greater prospects of success, compliance with the rule of the law
in international relations.
Obama making LOST a priority.
Inquisitr 14 (Inquisitr, July 17, 2014, http://www.inquisitr.com/1358603/barack-obama-turning-over-control-of-u-s-oceansto-the-united-nations/) Akshay Bapat

Now reports are coming in that Barack Obama is renewing his efforts for the U.S. to join the Law
of the Sea Treaty which was enforced by the United Nations. Summarized, Obama is turning
over control of U.S. oceans to the U.N. According to an article by Truth and Action, the United
States is no stranger when it comes to this treaty by the United Nations. For the last 30 years,
the U.S. has refused to be a part of this, but with Barack Obama at the presidential seat, it looks
like we might surrender our U.S. sovereignty of our oceans. This can actually be very bad for the
United States in general, especially for business. On the outside, it looks as if handing over the
U.S. oceans control to the U.N. means that they have control of the worlds seas but this will
also allow the U.N. to tax American citizens and companies just for using the seas. The effort
for the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention is a long-term goal of White House
counselor, John Podesta, who is also the founder of the highly-influential George Soros-funded
think tank, the Center for American Progress. He is also a member of the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative, which seeks to have the U.S. ratify the laws and regulations governing
the seas. Nevertheless, the U.S. Senate is not voting this in according to a follow-up report by
World Truth. Barack Obama is criticizing them for their reluctance as well as explaining why we
need to allow this in the following statement: We cannot exempt ourselves from the rules that
apply to everyone. Its a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the
Law of the Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it despite the
repeated insistence of our top military leaders that the treaty advances our national security.
Barack Obama, along with John Kerry, are pushing hard to have the oceanic laws ratified in.
However, if this does happen, the United States would lose a lot of her sovereignty and to many
people, that may do a lot more bad than good.

Obama's pushing LOST now - link is non-unique

Inquisitr 7/17 (The Inquisitr, The Inquisitr offers a constantly updated mix of the latest stories
to hit the web, covering a diverse spectrum of topic areas, "Barack Obama Turning Over Control
Of U.S. Oceans To The United Nations", July 17 2014,

http://www.inquisitr.com/1358603/barack-obama-turning-over-control-of-u-s-oceans-to-theunited-nations/)
Now reports are coming in that Barack Obama is renewing his efforts for the U.S. to join the Law
of the Sea Treaty which was enforced by the United Nations. Summarized, Obama is turning over
control of U.S. oceans to the U.N. According to an article by Truth and Action, the United States is no stranger when it
comes to this treaty by the United Nations. For the last 30 years, the U.S. has refused to be a part of this, but with Barack Obama
at the presidential seat, it looks like we might surrender our U.S. sovereignty of our oceans. This
can actually be very bad for the United States in general, especially for business. On the outside, it looks as if handing over the U.S.
oceans control to the U.N. means that they have control of the worlds seas but this will also allow the U.N. to tax American citizens
and companies just for using the seas. The effort for the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea

Convention is a long-term goal of White House counselor, John Podesta, who is also the founder of the

highly-influential George Soros-funded think tank, the Center for American Progress. He is also a member of the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative, which seeks to have the U.S. ratify the laws and regulations governing the seas. Nevertheless, the U.S. Senate
is not voting this in according to a follow-up report by World Truth. Barack Obama is criticizing them for their

reluctance as well as explaining why we need to allow this in the following statement: We cannot exempt

ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone. Its a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the
Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders
that the treaty advances our national security. Barack Obama, along with John Kerry, are pushing hard to have

the oceanic laws ratified in. However, if this does happen, the United States would lose a lot of her sovereignty and to
many people, that may do a lot more bad than good.

Link non-unique Obama just pushed LOST

Stearns 6/2 (Scott, VOAs State Department correspondent and has worked as VOAs Dakar
Bureau Chief, White House correspondent, and Nairobi Bureau Chief. He has written for the
BBC, UPI, the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and The Economist, and has a Bachelors
and Masters in Journalism from Northwestern University, Obama Pushes Law of the Sea to
Help Settle S. China Sea Claims, June 2 2014, http://www.voanews.com/content/obamapushing-un-law-of-the-sea-to-help-settle-south-china-sea-claims/1928052.html)
STATE DEPARTMENT U.S. President Barack Obama

says a U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea would help

ease tensions in the South China Sea if is ratified by U.S. lawmakers China is facing a series of maritime disputes
with its neighbors in the South China Sea. Speaking to Army Cadets at West Point, President Obama says it's
more difficult for the U.S. push for a resolution of rival claims because it exempts itself from
rules that apply to everyone else. "Its a lot harder to call on China to resolve its maritime disputes under the Law of the
Sea Convention when the United States Senate has refused to ratify it - despite the repeated insistence of our top military leaders
that the treaty advances our national security," he said. "Thats not leadership; thats retreat."

at: Military CP
Ratifying LOST is a federal legislative or court action military cant do the aff.
The Heritage Foundation 12. International Law The Law of the Sea: Costs of U.S. Accession to UNCLOS.
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2012/06/the-law-of-the-sea-convention-treaty-doc-103-39. MMG

One way to determine the extent to which UNCLOSs navigational provisions have achieved the
status of binding international law is to study the behavior of nations. Behavior in conformity
with the conventionknown as state practiceis additional evidence that its navigational
provisions reflect international law. Indications that a state is acting in conformity with
international law may be found in states legislation, the decisions of their courts, and the
statements of their official government and diplomatic representatives. A nations inaction
regarding a particular navigational provision may also be viewed as state practice because it can
be deemed to be acquiescence.
CP doesn't solve - the military can't ratify treaties
Only the president and congress can ratify treaties - the military can't do anything
Fryer 12 (William T. Fryer, III Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore,
Maryland, "EXPLANATION OF THE UNITED STATES TREATY MEMBERSHIP PROCESS",
August 14 2012, http://www.fryer.com/WGAERPA.htm)
EXPLANATION OF THE UNITED STATES TREATY MEMBERSHIP PROCESS (SEE STATUS TOPIC ) In

the United States

a treaty must be consented to by the Senate. The first step in that process, usually, is review of the
treaty by the current administration, to see if it is consistent with United States policies and law .
The Geneva Act was reviewed initially by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This Office was actively involved in the
development of the Geneva Act, including attending all the meeting of experts and the diplomatic conference in 1999. The United
States signed the treaty document, indicating a commitment to presented it to Congress for approval. The United States

State Department reviews each treaty for the administration and prepares a recommendation
for the President on whether the United States should ratify the treaty. The State Department works
closely with the PTO during this review, but the policy considerations taken into consideration are of a broad scope. The State
Department prepares the documents for submission to the Senate to request approval of the
treaty. A final review of these documents is made by the President's staff. If the President
considers the treaty in the best interest of the United States, the documents are sent to the
Senate, to start the process of consent. In the case of the Geneva Act, the treaty was sent to the Senate by a letter from
the President on November 13, 2006, with a supporting document (See SENATE RATICATION)

at: Consult Military CP

Nonunique - the DOD has already urged the US to ratify LOST
Weisgerber 12 (Marcus, Pentagon correspondent for DefenseNews, "DoD Officials Urge U.S.
to Join Sea Treaty", May 9 2012,
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120509/DEFREG02/305090010/DoD-Officials-UrgeU-S-Join-Sea-Treaty)
The United States joining the Law of the Sea Treaty would help strengthen the U.S. Defense
Departments position in the Pacific, at a time when the Pentagon places more emphasis on that
region, top DoD officials said. Not being part of the treaty puts the Unites States at a distinct
disadvantage particularly when it comes to disputes over maritime rights and responsibilities, said Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta, who making a rare joint appearance with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at
a forum in Washington hosted by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Atlantic Council. The time has come for the
United States to have a seat at the table, Panetta said. The time has come for the United States to fully assert its role
as a global leader, and accede to this important treaty. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is designed to serve as
the rules of the road for use of the oceans resources. More than 160 countries, including China and Russia, observe the treaty.
Conservative opponents of the treaty in the U.S. Congress feel signing the treaty would cede decisions on sovereignty. The

Pentagons new military strategy announced in January calls for a greater emphasis in the Pacific
region. Becoming part of the Law of the Sea treaty would not impact U.S. military operations,
Panetta said. The convention in no way harms our intelligence collection activities or constrains our military operations, nor
will our military activities be subject to review or scrutiny by any international court or tribunal, he said. On the contrary,
U.S. accession to the convention preserves our freedom of navigation and over-flight rights as
bedrock treaty law, the firmest possible legal foundation for these activities.

at: Ratification PIC (Kyl PIC)

Kyls proposal cant solve diplomacy, exploration rights, or legal benefits
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he writes the blog The

Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The
Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-us-should-ratify-the-law-of-the-seatreaty/258301/ // SM)

Nevertheless, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has proposed an enticing but misguided
"compromise," whereby "Congress could enact a statute that makes the navigational parts of the
treaty...the law of the land," and thereby "separate the wheat from the chaff." This purported
solution is a sheer mirage. It would secure no diplomatic or international legal
benefits for the United States. Nor would it secure maritime exploration rights to
which Lockheed Martin referred. Still, Kyl has already obtained the signatures of twenty-seven
colleagues, just seven short of the number needed to scuttle the treaty. Treaty defenders must
expose this gambit as an alluring but ultimately destructive siren song.
PICs fail bifurcation is not an option the treaty cannot be amended
Hodge 12 Hope graduated in 2009 with a degree in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from The King's College in New York
City. Her work has also appeared in The American Spectator, New York Sun, WORLD Magazine, and The Washington Post.
(6/11/2012, Hope, Human Events, Proposed middle ground on LOST, http://humanevents.com/2012/06/11/proposed-middleground-on-lost/ // SM)

At an American Enterprise Institute forum on American sovereignty, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
proposed a Madisonian approach to the treaty that would retain valuable navigation rights for
businesses and the U.S. Navy, but allow Congress to dispense with other provisions that
encroached on American autonomy. My point is if you split the Law of the Sea Treaty into two
pieces, one is supported by the Navy, Kyl said. That good part of the treaty, about which there
is little debate, could be codified by separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, such
bifurcation is not an option , Kyl said, because the treaty cannot be amended in its
current form.

at: Customary Law CP

Customary law fails lack of clarity makes it virtually inapplicable, it doesnt cover
mining, and it doesnt provide sufficient legal clarity for business use
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)

Finally, opponents of the Convention contend that accession is basically unnecessary for the United States to enjoy the benefits of
the Convention: [T]he United States remains free to define the parameters of its acceptance of jurisdictional assertions by others
consistent with its legal rights and obligations, and is in a position to influence the development and definition of customary
international law. 115 However, as the following section explores further, customary law is not universally accepted

and is an inadequate basis on which to support the United States claims to the Arctic. In addition, most
of the industrialized countries have joined the Convention, and therefore it seems unlikely that they
would be interested in developing a customary law under United States leadership. 116
C. The United States Does Not Have Viable Alternatives to the Convention Capable of
Securing Its Interest in the Arctic
One of the major flaws in the opponents arguments against ratifying the Convention is the fact that they do not offer viable
alternatives to the Convention. The following section will consider customary international law and a mini-treaty as alternatives to
the Convention. It concludes that customary international law does not secure all the benefits of the Convention and does
not provide for legal

certainty to protect and assert United States national security and economic
rights in the Arctic. It also concludes that calls for an Arctic mini-treaty are particularly misguided, as the

legal and other aspects of these two regions are vastly different.
1. Customary Law Is Not as Effective as the Convention in Protecting the United States Interests in the Arctic
International customary laws have developed out of concordant practice by a number of states . . . over a considerable period of
time, when such practice is thought to be required by, or consistent with, the prevailing international law, and when such practice is
generally accepted by other states. 117 As mentioned in section III, the Convention itself is based in part on international customary
laws. In addition, when an issue is not regulated by the Convention, the customary laws serve a gap-filling role, and because the
Convention binds only its signatories, customary international law remains an important means of transacting with non-signatories
of the Convention. 118
However, the Convention expands the existing norms to suit new developments where the existing norms
are no longer sufficient, creates new norms, and

in some cases replaces old norms that are no longer

appropriate.119 Thus, asserting customary international law will not secure all the benefits of the
Convention for the United States because the signatories of the Convention do not have to extend specific
rights established in the Convention, or those which are modifications of the existing rules, to non-signatories. 120
For example, Canada may choose not to grant the United States the right of scientific research in
the EEZ or in the continental shelf. 121
Furthermore, experts often disagree on the existing norms of international law. 122 The ambiguity
exists because the international customary law that applies to ocean activities is derived from numerous
conventions, judicial decisions, state practice, and interpretations by international
organizations. The customary law is not universally accepted, and it changes over time based on state
practice. 123 To obtain financing and insurance and avoid litigation risk, U.S. companies want
the legal certainty that would be secured through the Conventions procedures in order to
engage in oil, gas, and mineral extraction on our extended continental shelf. 124 Also, American companies
may not use customary law to claim the right to seabed mining. There is no customary practice
for dealing with seabed mining, and such practice is necessary for the formation of customary law. 125
Moreover, because it is so difficult to prove the extent of customary law, according to some experts,
[a]bsent express agreement, mandatory obedience to the decisions of international organizations or
tribunals is for all practical purposes out of the question. 126 The weaker the sense of legitimacy, the
less restrained state practice is likely to be. There is a tendency among nations to take treaty obligations more seriously
than customary law obligations, which leads to increased self-restraint. 127 As Admiral Mullen testified when he
was Vice Chief of Naval Operations, [i]t is too risky to continue relying upon unwritten customary international
law as the primary legal basis to support U.S. military operations. 128

at: Alternative Treaty CP

LOST means other countries cant sign an alternative treaty
Kolcz-Ryan, 09 Marta, University of Dayton (AN ARCTIC RACE: HOW THE UNITED STATES FAILURE TO RATIFY
THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS INTERESTS IN THE ARCTIC, University of Dayton
Law Review, vol 35, no 1, http://www-staging.udayton.edu/law/_resources/documents/law_review/anarctic_race.pdf //blue)

2. A Mini-Treaty with Other Countries Is Unlikely

In addition to customary law, some scholars have proposed an Arctic treaty modeled on the Antarctic Treaty System as an
alternative to the Convention. 129 Such a treaty would provide a binding legal framework for resolving overlapping continental shelf
disputes in the Arctic. 130
However, one of the effects of accepting the Convention is the ban on the signatory states to
conclude or participate in any mini-treaty with

other states, particularly with nonparties, whose purpose is

clearly to conduct activities outside the scope of the Convention. 131 According to Article 311(3) of the
Convention, parties shall not take actions prejudicial to the implementation of the Convention as a whole. 132 Therefore, no party
may participate in an agreement with another party or nonparty that would violate provisions of the Convention. Consequently, the

United States may not enter into an agreement with other Arctic nations that would divide the Arctic
Ocean because the Convention designates specific procedures that must be followed by its
members who wish to expand its sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean.
Additionally, entering into a treaty with other countries in which each country would recognize each others claim relating to
deep seabed development would be of dubious legal validity. Article 137(3) of the Convention provides that no

state or natural or judicial person shall claim, acquire or exercise rights with respect to the minerals recovered from the Area except
in accordance with this part. Otherwise, no such claim, acquisition or exercise of such rights shall be recognized. 133 Thus, entering
into a treaty with other Arctic nations which have ratified the Convention and upon which the Convention is binding would not
assure the United States access to mineral resources beneath the Arctic Ocean. 134 Finally, the idea of a mini-treaty

is not supported by the governments of the five Arctic nations. Recently, representatives
of the five Arctic nations stated in the Ilulissat Declaration that [w]e . . . see no need to develop a
new comprehensive international legal regime to govern the Arctic Ocean. 135

at: Cap K
Perm solves best we must understand that we are the problems with capitalism
and act within the system (this seems like a pretty good card you probably can use it to
access the negs framework argument: only impact in this round is the education, judge is an
intellectual, you say well, we know that too thats why we cant forget capitalism while trying
to change it)
Ignatieff 13, Canadian author, academic and former politician. He was the leader of the Liberal
Party of Canada
(Michael, Demos Quarterly Magazine, Sovereignty and the crisis of democratic
politics,http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-1/sovereignty-and-the-crisis-ofdemocratic-politics-2/, 5 June 2013, A.ZHU)
Citizens want to have a sense that when they vote theyre engaged in a symbolic act that gives
them control over the conditions of their existence. Voting should express their sovereignty as a
people, and the sovereign authority of their country. Now immediately you will think well,
sovereignty, isnt that a little old-fashioned? The word sounds a little reactionary and anyway,
how much sovereignty can we have in a global economy? There used to be a socialist language
that took this question seriously. When I first came to London, as a graduate student in the
Seventies, there was a lot of talk about socialism in one country. I remember earnest talk to the
effect from economists like Francis Cripps and Wynne Godley that the only way you could
maintain economic sovereignty was to have an industrial policy, import substitution and
protectionism. These were the economic preconditions for democracy, and in turn for socialism
in one country. Well, weve tried socialism in one country and discovered that its
no more plausible than capitalism in one country . But that leaves open the question of
how we do affirm and defend our political sovereignty in an age of global capitalism. If
globalisation was actually under the control of a small and sinister cabal of bankers, multinational capitalists and their captive politicians, if global power was actually centralised
in this way, we could all rise up together and wrest control from this malign group. The
real political problem is that globalisation is us. Many of us are afloat on the tide of
cheap credit that liberalisation of capital markets made possible; many of us benefit from cheap
global transport, and our cities are alive with the benefits of global mass migration. We cant
forget these benefits as we struggle with the problems they create. Politically
speaking, we want it both ways: to have these benefits of globalisation without the feeling of
powerlessness that so often accompanies our experience of a global world. For we know that
global forces decisively shape the very conditions of our lives. The basic unemployment rate in
our hometown will be set by demand in China or Brazil or by competition in South Korea.
Important questions like whether our children will find a job once they graduate, and whether
we will be able to hold onto ours, depend on forces far beyond the control of the political leaders
who tell us they are in charge.

at: Irony Good K

The K is a sell-out their irony serves to pacify us rather than incite change by
allowing us to laugh and feel like weve done something when in reality nobody has
changed at all voting (aff/neg) doesnt do anything to change the power
structures that maintain ______ - in fact, it just sustains their investment in the
system by turning it into an easy way for them to get ballots.
Almond, 12 Steve, author and critic (The Jokes on You, The Baffler, No. 20, 2012,
http://www.thebaffler.com/articles/the-jokes-on-you# )

we are living in a golden age of

political comedy. The New York Times nominates Jon Stewart, beloved host of Comedy Centrals Daily Show, as the
most trusted man in America. His protg, Stephen Colbert, enjoys the sort of slavish media coverage
reserved for philanthropic rock stars. Bill Maher does double duty as HBOs resident provocateur and a regular on the
cable news circuit. The Onion, once a satirical broadsheet published by starving college students, is now a mini-empire
with its own news channel. Stewart and Colbert, in particular, have assumed the role of secular saints whose nightly
shtick restores sanity to a world gone mad.
But their sanctification is not evidence of a world gone mad so much as an
audience gone to lard morally, ignorant of the comic impulses more radical virtues. Over the past decade,
political humor has proliferated not as a daring form of social commentary, but a reliable profit
source. Our high-tech jesters serve as smirking adjuncts to the dysfunctional institutions of modern
media and politics, from which all their routines derive. Their net effect is almost entirely therapeutic :
they congratulate viewers for their fine habits of thought and feeling while
remaining careful never to question the corrupt precepts of the status quo too
vigorously.
Our lazy embrace of Stewart and Colbert is a testament to our own impoverished comic standards. We have come to accept
coy mockery as genuine subversion and snarky mimesis as originality. It would be more accurate
to describe our golden age of political comedy as the peak output of a lucrative corporate
plantation whose chief export is a cheap and powerful opiate for progressive angst
and rage.
Among the hacks who staff our factories of conventional wisdom, evidence abounds that

Fans will find this assessment offensive. Stewart and Colbert, they will argue, are comedians, offering late-night entertainment in the
vein of David Letterman or Jay Leno, but with a topical twist. To expect them to do anything more than make us laugh is unfair.
Besides, Stewart and Colbert do play a vital civic roletheyre a dependable news source for their mostly young viewers, and de facto
watchdogs against media hype and political hypocrisy.
Michiko Kakutani of the New York Times offered a summation of the majority opinion in a 2008 profile of Stewart that doubled as
his highbrow coronation. Mr. Stewart describes his job as throwing spitballs from the back of the room, she wrote. Still, he and
his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day . . . in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to
power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never
becomes solemn or pretentious.
Putting aside the obvious objection that poking fun at the powerful isnt the same as bluntly confronting them, its
important to give Stewart and Colbert their due. They are both superlative comedians with brilliant writing staffs. They represent a
quantum improvement over the aphoristic pabulum of the thirties satirist Will Rogers or the musical schmaltz of Beltway balladeer
Mark Russell. Stewart and Colbert have, on occasion, aimed their barbs squarely at the seats of power.
The most famous example is Colberts turn as the featured speaker at the 2006 White House Correspondents Association Dinner.
Paying tribute to President George W. Bush, seated just a few feet away, Colbert vowed, I stand by this man. I stand by this man
because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded
city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always reboundwith the most
powerfully staged photo ops in the world. He went on to praise, in punishing detail, the media who had served as cheerleaders for
the presidents factually spurious rush to war in Iraq, and his embrace of domestic surveillance and torture. The crowd, composed of
A-list cheerleaders, sat in stunned silence.
Stewart has generated a few similar moments of frisson, most notably when he eviscerated Jim Cramer, the frothing former hedge
fund manager who hosts the CNBC show Mad Money, and Betsy McCaughey, an unctuous lobbyist paid by insurance companies to
flog the myth of government-run death panels during the debate over health care reform. Stewart also played a vital role in
shaming Senate Republicans into supporting a bill to provide medical care for 9/11 first responders.
Whats notable about these episodes, though, is how uncharacteristic they are. What Stewart and Colbert do most

nights is convert civic villainy into disposable laughs. They prefer Horatian satire to Juvenalian, and thus

treat the ills of modern media and politics as matters of folly, not concerted evil. Rather
than targeting the obscene cruelties borne of greed and fostered by apathy, they harp on a rogues gallery
of hypocrites familiar to anyone with a TiVo or a functioning memory. Wit, exaggeration, and gentle mockery
trump ridicule and invective. The goal is to mollify people, not incite them.

In Kakutanis adoring New York Times profile, Stewart spoke of his comedic mission as though it were an upscale antidepressant:
Its a wonderful feeling to have this toxin in your body in the morning, that little cup of sadness, and feel by 7 or 7:30 that night,
youve released it in sweat equity and can move on to the next day. Whats missing from this formulation is the idea that comedy
might, you know, change something other than your mood.
Back in October of 2004, Stewart made a now-famous appearance on the CNN debate show Crossfire, hosted by the liberal pundit
Paul Begala and his conservative counterpart Tucker Carlson. Stewart framed his visit as an act of honor. He had been mocking the
contrived combat of Crossfire on his program and wanted to face his targets. The segment quickly devolved into a lecture. Stop,
stop, stop, stop hurting America, he told Carlson. See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, youre helping the politicians and
the corporations. And were left out there to mow our lawns. The exchange went viral. Stewart was hailed as a hero: here, at last,
was a man brave enough to condemn the tyranny of a middling cable shoutfest.
But who, exactly, did Stewart mean by we? Hes not just some poor schnook who works the assembly line at a factory then goes
home to mow his lawn. Hes a media celebrity who works for Viacom, one of the largest entertainment corporations in the world.
Stewart can score easy points by playing the humble populist. But hes as comfortable on the corporate plantation as any of the
buffoons he delights in humiliating.

The queasy irony here is that Stewart and Colbert are parasites of the dysfunction they mock.
Without blowhards such as Carlson and shameless politicians, Stewart would be out of a job that pays
him a reported $14 million per annum. Without the bigoted bluster of Bill OReilly and Rush Limbaugh, The Colbert Report
would not exist. They arent just invested in the status quo, but dependent on it.
Their irony is political passivity at its worst they simply tell you what we already
know underneath an ironic mask without providing any impetus for broader
change voting for them is a way to feel good about your trivial dissent then go
back to doing the same thing you always do next round
Almond, 12 Steve, author and critic (The Jokes on You, The Baffler, No. 20, 2012,
http://www.thebaffler.com/articles/the-jokes-on-you# )

To their millions of fans, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert represent the vanguard of just such a class.
And hope for their leadership was never more keenly felt than in the weeks leading up to their
vaunted Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. The gathering, a hastily conceived send-up of Glenn Becks Restoring
Honor Rally, took place three days before the 2010 midterm elections, with a stated purpose of calling for civility.

But the event itself accomplished nothing beyond revealing the bathos of Stewart
and Colbert. It boiled down to a goofy variety show, capped by one of Stewarts mawkish soliloquies. His
central point was that Americans are a decent people, capable of making reasonable
compromises. By way of proof he showed a video of cars merging in the Holland Tunnel. These millions of cars must

somehow find a way to squeeze one by one into a mile-long, thirty-foot-wide tunnel carved underneath a mighty river, Stewart said.
And they do it. Concession by concession. You go. Then Ill go. You go, then Ill go. . . . Oh my God, is that an NRA sticker on your
car, is that an Obama sticker on your car? Well, thats okay. You go and then Ill go. Sure, at some point there will be a selfish jerk
who zips up the shoulder and cuts in at the last minute. But that individual is rare and he is scorned, and not hired as an analyst.
Its hard to know where to begin with a metaphor this misguided. But it might be instructive to contemplate the rise of right-wing
radio, an industry borne of commuter rage, which now dominates not just the Republican Party, but our national discourse. Stewart
would have us believe that selfish jerks never get hired as analysts. But as his sidekick Colbert clearly demonstrates, thats exactly
who gets hired at the networksfolks who can excite our primal states of negative feeling: wrath, envy, fear. In Stewarts daffy

formulation, pundits and politicians are the ones who prey on an otherwise noble citizenry. But
its us citizens who watch those pundits and elect those politicians. Weve chosen to degrade our
discourse. Stewart and Colbert make their nut by catering to those citizens who
choose to laugh at the results rather than work to change them.
Having convinced more than 200,000 such folks to get off their butts and crowd the National
Mallnot to mention the two and a half million who watched the proceedings on television or
onlineStewarts call to action amounted to: If you want to know why Im here and what I want
from you, I can only assure you this: you have already given it to me. Your presence was
what I wanted. Such is the apotheosis of the Stewart-Colbert doctrine: the civic
rally as televised corporate spectacle, with special merit badges awarded for
attendance.
Bill Maher was one of the few prominent voices to call his comrades out. If youre going to have a rally where hundreds of
thousands of people show up, you might as well go ahead and make it about something, he said. He went on to point out the

towering navet of their nonpartisan approach, with its bogus attempt to equate the insanity of left and right: Martin Luther King
spoke on that mall in the capital and he didnt say, Remember folks, those Southern sheriffs with the fire hoses and the German
shepherds, they have a point too! No. He said, I have a dream. They have a nightmare! . . . Liberals like the ones on that field must
stand up and be counted and not pretend that were as mean or greedy or shortsighted or just plain batshit as they are, and if thats
too polarizing for you and you still want to reach across the aisle and hold hands and sing with someone on the right, try church.
Mahers dissent, all but lost amid the orgy of liberal self-congratulation, echoed Menckens exhortation: one
must challenge the quacks to get rid of them. The reason our discourse has grown vicious, and has drifted away from matters of
actual policy and their moral consequence, isnt because of some misunderstanding between cultural factions. It is the desired result
of a sustained campaign waged by corporations, lobbyists, politicians, and demagogues who have placed private gain over the
common good.
In a sense, these quacks have no more reliable allies than Stewart and Colbert. For the ultimate ethos of their television
programs is

this: the customer is always right. We need not give in to sorrow, or feel disgust, or take action,
because our brave clown princes have the tonic for what ails the national spirit. Their clever brand of
pseudo-subversion guarantees a jolt of righteous mirth to the viewer , a feeling that
evaporates the moment their shows end. At which point we return to our given role as
citizens: consuming whatever the quacks serve up next.
They transform actual social problems into a source of laughs _______ looks
like curmudgeons but arent really challenged
Almond, 12 Steve, author and critic (The Jokes on You, The Baffler, No. 20, 2012,
http://www.thebaffler.com/articles/the-jokes-on-you# )

In a sense, Rice owed Stewart an even larger debt. His criticism

of the Iraq wara series of reports under the

banner Mess OPotamiamight have done more to diffuse the antiwar movement than
the phone surveillance clauses embedded in the Patriot Act. Why take to the streets
when Stewart and Colbert are on the case? Its a lot easier, and more fun, to
experience the war as a passive form of entertainment than as a source of moral
distress requiring citizen activism.

Colberts interviews are even more trivializing. While he occasionally welcomes figures from outside the corporate zoo, his brash
persona demands that he interrupt and confound them. If they try to match wits with him, they get schooled. If they play it straight,
they get steamrolled. The underlying dynamic of Colberts show, after all, is that he never loses an argument. The only acceptable
forms of outrage reside in his smug denial of any narrative that questions American supremacy.
In this sense, Colbert the pundit can been seen as a postmodern incarnation of the countrys first comic

archetype, the Yankee (a designation that was then a national, rather than regional, term). As described by Constance

Rourke in her 1931 survey, American Humor: A Study of the National Character, the Yankee is a gangly figure, sly and uneducated,
who specializes in tall tales and practical jokes. Unlike Stewart, whose humor clearly arises from the Jewish tradition of outsider
social commentary, Colbert plays the consummate insider, a cartoon patriot suitable for export. But

Colberts mock punditry reinforces a dismissive view of actual corporate demagogues. Bill
Papa Bear OReilly and his ilk come off as laughable curmudgeons, best mocked
rather than rebutted, even as they steer our common discourse away from sensible policy and toward toxic forms of

grievance.
And Colberts own flag-fellating routine often bends toward unintended sincerity. His visit to Iraq in June 2009 amounted to a
weeklong infomercial for the U.S. military. It kicked off with a segment in which black ops abduct Colbert from his makeup room
and transport him to a TV stage set in Baghdad, which turns out to be one of Saddam Husseins former palaces. Colbert is a brilliant
improvisational comedian, adept at puncturing the vanities of his persona in the same way Bob Hope once did. (Colbert even
brandished a golf club for his opening monologue in Baghdad, an homage to Hope, a frequent USO entertainer.) Still, theres

something unsettling about seeing Americas recent legacy of extraordinary rendition mined for
laughs.

LOST NEG

Solvency

LOST Fails
LosT fails Navy key, coastal nations dont care, and empirics
Bandow 4 - Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he served as a deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on
the Law of the Sea. He has earned his J.D. from Stanford University (3/15/2004, Doug, The
Cato Institute, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty // SM)
Moreover, at a time when Washington is combating lawless terrorism, it should be evident that
the only sure guarantee of free passage on the seas is the power of the U.S. Navy , combined
with friendly relations with the states, few in number, that sit astride important sea lanes.
Coastal nations make policy based on perceived national interest, not abstract
legal norms. Remember the luckless USS Pueblo in 1968? International law did not
prevent North Korea from seizing the intelligence ship ; approval of the Law of the Sea
Treaty would have offered the Pueblo no additional protection. America was similarly unaided
by international law in its 2001 confrontation with China over our downed EP-3 surveillance
plane. Nor has signing the Law of the Sea Treaty prevented Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, North
Korea, Pakistan, and others from making ocean claims deemed excessive by others. Indeed, last
October Adm. Mullen warned that the benefits he believed to derive from treaty ratification did
not suggest that countries attempts to restrict navigation will cease once the United States
becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention.

LOST Not Key

Ratification not key CIL solves
Bandow 4 - Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he served as a deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on
the Law of the Sea. He has earned his J.D. from Stanford University (3/15/2004, Doug, The
Cato Institute, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty // SM)
Why, given all this, was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee eager to sign on? The treaty is
not without benefits. Provisions regarding the environment, resource management, and rights
of transit generally are positive, though many reflect what is now customary international law,
even in the absence of U.S. ratification. Lugar notes that law and practice with respect to
regulation of activities off our shores is already generally compatible with the Convention. This
would seem to be an equally strong argument for not ratifying the treaty.

LOST Bad

China Turn
UNCLOS causes US-China war
Schlafly 12, American constitutional lawyer, conservative[2] activist, author, and founder of the Eagle Forum. She has co-

authored books on national defense and was highly critical of arms-control agreements with the Soviet Union.[3]
(Phyllis, Law Of The Sea Treaty Is A Bad Deal For U.S. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/051512-611579-losttreaty-is-a-bad-deal-for-the-us.htm?p=2, AZHU)

This tribunal, known as ITLOS, International Tribunal of LOST, has jurisdiction over
"maritime disputes," which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. unBut radical environmental
lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global
warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the
discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify. A paper by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation
lays out the road map for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton
warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President
Reagan rejected it: "With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would
encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities and do nothing to resolve China's
expansive maritime territorial claims." Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S.
access to what China claims is its "Exclusive Economic Zone" extending 200 miles into
international waters. The whole concept of putting the U.S. in the noose of another global
organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans.
LOST must be defeated.

Econ Turn
UNCLOS forces US to pay billions of dollars in royalties and lawsuits destroys
economy and access to natural resources
Groves and Loris 12, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the

Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies; Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe
Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
(Steven and Nicolas, Heritage Foundation, Issue Brief #3659 on International Law, Law of the Sea Treaty: Bad for American
Energy Policy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/law-of-the-sea-treaty-bad-for-american-energy-policy, AZHU)
The Obama Administration is pushing for accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which would

expose the United States to baseless environmental lawsuits, including suits based on alleged U.S.
contributions to global climate change. Accession would also require the U.S. to transfer billions of dollars
in oil and gas royalties generated on its continental shelf to UNCLOS member states, particularly
landlocked states and states that are the least developed. The U.S. does not need to join the convention in order
to access oil and gas resources located on its extended continental shelf (ECS), the Arctic, or the
Gulf of Mexico. Instead, it can and should use bilateral treaties with neighboring countries to
demarcate the limits of its maritime and continental shelf boundaries. Climate Lawsuits Costly for
Americans Carbon dioxide is a clear, odorless, nontoxic gas whose impact on climate change is very much a subject for scientific
debate.[1] In recent testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that joining UNCLOS would not force the U.S. to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions. Yet the widely accepted principle of international law known as the no-harm

rule obligates a nation to use its territory in such a manner that injury is not caused to persons
or property located in another nation. In the context of environmental protection, the principle prohibits a
nation from allowing pollution to escape its territory and damage another nations air, land,
water, ecosystem, living resources, or inhabitants health. This rule would provide the legal basis
for international climate lawsuits. Acceding to UNCLOS would create an opportunity to
pursue environmental lawsuits against the U.S. based on virtually any maritime activity, such as
alleged pollution of the oceans from a land-based source or even through the atmosphere.
Regardless of the cases merits, the U.S. would be forced to defend itself against every such
lawsuit at great expense to U.S. taxpayers. Not only that, but any adverse judgment in a
climate change lawsuit that imposes penalties or forces the U.S. to curb greenhouse gas
emissions would be extremely costly for American consumers. Since a large majority of our
energy use comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels, any emission control measures would
increase costs for businesses that would then pass those costs on to consumers. To make matters
worse, any adverse judgment would be final, not subject to appeal, and enforceable in the United States.[2] UNCLOS Not Needed
for Expanded Oil and Gas Production Proponents of UNCLOS argue that without joining the convention,

the U.S. would be unable to demarcate the extent of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical
miles. This is simply untrue . The U.S. regularly demarcates the limits of its continental shelf
and declares the extent of its maritime boundaries with presidential proclamations, acts of
Congress, and bilateral treaties with neighboring countries. As a result of bilateral treaties between the U.S.

and Mexico, the Department of the Interiors Bureau of Ocean Energy Management currently leases areas of the U.S. ECS in the Gulf
of Mexico to American and foreign oil and gas companies for exploration and development. The U.S. maintains

jurisdiction and control over its ECS on a global basis and will do so regardless of whether it ever
accedes to UNCLOS. It should take every action necessary to secure oil and gas resources located on its ECS in the Arctic
Ocean, in the Gulf of Mexico, and throughout the world. The U.S. can accomplish this as a sovereign nation
instead of joining UNCLOS and seeking the approval of the Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf, an international committee of geologists and hydrographers located at U.N. headquarters in New York
City. Moreover, accession to UNCLOS will result in billions of dollars in revenue distributed
away from the U.S. Treasury to an international bureaucracy that would transfer the wealth to developing

nations. Under current U.S. law and policy, all royalties and other revenue generated from exploitation of the U.S. ECS belong to the
U.S. and would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury and dispensed in the best interest of the U.S. and the American people. Accession

to the treaty would mean transferring a large portion of those royalties to the International Seabed Authority, an international
organization established by UNCLOS and seated in Kingston, Jamaica, which would in turn distribute the royalty revenue to various
developing nations in a manner that might not advance U.S. national interests.

UNCLOS imposes global royalties on resources and damages US military - hurts

energy sector and US sovereignty
Roff 12

Editor for U.S. News & World Report, Speechwriter to the Secretary at U.S. Dept. of Energy, Kill the Law of the Sea
Treaty, U.S. News & World Report, May 10, 2012, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peterroff/2012/05/10/kill-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty, CBC
The Law of the Sea Treaty is a complex international agreement that's been around since Ronald Reagan was president. Its
ostensible purpose is to define the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for
businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. Reagan objected to several of the treaty's provisions
and refused to sign it without amendments changing it, but like a bad penny, it keeps turning up. In 1994 the United Nations
attempted to move the ball down the field by creating an "Agreement on Implementation" that would address the concerns
expressed by the United States and others. It didn't really make the treaty any better but President Bill Clinton signed it anyway. The
U.S. Senate, however, has never, as the Constitution requires, voted to ratify it. The global governance crowd remains undeterred.
The treaty may again see the light of day in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. And this doesn't sit well with some people.
"One of the primary missions of the United States Navy for over two centuries has been to

maintain freedom of the seas for all. As a Navy veteran, I am offended to think that the Senate and the Chief of Naval

Operations would even consider ceding any part of that mission to the United Nations," said Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom
Ringa nonpartisan organization where I am a senior fellow. In reality the Law of the Sea Treaty is one more

step towards a system of global governance under which U.S. sovereignty would be subordinated
to an international system managed by an unelected, self-perpetuating form of bureaucratic
aristocracy that cares little for democratic traditions. Which, Hanna suggests, is one of a series of reasons the
Senate should continue to vote down efforts to ratify it. The Law of the Sea Treaty would do irreparable harm to
U.S. military and intelligence operations and would force the United States to hand over
proprietary technology to countries actively hostile to U.S. interests. It would also create a
system for resolving disputes lying outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system, leaving
American citizens and businesses at the mercy of international tribunals whose members are not
necessarily adherents to Western political or legal traditions and who may not hail from
democratic nations. The Law of the Sea Treaty, as previously mentioned, establishes a global bureaucracy that could leave
U.S. businesses awash in a sea of destructive environmental regulations that would be costly and anticompetitive while these same
bureaucrats handed out U.S. government money to give the economies of unfriendly countries a boost. The treaty would,
Hanna says,

impose global royalties and fees on American energy companies that will destroy U.S.
jobs and make energy from traditional sources like natural gas and oil even more expensive. It
might also embolden the military of countries like the People's Republic of China, who could use
its language to justify a more aggressive posture in the South China Sea, while at the same time
impeding the ability of the United States to interdict weapons of mass destruction being
transported from one nation to another on the high seas. Finally, says Hanna, "There is no guarantee
that the treaty will remain what it is at the time of ratification. Under its terms, its content can
later be changed by an amendment process that does not require the approval of the United
States government. This undermines U.S. sovereignty and, to put it bluntly, is unconstitutional."

The issue is not one that gets much attention while those who oppose it are often dismissed as raising concerns that lie outside the
mainstream of American political belief. The treaty has the support of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry, who chairs the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, the committee's ranking Republican, who was defeated
Tuesday in his bid for renomination. Both men are the kind of internationalists who believe the United States needs to deepen its
involvement in global affairsnot as the leader of the free worldbut as a kind of first among equals which, history has shown, is
not in the best long-term interests of the nation as a whole or the values upon which it was founded and continues to represent to the
rest of the world. Kerry and Lugar are thought by some to want to bring the treaty up, yet again, perhaps as a way to burnish their
domestic and international credentials as potential secretaries of state in a second Obama administration. If they do, the Senate
should reject it.

Treaty misallocates resources

Murray 13 MBA, University of London; MA, University of Oxford, Vice President of Strategy at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, former Director of Research for the Statistical Assessment Service and the Executive Officer of HM Department of
Transport, LOST at Sea, March 25, 2013, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg167, CBC

The Treaty Misallocates Resources. More seriously, the Treaty is responsible for a significant
misallocation of resources when it comes to the Authoritys powers. Indeed, almost all deep sea mining
performed under its jurisdiction by companies from industrialized states will happen at a loss. Industrialized state
governments are required to levy fees and royalties to subsidize both the Enterprise and the
activities of developing states. Setting fees relies on two provisions, outlined in Annex 8 to the
Agreement, that amends to the Treaty. The provisions are vague, which creates significant cost
and uncertainty: (a) The system of payments to the Authority shall be fair both to the contractor and to the Authority and

shall provide adequate means of determining compliance by the contractor with such system; (b) The rates of payments under the
system shall be within the range of those prevailing in respect of land-based mining of the same or similar minerals in order to avoid
giving deep seabed miners an artificial competitive advantage or imposing on them a competitive disadvantage; These

provisions essentially force a contracting company to pay more than it would otherwise in order
to be fair to the Authority. Because seabed mining is more expensive than land-based mining, paying for the privilege at
the same rates as land-based mining adds a second layer of competitive disadvantage, despite what the Annex text purports. In all
probability, these extra fees mean that any mining activities will take place at a loss, arguably the reason why progress in subsea
mining has not met expectations when the Treaty was drafted. Because the Treaty misallocates resources, seabed

mining has been deferred, resulting in more mining on land. Land-based mining operations are very happy

with this arrangement, and are even represented in their own chamber of the Council. 24 The net result: an institutionalized subsidy
to land-based mining operations from the very existence of the Treaty, because the Treaty deters effective seabed competition.

US would be forced to immediately ban all fossil fuels under the treaty, crippling
its economy
Murray 13 MBA, University of London; MA, University of Oxford, Vice President of Strategy at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, former Director of Research for the Statistical Assessment
Service and the Executive Officer of HM Department of Transport, LOST at Sea, March 25,
2013, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg167, CBC
The Treaty is supposedly designed to protect the environment, but like most such measures, its
adoption by the United States would open it up to endless pressure from the international
environmental movement that would likely result in substantial costs to land-based extractive
industries. Furthermore, the International Tribunal has embraced an approach that has
significant implications for future development of marine resources. The environmental dangers
of the treaty are contained in Part XII, most significantly: [3] The measures taken pursuant to
this Part shall deal with all sources of pollution of the marine environment. These measures
shall include, inter alia, those designed to minimize to the fullest possible extent: [a] the
release of toxic, harmful or noxious substances, especially those which are persistent, from
land-based sources, from or through the atmosphere or by dumping44 Those who are
concerned that the marine environment is being damaged by pollution could put their case
before the Tribunal, but the obligations of Part XII would have a special effect on the United
States, where citizens may sue to ensure the government follows its laws. Under the U.S.
Constitution, international treaties have the force of law. Ratifying LOST would therefore enable
environmental groups to sue to ensure the release of toxic substances is minimized to the
fullest possible extent if there is a chance the material will enter the marine environment.
Consider: The nations coal-fired power plants release mercury into the atmosphere. Some of
this mercury consolidates in rivers, and eventually reaches the ocean. As a result, fish that swim
in the ocean have slightly higher levels of mercury in their systems. Sharks that eat these fish
have even higher mercury concentrations. The concern that pregnant mothers who eat shark
meat are damaging the cognitive development of their unborn children has led
environmentalists to demand that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issue regulations
to reduce the risk to unborn children. However, consider what the Treaty text implies. There is
no requirement to prove that the emissions actually cause significant harm. If the substance
emitted is harmful to any degree, states are simply required to minimize emissions to the
fullest possible extent. To all practical purposes, taking the Treaty at its word would require the
closure of most if not all coal-fired electricity generation in the United States. This kind of

activism has not taken place in any of the other signatory states, likely because they offer fewer
opportunities for concerned citizens to require their governments to follow the spirit and word
of the Treaty. In the United States, however, environmental groups would probably sue the day
after formal ratification, and the courts would be unlikely to throw out their challenges. Mercury
is just the tip of the iceberg. The Environmental Protection Agency has made a determination
that carbon dioxide is harmful to human health, and some scientists have claimed that the
substance has been accumulating in the oceans, leading to rising acidity and harm to marine life,
such as shellfish. 45 Thus, environmentalists would likely sue to ban any emission of carbon
dioxide beyond the natural carbon cycle. In practice, that would mean the end of fossil fuels in
the United States. Oil and natural gas also emit large amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere every day. While minimizing their use to the fullest possible extent may not be
practical, and would be extraordinarily expensive, it is possible. Wind, geothermal and solar
power would become the only means of generating electricity (nuclear energy would be unlikely
to survive a LOST challenge), and electric cars would become mandatory. The courts would
probably set a deadline for the conversion, so as not to destroy the economy overnight, but the
cost of such a conversion would cripple America for generations, especially if other nations
continue to use fossil fuel, as they almost certainly will. Of course, when the Treaty was
negotiated, and even when the amendments were agreed to in 1994, global warming was not the
major international concern it is today. Therefore, major emitters of carbon dioxide, such as the
United States, China and other rapidly industrializing states, might attempt to revise the Treaty
to exclude carbon dioxide (and potentially other greenhouse gases) from Article 194. However,
amending the Treaty is extremely difficult, requiring half the parties to first agree to consider an
amendment, followed by a convention that would decide on the amendment by consensus.
Furthermore, the parties to the Treaty are primarily developing nations that continue to express
significant objections to the emission of carbon dioxide by industrialized nations. There is a
simplified amendment procedure, but if a single state objects the process is derailed. Thus,
amendment offers no hope to save America from this or any other aspect of the Treaty.
Institutionalizes corruption
Murray 13 MBA, University of London; MA, University of Oxford, Vice President of Strategy at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, former Director of Research for the Statistical Assessment
Service and the Executive Officer of HM Department of Transport, LOST at Sea, March 25,
2013, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg167, CBC
Treaty Institutionalizes Corruption. Misallocation of resources merges with the third element of
command and control systems in the Treaty: corruption. In most cases, corruption is illegal and
behind the scenes a bribe here, a payoff there. In the case of LOST, however, the corruption is
institutionalized. From the very beginning, LOST was designed as a payoff to the Group of 77
nonindustrialized states. As Doug Bandow notes: There never was any need to tie seabed
mining to navigation, exclusive economic zones, and the other maritime provisions. Doing so
enabled the Group of 77 to demand a payoff for accepting maritime freedoms that were already
widely accepted. Seabed mining requires no international bureaucracy, but simply a system for
recording seabed claims and resolving conicts. The environmental impact of mining can be
addressed through a separate convention among states whose citizens or companies participate
in mining. The 1994 revisions were supposed to lessen the redistribution inherent in the
original Treaty, but Section 7 of the Annex sets up a fund that takes into particular
consideration not just developing states but peoples who have not attained full independence
or other self-governing status. This Treaty provision was clearly intended to help the
Palestinian Liberation Organization, which had not yet achieved governmental status with the
Palestinian Authority, but the provision could clearly be used to fund other separatist and/or
terrorist groups. Because LOST operates under consensus, a government could object to such

funding as long as it has a seat on the Finance Committee, but as Bandow suggests, the LOST
regime would be so politicized that a no vote may have to be traded away some day to win other
battles. Indeed, most of the votes relating to the Authority so far have been politicized, with
candidates for Authority committees persuaded to withdraw. The payoffs and backroom
dealing inherent in the structure of the Authority create other of economic costs. First, the
formal cost. If the United States joins, it will be required to provide 25 percent of the Authoritys
budget until the Authority has a large enough independent revenue stream to finance itself.
There are also the costs from the redistribution of payments from the Authority to governments
of developing countries. Many of these governments are less than savory, and traditional aid
funds or revenues from existing natural resources are already being channeled into the pockets
of the governing class and used to keep them in power. An additional revenue stream from the
Authority would further cement their positions and worsen the condition of their peoples,
further suppressing global growth. Add to this the aforementioned risk of allocating funds to
separatist or terrorist organizations, which could turn the Authority into a backdoor source of
funding for the arms trade. Thus, if the Authority works in the way it is constituted, it would
represent a perverse cost to the poorest people in the world. Thankfully, the deterrent effect the
Authority has had on seabed mining has thus far limited its operations, due to financial
constraints. Of the 163 countries who ratified the Treaty, 44 nations were behind in their
payments to the Authority as of June 2011,27 and in 2007-2008 alone arrears reached over 3
million. Furthermore, only 12 contracts have so far been signed with the Authority, mostly from
academic research organizations and/or centralized states. Despite the fact that the Treaty has
been in force for 18 years of its 30 year existence, it has little to show for itself. The reticence of
the United States to join LOST cannot be blamed for this lack of activity. The mere existence of
the Authority has clearly had a significant deterrent effect on the exploration and exploitation of
subsea resources by its member states.
LOST is unpopular and hurts the economy--taxes
Hatch 12 (Orrin Hatch, Received a degree in history from Brigham Young and a J.D. from the
University of Pittsburgh Law School, currently an attorney in Pittsburgh and Utah, The Law of
the Sea treaty will sink America's economy", May 23 2012,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/23/law-sea-treaty-will-sink-america-economy/)
Americans despise taxes. After all, one of the key issues that paved the way for the American Revolution was the unfair
taxation that King George III levied against the Colonies. Now some in the US Senate want to say yes to an
international tax. It would be the first time in history that an international organization would
possess taxing authority, and it would amount to billions of American dollars being transferred
out of the US Treasury. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is the
vehicle through which such taxes would be imposed on U.S.-based commercial enterprises. The
treaty that Reagan refused to sign in 1982 is reappearing once again in the Senate. The truth is, LOST contains
numerous provisions that hurt the U.S. economy at a time when we need more jobs not fewer.
Under the guise of being for the good of mankind, LOST would obligate the United States to
share information and technology in what amounts to global taxes and technology transfer
requirements that are really nothing more than an attempt to redistribute U.S. wealth to the
Third World. At the center of these taxes and transfers is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a Kingston, Jamaica based
supra-national governing body established by the treaty for the purpose of redistributing cash and technology from the developed
world to the developing world. Ceding authority to the ISA would mean that the sovereignty currently

held by the U.S. over the natural resources located on large parts of the continental shelf would
be lost. That loss would mean lost revenue for the US government in the form of lost royalties
that the U.S. government collects from the production of those resources. According to the U.S. Extended
Continental Shelf Task Force, which is currently mapping the continental shelf, the resources there may be worth
billions if not trillions of dollars. In case proponents of LOST have not noticed, the US is over $15 trillion in
debt, and we still have more than 20 million Americans who cant find a job. The last thing we

need to do redistribute funds from our country to our economic and strategic competitors. To
make matters worse, the US would have no control over how or to whom the taxes and technology
would be redistributed. Undoubtedly funds that rightfully belong to the American taxpayer
would be sent to corrupt governmental regimes, make dictators wealthier, and could even be
used for activities directed against the United States and our interests. Under the treaty, the transfer of
these funds does not end with nation states. These royalty revenues would even be extended to peoples who
have not attained full independence or other self-governing status. That means groups like the
Palestinian Authority and potentially other groups with terrorist ties. Proponents of the treaty will claim

that the technology transfer portion of the treaty has been significantly changed. In truth, nations with mining and resource recovery
technologies like the United States will be obligated to share those technologies with Third World competitors, and that is one of the
many issues, which trouble those of us opposed to the treaty. In other words, US companies would be forced to give

away the very types of innovation that historically have made our nation a world leader while
fueling our economic engine. Under the best of US economic circumstances, the Senate should
say no to such an egregious breach of the trust Americans have placed in us. Our current
economic struggles are all the more reason to say no to a treaty that is all cost and no benefit.

LOST hurts the economy--oil revenues

Groves 12 (Steven, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow
at The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and The Davis Institute for National Security and
Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, "Law of the Sea Treaty once again rears its ugly head
in U.S. Senate", May 18 2012, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765576815/Law-of-the-SeaTreaty-once-again-rears-its-ugly-head-in-US-Senate.html?pg=all)
It's bad enough when American tax dollars are blown on government-created debacles such as Solyndra and "Operation Fast and
Furious." But at least in those instances the expenditures carried a bare modicum of democratic legitimacy. What if, on the other
hand, the

U.S. Treasury was raided for billions of dollars, which were then redistributed to the
rest of the world by an international bureaucracy headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica? That's
what will surely happen if the U.S. Senate gives its advice and consent to the U nited N ations

C onvention on the L aw o f the S ea, a deeply flawed treaty that was rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982.
(The treaty was revived by President Clinton, who sent it to the Senate in 1994. It has languished there ever since.) Like a vampire,
the Law of the Sea Treaty (a.k.a. "LOST") is never quite dead. It rises from the grave every few years for Senate hearings, as it has
done in 1994, 2003 and 2007. And so it is again in 2012. The Obama administration is pushing for Senate action on the treaty, and
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is currently scheduling a series of hearings to extol the purported benefits of LOST, the first of which is set
for May 23. Of course, the vampire must feed, and its sustenance is American dollars, sucked out of
the U.S. Treasury by a provision of LOST known as Article 82. If the U.S. joins LOST, it will be
required by Article 82 to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles an area known as the "extended continental shelf" (ECS). Currently, oil
companies pay 100 percent of the royalties generated from such development to the U.S. Treasury based on
the value of oil and natural gas extracted from the Gulf of Mexico and in the Arctic Ocean. The Treasury
retains a part of those royalties, and the remainder is divided between Gulf states and the
National Historic Preservation Fund. But under LOST, the United States would be forced to
transfer a part of that revenue to the I nternational S eabed A uthority, a new international
bureaucracy created by the treaty and based in Jamaica. Voila! What was once income paid into the
Treasury for the benefit of the American people is transformed into "international royalties" by
LOST. To borrow a phrase from former presidential candidate Ross Perot, that "giant sucking sound" you hear is American dollars
heading from Washington to Kingston. How much blood, ahem, money are we talking about? While it's difficult to estimate the total
value of all the oil and gas on the vast areas of U.S. ECS, an interagency study group known as the Extended

Continental Shelf Task Force estimates that the ECS resources "may be worth many billions, if
not trillions of dollars." The royalties that the American people stand to lose is obviously
significant. Where would all of these American dollars go? Well, LOST directs that the revenue be distributed to
"developing States" (such as Somalia, Burma ... you get the picture) and "peoples who have not attained full
independence" (such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization ... hey, don't they sponsor terrorism?). The assembly the
"supreme organ" of the International Seabed Authority in which the United States has a single vote to cast has the final say

regarding the distribution of America's transmogrified "international" royalties. The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to
undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, China or Zimbabwe all members of LOST. Perhaps those

dollars will go to regimes that are merely corrupt; 13 of the world's 20 most corrupt nations ,
according to Transparency International, are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state
sponsors of terrorism, could receive dollars fresh from the U.S. Treasury.
LOST destroys entrepreneurship technology, software all hindered
Bandow, 7 senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to President Ronald Reagan,
he served as a deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea.
(Doug, Partnership for a Secure America, The LOST Attack on Entrepreneurship,
http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/10/10/the-lost-attack-on-entrepreneurship/, October 10th,
2007, A.ZHU)
The same problem exists with production controls. The U.S. possesses no veto, and land-based
minerals exporting countries as well as developing states could block exploitation of the seabed,
allowing them to demand expensive concessions in return for their support. Most important,
the terrible precedent remains: LOST turns over a vast amount of the earths wealth to a highly
politicized international bureaucracy. This global regulatory system would restrict
entrepreneurship. In doing so it would do more than hinder seabed resource development.
Such rules could deter the production of software, technology, and processes designed for
seabed mining, as well as those with dual use capabilities. The treaty also would create a
precedent for a LOST-like regime to govern other, currently unowned resources, ranging from
the Internet to broadcast airwaves to space. Protecting navigational rights and the ocean
environment are legitimate, even important, goals. But LOSTs provisions advancing these ends
should not be paired with creation of a redistributionist regulatory regime for the oceans floor.
Americas response to LOST should be the same today as in 1982: no.

Environment Turn
LOST destroys environment could result in overfishing
Ridenour 7, President for the National Center for Public Policy Research
(David, Letters to the Editor, Treaty inaccuracies,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/17/20070617-080235-9230r/?page=3,
A.ZHU)
The Op-Ed by John D. Negroponte and Gordon England Reap the bounty, (Wednesday)
contained a number of inaccuracies. They state that by assigning responsibility for maritime
zones, the treaty would improve protections for the environment . It could do just the

opposite . It requires, for example, that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in
certain areas or give the surplus to other nations. Such a use it or lose it policy is
reminiscent of federal grazing policy , which until recently required ranchers to use their
forage rights or lose them. Because ranchers lacked the flexibility to remove cattle for extended
periods, overgrazing resulted . Mr. Negroponte and Mr. England also suggest that
ratification is needed to have legal certainty of such maritime rights as innocent passage.
Theyre wrong in two ways: Such rights already exist under the 1958 Convention on the
Territorial Sea, and the treaty governs the behavior of signatories currently numbering more
than 150 nations regardless of whether the United States accedes to the treaty. Finally, they
suggest the treaty would bolster U.S. national security. Instead, it would complicate some of
these efforts by subjecting certain actions to judgment by an international tribunal. The Law of
the Sea treaty should be scuttled.

ISA Turn
LOST sets up the ISA which is incredibly inefficient, and gives 0 protection for
international law anyway
Bandow 4, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he served as a deputy

representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea.

(Doug, Weekly Standard, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty,
AZHU)

The Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United Nations
redistributionist agenda known as the New International Economic Order. The convention
covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed
mining. In essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology
from the industrialized states to the Third World. Two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan ignored criticism of American unilateralism and refused

to sign the treaty. U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Soviet Union to stay out. Many Third World states eventually acknowledged the treatys many flaws. But treaties attract diplomats as lights
attract moths. The first Bush and Clinton administrations worked to fix the treaty, leading to a revised agreement in 1994. Washington signed, leading to a cascade of ratifications from other countries. GOP gains

Unfortunately, the
revised treaty retains many of its original flaws. There is still a complicated multinational
bureaucracy that sounds like an excerpt from George Orwells 1984: At its center is the International Seabed Authority. The
Authority (as it calls itself) supervises a mining subsidiary called the Enterprise, ruled by an Assembly,
Council, and various commissions and committees. Mining approval would be highly politicized
and could discriminate against American operators. Companies that are allowed to mine would owe substantial fees to the Authority and be required
to do surveys for the Enterprise, their government-subsidized competitor. A mandatory transfer of mining technologies to Third World
companies has been watered down. However, sponsoring states that is, governments of
nations where mining companies are located-would have to facilitate such transfers if the
Enterprise and Third World competitors are unable to obtain necessary equipment
commercially. Depending on the whims of the Authority, ensuring the cooperation of private miners could look very much like mandatory transfers. The Authority,
though so far of modest size, would suffer from the same perverse incentives that afflict the
U.N., since the United States would be responsible for 25 percent of the budget but easily
outmaneuvered. Proposals by industrialized signatories to limit their contributions have so far received an unfriendly reception. Still, when it signed the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Clinton
in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now George W. Bush has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread.

administration said there was no reason to worry, because the treaty proclaims that all organs and subsidiary bodies to be established under the Convention and this Agreement shall be cost-effective. Right.

The treatys mining scheme is flawed in its very conception. Although

many people once thought untold wealth would leap from the seabed, land-based sources have
remained cheaper than expected, and scooping up manganese nodules and other resources from
the ocean floor is logistically daunting. There is no guarantee that seabed mining will ever be
commercially viable. Yet this has not dimmed the enthusiasm of the Authority. Like the U.N., it generates lots of reports and paper and obsesses over trivia. Protecting the emblem, the
Presumably just as cost-effective as the U.N.

official seal and the name of the International Seabed Authority has been a matter of some concern. Among the crises the Authority has confronted: In April 2002 the Jamaican government turned off its air
conditioning, necessitating urgent consultations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. A year later Jamaica used the same tactic in an ongoing battle over Authority payments for its facility. Oh

the
Authoritys purpose isnt to be helpful. It is to redistribute resources to irresponsible Third
World governments with a sorry history of squandering abundant foreign aid. This redistributionist bent is
yes, half of the Authority members are behind on their dues. Were seabed mining ever to thrive, a transparent system for recognizing mine sites and resolving disputes would be helpful. But

reflected in the treatys call for financial transfers to developing states and even peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status-code for groups such as the PLO. Whatever
changes the treaty has undergone, a constant has been Third World pressure for financial transfers. Three voluntary trust funds were established to aid developing countries. Alas, few donors have come forward to
subsidize the participation of, say, sub-Saharan African states in the development of ocean mining. Thus, the Authority has had to dip into its own budget to pay into the funds. Why, given all this, was the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee eager to sign on? The treaty is not without benefits. Provisions regarding the environment, resource management, and rights of transit generally are positive, though many
reflect what is now customary international law, even in the absence of U.S. ratification. Lugar notes that law and practice with respect to regulation of activities off our shores is already generally compatible with
the Convention. This would seem to be an equally strong argument for not ratifying the treaty. Most influential, though, may be support from the U.S. Navy, which is enamored of the treatys guarantee of
navigational freedom. Not that such freedom is threatened now: The Russian navy is rusting in port, China has yet to develop a blue water capability, and no country is impeding U.S. transit, commercial or

some ambiguous provisions may impinge on freedoms U.S. shipping now enjoys.
In Senate testimony last fall, State Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV noted the
importance of conditioning acceptance upon the understanding that each Party has the
exclusive right to determine which of its activities are military activities and that such
determination is not subject to review. Whether other members will respect that claim is not at all certain. Admiral Michael G.
Mullen, the vice chief of naval operations, acknowledges the possibility that a Law of the Sea tribunal could rule
adversely and harm U.S. operational planning and activities, and our security. Moreover, at a time when
Washington is combating lawless terrorism, it should be evident that the only sure guarantee of free passage on the seas
is the power of the U.S. Navy, combined with friendly relations with the states, few in number,
military. At the same time,

that sit astride important sea lanes. Coastal nations make policy based on perceived national interest, not abstract legal norms. Remember the
luckless USS Pueblo in 1968? International law did not prevent North Korea from seizing the
intelligence ship; approval of the Law of the Sea Treaty would have offered the Pueblo no
additional protection. America was similarly unaided by international law in its 2001
confrontation with China over our downed EP-3 surveillance plane. Nor has signing the Law of
the Sea Treaty prevented Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, and others from
making ocean claims deemed excessive by others. Indeed, last October Adm. Mullen warned that the benefits
he believed to derive from treaty ratification did not suggest that countries attempts to restrict
navigation will cease once the United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea Convention.
Critics of the U.S. refusal to sign in 1982 predicted ocean chaos, but not once has an American ship been denied passage. No country
has had either the incentive or the ability to interfere with U.S. shipping. And if they had, the treaty would have been of little
help. In 1998 Law of the Sea Treaty supporters agitated for immediate ratification because several
special exemptions for the United States were set to expire; Washington did not ratify, and no
one seems to have noticed. Now Lugar worries that Washington could forfeit our seat at the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans. Yet last

October Assistant Secretary of State John F. Turner told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that America has had considerable success in asserting its oceans interests as a nonparty to the Convention.

Law of the Sea Treaty proponents talk grandly of the need to restore U.S. leadership, but real
leadership can mean saying no as well as yes. Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the
Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating a new oceans bureaucracy is no more attractive today.
ISA hurts US companies and the budget
Bandow 4 - Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he served as a
deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. He has earned his J.D. from Stanford University
(3/15/2004, Doug, The Cato Institute, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-lawsea-treaty // SM)
Unfortunately, the revised treaty retains many of its original flaws. There is still a complicated multinational bureaucracy that
sounds like an excerpt from George Orwells 1984: At its center is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority
(as it calls itself) supervises

a mining subsidiary called the Enterprise, ruled by an Assembly, Council,

and various commissions and committees. Mining approval would be highly politicized and
could discriminate against American operators. Companies that are allowed to mine would owe
substantial fees to the Authority and be required to do surveys for the Enterprise, their
government-subsidized competitor. A mandatory transfer of mining technologies to Third
World companies has been watered down. However, sponsoring states that is, governments of
nations where mining companies are located-would have to facilitate such transfers if the
Enterprise and Third World competitors are unable to obtain necessary equipment commercially.
Depending on the whims of the Authority, ensuring the cooperation of private miners could
look very much like mandatory transfers. The Authority, though so far of modest size, would suffer from the
same perverse incentives that afflict the U.N., since the United States would be responsible for 25
percent of the budget but easily outmaneuvered. Proposals by industrialized signatories to limit their
contributions have so far received an unfriendly reception. Still, when it signed the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Clinton
administration said there was no reason to worry, because the treaty proclaims that all organs
and subsidiary bodies to be established under the Convention and this Agreement shall be costeffective. Right. Presumably just as cost-effective as the U.N. The treatys mining scheme is flawed in its very
conception. Although many people once thought untold wealth would leap from the seabed, land-based sources have remained
cheaper than expected, and scooping up manganese nodules and other resources from the ocean floor is logistically daunting. There
is no guarantee that seabed mining will ever be commercially viable. Yet this has not dimmed the enthusiasm of the Authority. Like
the U.N., it generates lots of reports and paper and obsesses over trivia. Protecting the emblem, the official seal and the name of
the International Seabed Authority has been a matter of some concern. Among the crises the Authority has confronted: In April
2002 the Jamaican government turned off its air conditioning, necessitating urgent consultations with the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Foreign Trade. A year later Jamaica used the same tactic in an ongoing battle over Authority payments for its facility.
Oh yes, half of the Authority members are behind on their dues. Were seabed mining ever to

thrive, a transparent system for recognizing mine sites and resolving disputes would be helpful.
But the Authoritys purpose isnt to be helpful. It is to redistribute resources to irresponsible
Third World governments with a sorry history of squandering abundant foreign aid. This
redistributionist bent is reflected in the treatys call for financial transfers to developing states and even peoples who have not
attained full independence or other self-governing status-code for groups such as the PLO. Whatever changes the treaty has

undergone, a constant has been Third World pressure for financial transfers. Three voluntary trust funds were established to aid
developing countries. Alas, few donors have come forward to subsidize the participation of , say, sub-

Saharan African states in the development of ocean mining. Thus, the Authority has had to dip
into its own budget to pay into the funds.

ITLOS Turn
LOST allows ITLOS hinders ability to stop nuclear terrorism (you can combine
this with the PSI cards for two i/ls to terror)
Ridenour 6, President for the National Center for Public Policy Research
(David, National Policy Analysis, Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent
Passage, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html, August 2006,
A.ZHU)
States that detain ships for reasons or by means other than those prescribed in the Law of the
Sea Treaty could find their actions subject to review and judgment by the International Tribunal
of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany. The Law of the Sea Treaty normally gives
states the option, by mutual consent, of choosing between ITLOS, the International Court of
Justice or "arbitral tribunals" to settle their disputes. When agreement between the states
involved in the dispute can not be reached, an arbitral tribunal would be given jurisdiction in the
case. When provisional measures are sought, however - as they likely would be when ships are
detained - the rules are different. Provisional measures are akin to temporary injunctions orders requiring one to do something or cease doing something - in the interest of preventing
irreparable harm. Article 290, paragraph 5 of the Law of the Sea Treaty specifies that ITLOS
would automatically adjudicate such disputes when states can not reach agreement on the
method of adjudication or arbitration "within two weeks from the date of the request for
provisional measures."19 As Jeremy Rabkin, professor of government at Cornell University, has
noted: "The only important category of dispute where one party can force another to answer
before ITLOS is when a ship has been detained on the high seas and the complaining party seeks
immediate release."20 The prospects that disputes such as these taken to ITLOS would be ruled
in the U.S.'s favor are poor. Many ITLOS judges, certainly a clear majority, are from countries
that have either been openly hostile to the United States or are at best unreliable allies. Among
the countries represented on ITLOS are South Africa, China, Russia, Tanzania, Lebanon, Brazil,
Argentina and France.21 ITLOS certainly could complicate the U.S.'s efforts to
interdict terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. For example, if the U.S. chose to
act on intelligence information that a foreign-flagged ship (perhaps flying the flag of Syria, Iran
or North Korea) was carrying terrorists and boarded the ship, the U.S. could expect to have to
answer to ITLOS.

Military Turn
LOST destroys military operations cannot take pre-emptive action and hostile
countries can force the US to stop if they feel threatened
Ridenour 6, President for the National Center for Public Policy Research
(David, National Policy Analysis, Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent
Passage, http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html, August 2006,
A.ZHU)
Supporters of the treaty also argue that Article 301 would have little impact on U.S. military
operations as the provision is the same as Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.28 Although these two
provisions are similar, there are some key differences. For one thing, the bodies
responsible for enforcement of the Law of the Sea Treaty's Article 301 and the U.N. Charter's
Article 2(4) are different. Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council is the principal
enforcement body. The United States has a permanent seat on the security council and, as such,
has veto powers. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, enforcement responsibilities fall to such
bodies as ITLOS, which, as noted earlier, is unlikely to be favorable to U.S. positions, and the
International Seabed Authority (ISA), with a similarly unfavorable composition. The ISA's
executive body, the Council, is composed of representatives of 36 countries, the majority of
which can not be counted on to support U.S. positions. Its membership includes representatives
from the Sudan, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, South Africa, Namibia, Nigeria, Kenya, Guyana,
Argentina, Russia and Myanmar (name given to Burma by its military junta), among others.29
Article 301 of the Law of the Sea Treaty also has wording slightly different that the U.N.
Charter's Article 2(4), replacing the more objective phrase "shall refrain from the threat" with a
more subjective "shall refrain from any threat." This opens the possibility that U.S. military
operations on the high seas could be inhibited when states merely "feel" threatened by them. It
is in this context that provisions such as Article 88 take on greater significance. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee determined that the risks to U.S. military activity were sufficient
enough to address them in its Committee Report. Among other things, it specified that the
Senate's advice and consent for U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Treaty be subject to the
understanding "that nothing in the Convention referring to 'peaceful purposes' impairs the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense or rights during armed conflict."30
Unfortunately, the Committee did not also specify that the Senate's advice and consent to be
subject to the understanding that the United States has the inherent right to defend itself during
peacetime through pre-emptive action. Pre-emptive action may be required, for example, if the
U.S. learns through reliable intelligence that a specific ship is carrying terrorists, weapons of
mass destruction or both. Even with such conditions, the U.S. would likely gain little
advantage. That's because Article 309 of the treaty specifies that no "reservations or exceptions
may be made to this Convention unless expressly permitted by other articles of this
Convention." While states are permitted to declare exceptions pertaining to military activities
when ratifying the treaty under Article 298, such declarations would only free States from the
dispute resolution process outlined in Articles 286-296. They would still be obligated to the
dispute resolution requirements contained in Articles 279-285.31

PSI Turn
LOST destroys US military capabilities and Proliferation Security Initiative
Bandow 4, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. While serving as a Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he was a
Deputy Representative to the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
(Doug, Cato Institue, April 8, 2004, The Law of the Sea Treaty: Inconsistent With American Interests,
http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/law-sea-treaty-inconsistent-american-interests, A.ZHU)

Moreover, any LOST legal protections offer little by way of real practical gain. Few nations are
likely to interfere with commercial shipping because they have far more to gain economically
from allowing unrestricted passage. Where countries perceive their vital national interests to be
at stake Great Britain in World War I and Iran and Iraq during their war throughout the
1980s they are not likely to allow juridical niceties to stop them from interdicting or
destroying international commerce. Even unambiguous rights under international law did not protect
American vessels and aircraft when North Korea seized the USS Pueblo and China held the EP-3
surveillance plane. Most coastal nations will make policy based on perceived national interest more
than abstract legal norms. Indeed, LOST membership has not prevented Brazil, China, India,
Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, and others from making ocean claims deemed excessive by
some. In testimony last October Adm. Mullen warned that the benefits he believed to derive from treaty ratification did not

suggest that countries attempts to restrict navigation will cease once the United States becomes a party to the Law of the Sea
Convention. As for military transit, with or without the LOST, America needs to concentrate on maintaining good relations with
the handful of strategically-placed countries. The prowess of the U.S. Navy, not the LOST, will remain the

ultimate guarantor of Americas ability to roam the seas. Of course, even with friendly states Washington would
prefer not to have to use muscle to exercise our rights, observed former LOST negotiator Elliot Richardson. But the treaty is
likely to matter only where countries have neither the incentive nor the ability to interfere with
U.S. shipping. Moreover, in a world in which the U.S.S.R. has disappeared, the Red Navy is rusting
in port, China has yet to develop a blue water navy, and Third World conflicts no longer threaten
America through their connection to the Cold War, Washington is rarely going to have to send
its fleet where it is not wanted. Another concern is the impact of LOST on the Presidents
Proliferation Security Initiative. Although treaty advocates suggest that the LOST would provide an additional forum
through which to advance the PSI, it seems more likely that adherence to LOST would constrain
Washingtons ability to intercept weapons shipments which are problematic, even if legal under
international law, including the treaty. After all, any anti-proliferation policy treats nations
differently based upon a subjective assessment of the stability and intention of a particular
regime. The LOST makes no such distinctions. At best, the treaty is ambiguous regarding the seizure of WMD
shipments. Adopting such ambiguity probably does not strengthen Washingtons position. Further, treaty advocates contend that
whatever the faults of LOST, only participation in the treaty can prevent future damaging interpretations, amendments, and tribunal
decisions. However, there is no guarantee that interpretations under the LOST would not impinge

upon U.S. military activities. In his Senate testimony last fall, State Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV noted the
importance of conditioning acceptance upon the understanding that each Party has the exclusive right to
determine which of its activities are military activities and that such determination is not
subject to review. Whether other members will respect that claim is not so certain. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the
Vice Chief of Naval Operations, acknowledges the possibility that a LOST tribunal could assert
jurisdiction and rule adversely, impacting operational planning and activities, and our
security. Moreover, American friends and allies, both in Asia and Europe, have an incentive to
protect American navigational freedom. So long as the U.S. maintains good relations with them
admittedly a more difficult undertaking because of strains in the aftermath of the war in Iraq it should be able to defend its
interests indirectly through surrogates. If the nations which most benefit from American navigational

freedom are unwilling to aid the U.S. while Washington is outside the LOST, they are unlikely to
prove any more steadfast if Washington is inside the LOST.

The Proliferation Security Initiative is key to stop WMD trafficking and

proliferation
US Department of State 13
(Proliferation Security Initiative, May 29, 2013, http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c10390.htm, A.ZHU)

The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a global effort that aims to stop trafficking of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems, and related materials to and from
states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. Launched on May 31, 2003, U.S. involvement in the PSI
stems from the U.S. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction issued in December 2002. That strategy
recognizes the need for more robust tools to stop proliferation of WMD around the world, and
specifically identifies interdiction as an area where greater focus will be placed. President Obama

strongly supports the PSI. In his April 2009 Prague speech, President Obama first called for the PSI to continue as an enduring
international counterproliferation effort. He has subsequently reinforced this as the formal U.S. Government position in significant
U.S. policy documents, including the White Houses National Security Strategy and the Pentagons last Quadrennial Defense
Review. "The PSI is an important tool in our efforts to break up black markets, detect and

intercept WMD materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. It is an
innovative and proactive approach to preventing proliferation that relies on voluntary actions by states that are consistent with their
national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks. PSI participants use existing authorities

national and international to put an end to WMD-related trafficking." When a country endorses PSI, it
endorses the PSI Statement of Interdiction Principles, which commit participants to establish a more coordinated and effective basis
through which to impede and stop WMD, their delivery systems, and related items. The countries commit to: interdict transfers to
and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern to the extent of their capabilities and legal authorities; develop
procedures to facilitate exchange of information with other countries; strengthen national legal authorities to facilitate interdiction;
and take specific actions in support of interdiction efforts. The more than 100 countries that have endorsed the PSI so far share a
deep concern that WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials could fall into the hands of terrorists. All of these

countries have endorsed the effort to make PSI a flexible, voluntary initiative geared toward
enhancing individual and collective partner nations capabilities to take appropriate and timely
actions to meet the fast-moving situations involving proliferation threats. The United States
seeks to strengthen and expand the PSI, ensuring that it remains an effective tool to stop WMD
proliferation. We are playing an active role in the success of the PSI, by leveraging related counterproliferation efforts across the
U.S. Government, by contributing military, customs, law enforcement, and other security experts and assets to interdiction
exercises, by hosting PSI meetings, workshops, and exercises with other PSI-endorsing states, and by working with specific partner
states to improve their capacity for combating the proliferation of WMD.

WMD Prolif leads to Nuclear Terror

Schneidmiller 12, reporter Global Security Newswire

(Chris, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Nuclear Smuggling Shows Terrorist WMD Threat Persists: State Department,
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/state-report/, Aug. 1, 2012, A.ZHU)

The U.S. State Department on Tuesday said the attempted smuggling of nuclear arms-grade
uranium in recent years illustrates a continued risk that terrorists could acquire the ingredients
for a weapon of mass destruction (see GSN, Aug. 19, 2011). The department's Country Reports on Terrorism 2011 touts as "largely successful" multilateral programs
aimed at locking down chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials around the globe. However, "the illicit trafficking of these materials
persists, including instances involving highly enriched uranium in 2010 and 2011," according to a chapter titled
"The Global Challenge of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism." "These examples suggest that caches of dangerous
material may exist on the black market and that we must complement our efforts to consolidate CBRN materials and secure facilities with broader efforts to detect,
investigate, and secure CBRN materials that have fallen outside of proper control," the report says. "We must remain vigilant if we hope to prevent
terrorist groups from obtaining the means and methods for generating CBRN weapons ." The document
does not cite specific examples of HEU smuggling from the last two years and the State Department on Wednesday did not provide additional detail. Authorities in Georgia and
nearby nations in recent years have reported breaking up attempts to sell illicit nuclear and
radiological materials (see GSN, April 16). A June 2011 case in Moldova was said to involve 2.2 pounds of uranium 235 (see GSN, May 25). Violent extremists
have made known their desire to obtain and employ nuclear and other unconventional arms
materials, the report says. The danger is heightened by the potential for such a weapon to produce
significant casualties and destruction, along with the wide access to information on those
systems. There are also complications inherent in attempting to control equipment and
materials that can be used for either good or ill purposes, the department said.

WMD Prolif boosts terrorism supports drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms

Kouri 11, founder and CEO of Kouri Associates, a homeland security, public safety and political consulting firm. Hes formerly

Fifth Vice-President, now a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, an editor for ConservativeBase.com, a
columnist for Examiner.com, a contributor to KGAB radio news, and news director for NewswithViews.com.
(Jim, Canada Free Press, WMD: Terrorists join organized crime in trafficking of nuclear, biological materials,
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/wmd-terrorists-join-organized-crime-in-trafficking-of-nuclear-biological-ma,
A.ZHU)

More and more world leaders are becoming concerned over the close connection between
terrorists and transnational organized crime (TOC), including their cooperation with one another in
the illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons and other potentially deadly
materials, according to United Nations officials. At UN Headquarters in New York, the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), which

was set up in the days following the attacks by Al Qaeda against New York and Washington on 9-11, stressed that despite the real and significant achievements of the last 10 years, much remains to be done at the

terrorism continues to pose a serious threat to international

peace and security, as evidenced notably by the terrorist attacks carried out recently in various
regions of the world and by terrorists adaptation to, and misuse of new technologies, such as
the Internet, for their communication, propaganda, financing, planning, recruitment and
operational purposes. The document noted with concern the close connection between terrorism and
transnational organized crime, including trafficking of illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal
arms trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially
deadly materials. Urging all to ensure zero-tolerance towards terrorism, it called for urgent action to prevent and combat the scourge by preventing those who finance, plan, facilitate or
national, regional and international levels. In an outcome document it said

commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories and bringing them to justice. Member States were also urged to prevent the movement of terrorists, including the supply of weapons, through
effective border controls, to ensure that funds for charitable purposes are not diverted to terrorist purposes, to implement comprehensive strategies to address conditions that lead to the spread of terrorism

Terrorism is still as potent a

threat today as it was 10 years ago, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said during the opening
session. Tens of thousands of people have lost their lives. Repeated attacks have had severe
economic consequences and taken a toll on State stability and regional harmony, he said.
including radicalization and recruitment, and to take appropriate steps to prevent and counter incitement to commit terrorist acts.

Nuclear Terror very real likelihood

Crowley March 26, 14 Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for TIME

(Michael, Yes, Obama Really Is Worried About a Manhattan Nuke, TIME, http://time.com/39131/barack-obama-nukemanhattan-new-york/, A.ZHU)

Sept. 11 also caused governments around the world to take the prospect of catastrophic
terrorism more seriously. That led to security upgrades everywhere from Eastern Europe to Africa to Australia (and the
surrender of 15 bombs worth of material by Ukraine). But the threat itself remains all too real. Weve made

enormous progress over the course of the last few years, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear-proliferation expert at Harvards Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs, said at a recent nuclear-security conference in Washington. But theres a long, long

way to go. Experts have recently estimated the probability of such an attack in the near future
at between 30% and 50%. That number mightve been too high to begin with, and may be even more so now thanks to
recent advances in nuclear security. But whats an acceptable risk for such an utterly nightmarish event? Would you fly on a
plane with even a 1% chance of crashing? The probability guru Nate Silver has looked at the numbers and concluded
that nuclear terrorism represents a far greater risk than conventional terrorism , adding that a more
rational antiterrorism policy would focus resources heavily, perhaps almost exclusively, on
threats of nuclear and weapons-of-mass-destruction terror. As it happens, the federal government spends

millions of dollars furnishing New York City and other major cities with nuclear-detection gear although NYC lawmakers seized
on Obamas comment to complain that the Presidents budget would cut Manhattans nuke-finding funding from $22 million to $12
million next year. By the time a bomb reaches a big city, however, its probably too late to avert a

catastrophe. Thats why Obama has put so much effort into his nuclear-security summits, which emphasize the need to carefully
secure and monitor nuclear material that could be stolen and fashioned into a bomb. A terrorist group could never enrich its own
uranium, or acquire plutonium just look at how much time, money and effort Iran has spent trying to do so. A small group

with modest scientific knowledge and a low budget, however, probably could make a Hiroshimagrade bomb from highly enriched uranium. Where would terrorists get that nuclear material?
They could steal it by force, a scenario that cant be ignored in Pakistan. Or they could buy it
from smugglers, who continue to be caught peddling uranium stolen from the old Soviet nuclear
complex. The goal of the U.S.-led nuclear summits is to keep world leaders focused on the problem. He believes that this is one
of the most important legacies of his Administration, Obamas coordinator for weapons of mass destruction and arms control,

Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, said earlier this month. A gimmicky nuclear-terrorism war game conducted in the Hague this week
which reportedly irritated German Chancellor Angela Merkel seems mainly to have been a PR stunt. The main task now is to
pursue international standards and practices for ensuring nuclear security. Unfortunately, the countries of greatest

concern namely Pakistan and North Korea refuse to participate in such collegial
international efforts. Thats just one reason why Obamas concern is justified. Vladimir Putin may threaten
international norms but nuclear terrorism threatens civilization as we know it.

Nuclear Terrorism likely impact terrorist groups seeking for

uranium
Farber 10 served as editor in chief of CBSNews.com, CNET News, ZDNet, PC Week, and MacWeek.

(Dan, Nuclear Attack a Ticking Time Bomb, Experts Warn, CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-attack-a-tickingtime-bomb-experts-warn/, A.ZHU)

The International Atomic Energy Agency's Illicit Trafficking Database has documented more
than 18 incidents of theft or unauthorized possession involving plutonium or highly enriched
uranium in the last two decades. Bunn noted that weapons-grade nuclear materials are often stored in only
modestly secured environments. In February 2006, Oleg Khinsagov, a Russian national, was arrested in
Georgia in the possession of 79.5 grams of weapons-grade uranium. His intent was to sell the
bomb material to Muslim buyer fronting for a "serious organization" for $1 million. In November
2007, the South African Nuclear Energy Corp. Facility at Pelindaba was breached by intruders who
appeared intent on accessing weapons-grade nuclear material. More recently, the president of Georgia,
Mikhail Saakashvili claimed to the Associated Press that a shipment of highly enriched uranium coming from
the Caucasus region of southeast Europe was intercepted and seized in his country. He blamed
Russia for giving nuclear smugglers room to operate in the region. Russian officials denied the charges. Nearly 80
percent of the national security experts surveyed in 2005 said that a nuclear attack would be
mostly likely to originate with a terrorist group. More recently, John Brennan, White House chief
counterterrorism adviser, said that nuclear terrorism is a serious threat. " Al Qaeda is
especially notable for its longstanding interest in weapons of useable nuclear
material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield-producing
improvised nuclear device," he said. "A nuclear bomb is at the high end of plausibility of what a
terrorist group could do," Bunn said. We know very little about what capabilities they might be able to put together. They
could recruit someone from a nuclear weapons program to help or acquire the necessary
knowledge in other ways." U.S. intelligence agencies have gathered data about Al Qaeda
operatives negotiating to buy objects they thought were nuclear bombs from an alleged
Pakistani expert. Crude bombs could be made without classified knowledge, but they would
have a higher probability of success if they had someone who knows how to machine uranium
for bomb parts, Bunn said. "They don't need an Oppenheimer," he added. J. Robert Oppenheimer was the
scientific director of the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear weapons.

Sovereignty Turn
UNCLOS destroys US sovereign power, supports anti-us interests, takes away
money, and gives no navigation rights in return
Heritage Foundation 11
(Factsheet #87 on United Nations, U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea: Its Still a Bad Idea,
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/07/un-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-its-still-a-bad-idea, AZHU)

The U.S. Has Much to Lose Another Unaccountable International Bureaucracy: UNCLOS establishes the
International Seabed Authority (ISA), a new U.N.-style bureaucracy located in Kingston,
Jamaica. As only one of more than 160 countries in the ISA, the U.S. would have limited authority over its
decisions regarding the deep seabed. Just like the U.N. General Assembly, proceedings at the
ISA would be dominated by anti-U.S. interests. Redistribution of U.S. Wealth to the Developing World: The
U.S. currently enjoys full sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. It can claim all its mineral
resources (e.g., oil and gas) and can collect royalty revenue from oil and gas companies for
exploitation. If the U.S. joined UNCLOS, Article 82 would require the U.S. to transfer a
significant portion of any such royalties to the ISA for redistribution to the so-called
developing world, including corrupt and despotic regimes. Mandatory Dispute Resolution: Under Part XV,
the U.S. would be required to engage in mandatory dispute resolution for any claim brought
against it by another member of UNCLOS. This may open the U.S. to any number of specious
allegations brought by opportunistic nations, including allegations of environmental
degradation or polluting the ocean environment with carbon emissions or even from land-based
sources. U.S. Economic Interests at Risk: UNCLOS claims the deep seabed resources of the oceans as
the common heritage of mankind" and forbids mining unless permission is first received by the ISA, which, of
course, takes into account the interests of developing states regarding the exploitation of those resources. UNCLOS
encourages technology transfers from advanced mining companies to support the mining
activities by developing states, which is likely to discourage U.S. companies from participating in
such activities. The Convention Was Not Fixed in 1994: During the early 1990s the deep seabed mining
provisions of UNCLOS were renegotiated in the 1994 Agreement. This addendum to the convention was
signed by the Clinton Administration in July 1994. While the 1994 Agreement improved many provisions of
the convention, it did not secure veto power for the U.S. over the decisions of the ISA. and
Little to Gain Navigation Rights Already Guaranteed: The navigational provisions of UNCLOS reflect longstanding customary international law, under which the U.S. Navy has operated since it was
created. The navy has consistently demonstrated its ability to access key strategic straits and
archipelagic waters and to protect its high seas freedomsdespite the fact that the U.S. has not
ratified UNCLOS.

---Sovereignty Impacts
US sovereignty key to human rights US only example in history that protects
rights with sovereignty
Rosenstiel 2000
(Scott Eric, Wisdom And Freedom produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND, Sovereign
Citizenship, http://freedom-school.com/truth/search/sovereign.htm, A.ZHU)
Sovereign Citizenship is the status held by our forefathers. George Washington, Benjamin
Franklin, and everyone else who won their freedom from the British Empire had this status. It
was the birthright of all Americans, and we were generous in extending this most important
right to foreign-born persons through the naturalization laws. With this status, our
unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property couldn't be infringed. During the
Civil War a method was discovered by the leading attorneys, financiers, and politicians of the
day to deprive us of this status. Fortunately, we can get it back. This brings us to the question,
"What are we getting back?" What does it mean to be a Sovereign Citizen? The word "sovereign"
is defined in the 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990, as being, "A person,
body, or state in which independent authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king
or other ruler in a monarchy." Prior to the War for American Independence, the British king was
the sovereign and the American people were his subjects. The war's outcome changed all this:
The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people - and he
who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State." State v. Manuel, North
Carolina, Vol. 20, Page 121 (1838) Thus, the people became Citizens of their respective states.
But more importantly, for the first and only time in recorded history, the people were recognized
as being the true sovereigns:
Sovereignty key to democracy
Ignatieff 13, Canadian author, academic and former politician. He was the leader of the Liberal
Party of Canada
(Michael, Demos Quarterly Magazine, Sovereignty and the crisis of democratic
politics,http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-1/sovereignty-and-the-crisis-ofdemocratic-politics-2/, 5 June 2013, A.ZHU)
I think a progressive politics is deeply connected to the idea of sovereignty. And by sovereignty
I mean something very simple: the idea that the people should be masters of their own house.
Its very hard to have a viable democracy unless it is sovereign. The sovereignty I
care about is the belief that citizens ought to feel that theyre masters of the terms and
conditions of their life, that theyre not flotsam tossed on the waves of global forces, that power
is not elsewhere, that power is in their society, to be fought for, to be controlled, to be managed
well. Now the global challenge to progressive politics is pretty obvious. If democracy is

meaningless without sovereignty , if power has to be in the house to be fought for and
controlled by the people, we live in a world where power seems elsewhere. We feel that power
lies somewhere in the the global market and that we are its play-things. The survival of
democratic politics depends on reviving sovereignty, regaining the sense that were masters in
our own house.

Territorial Disputes Answers

LOST Fails
UNCLOS cannot resolve disputes between countries
Murray 13 MBA, University of London; MA, University of Oxford, Vice President of Strategy at
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, former Director of Research for the Statistical Assessment
Service and the Executive Officer of HM Department of Transport, LOST at Sea, March 25,
2013, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg167, CBC
The Treaty Is Ineffective. The Treatys ineffectiveness was exemplified by events in the South
China Sea in September 2012. China deployed six surveillance ships in response to the Japanese
governments attempt to buy the disputed Senkaku islands (which the Chinese call the Daioyus)
from their current owner, a wealthy Japanese family.20 Both countries are signatories to LOST,
which was supposed to settle disputes over maritime boundaries by creating the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The Tribunal has so far largely failed to settle such disputes. The
Senkaku/Daioyus dispute is not the first case brought before the Tribunal, whose approach
seems to be to let countries talk among themselves until they reach a solution. The court
established to settle disputes has repeatedly abdicated its responsibility, while continuing to
claim jurisdiction. Frustration with this process has led at least one party to return to gunboat
diplomacy. Despite filing a lawsuit with the Tribunal, China appears to be dissatisfied with a
legalistic approach. China Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Hong Lei stated, Isnt it a
weird thing in international affairs to submit a sovereign countrys territory to international
arbitration? What a chaos the world will be in if this happens?21 Virtually all the cases thus far
have involved impounding fishing vessels, but the Tribunal has not actually finally settled any
serious international dispute; thus, regardless of the merits of the case, Chinas frustration is not
surprising. Where it has acted, the Tribunal has essentially told the parties to sort the issues out
amongst themselves as in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case examined below. The Tribunal did
decide one case, between Bangladesh and Myanmar, but that suit only arose due to confusion
over the application of the Treaty in the first place, leading Eric Posner, the Kirkland and Ellis
Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, and John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University
of California Berkeley, to conclude: Early indicators suggest that the ITLOS will not be an
effective international Tribunal... Because of the independence of the tribunal, states have little
influence over how it resolves disputes. They cannot expect outcomes that are satisfactory to
both parties, and thus they cannot expect widespread compliance. If compliance is likely to be
weak, there is little point in using the Tribunal in the first place.22 Another source of the
Tribunals ineffectiveness arises from its very constitution. As Cato Institute Senior Fellow Doug
Bandow points out: The new International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is supposed to offer
dispassionate adjudication of disputes. Yet membership is decided by quota: Each geographical
group is to have at least three representatives. In its early days the Tribunal served as a
dumping ground for frustrated LOST politicos such as Cameroons Paul Engo and Tanzanias
Joseph Warioba, both of whom once had hoped to become the Authoritys Secretary-General.23
Ineffectiveness has an economic cost. States and companies will defer investment in disputed
areas, as there is little hope for speedy resolution. Thus, as cases remain tied up in costly legal
knots, areas become off-limits for development, and all economic benefit is lost.

SCS Answers

Advantage CP
CP Text: The United States Federal Government should unilaterally engage in
special operations and plausible deniability tactics against semi-fixed Chinese
assets in the South China Sea, and establish multilateral defense treaties between
countries facing Chinese expansion in the South China Sea.
That solves
Corr et al. 7/8 Dr. Anders Corr is Principal of Corr Analytics Inc. in New York City. Ms.
Huong Mai Nguyen works as a public sector East Asia analyst at the World Bank in Washington,
D.C. Dr. Priscilla Tacujan worked for over a year as a social scientist in Afghanistan for the U.S.
Army. (2014, Anders Corr, Huong Mai Nguyen, and Priscilla Tacujan, Forbes, U.S. Should Act
Unilaterally To Protect The Smaller Nations Of The South China Sea,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/protect-the-smaller-nations-of-the-southchina-sea/ // SM)
The Philippines, Vietnam and the United States would benefit by more aggressively defending
200-mile exclusive economic zones in the South China Sea, including through unilateral
military measures. If unanswered by significant and proportional military response with an
economic cost to China, that countrys taking of islands and shoals near the Philippines, and
deployment of billion-dollar oil rigs near Vietnam, will embolden China to take more territory,
cripple the reputation of the United States, and intimidate other countries into concessions.
Given that the Philippines and Vietnam have small militaries compared to China, an optimal
strategy against semi-fixed Chinese assets in the South China Sea such as oil rigs would almost
certainly utilize special operations direct action tactics and plausible deniability. Small militaries
are at an extreme disadvantage against large militaries in conventional war, but less so in special
operations and insurgencies. Special operations and plausible deniability would have
the greatest likelihood of keeping military actions against Chinese expansion focused
on the offending assets, and from spiraling towards conventional war. Unilateral
special operations against Chinese assets in the South China Sea could be carried out
by any single country including Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, or the U nited S tates. If
China gets burned there, it could encourage them to retreat elsewhere. Bilateral or multilateral
defense treaties between the Philippines and Vietnam, as well as with other countries facing
Chinese expansion such as Japan, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and India, would discourage China
from retaliation, and build a coalition that could eventually establish alliances of conventional
forces to defend the regions internationally-recognized boundaries. This Asia-Pacific coalition
would have an interest in allying more closely with NATO, as both face large revisionist
dictatorships seeking territorial expansion. NATO needs help in defending Eastern Europe
against Russia just as the Asia-Pacific coalition needs help in defense against China. It would be
in the interests of the United States to participate in the Asia-Pacific coalition, but recent events
indicate that Vietnam and even the Philippines cannot entirely rely on the United States for
territorial defense. Asia-Pacific nations can do much through bilateral and multilateral
defense alliances to deter China. The Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Brunei,
Taiwan and India all face illegal maritime or territorial claims by China. The Philippines and
Vietnam are the only countries, however, that both suffer permanent physical structures on their
territories, and insufficiently fight back. Because of its larger conventional navy, Japan is much
better at unilaterally matching Chinese incursions, and defending far-flung islands and shoals.

As a consequence, China does not place permanent structures on territory claimed by Japan.
Vietnam and the Philippines could also achieve sovereignty within their 200-mile exclusive
economic zones with a more robust, kinetic, and creative defense of their territories.

2NC CP - Hard Power Key

A calculated show of force to address a rising China in the SCS Ilaw fails
Au Yong 7/12 Jeremy Au Yong is the US Bureau Chief at The Straits Times (2014, Jeremy,
The Strait Times, Washington pundits: 'Get tough with China',
http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/asia-report/china/story/washington-pundits-gettough-china-20140712 // SM)
WASHINGTON pundits are calling for tougher US action to counter Chinese aggression in the
South China Sea, in a reflection of growing frustration after a high-level meeting in Beijing
showed up the gulf in how both sides view the territorial disputes. Speakers at a conference
organised by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies here adopted a largely
confrontational tone on Thursday, proposing that the United States conduct a calculated show
of force and take measures to impose costs on China for any provocative acts. Moves include
increasing visible reconnaissance flights in the disputed areas, providing more equipment to
allies, having military craft visit more ports in the region, and boosting the number of joint
military exercises it conducts in the region. The mood was set early on when the first speaker,
Congressman Mike Rogers, described Chinese activities in the South China Sea as "gluttonous,
naked aggression". He warned that a failure to act would bring "death by a thousand cuts". "We
need to be more direct; we need to be more aggressive. We need to empower our friends and our
allies in the region to be more direct and more aggressive," he said. The calls mirror a Financial
Times report quoting unnamed administration officials as saying the Pentagon was
contemplating new military tactics in the South China Sea. While this would not represent a
drastic new direction - as Washington has been taking a firmer tone in recent months - it would
put a dent in an already strained relationship. At the end of the two-day Strategic and Economic
Dialogue (SED) in Beijing on Thursday, China rebuffed calls from the US to adhere to
international law in dealing with territorial disputes while asking the US not to
take sides. Mr Rogers, who chairs the House committee that oversees US intelligence
operations, says the US has thus far been too deferential to Chinese sensitivities. "From a
diplomatic perspective, we have overlooked things in China we wouldn't have overlooked for any
other country." Dr. Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Programme at the
Centre for a New American Security, similarly advocated more muscular diplomacy, saying the
US appears now to be more serious about "cost imposition strategies" - moves designed to
dissuade China against its strategy of "tailored coercion". China's actions, he said, have so far
been designed to appear sufficiently non-military while signalling to neighbours that those
seeking good trade ties need to give China more control over security and resource issues, and
telling the US "its pre-eminence is unsustainable and it must do more to
accommodate a rising China".
Strong military response is key Russia proves
Corr et al. 7/8 Dr. Anders Corr is Principal of Corr Analytics Inc. in New York City. Ms.
Huong Mai Nguyen works as a public sector East Asia analyst at the World Bank in Washington,
D.C. Dr. Priscilla Tacujan worked for over a year as a social scientist in Afghanistan for the U.S.
Army. (2014, Anders Corr, Huong Mai Nguyen, and Priscilla Tacujan, Forbes, U.S. Should Act
Unilaterally To Protect The Smaller Nations Of The South China Sea,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/protect-the-smaller-nations-of-the-southchina-sea/ // SM)
Given Chinas use of economic power to encourage weak responses by the Philippines, Vietnam,
and United States, China relatively easily executes maritime encroachment on its weakest

neighbors. Such actions do not result in even the threat of sanctions and significant military
response. Rather, the United States, Vietnam, and the Philippines respond weakly, with
tokenistic military training, symbolic naval standoffs, and cheap talk about international law.
Dont expect such weakness to stop Chinese expansion. Much stronger responses failed to stop
Russias takeover of Crimea, and Russia is weaker than China in terms of military and economic
power. A more robust and potentially unilateral military response to Chinese incursions is in the
interests of the United States, Vietnam, and the Philippines. At stake is the future of Asia and
the reputation of the United States.

LOST Fails
Ratifying UNCLOS fails to solve SCS--Chinese ignorance
Ku 1/16 (Julian, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of International Programs at Hofstra
University School of Law, B.A., Yale University, J.D., Yale Law School, "Will Ratifying UNCLOS
Help the U.S. Manage China? I Doubt It", January 16 2014,
http://opiniojuris.org/2014/01/16/will-ratifying-unclos-help-u-s-manage-china/)n
But is

there really any evidence that formal accession would change Chinas view of the U.S.
position on UNCLOS issues? China is already a member of UNCLOS and other countries (like
Japan and the Philippines) are also members of UNCLOS. But I dont think UNCLOS has really bolstered
their effectiveness in pushing back against China. Moreover, as Professor Dutton explains, China has a
radically different interpretation of its authority to regulate foreign ships and aircraft in its
Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS. How will joining UNCLOS help the U.S. change Chinas interpretation of

UNCLOS? As a practical matter, UNCLOS does have a way of compelling member states to conform their interpretations: mandatory
dispute settlement in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or in Annex VII arbitration. But as China and Russia have

demonstrated in recent years, these mechanisms are not likely to be a serious constraint,
especially on questions that touch sovereignty (which is how China frames most of its activities). I suppose if the
U.S. joins UNCLOS, and subjects itself to UNCLOS dispute settlement, that might make a difference. But I
dont think it would be a very large one (after all, Japan, China, and the Philippines are all already
subject to UNCLOS dispute settlement, which has accomplished little so far). I should add that the U.S.
joining UNCLOS is hardly the most prominent of Professor Duttons recommendations. His (and his co-panelists) had lots of good
strategic policy recommendations. I think the law may be important here, but I am skeptical that it will be

as effective as he (and many analysts) are hoping.

UNCLOS doesn't solve China disputes

Groves and Cheng 4/24 (Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow
at The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and The Davis Institute for National Security and
Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, Dean Cheng, Senior Research Fellow, Asian Studies
Center and The Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage
Foundation, "A National Strategy for the South China Sea", April 24 2014,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/a-national-strategy-for-the-south-chinasea)
U.S. Ratification of UNCLOS Unnecessary No argument regarding U.S. policy in the SCS may be made without

begging the question whether the U.S. should accede to UNCLOS. Proponents of U.S. accession claim that the United States cannot
fully protect its maritime interests unless it accedes to the convention. Indeed, UNCLOSs proponents believe that U.S. membership
in the treaty would be determinative in any number of maritime controversies, including Chinese aggression in the SCS. Yet China

is unlikely to be swayed by U.S. ratification of a treaty that China regularly violates or simply
ignores. Ratification of UNCLOS will neither sway China nor guarantee U.S. navigational rights
in the SCS, which are advanced not by membership in a treaty, but by maintaining a strong Navy, conducting persistent naval
operations against Chinas excessive maritime claims, supporting key U.S. allies, and adhering to long-standing principles of the
customary international law of the sea. The customary international law of the seawhich includes the

principles of freedom of the seas, innocent passage through territorial waters, and passage
rights through international straits and archipelagoesexisted long before UNCLOS was adopted in 1982. The

convention merely codified and elaborated upon these widely accepted principles. While not a party to UNCLOS, the United States
unlike Chinaactually honors the conventions provisions. The United States demarcates legitimate maritime boundaries, respects
the rights of coastal states within their EEZs and territorial seas, and adheres domestically to the regimes regarding the contiguous
zone and EEZ. No evidence suggests that China, or any other state, would respect its obligations

under UNCLOS to a greater extent if the United States became a party. Nor is there any evidence
that ratification of UNCLOS would enhance U.S. military capability. The Freedom of Navigation

Program, the primary means of the U.S. confronting Chinas excessive claims, does not rely on
U.S. membership in UNCLOS.
UNCLOS does not resolves US-China maritime disputes- sends the wrong
perception
Blumenthal and Mazza 12 [Dan Blumenthal director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and

Michael Mazza is a Senior Research Associate in Foreign & Defense Policy Studies at AEI, Feb 17 2012, Why to Forget UNCLOS,
http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/why-to-forget-unclos/, MM]
The Obama administration seems determined to put political science theories to the test by binding China into the rules-based
order over which the United States presides. Only this time, China is already a signatory to the rules in question.

The Obama administration seems to think it is the United States that needs the binding. The timing

of this new push over the U.N. Convention on the Law of Sea, signed by President Bill Clinton and then defeated by the Senate in
1994, is curious. One need only scan the past three years of Chinese activities in the South China, East China, and Yellow seas to find
evidence that China intends to change the maritime status quo in ways detrimental to U.S. interests .

Despite ratifying UNCLOS, Chinas maritime behavior in East Asia runs contrary to
international law and custom as they have been commonly understood for centuries. Where

customary international law has protected the traditionally expansive understanding of freedom of the seas allowing open access
to all but narrow bands of territorial waters along national coastlines China is trying to curtail that access, fence

off its peripheral waters, and deny to other maritime nations the freedom of navigation they
have long and lawfully enjoyed. Whats the argument for signing UNCLOS when China itself
doesnt adhere to the law? When it turns out that the letter of the law is less clear than its proponents think? Given these
problems, U.S. ratification of UNCLOS wont resolve Sino-U.S. disagreements; it will
only lead to endless legal and diplomatic wrangling . Arguments for UNCLOS
ratification now are even more bizarre given that international law and the balance of power
favor the United States. To ratify the treaty at this time would be to signal approval to other
states of faulty interpretations of international law while committing the United States to
endless dispute resolution in international bodies that havent historically favored its interests.

Washington would put itself in a position where it might have to ignore the treatys dispute resolution clauses to further its interests.
Why sign a treaty we will have to violate? In doing so, wouldnt Washington cede the moral high ground it now holds
by simply following established custom?

No, ratification of UNCLOS will not help Washington

and Beijing resolve their maritime disputes. Rather, resolution lies in the United States
continued exercise of its rights in international waters, diplomatic negotiations with China and
American friends and allies, and continued military supremacy.
Chinas argument against the Philippines is that the islands are Chinese territoryUS ratifying LOST does not change that
Ku 4/3, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, B.A., Yale University,
J.D., Yale Law School, So How is China Reacting to the Philippines Arbitration Submission?
Not Very Well, Opinio Juris, April 3 2014, http://opiniojuris.org/2014/04/03/china-reactingphilippines-arbitration/, CBC

China has not been quiet in reacting to the Philippines filing Sunday of its memorial in the UNCLOS South China Sea arbitration. In
addition to the foreign ministrys remarks, the Peoples Daily has released a full-scale defense of Chinas legal and policy position
(recently translated here). It is the longest official (well, close-to-official) statement of Chinas legal position on the arbitration as Ive
seen anywhere. The heart of Chinas argument is that this whole Philippines dispute is about

sovereignty over the Nansha Islands, parts of which the Philippines is illegally occupying. Because

this is about sovereignty, and because China excluded maritime and territorial disputes from UNCLOS arbitral jurisdiction in its
2006 declaration, it is the Philippines (and not China) that is violating international law by filing the arbitration claim. Here are a
couple of legal arguments or claims in the commentary that jumped out at me. As is known to all, the islands in the South China
Sea, including the Nansha Islands, have been Chinas territory since ancient times. After the end of World War II, acting in
accordance with a series of postwar international documents, the Chinese government recovered these islands and reefs from the
Japanese aggressors in 1946. For a long period of time after WWII, countries, including the Philippines, all recognized or raised no
objection to Chinas sovereignty over the islands and reefs in the South China Sea. Now there is something that is true in this
statement, but there is also much that is hotly disputed. While it is true that the defeat of Japan meant all territory conquered by
Japan from China reverted to China, what exactly was conquered by Japan from China remains very hotly disputed. The Japanese,
for instance, do not believe the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands were taken from China in the 19th century wars,which is why they dont feel

that they have to return them now. Similarly, while Japan occupied the Nansha Islands during the war, it was far from clear that
China controlled or owned those islands prior to the Japanese occupation. Indeed, it is hardly known to all that the islands in the
South China Sea have been Chinese territory since ancient times. The essay then takes direct aim at the use of the arbitration
mechanism here. The Philippines has gone out of its way to try to drag China into the arbitration process. Taking advantage of the
deficiencies of relevant UNCLOS mechanisms, it has tried to manipulate the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Rules of
Procedure in an attempt to make things difficult for China. By unilaterally filing an international arbitration on

the South China Sea disputes, the Philippines has not only violated international law including
UNCLOS, but also denied the basic historical facts. It has both gone against international justice and breached the
basic norms governing international relations. The Chinese governments position of neither accepting nor participating in the
related arbitration is both justified and based on solid legal ground. I find this statement way over the top. There is no evidence the
Philippines has tried to manipulate the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal. China never even nominated any arbiter even though it
had a right to nominate two. Moreover, when a country files an arbitration claim, it has not violated international law if the
tribunal later rules that it has no jurisdiction to hear the claim. Nor does such an action violate international justice or breach
basic norms governing international relations. While it is true that China has every right to not participate in the arbitration, it is
also bound by UNCLOS to accept whatever decision the arbitral tribunal makes about its own jurisdiction. Put another way, neither
the Philippines nor China has violated any international laws yet. China does not have to appear, but its stated intention to refuse to
implement any order by the tribunal would constitute a plain violation of UNCLOS. At that point, it would be China, not the
Philippines, that would have violated the treaty obligation. It may not come to that. China does have a reasonable argument that the
tribunal lacks jurisdiction, even if it is only making it through essays and foreign ministry press statements like this one. No matter
how the Philippine memorial is packaged, the direct cause of the dispute between China and the Philippines

is the latters illegal occupation of some of Chinas islands and reefs in the South China Sea. At the

heart of the matter are the disputes between the two sides on the sovereignty over islands and reefs, and delimitation of maritime
boundaries. Yet disputes such as these have already been excluded from arbitration procedures through a declaration made by China
in 2006 pursuant to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). In this context, Chinas rejection of the Philippines
submission for arbitration is solidly based on international law, and Chinas lawful rights as a party to UNCLOS should be truly
respected.

US and others using LOST to push China now

Valencia 7/9 - Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct research fellow at China's National Institute for
South China Sea Studies (2013, Mark, South China Morning Post, The danger of pushing China
too far on law of the sea, http://www.scmp.com/comment/insightopinion/article/1278092/danger-pushing-china-too-far-law-sea // SM)
China has been under withering political and legal attack for allegedly violating the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although at the recent meeting of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations in Brunei, Beijing declared its willingness to discuss a code of conduct
for the South China Sea, there has been no change in its maritime claims or any let-up in the
criticism it is receiving. What are the consequences if China simply gets "fed up" with the
criticism and withdraws from the treaty? China ratified it in 1996. But rival claimants in the
South China Sea and their supporters have alleged that China's nine-dashed-line claim is not
compatible with the treaty. Now the Philippines, with tacit US support, has filed a complaint
against China with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, established by the
convention. However, China has refused to participate. Meanwhile, rival claimants as well as the
US and other Western powers have criticised some of China's actions in its 200-nautical-mile
exclusive economic zone as violating the freedom of navigation. And they and Japan say China's
drawing of enclosing baselines around the disputed Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea is
illegal.

ILaw Fails
International law fails - politics
Corr et al. 7/8 Dr. Anders Corr is Principal of Corr Analytics Inc. in New York City. Ms.
Huong Mai Nguyen works as a public sector East Asia analyst at the World Bank in Washington,
D.C. Dr. Priscilla Tacujan worked for over a year as a social scientist in Afghanistan for the U.S.
Army. (2014, Anders Corr, Huong Mai Nguyen, and Priscilla Tacujan, Forbes, U.S. Should Act
Unilaterally To Protect The Smaller Nations Of The South China Sea,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/protect-the-smaller-nations-of-the-southchina-sea/ // SM)
In March, the Philippines brought international law proceedings at the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in the Hague. But China refuses to participate, and the proceedings will likely extend
into 2015. China is using this time to buttress its physical position among the disputed islands.
While the Philippines may be justified by international law, international jurists
are political in their actions . They are likely loathe to take positions against China that
cannot be enforced. Taking unenforceable positions weakens the reputation of the court and
international law. United States politicians are well-aware that the courts decisions are
toothless and require enforcement against China that no country has as yet delivered.

Leadership Fails
US hegemony cannot solve Asia conflicts
Junshe 6/6, a researcher with the Navy Military Academic Research Institute, American
hegemony cannot bring security to Asia, Right Ways To Success, June 6 2014,
http://rightwaystosuccess.blogspot.com/2014/06/american-hegemony-cannot-bringsecurity.html, CBC
American defense secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a speech at the Shangri-La Defense Dialogue
in Singapore on May 31st. In addition to defending America's pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, he
also declared that the Diaoyu islands fall under the mutual defense treaty with Japan and voiced
support for Japan's right to collective self-defense. Moreover, he placed emphasis on his
criticism of China and made use of many threatening words. In response to this irresponsible
speech, the deputy chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Wang
Guanzhong pointed out that Hagel's speech was filled with terms that will incite unrest in Asia.
China had not foreseen that Hagel would deliver such an offensive speech. His accusations
against China were unreasonable. In order to maintain its hegemony and enjoy an economic
dividend from the rapid development of Asia, America has devised a series of new Asia-Pacific
strategies such as Back to Asia, Pivot to Asia and U.S. Asia-Pacific Re-balance Strategy to
expand its military presence in Asia. America's so called U.S. Asia-Pacific Re-balance Strategy
has increasingly aroused concern and anger among many of the countries affected on the one
hand, and become the butt of criticism of influential strategists at home. We find ourselves in
total disagreement with Hagel's groundless accusations - he would do well to subject himself to
similar critical analysis. As is widely accepted, the Diaoyu Islands, Xisha, Zhongsha and the
Nansha islands have formed an integral part of China's territory since ancient times - there is no
shortage of historical and legal evidence to support China's claims. China has nevertheless
shown great restraint and patience in its calls for regional peace and stability, even when
confronted with unreasonable demands and provocation on the part of other countries. China
has exercised military restraint over the issues concerning the Diaoyu Islands, Huangyan Island
and even the Xisha islands. Meanwhile, Japan's 'Self-Defense Force' jets have incessantly
intruded into the East China Sea, far from the Diaoyu Islands to harass and threaten unarmed
Chinese patrol aircraft. Ships of the Philippine navy have harassed and threatened defenseless
Chinese fishermen. Armed Vietnamese vessels have deliberately collided with Chinese
government ships and fishing boats. China has never yet drilled a single oil well in the South
China Sea, while countries such as Vietnam and Philippines have long been producing oil and
gas in the area. We are curious about Hagel's motives in directing his accusations against China,
while ignoring the efforts and sacrifices made by China in the interests of regional peace and
stability. Hagel's criticism of China as a 'rule-breaker' is a typical example of the hypocrisy of
American politicians. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has met with
approval from more than 150 countries since it was passed some thirty years ago. In pursuit of
its own interests America, the self-styled world policeman and supreme power did not join
the convention. With its own history of double standards, America has no business agitating for
international laws and rules and attacking other countries for not abiding by these international
rules. China is no longer the downtrodden victim that it may have been one hundred years ago.
China has no intention of stirring up trouble, but it will not sacrifice core national interests.
Even in the face of provocation from Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam, China remains
tolerant and insists on peaceful settlement of disputes through bilateral negotiations. However,
China is still forced to take counter-measures. We hope the nations involved do not interpret our
tolerance as a sign of weakness. We hope they will turn back to the path of solving disputes
through negotiation. Moreover, we also wish that America would abide by its promise of not
taking sides in sovereignty disputes in Asia. In this way regional peace and stability and the

long-term interests of nations in the region can be secured. The countries mentioned above
would be considerably less presumptuous without the support of America. In this sense,
America is the chief instigator of unrest in Asia. America's insistence on its policy of hegemony
offers nothing to Asian security and serves only to fuel disorder.

Offense
Ratifying UNCLOS leaves china unchecked- causes conflict
Blumenthal and Mazza 12 [Dan Blumenthal director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and

Michael Mazza is a Senior Research Associate in Foreign & Defense Policy Studies at AEI, Feb 17 2012, Why to Forget UNCLOS,
http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/why-to-forget-unclos/, MM]
The United States clearly has an interest in seeing China fail to make its South China claims a reality even if it somehow did so
without resorting to force. The question is, how does the United States succeed? Proponents of UNCLOS ratification

claim that the United States cant counter Chinas claims without ratifying UNCLOS itself. Yet
the United States already acts in accordance with international law and custom, whereas China,
which has ratified UNCLOS, uses UNCLOS to flaunt the law. By twisting the UNCLOS into
pretzels, China is changing the rules of the game . The liberal order made rules to accommodate the
rights and interests of those who decided to participate in it. It turns out China doesnt much like those rules and is
attempting to overturn them especially those rules that protect freedom of navigation and
those that make it difficult for China to pursue its territorial ambitions in Asia . Ratifying
UNCLOS isnt an effective way to combat that effort . These disputes are about power
politics and neither China nor the United States will allow them to be settled in court UNCLOS
approved or otherwise. Rather, the United States must continue doing what it has always done. It
should continue to operate naval vessels in international waters including in other countries EEZs where and when it wants to
do so. Operations should run the gamut of peaceful activities surveillance activities, exercises, and so on.

And Washington must clearly state its intention to continue abiding by centuries-old customary
international law pertaining to freedom of the seas including provisions of UNCLOS that are
consistent with those practices. In interactions with Chinese counterparts, American diplomats should repeatedly and

consistently restate the American position there should be no question as to where the United States stands. As it does so, the U.S.
should engage China in diplomacy, pointing out among other matters that China itself conducts military activity in other
countries EEZs. We need rules of the road with China to manage competition, not wishful thinking

about what U.N. bodies can resolve. It has always been practice that has determined international law of the oceans.
China understands this, and is working to shift law and custom through its own practices. Only by continuing to act on
the high seas as it always has can the United States hope to maintain a system of international
rules that serves its own interests. Ratifying UNCLOS could very well have the opposite
effect.

More pushing of China leads to Chinese withdrawal from the treaty that leads to
regional instability, loss of Chinese international legitimacy, and transition to a
rogue state
Valencia 7/9 - Mark J. Valencia is an adjunct research fellow at China's National Institute for
South China Sea Studies (2013, Mark, South China Morning Post, The danger of pushing China
too far on law of the sea, http://www.scmp.com/comment/insightopinion/article/1278092/danger-pushing-china-too-far-law-sea // SM)
China has been under withering political and legal attack for allegedly violating the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although at the recent meeting of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations in Brunei, Beijing declared its willingness to discuss a code of conduct
for the South China Sea, there has been no change in its maritime claims or any let-up in the
criticism it is receiving. What are the consequences if China simply gets "fed up" with the
criticism and withdraws from the treaty? China ratified it in 1996. But rival claimants in the
South China Sea and their supporters have alleged that China's nine-dashed-line claim is not
compatible with the treaty. Now the Philippines, with tacit US support, has filed a complaint
against China with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, established by the
convention. However, China has refused to participate. Meanwhile, rival claimants as well as the

US and other Western powers have criticised some of China's actions in its 200-nautical-mile
exclusive economic zone as violating the freedom of navigation. And they and Japan say China's
drawing of enclosing baselines around the disputed Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea is
illegal. China used to argue the "unequal treaty" doctrine regarding boundaries that were
concluded with colonial or imperial powers. It is thus not surprising that its leaders occasionally
revert to rhetoric reminiscent of that era. Indeed, some of China's political analysts and
particularly military officers seem to be questioning why China ratified the law of the sea treaty
in the first place. Part of the explanation is that China assumed - obviously incorrectly - that the
dispute settlement mechanism could be avoided by direct negotiations. Also, China and other
developing countries viewed the treaty as a package deal with many "bargains" between the
maritime powers and developing countries, including extensive navigational rights for maritime
powers in exchange for the deep seabed mining provisions. Although some 164 countries have
ratified the treaty, the United States reneged on the deal by not doing so. That is why it is
hypocritical for the US to be an increasingly vocal critic. Unwittingly, the US may be showing
China a way out of its dilemma. China could withdraw from the treaty. That would take effect a
year later and China would still be subject to the decision of the tribunal in the Philippines case.
There would be serious political costs for such an action, not least international
opprobrium . It would also create fear and even instability in the region and
probably draw many Asian states closer to the US. Moreover, China would lose the major
propaganda advantage it enjoys in these issues over the US. However there are advantages
as well. China would then be legally free to "pick and choose" the convention's provisions and
interpret them in its favour - just as the US does now. Moreover, China could simply refuse to
abide by the tribunal's decision and shrug off the political fallout. Unfortunately, there is a long
political history of world powers using or making new international law to further and protect
their interests. Prime among these has been the US. America and its Asian allies need to be
careful lest they push China into actually being what they fear most - another rogue country
that uses might rather than right in its international relations.
Asian instability escalates to nuclear war
Evans 11 ADC Fellow @ Australian Defence College [Michael Evans (Former Head of the
Australian Armys Land Warfare Studies Centre @ Royal Military College), Power and Paradox:
Asian Geopolitics and Sino-American Relations in the 21st Century, Orbis, Volume 55, Issue 1,
2011, Pages 85113
For the first time since the beginning of the sixteenth century, the single largest concentration of
global economic power will be found not in Europe nor in the Americas, but in Asia. Various
U.S. and European scholars of geopolitics have called this shift the post-Vasco da Gama era,
the coming of the post-Columbian epoch and the end of the Atlantic era.2 Similarly, the
leading Singaporean intellectual, Kishore Mahbubani, has written of Asia's rise as carrying with
it an irresistible shift of global power to the East which will transform the world.3 Yet, it
remains unclear whether this economic revolution can be accommodated by the geopolitical
structures that characterize contemporary Asia. Indeed, the dominant feature of contemporary
Asian geopolitics is an unresolved tension between the direction of economic growth and that of
strategic alignment. The vital interests of the world's lone superpower, the United States, and
those of the great powers of China, Japan, India and Russia are all engaged in Asia in a
climate of change and uncertainty about the future.
Asia's rise to economic supremacy is occurring against a general geopolitical environment that
lacks formal security architecture for either stable arms control regimes or for
structured conflict-resolution. The rise of China and the growing multipolarity of Asia, as a
whole, is a challenge to U.S. supremacy. Concern over long-term regional security is fuelling a

process of military modernization across East, Central and South Asia, from weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs) to missile defense and information technologies.4
Asia is also increasingly a laboratory for the cross-cutting themes of what James Rosenau has
called the two worlds of world politicsthat is the old security agenda of modern realist
geopolitics and inter-state rivalry and the new security agenda of post-modern globalized
security and non-state threats.5 In terms of the old security agenda, Asia is home to eight of the
world's ten largest militaries and it contains four dangerous flashpoints : the Taiwan Strait,
the Korean Peninsula, Kashmir, and Pakistan-Afghanistan. Asia's geopolitical security agenda
includes a volatile mixture of Islamist extremism, transnational threats and weak states in South
Asia and parts of South-East Asia. Some analysts view the dangers of Asia as deep and profound.
To quote one 2008 study on U.S. Asian policy:
Asia is not a theatre at peace. . . suspicions rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep .
The continent harbors every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age; it is a cauldron
of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver of the
insatiable global appetite for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse
effects of global climate change; the primary source of nuclear proliferation and the most
likely theatre on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and even a nuclear
conflict .6
(insert impact cards)

Alt Causes
Multiple alt causes trade deals and bribery
Corr et al. 7/8 Dr. Anders Corr is Principal of Corr Analytics Inc. in New York City. Ms.
Huong Mai Nguyen works as a public sector East Asia analyst at the World Bank in Washington,
D.C. Dr. Priscilla Tacujan worked for over a year as a social scientist in Afghanistan for the U.S.
Army. (2014, Anders Corr, Huong Mai Nguyen, and Priscilla Tacujan, Forbes, U.S. Should Act
Unilaterally To Protect The Smaller Nations Of The South China Sea,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/protect-the-smaller-nations-of-the-southchina-sea/ // SM)
The acquiescence of Asian-Pacific countries to Chinas maritime and territorial bullying is likely
explained by Chinas economic clout as expressed in both legitimate trade relations and
illegitimate bribery and corruption of state officials. China has a history of bribery in both
Vietnam and the Philippines, including the 2007 case in which President Arroyo of the
Philippines, as well as her husband, are in jail facing charges that they accepted bribes from
China. Favorable trade deals or outright bribery by China are likely causing
politicians in both countries to take a weak approach to Chinas maritime
incursions. Between the United States and China, $562 billion of annual trade, and $57
billion of annual two-way foreign direct investment, produce special interests in the United
States with a strong stake in reducing political tensions between the two countries. These
interests likely pressure United States politicians to take a weak approach to Chinese actions,
for example the 1996 scandals in which Democrats received campaign donations and policy
advice from China.
Cant solve - China wont submit its argument to LOST tribunal and US diplomacy
fails in the SCS
Au Yong 7/12 Jeremy Au Yong is the US Bureau Chief at The Straits Times (2014, Jeremy,
The Strait Times, Washington pundits: 'Get tough with China',
http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/asia-report/china/story/washington-pundits-gettough-china-20140712 // SM)
At the conference, Beijing also came under fire for its reluctance to submit any disputes to an
international tribunal. After a heated discussion in which legal experts from China, the
Philippines and Vietnam laid out the positions of their respective countries, East Asian law
specialist Jerome Cohen boiled down the arguments in this way: "Can one country say I am so
right about my position that the Unclos (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)
tribunal has no jurisdiction, that I don't have to submit my argument to that tribunal at all?...
Maybe those arguments will prevail, maybe the tribunal will say that China is right and we have
no jurisdiction but China doesn't want to take a chance by doing what it is obligated to do." But
for all the criticisms of the Chinese and calls for a tougher US position, there was also significant
doubt over whether the US can do more than just talk tough. The limited options available to the
White House were made especially clear during a simulation of the US response to a face-off
between the Philippines and China in the disputed Spratly Islands. In the imagined scenario,
Chinese coast guard vessels formed a full air and naval blockade around the grounded
Philippine vessel Sierra Madre in retaliation for the arrest of a dozen fishermen. With academics
playing the role of the US Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence and Secretary of National
Intelligence, they debated for an hour over the options they would present to the President.
There was care throughout not to do anything that China might deem aggressive. In the end, the
proposed action was quiet diplomacy - telling Beijing behind closed doors that the US was
prepared to use force to help its treaty ally resupply its vessel. The outcome of the exercise

dismayed some in the audience who felt that such a move would have little impact on the
Chinese. Said Dr Carlyle Thayer, an emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales:
"Every time you see a joint statement from the SED in Beijing, both sides are emphasising
military-to-military contacts and a new trajectory. I have a feeling the Chinese have hooked the
US and the US is fearful of taking too strong a stand on the South China Sea."
Cant solve Chinese disregard for diplomacy and UN corruption
Carter 13 - Chris Carter is the director of the Victory Institute and the deputy regional director
of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team. His work also appears at The US Report,
International Analyst Network, Human Events, Canada Free Press, Deutsche Welle,
NavySEALs.com, Blackfive and other publications. He also served on the 2010 National Medal
of Honor Convention project. A veteran of the U.S. Air Force (3/4/2014, Chris, FSM, Chinese
Aggression Shows the Law of the Sea Treaty is Worthless,
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/chinese-aggression-shows-the-lawof-the-sea-treaty-is-worthless // SM)
Supporters of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) would have us believe that
the treaty makes the world a safer place. For 30 years, media, political, and even military elite
have all called for ratification of UNCLOS. But why should the U.S. ratify a treaty that,
considering Chinese ongoing territorial aggression against its neighbors, we can see is useless
when it comes to maintaining "peace, justice and progress for all peoples of the world," as the
charter states? Chinese naval vessels recently violated UN law by using their fire control radar to
target a Japanese naval destroyer and military helicopters operating near the disputed
Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in February. The rocky, uninhabited islands belonged to the Japanese
until after World War II, when the United States assumed temporary control. The islands
returned to Japanese administration in 1972, but the Chinese didn't voice their claim to the
islands until a potentially significant oil field was discovered in the region later that decade. For
months, Chinese and Filipino vessels have maintained a delicate standoff over the Scarborough
Shoals (Huangyan Island to China). Although 500 miles from the nearest Chinese port, Chinese
fishing vessels flaunt the law by harvesting their catch within the UNCLOS-established exclusive
economic zone of the Philippines, just 124 miles from their coast. In 1947, the Chinese
government claimed virtually all of the South China Sea in what has become known as the
"Nine-Dash Line." China, a member nation of UNCLOS, refuses to explain the details on how
they reached their far-fetching boundary. A U.S. diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks states
that a senior Chinese government maritime law expert admittedly did not know of any historical
basis behind the "Nine-Dash Line." China knows that if they open the door to international
scrutiny, their extravagant claim and ambiguous evidence would not survive and any illusions of
a legitimacy would vanish. And so would the massive deposits of oil and natural gas surrounding
these desolate islands the Chinese want exclusive access to. The Philippines even offered to
settle the matter of Scarborough Shoal in a UNCLOS tribunal, but the Chinese have stated they
will not participate in any of the treaty's dispute resolution mechanisms - or abide by any
UNCLOS ruling. The Chinese claim to seek bilateral talks because they know that the
Philippines will refuse, and the issue will remain unsettled. The Chinese interest is to keep
things exactly as they are. Prior to becoming Secretary of State, John Kerry was one of the
strongest supporters of ratifying UNCLOS as a member of the Senate. Confronted with Chinese
warmongering however, Secretary Kerry can only spout meaningless platitudes about "forging
stronger and deeper relations" with the Philippines. Not altogether inspiring, considering we
have mutual defense pacts with both Japan and the Philippines that go back over 60 years.
Perhaps President Obama doesn't plan on honoring our agreements, but we are obligated to
treat an attack on either nation as if it were an attack on the United States. Kerry's empty words
and the Obama administration's make-belief world of political narratives may resonate in an Ivy
League faculty lounge or with a sycophantic media, but China lives in the real world, where
words only mean as much as your ability to back them up. China can be aggressive because they

know that the UN is only out to get paid, President Obama's "soft power" is big on soft and short
on power, and no other nation is capable of doing anything about it. Demographically and
economically speaking, the future belongs to China. They are building aircraft carriers and air
supremacy fighter jets while we are grounding and decommissioning ours. The Chinese are
expanding their nuclear arsenal while we are unilaterally dismantling our aging weapons. Our
economy is going the way of Greece, and the Chinese are financing the demise. Diplomacy will
only weaken the Chinese position, and their political and military leaders are telling their people
to prepare for war. No one wants to go to war with the Chinese, but diplomacy tends to work
better when one side has significant leverage over the other, both parties can find common
ground, or if both parties at least wish to avoid war. Feeble treaties will not stand in their way. If
we could magically cast out corruption from the UN, a Law of the Sea treaty would be a great
idea. Internationally agreed-upon laws would rule the oceans and seas, while courts - not fleets would solve disputes. And the world wouldn't depend solely on the United States to solve their
problems with our blood and treasure. But any treaty that permits a member to lay claim to an
entire sea shared by several nations, and does nothing while a member openly violates
provisions of the treaty is absurd. Considering the inability to check Chinese aggression, the
trillions of dollars in fees that will be paid by U.S. taxpayers to the UN, and giving control over
much of our resources to an unaccountable international organization, the United States is far
better off without UNCLOS.

Leadership Answers

Lost Not KT Leadership

LosT not key to US shipping or leadership
Bandow 4 - Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he served as a
deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. He has earned his J.D. from Stanford University
(3/15/2004, Doug, The Cato Institute, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-lawsea-treaty // SM)

Critics of the U.S. refusal to sign in 1982 predicted ocean chaos, but not once has an
American ship been denied passage. No country has had either the incentive or

the

ability to interfere with U.S. shipping . And if they had, the treaty would have been of little
help. In 1998 Law of the Sea Treaty supporters agitated for immediate ratification because several special exemptions for the
United States were set to expire; Washington did not ratify, and no one seems to have noticed. Now Lugar

worries that Washington could forfeit our seat at the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans. Yet
last October Assistant Secretary of State John F. Turner told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that America has had

considerable success in asserting its oceans interests as a nonparty to the Convention. Law
of the Sea Treaty proponents talk grandly of the need to restore U.S. leadership,
but real leadership can mean saying no as well as yes . Ronald Reagan was right to torpedo the Law
a new oceans bureaucracy is no more attractive today.

of the Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating

Lost Not KT Navy

UNCLOS isn't key to the Navy
Groves and Cheng 4/24 (Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow
at The Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom and The Davis Institute for National Security and
Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, Dean Cheng, Senior Research Fellow, Asian Studies
Center and The Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage
Foundation, "A National Strategy for the South China Sea", April 24 2014,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/a-national-strategy-for-the-south-chinasea)
This is not to say that the Department of Defense does not support U.S. accession to UNCLOSit certainly does. However, the

Department of Defense does not, and cannot, say that U.S. membership in UNCLOS is
absolutely essential to the preservation of navigational rights or that the United States is
incapable of protecting those rights unless it accedes to the convention. The U.S. Navy thrived
for more than 180 years from its birth in 1775 through two world wars and developed into a global
maritime power, all without membership in UNCLOS. In 1958, the principles of high seas freedom
and innocent passage through territorial waters were codified in the first round of law-of-thesea conventions. Between 1958 and 1982, the Navy continued to fulfill its mission on a global scale.
UNCLOS was adopted in 1982, duplicating the navigational provisions of the 1958 conventions and crystallizing the concepts of
transit passage and archipelagic sea-lanes passage. Since 1982 through the end of the Cold War and to the

present day, the Navy continues to prosecute its mission as the worlds preeminent naval power.
In contrast to China, the United States complies with the navigational norms, maritime
boundary limits, and all other provisions of customary international law reflected in UNCLOS.
Chinanot the United Statesis the law-of-the-sea scofflaw.

LOST Hurts Navy

Law of Sea Tribunal rulings endanger the Navy
Bandow 4 - Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he served as
a deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. He has earned his J.D. from Stanford University
(3/15/2004, Doug, The Cato Institute, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-lawsea-treaty // SM)
At the same time, some ambiguous

provisions may impinge on freedoms U.S. shipping now enjoys. In

Department legal adviser William H. Taft IV noted the importance of
conditioning acceptance upon the understanding that each Party has the exclusive right to
determine which of its activities are military activities and that such determination is not
subject to review. Whether other members will respect that claim is not at all certain. Admiral Michael
G. Mullen, the vice chief of naval operations, acknowledges the possibility that a Law of the Sea tribunal could rule
adversely and harm U.S. operational planning and activities, and our security.
Senate testimony last fall, State

Naval Power Unsustainable

Naval Power is unsustainable Russia and China
Powell and Matthews 7/1 Bill Powell is a Bureau Chief at Newsweek and was previously a Senior Write at TIME.

Owen Matthews is the Moscow Bureau Chief at Newsweek. (2014, Bill and Owen, Newsweek, Enemy Ahoy: China and Russia Strive
for Naval Supremacy, http://www.newsweek.com/enemy-ahoy-china-and-russia-strive-naval-supremacy-256825 // SM)
Few in China knew the truth two years ago, when then-president Hu

Jintao travelled to a naval base in the

to mark a signal moment in the rise of Chinese power: the unveiling of the
Liaoning, the first aircraft carrier commissioned by Beijings navy. More than a decade earlier, a penniless
Ukraine government had sold the aging carrier at a fire-sale price to a Chinese company pledging to turn it into a floating casino.
northeastern city of Dalian

When it was towed out of the port of Nikolayevsk in 2001, everyone thought it was headed for the gambling haven of Macau. In fact,
it was destined to become not only the symbol of Chinas ambition to dominate the seas around it,

but to project power thousands of miles from its coasts. Sitting in Moscow, Russian president Vladimir Putin
knew the truth, and it had to chafe: Here was yet another tangible symbol of the decline of what had been the second-most
powerful navy on earththat of the former Soviet Union. He was determined to reverse that trend. And so he
hasmost recently by seizing what was left of the Ukrainian navy in Sevastopol. China and Russiathe
United Statess two biggest strategic rivalshave made it plain they plan to challenge Americas monopoly
of sea power. In Beijing, spending on the navy (known as the PLANthe Peoples Liberation Armys Navy) has
surged. Beijing has been banging out three submarines a yearit now has 28 active nuclear
submarines and 51 submarines overall. PLAN has commissioned 80 surface ships since 2000,
compared with about 48 vessels commissioned in the 1990s. By 2020, Beijing plans to have three aircraft carrier
led battle groupsmeaning that two aircraft carriers are under production. Chinas ambitions go far beyond

this increase in naval hardware. Chinese leaders now routinely refer to blue national soilthe oceans that extend off its coast line
which they demarcate far beyond the 200 nautical miles that are its exclusive economic zone under the U.N.s Law of the Sea
Treaty. Beijing has even issued a mapknown as the nine dash linewhich purports to show Chinas waters lapping against the
Philippines and Vietnam. China, write Toshi Yoshihara and James Holmes, of the U.S. Naval War College, is on the brink

of commanding the seas with Chinese characteristics. To date, those Chinese characteristics mainly
consist of an increased capacity to drive the U.S. out of Beijings waters. The strategy aims to
create a buffer zone to prevent an enemys approach. The lynchpin is the submarine fleet, but the plan
also includes fast-attack vessels equipped with anti-ship missiles, which distresses U.S. navy war
planners. According to Christian Le Miere, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, China has
deployed between 65 and 85 of these vessels so far, suggesting that the strategy behind their use is to deploy

rapidly, perhaps in small flotillas, to harry larger vessels with difficult to intercept missiles. Chinas naval buildup reflects several
geopolitical goals. As Robert Kaplan writes in Asias Cauldron: The South China Sea and the End of a Stable Pacific, it gives Beijing
what defense analyst Li Mingjiang calls a strategic hinterland that stretches over 1,000 milesone that would act as a restraining
factor for the U.S. Navys Seventh Fleet in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Another motivation is energy: The South China Sea is
replete with oil and gas reserves, for which Beijing has a voracious appetite. It is now the worlds largest importer of hydrocarbons.
The fundamental tensions that Beijings maritime ambitions bring are now on full display within Vietnams exclusive economic zone,
where the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company is drilling for oil from a rig it just deployed thereover Hanois furious but
fruitless objections. Whats the difference between an oil rig and a naval base or an aircraft carrier? Very little, politically, in the
eyes of China, says Dean Cheng, defense analyst at Washingtons Heritage Foundation. Beijing is extending reach, daring Vietnam
(or anyone else) to do something about it, confident in its ability to project sufficient naval force to defend what it sees as its
interests. To date, in extending its economic interest in the South and East China seas, China hasnt always relied on its navy per se,
as the current clash with Hanoi illustrates. In 2012, Chinese fishing vessels travelled to the Scarborough Shoal, a disputed set of tiny
outcrops 124 miles west of Subic Bay. They were caught fishing illegally for giant clams and sharks and were detained by the
Philippine coast guard. Beijing reacted furiouslysending its own ships to defend the fishermenand dispatching warships to linger
menacingly on the horizon. A tense, 10-week standoff ensued, until Manila blinked. Beijing today occupies the Scarborough Shoal
and Chinese officials have boasted about using the Scarborough Model as a way of intimidating regional neighbors. Indeed, China
has dispatched fishing vessels near the disputed Senkaku Islands (known to the Chinese as the Diaoyu Islands), the flashpoint of
Beijings dangerous standoff with Japanthe only power in east Asia with a military that can stand up to Chinas. As Ely Ratner,
deputy director of Asia Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security in Washington has written, these
disputes are Beijing flexing its muscles, thanks in large measure to an increasingly capable and sophisticated PLAN. Russias naval
ambitions are linked closely to Chinas rise: After all, Beijings relentless economic growth sent global prices for
almost all the

commodities Russia has been naturally endowed with soaringfrom oil to gas to timber to
the coffers of Russian state-owned companies and enabled Moscow to again
begin funding its military, after nearly two decades of post-Cold War decline. Putin has pledged $700 billion to
iron ore. That has stuffed

boost Russias military over the next two decadesmuch of it to go to naval hardware. The Kremlins
shopping list includes half a dozen Admiral Grigorovichclass frigates and as many aircraft
carriers; eight Yasen-class attack submarines; and a new generation of ballistic missile submarines
designed to carry out nuclear attacks on the U.S. These Borei-class boats carry 16 nuclear-tipped Bulava
missiles, each with 10 warheads that can thwart evolving Western ballistic-missile defense shields,
according to U.S. Navy Reserve Lieutenant Commander Tom Spahn. He calls Russias newest boats
and missiles alarmingly sophisticated. Russias navy has become an important symbol of a resurgent Russia. Putins
popularity plummeted early in his reign with the loss of the Kursk, an Oscar-2 class attack sub that went down with all 118 hands
after a faulty torpedo burned up in its tube in 2000. Russia has 68,000 miles of coastlinethe third longest, after Canada and the
U.S.and over 80 percent of the supplies to Russias Far East go by ship, mostly via the Indian Ocean. A third of Russias nuclear
arsenalmore than 600 warheadsis carried on the navys submarines. And, of course, it makes for great television. Putin

loves the navy. Theres nothing more impressive than a battleship or submarine with its crew paraded in dress uniforms,

says Semyon Vlasov, a former consultant to the Dumas Defense Committee. Every great Russian ruler has made their mark on the
high seas. Peter the Great announced that Russia was a European power by creating a navy on the Baltic, says St. Petersburg
based historian Andrei Grinev. Catherine the Great showed Russia was a world power by defeating the Ottoman [Turkish] navy at
Cesme in 1770, and colonizing Alaska. Putin is acutely aware of this historical resonance. He has revived the Russian

naval station at Tartus in Syria, the only Russian military facility outside the former Soviet Union. Established in 1971,

the Material-Technical Support Point is, in reality, a tiny sliver of land less than half a mile long equipped with two 100-yard-long
floating piers, neither big enough to accommodate even the smallest of Russias frigates. In January 2013, Russia evacuated its last
personnel from Tartus, leaving Syrian contractors in charge of a single Amur-class floating workshop. Tartus exists mostly so that
Russian officials can talk about it, says one Western diplomat who visited the port in 2010. A planned visit in 2009 by Russias only
aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was cancelled after seven of her eight turbines failed and a fire broke out on board. The
carrier has only managed four deployments since she was commissioned in 1991. (U.S. naval captains nickname her Tug-bait.)
Still, Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu has great plans for Tartus, and in February called for a network of

Russian naval bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, the Seychelles and Singapore.

Naturally, Russia is interested in having resupply and maintenance bases for our navy in several states, confirmed Russian deputy
foreign minister Anatoly Antonov in March. We are engaged in talks on the issue. Russia, Admiral Eduard Baltin, former

commander of Russias Black Sea Fleet, told Russian Reporter, is returning to the stage in its power and international
relations, which it, regrettably, lost at the end of last century. No one loves the weak. Putin is also deploying his navy to push
Russias economic interests. Technology is making the rich mineral resources under the Arctic seabed accessible for the first time
and Moscow insists that swathes of the undersea territory are geologically contiguous to Northern Russia, giving it the right of
possession under international law. The question is being adjudicated by the U.N.but in the meantime the Northern Fleet Admiral
Andrei Korablev has announced that Russia will reopen a military base in the Novosibirsk Islands abandoned 20 years ago and
reinforce it with 10 warships and four nuclear-powered icebreakers. The navy will also install military infrastructure on almost all
the islands and archipelagos of the Arctic Ocean to create what Korablev calls a unified system of monitoring air, surface and
subsurface conditions. His fleet will also be sent to patrol Franz Josef Land, Severnaya Zemlya, the Novosibirsk archipelago and
Wrangel Island to back up the Kremlins claim to the worlds largest untapped oil reservescontrol over which is now contested by
Russia, the U.S., Denmark, Norway, Canada and, more recently, China. Of the two, it is Chinas naval build up that, for now, most
concentrates minds in the Pentagon. Beijings far-reaching claims amount to an expansionist strategy with

profound implications for U.S. power and regional security, says Ratner. At the end of the Cold
War, the U.S. had 15 carrier battle groups, compared to 11 today. How much longer
Washingtons spending on sea power can be limited depends in part on what both Beijing and
Moscow do. And now, the signals are going in one direction. Last December, a PLAN warship attached to the
Liaonings battle group peeled off and sailed straight at the U.S.S. Cowpens, a guided missile
cruiser shadowing the aircraft carrier, forcing it into a dangerous game of chicken. Washington
remains the dominant naval power globally. But the gap is closingquickly.

China Rels Low

US-Sino relations low right now
Geng 12 [Jing Geng, Utrecht University School of Law, LL.M. Candidate Public International Law, 2012, The Legality of

Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS, Utrecht Journal of Intl and European Law Volume
28/Issue 74, Article, pp. 22-30, MM]
In March 2009 in the South China Sea, five

Chinese vessels surrounded the unarmed USNS Impeccable, a

United States (US) Navy ocean surveillance vessel, and ordered it to leave the area.1 The Impeccable
had been conducting routine seabed mapping and tracking submarines about seventy-five nautical miles (nm) south of Chinas
Hainan Island.2 Two of the Chinese vessels moved within eight meters of the US ship, forcing it to take collision-avoidance
measures.3 The Impeccable withdrew from the area but returned the following day accompanied by a US guided missile destroyer
for its protection.4 This

incident raised tensions in Sino-American relations as both nations

accused the other of violating international law.5 The Pentagon protested the aggressive
harassment of the Chinese vessels while Beijing accused the US ship of illegally operating in
Chinas Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).6 This issue is unlikely to be resolved because the two
sides fundamentally disagree on what military activities are permissible in another states EEZ.7

The Impeccable confrontation is a good example of the uncertainty and controversy regarding the legality of military operations in
the EEZ. Did the United States have the right to conduct activities in Chinas claimed EEZ? Was China out of line to require prior
notification and permission? What does the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or the Convention) permit
and prohibit in terms of military activities in the EEZ? Unfortunately, the issue of the military uses of the oceans in

peacetime raises many contentious questions and very few answers.

LOST Hurts FON

UNCLOS places significant constraints on freedom of navigation
Geng 12 [Jing Geng, Utrecht University School of Law, LL.M. Candidate Public International
Law, 2012, The Legality of Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone under
UNCLOS, Utrecht Journal of Intl and European Law Volume 28/Issue 74, Article, pp. 22-30,
MM]
With such limited guidance from the text of UNCLOS and from state practice, what is the way
forward for determining the scope of permissible military activity in the EEZ? Furthermore,
what can be done to prevent hostilities and other incidents at sea? Seeking clarity from tribunals
will be difficult since Article 298 has an opt-out clause where many states may exclude disputes
regarding military activities from compulsory dispute resolution.93 In fact, many states have
taken advantage of this option.94 It will be difficult to look for an authoritative legal
interpretation regarding military activities in the EEZ if such a dispute is not presented before
the ICJ or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.95 Thus, the question of whether
naval operations are permissible within the EEZ of a coastal state remains unclear. Aside from
dispute settlement, states could gain clarity regarding military activity in the EEZ from bilateral
or regional arrangements. Such dialogue could promote clarity and potentially help preempt
conflict. 96 For instance, the former Soviet Union and the United States adopted a Joint
Statement providing for uniform interpretation of the right of innocent passage in the territorial
sea.97 In the East China Sea, China and Japan have developed bilateral regimes for conflict
avoidance regarding fisheries and marine scientific research.98 These agreements may not
resolve every issue, but they do certainly offer more clarity and could provide mechanisms to
deal with situations where the law is uncertain. Another option would be to form regional
agreements. In the 1990s, Indonesia used Association of Southeast Asian Nations as a venue for
hosting informal talks aimed at conflict resolution and management in the South China Sea.99
Thus, individual states as well as regional organizations may have a role in clarifying the legality
of military operations in the EEZ. There is the risk of regional diversification in state practice
and interpretation; nevertheless, such arrangements could contribute to increased certainty
regarding military uses of the oceans. These multi-state dialogues are particularly crucial at the
moment as tensions continue to escalate in the South China Sea region.100 IV. Conclusion
Military activities in the EEZ were a point of contention during UNCLOS III negotiations, and
remain controversial in state practice. UNCLOS attempts to balance the differing interests of
coastal and maritime states, but is silent or ambiguous on the legality of military operations in
foreign EEZs. Coastal states seek to assert increasing control over their maritime zones while
maritime states prioritize the freedom of navigation. Military activity that is permissible will
depend on many variables and the circumstances. Maritime states cannot engage in naval
activities without constraint, and coastal states should not unilaterally revoke certain highseas freedoms. Both the coastal state and the maritime state should have mutual respect and
due regard for one another.101The issue of military activities in the EEZ will continue to be a
complex subject, without clear definitions in the nature and scope of permissible activity. As
state practice evolves, the potential for hostilities is high, particularly in semi-enclosed sea areas
such as the South China Sea. States should create dialogues and form agreements to
help clarify the contours of military activity in the EEZ. They should focus on mutual
interests, interdependence, and coexistence rather than perceiving the ocean as a zero-sum
resource.1

Ratification of LOST causes war---empirics prove

Hanna 12 (Colin Hanna, Colin A. Hanna is President of Let Freedom Ring USA, Inc., a nonprofit public policy organization committed to promoting Constitutional government, free
enterprise and traditional values, former County Commissioner, CBS sales executive, Veteran,
U.S. Navy; graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, "Congress needs to tell Law of the Sea
Treaty to get lost", May 29 2012, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/29/congressneeds-to-tell-law-sea-treaty-to-get-lost/)
Under LOST, the responsibility for preserving freedom of the seas would be relegated to a
United Nations body whose mission is to resolve conflicts before they become shooting wars . Let's
just say weve been down that road before, and it did not lead to peace. During the period between
the First and Second World Wars, the global powers developed a series of treaties intended to
prevent war. Beginning with the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, to a series of naval weapons limitation treaties,
the United States, Japan, and the European powers placed their hopes for peace on a set of
agreements that were supposed to produce a balance of naval power that would virtually
guarantee the signatories would not go to war. As history demonstrates, those efforts were futile.
The democratic states abided by them while the dictatorships in Germany, Italy and Japan did
not. They cheated in ways that were fully apparent -- but the world turned a blind eye to their dishonesty. This
left the democracies at a distinct disadvantage and ill-prepared when war eventually came.
Peace, as Ronald Reagan famously said, is best secured through strength. Placing our trust in
international agreements governed by bureaucratic global bodies whose representatives may not
adhere to democratic values is to risk disaster. The Law of the Sea Treaty, as an effort to police the
maritime waterways and establish a code of behavior, harkens back to the agreements that gave cover to those
whose belligerence eventually led to the Second World War. America must rely upon itself, not
international bodies under the United Nations.

FON Bad Laundry List

UNCLOS has many negative aspects- laundry list
CIMSEC 12[Center for International Maritime Security, This is a major maritime security organization that consists of authors
who serve and work in naval operations of command. It also consists of top DOD officials. May 18 2012, LAW OF THE S.E.A.
http://cimsec.org/law-of-the-s-e-a, MM]

Despite the advantages Secretary Panetta and other U.S. advocates cite for the international maritime legal framework and global
commons access rights (including the Arctic), the U.S. and other non-ratifying countries have long since

acknowledged various negative aspects of the convention: increased non-local

environmental policies, International Seabed Authority fees and taxes,
international eminent domain grabs of intellectual property ( to share new
technology used in exploiting the economic opportunities of the expanded maritime domain),
and the perception of a requirement to suspend all military-related actions while
conducting innocent passage. In order to fully address the impact of UNCLOS ratification to S.E.A. regional
countries such as the U.S. must weigh the finer points of the treaty and second-order
effects its ratification might bring. As a new signatory, would U.S. diplomatic relations with Turkey and Israel now
stability,

hinge on ignorance of Greece and Cyprus maritime boundary and Exclusive Economic Zone claims? As U.S. businesses continue to
explore deep sea beds, would the U.S. concede to limited exploitation and research of (traditionally unquestioned) U.S. bodies of
water by an international consensus? How would the U.S. discuss future fish stock trade with South American countries concerned
with migratory fish locations beyond 200nm? Perhaps the U.S. pursuance of UNCLOS to support the pivot to

the Pacific truly outweighs these other non-vital diplomatic considerations, but I cant stop
wondering if by doing so, the U.S. may cause yet another pivot among its allies .

FON Bad China Relations

Freedom of navigation strains US-Sino Relations
Shimbun 12/26/13 [The Ashahi Shimbun, The best source of news on Japan and Asia from The Asahi Shimbun. Daily
updates & analysis of Japan politics, business, social trends, travel, 12/26/2013, Freedom of navigation pits Japan, U.S. against
China, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201312260024, MM]
With Japan and the United States in one corner, and China in the other, the

issue of freedom of navigation is taking

center stage as Chinas growing maritime presence continues to set off alarm bells. While Japan
and the United States differ slightly in their interpretation of the issue, they are adamant that China must tow
the line in what essentially boils down to international law. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was

determined to use the Oct. 9 summit in Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
to press the issue. Right up to the last moment, Abe was pushing senior Foreign Ministry officials to lobby their foreign counterparts
over the wording of the chairmans statement. Use whatever means are necessary to ensure that 'freedom of

navigation appears in the text, Abe told senior diplomats. Since December last year when he returned to
serve a second stint as prime minister, Abe has emphasized the importance of freedom of navigation
during his meetings with foreign leaders and on other occasions. His intention clearly is to
send a strong message to China , which continues to intimidate its neighbors by sending fishing
fleets to the East China Sea and the South China Sea, where it has territorial disputes. Abe managed to get freedom of
navigation slipped into the chairmans statement in Brunei, although some pro-Beijing countries flinched at the idea. Freedom of
navigation was again spelled out expressly, and at more length, in a joint statement during a Japan-ASEAN commemorative
summit meeting in Tokyo on Dec. 14. A joint statement is considered to carry more weight than a chairmans statement. The
groundwork had been laid in Brunei, said one senior Foreign Ministry official. Freedom of navigation is a central

concept in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sets comprehensive rules on
conduct at sea . Often dubbed the Constitution for the oceans, the convention has been ratified by 166 nations
divides maritime areas into the territorial sea, where the coastal
state has sovereign rights; the exclusive economic zone, which lies outside the territorial sea but within 200 nautical
and organizations. The UNCLOS

miles (370 kilometers) of the coast; and the high seas, which are not part of the territorial sea or the EEZ of any country. The
convention grants the coastal state sovereign rights to develop and exploit marine resources in its EEZ. Freedom of navigation is also
a golden rule championed by the United States, which counts the Pacific Ocean as its backyard. Washington has yet to

ratify the UNCLOS, but has said it will respect and abide by the convention just as it would in
any international common law. Tokyo and Washington are slightly at odds over the

interpretation of freedom of navigation. The United States asserts that noncoastal states
should in principle be allowed to conduct military activity in an EEZ. But Japan has stopped short of

asserting in public that noncoastal states should be allowed to do so. In 2003, the then director-general of the North American
Affairs Bureau in the Japanese Foreign Ministry told the Upper House that all states enjoy freedoms (in exclusive economic zones),
but shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal state. His remark mirrored the corresponding provision in the
UNCLOS, and has been Tokyos official position on the matter ever since. Tokyos nuanced position reflects its desire

to keep negotiation cards up its sleeve during diplomatic dealings with Beijing. There is a profit
to be gained from ambiguity, said Kazumine Akimoto, a senior researcher with the Ocean Policy Research Foundation
who is well-versed in maritime affairs. Beijing has argued that Okinotorishima, Japans southernmost
point, is not an island but rocks. In the event agreement was reached that Okinotorishima is
indeed an island, China would have no choice but to refrain from naval activity in Japans EEZ
around Okinotorishima, given its stance that noncoastal states should not be allowed to conduct
military activity without permission in an EEZ. That would make it more difficult for
China to gather intelligence on U.S. military establishments in Guam and elsewhere.
CHINA AIMS TO SET UP NEW RULES The history of confrontation between the United States and China
over EEZs is short. It started only after the UNCLOS was adopted in 1982. After World War II ended in

1945, countries began to establish full-fledged rules on conduct in the seas. In 1958, the international community adopted a
convention that applied to territorial waters and high seas. In the 1960s, confrontations occurred between developed and developing
countries, prompting newly independent nations to claim rights over marine resources. In 1973, countries began negotiations to
create the UNCLOS by reviewing and unifying conventions related to the sea. The talks led to the UNCLOS being adopted and EEZs

being established. During

the talks, the United States and the Soviet Union, both maritime powers,
agreed that areas designated as territorial waters should not be expanded too greatly. This was
because they feared it would threaten freedom of navigation, which is indispensable for military
activities. Having reached agreement between themselves, they led the negotiations. In the talks, developed countries
that did not want their freedom of navigation and flights to be restricted clashed with developing
countries which wanted to reduce threats (from other countries), said Shigeki Sakamoto, a professor of international
law at Doshisha University. Because of that, countries took a long hard look at the influence the UNCLOS could have on military
activities. That was also why countries were only granted economic rights in their EEZs. China, however, was a late

entrant in making its stance clear on the UNCLOS. In those days, Chinas studies on laws related to the sea were
insufficient. In the early years of the negotiations, Chinas team (for te talks) did not include experts on laws, said Jin Yongming,
director at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Center for China Marine Strategy Studies. Feeling left out, China came

round to the idea that countries can restrict the military activities of other countries in their own
EEZs. As the concept of an EEZ is legally new, UNCLOSs articles on EEZs have ambiguous portions, Jin said. Because of that,
countries can interpret those parts in ways that are advantageous for themselves. China is among 20 or so countries
that oppose freedom of navigation in EEZs. Like-minded nations include India and Brazil. I do believe that as
China continues to rise and continues to grow, it will develop a greater appreciation for freedom of
navigation, said Carleton Cramer, a former U.S. Navy captain. Many other U.S. experts on maritime issues
feel the same way. However, Jeffrey Hornung, an associate professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in
Hawaii, is not optimistic. It is not easy to expect China to change, he said. China wants to
strengthen control on its EEZ because of the historical background that it was colonized by
Western countries. It aims to establish a new maritime order that is different from the rules
created under the initiative of the United States and Europe. FRICTION SPREADS TO AIRSPACE At 10 a.m.
on Nov. 23 (11 a.m. in Japan), the Chinese National Defense Ministry announced without warning the establishment of an air
defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. The islands, which are controlled by Japan but
also claimed by China, are at the center of a bitter row between the two countries. At a stroke, strained relations between

Japan and China expanded from the sea to airspace. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately lashed out
at China, saying, This unilateral action constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East
China Sea. Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida bluntly stated, We cannot accept this unilateral step.
Japan and the United States also have their own ADIZs. But in Chinas case, the action was unilateral and mandatory. China
made it a requirement that aircraft with routes through the ADIZ submit their flight plans to
Chinese authorities in advance. China also warned that failure to do so could result in its
military forces taking emergency measures. The Chinese National Defense Ministry took the position that its

establishment of the ADIZ was in line with international law. The ADIZ is not a territorial airspace, it said. The United States
asserts that EEZs should not be used to restrict the military activities of other countries. However, China takes a different view. The
United States has established its ADIZ over high seas that are far from its mainland and has required aircraft of other countries to
submit their flight plans, including their destinations, in advance if they plan to fly through the ADIZ, said Xue Guifang, a professor
of law at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. In what amounts to a convenient justification, China has decided that its ADIZ is airspace
over which it has sole jurisdiction. By lumping sea and airspace collectively, it has tried to counter the

United States. The ADIZ announced by China on Nov. 23 is basically a China-style airspace version of its EEZ. China has
yet to agree to the maritime rules created under the initiative of the United States and the Soviet
Union. The problem of ADIZs is similar to that of EEZs. China is trying to make a new order in the sky, too, said Hornung. As

far as the Chinese National Defense Ministry is concerned, it said, We made the announcement (of the ADIZ) at an appropriate
moment after giving full consideration to our military capabilities and our countrys political situation. China also plans to establish
an ADIZ in the South China Sea, where it also has territorial disputes. But unlike the East China Sea, the South China Sea is far from
Chinas mainland. This will likely limit the ability of air surveillance facilities on the mainland to cover the entire area. The Chinese
air force is expected to encounter a similar difficulty in carrying out surveillance and reconnaissance activities. For this reason, many
experts believe that China will not be able to establish its ADIZ in the South China Sea soon. (This article was written by Kazuo
Teranishi, Makoto Oda in Tokyo, Nanae Kurashige in Beijing, and Atsushi Okudera in Washington.)

FON Bad Prolif

Freedom of navigation causes proliferation
Geng 12 [Jing Geng, Utrecht University School of Law, LL.M. Candidate Public International Law, 2012, The Legality of

Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS, Utrecht Journal of Intl and European Law Volume
28/Issue 74, Article, pp. 22-30, MM]
The sea and its system of legal norms, however, risks characterization as a classic out of sight, out of mind problem. Simply
because most activities on the oceans take place at some distance from our daily lives on land, issues of maritime law

and
oceans management are not cordoned off from transna- tional problems, particularly global
security, that demand nearly constant attention. Renewed efforts by the United States and its
allies to neutralize threats such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
have placed a new and sustained focus on the legal regime regulating mari- time behavior.17 The
exploitation of the oceans for the transport and ex- change of dangerous weaponry and
technology is a global problem facilitated by the same freedom of navigation by sea that
legal prescriptions have carefully preserved over time. Writing over forty years ago, Professors McDougal and

Burke noted that [t]he common interest in maintaining a large measure of freedom from interference on the high seas has not been
seriously questioned for some decades.18 This Article asks whether seriously questioning that free- dom is

now permissible and wise, or whether the intervening years have re- calibrated the acceptable measure of freedom from

interference, on the high seas or elsewhere. The disorder lurking beneath the faade of legal order rep- resented by UNCLOSthe
troubling notion that the entire structure built to regulate [the sea] is something of a fantasy oating free of the realities19
exacerbates the difculty of reconciling the overriding principle of nonin- terference20 with the need to promote community wellbeing, both within and beyond the maritime context. This Article examines the threat to world public order

posed by the pro- liferation of WMD by exploitation of the freedom of the seas . The
freedom of the seas makes cracking down on illicit transfers of WMD- related
technology all the more difficult. Policymakers have speculated with great concern about
the variety of ways by which terrorist organizations or hostile states might exploit the traditional
freedoms and anonymity of the global commercial shipping industry to increase their threat
capabilities or even carry out threats directly. Before examining the specic nature of those threats, this Section
describes two essential characteristics of maritime transport that expose the industry to possible abuse.

FON Alt Causes

Alt cause state authority
Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
The ambiguity prevailing at the time concerning coastal States legislative competences as
regards innocent passage was meant to be clarified by article 21 of the Convention. This provision

tries to establish a delicate balance between the interests of international navigation and the right of coastal States to regulate the
passage of foreign ships in the territorial sea. Only a handful of actions are qualified as not being protected under the notion of
innocent passage in article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention, e.g., any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to the Convention
(article 19, paragraph 2(h)). The coastal State may regulate innocent passage in respect of a wide range

of matters under article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in conformity with the Convention and
other rules of international law,. Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of article 21 in particular refer to the
safety of navigation, the regulation of maritime traffic, and the protection of navigational aids,
while paragraph 1(f) relates to the preservation of the marine environment and the prevention,
reduction and control of pollution thereof. Paragraph 1(g) refers to article 245 of the Convention, which
accords to coastal States an exclusive right to regulate, authorize and conduct marine scientific
research in their territorial sea, and paragraph 1(h) refers to custom, fiscal, immigration and
sanitary matters. In short, article 19 of the Convention excludes certain actions from the protection accorded by the notion of
innocent passage, whereas article 21 of the Convention opens the possibility for coastal States to limit further the freedom of
navigation.

Alt cause international agreements

Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
International agreements, in many cases established under the auspices of the IMO, mandate
coastal States, including States bordering international straits, to adopt further measures for the
management and control of international navigation. Such measures may be taken unilaterally
or in conjunction with the IMO. This system is still in the stage of development and some uncertainty exists in this
respect. Among many international conventions having a bearing on coastal State jurisdiction over foreign shipping in the territorial
sea, four contain provisions that allow for the adoption of rules and standards applicable to foreign merchant ships. These are the
Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. 1972 (COLREG)4 which provides for the possibility of
traffic separation schemes. The other international instruments are: the International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL
73/78),5 the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS),6 and the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal 1989.7

Alt cause IMO power

Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
Apart from measures provided for in international conventions, certain restrictions upon the
freedom of navigation may be based upon measures taken by the IMO. Through Annex 2 to IMO
Resolution A.927(22), the IMO may designate Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs). These are areas
which need special protection through the IMO owing to their recognized ecological, socioeconomic or scientific significance and because they may be vulnerable to damage as a result of

international shipping activities. The legal basis of such power of the IMO may be sought in
articles 192 and 194 of the Convention as well as in article 211, paragraph 1, thereof. It is to be noted that
the designation of a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area as such has no binding effect. However, the PSSA Guidelines9 require
the adoption by the IMO of associated protective measures. The type of measures that may be
adopted is left to the IMO. To date the IMO has prescribed ships routing measures and ships reporting systems under

SOLAS, under MARPOL and a range of other measures adopted through its own resolutions. Insofar as such measures are based
upon existing international agreements, the resulting infringements upon freedom of navigation may be considered justified.10 But

the view is also held that whatever is decided by the IMO is to be considered as conforming to
the Convention.11

Alt cause Rome Convention

Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
The 2005 Protocol14 to the 1988 Rome Convention (SUA Convention)15 is one of those recent legal
instruments which may, in the future, provide a basis for limiting the freedom of navigation. The
Protocol introduces a new article, article 8bis, concerning the procedures to be followed if a
State Party desires to board a ship flying the flag of another State Party, outside the territorial
sea of any State, when the requesting Party has reasonable grounds to suspect that the ship or a
person on board the ship is, has been, or is about to be, involved in the commission of an offence
under the Convention. The authorization and cooperation of the flag State is required before such boarding can take
place.16 Such authorization may be made in general or on an ad hoc basis.

Alt cause PSI

(Proliferation Security Initiative)
Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
The multilaterally mandated measures against the maritime transport of weapons of mass
destruction are being supplemented by measures having a bilateral basis, namely the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). It is the objective of the PSI to interdict the transfer or
transport of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials to and
from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern.17 Most problematic is subparagraph 4.d of the PSI
Statement of Interdiction Principles,18 which calls on PSI participants: To take appropriate actions to (1)
stop and/or search in their internal waters, territorial seas, or contiguous zones (when declared)
vessels that are reasonably suspected or carrying such cargoes to or from states or non-state
actors of proliferation concern and to seize such cargoes that are identified; and (2) to enforce
conditions on vessels entering or leaving their ports, internal waters or territorial seas that are
reasonably suspected of carrying such cargoes, such as requiring that such vessels be subject to
boarding, search, and seizure of such cargoes prior to entry.
Alt cause Security Council legislation
Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
It has been argued that passage can be considered to be not innocent if the conditions of
S/RES/1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004 are met.23 It has further been argued that States may, on the basis
of S/RES/1540, enact national legislation declaring the transport of weapons of mass
destruction through their territorial sea a criminal offence which would allow the coastal State

concerned to take action, as prescribed in article 27, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Certainly
S/RES/1540 provides that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace. Even if it
is accepted that the Security Council may exercise such quasi-legislative power, this does not
render the transit of such material automatically non-innocent.24 The legal situation in respect
of international straits raises particular problems, given the enhanced status of international
navigation. Whether ships carrying weapons of mass destruction which are not targeted against
a particular State may be interdicted on the high seas by warships of another State without the
consent of the flag State concerned is a matter of controversy.25 The exclusive jurisdictional relationship
between a flag State and one of its vessels on the high seas is well-rooted in customary international law. In the Lotus case, the
Permanent Court of International Justice held that vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority except that of the State
whose flag they fly.26 Article 92 of the Convention codifies this principle. Several exceptions are provided for: a waiver by the flag
State if the vessel is without nationality, or if the vessel is engaged in piracy, slavery or unauthorized broadcasting.27 Accordingly,
there is a strict limit against boarding and inspection of a vessel under a flag different from that of the investigating vessel.

Freedom of navigation is being limited multilaterally

Wolfrum, 2008 - president of the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Rdiger,
Freedom of Navigation: New Challenges, 2008,
https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/statements_of_president/wolfrum/freedom
_navigation_080108_eng.pdf ) DS
As indicated in the introduction, measures having the effect of or even intending to limit the
freedom of navigation, transit passage or innocent passage are being taken multilaterally,
namely by the IMO and the Security Council, on the basis of bilateral arrangements as well as
unilaterally. There is no doubt that the objectives pursued, namely the protection of the marine environment and protection
against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and against terrorism are at least in principle valid ones.

Nevertheless, there are some concerns. It is worth considering whether the IMO or the Security
Council really has a sound legal basis for acting as legislators, a function they exercise de facto in
the cases mentioned in the context of this presentation. I hope I have been able to demonstrate that multilateral
actions are being supplemented by measures taken on the basis of bilateral arrangements (PSI, Container Security Initiative,
agreements on the interception of vessels) or even unilaterally (unilaterally declared mandatory pilotage). The reasons for such
supplementary measures are dissatisfaction with the results achieved multilaterally and the desire for unilaterally tailored solutions.

For vessels, this mixture of restrictions which seem to lack coherence is difficult to cope with. At
present, the limitations faced may still be tolerable but if this trend prevails and there are clear
indications that it will a reassessment may be called for.

FON Squo Solves

The SQ solves freedom of navigation where it is most threatened China
-other countries protect it too
Gayathri, 2012 - writes about geopolitics and business for International Business Times
(Amrutha, US Navy To Safeguard Freedom Of Navigation In Asia, 10/26/2012,
http://www.ibtimes.com/us-navy-safeguard-freedom-navigation-asia-854376 ) DS
The captain of the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS George Washington Thursday said the U.S.
Navys presence in Asia would help safeguard the freedom of navigation, alluding to Chinas
claims of sovereignty over international waters in the region, the AFP reported. "One of the reasons
we deploy throughout the region is so we can carry forth the banner of freedom of navigation. It is

very important to us given the trade that travels throughout the region on the seas," Captain Gregory Fenton was quoted as saying by
the AFP. He added that the U.S. was not taking sides in the sea disputes between several Asian

nations but would make sure that the sea routes remained open. Fenton said the supercarrier,
which is on a port call to Manila, was there as part of its routine and had no connection to the territorial
dispute in the South China Sea between the Philippines, a U.S. ally, and China. China's growing maritime influence in
the region has the neighboring nations, including Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan, worried over
territorial confrontations. Beijing lays claim to almost the entire South China Sea, including
what is recognized by the U.N. as the Exclusive Economic Zone of other neighbors. The members of
the Association on Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), meanwhile, have started discussions on a code of conduct in the South China
Sea ahead of the next month's ASEAN summit. ASEAN, China, all the others everyone wants a positive outcome.

Everyone understands the need for regional peace and harmony, and I believe that we will all work towards

that," Singapore's Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam, who is on a visit to Indonesia, said Thursday at a joint press conference with his
Indonesian counterpart Marty Natalegawa, the Straits Times reported. ASEAN failed to reach a common ground over the sea dispute
at a regional summit held in Cambodia in July. Though the disagreement was attributed to the claims of overlapping maritime
boundaries of the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia in certain parts of the South China Sea, it also exposed how the
Chinese pressure had polarized regional politics. The Philippines and Vietnam, which were involved in a dispute with China recently
over the ownership of the Scarborough Shoal, have sought ASEAN's support in compelling Beijing to accept the code of conduct.
Natalegawa had slammed the disagreement within the bloc as "perplexing" and "utterly irresponsible." In September, U.S. Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton offered U.S. support for a regionally endorsed six-point plan for the implementation of a code of conduct in
the South China Sea while adding that Washington did not take a position on competing territorial claims. "

States has a national interest, as every country does, in

respect for international law,
said.

The United

the maintenance of peace and stability,

freedom of navigation , unimpeded lawful commerce in the South China Sea, she had

The SQ solves the US is constantly defending freedom of navigation

Alexander, 2014 - correspondent for Reuters (David, U.S. freedom of navigation operations
in 2013 targeted China, Iran, 3/26/2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-usadefense-navy-idUSBREA2508920140306 ) DS
(Reuters) - The U.S. military carried out freedom of navigation operations challenging the maritime
claims of China, Iran and 10 other countries last year, asserting its transit rights in defiance of
efforts to restrict passage, a Pentagon report said on Thursday. The Defense Department's annual Freedom
of Navigation Report to Congress for the 2013 fiscal year showed the U.S. military targeted not only
countries such as Iran, with whom it has no formal relations, but treaty allies such as the
Philippines, too. The U.S. military conducted multiple operations targeting China over what
Washington believes are "excessive" claims about its maritime boundaries and its effort to force
foreign warships to obtain permission before peacefully transiting its territorial seas. U.S.
operations challenging Iran were aimed at rejecting Tehran's effort to restrict the Strait of
Hormuz to ships from nations that have signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, an accord the United States has not

formally adopted. The report covers activity in the 2013 fiscal year that ended September 30, before the latest tensions over a near
mishap between U.S. and Chinese warships in the South China Sea and Beijing's declaration of an air defense identification zone
over the East China Sea, which Washington rejected. The United States carries out freedom of navigation

operations by sending Navy ships into disputed areas in an effort to show that the international
community has not accepted claims made by one or more countries. The operations, which began in
1979, are coordinated by the State and Defense departments and are meant to be consistent with the U.N. Law of
the Sea Convention, even though Washington has not formally adopted the agreement. "The United States will not
... acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the
international community in navigation and overflight," the Pentagon said in a 1992 Freedom of Navigation
report by then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. U.S. operations in the 2013 fiscal year also challenged
claims by Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Taiwan and Vietnam.
All countries but Cambodia were targeted more than once. Since 1991, the United States has conducted more than
300 freedom of navigation operations challenging maritime claims by 53 different countries
worldwide, from Albania, Ecuador and Denmark to Pakistan and Yemen. Iran and the Philippines have been
challenged most frequently. Iran has appeared on 19 of the 21 lists submitted to Congress since 1991, while the Philippines
has appeared on 18. Cambodia, the Maldives, India and Oman also frequently appear. China has been on the list 11
times, the same as Indonesia and one less than Burma. The most frequent U.S. complaint is with countries that measure the start
of their territorial waters by drawing a straight line between two points on the coast or along offshore islands, thereby enclosing a
vast expanse of sea. Washington disagrees with the Philippines' designation of the seas bounded by

the island chain as internal waters and therefore off limits to foreign ships or overflight by
foreign aircraft. The United States targets about a dozen countries per year for challenge, with the
high ranging to 27 countries in 1998 and dropping into the low single digits at the height of the U.S. war in Iraq.

Shipping Answers

Lost Not Key

LosT not key to US shipping or leadership
Bandow 4 - Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he served as a deputy representative to the third U.N. Conference on
the Law of the Sea. He has earned his J.D. from Stanford University (3/15/2004, Doug, The
Cato Institute, Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty // SM)
Critics of the U.S. refusal to sign in 1982 predicted ocean chaos, but not once has an
American ship been denied passage. No country has had either the incentive or the
ability to interfere with U.S. shipping . And if they had, the treaty would have been of little
help. In 1998 Law of the Sea Treaty supporters agitated for immediate ratification because
several special exemptions for the United States were set to expire; Washington did not ratify,
and no one seems to have noticed. Now Lugar worries that Washington could forfeit our seat at
the table of institutions that will make decisions about the use of the oceans. Yet last October
Assistant Secretary of State John F. Turner told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that
America has had considerable success in asserting its oceans interests as a nonparty to the
Convention. Law of the Sea Treaty proponents talk grandly of the need to restore
U.S. leadership, but real leadership can mean saying no as well as yes . Ronald
Reagan was right to torpedo the Law of the Sea Treaty two decades ago. Creating a new oceans
bureaucracy is no more attractive today.

REM Answers

LOST Not Key

UNCLOS not needed to develop offshore resources
Murray 13 MBA, University of London; MA, University of Oxford, Vice President of Strategy at the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, former Director of Research for the Statistical Assessment Service and the Executive Officer of HM Department of
Transport, LOST at Sea, March 25, 2013, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg167, CBC

There are two main economic arguments advanced in favor of the United States joining LOST. The first is that uncertainty is
preventing the United States from developing natural resources, particularly in the Arctic. The second, newer argument is that LOST
would encourage the development of resources by instituting a sound property rights regime in the seabed of the high seas. Neither
of these arguments has merit. Can Resources Be Developed without LOST? The first argument that LOST will advance the
development of the seabed is outlined in a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sent to the U.S. Senate in July 2012:
Americas extended continental shelf, which in some areas extends hundreds of miles beyond U.S. territorial waters, contains
abundant oil and natural gas reserves that can provide reliable, affordable energy to Americas homes and factories for decades to
come but only if the Senate acts to approve Law of the Sea. Likewise, by joining the Convention, U.S. companies would gain
exclusive access to abundant rare earth mineral resources that are essential to high-tech manufacturing. China currently controls 90
percent of the world supply of rare earth minerals. Law of the Sea represents Americas best opportunity to take control of its own
resource destiny. No U.S. company will make the multi-billion-dollar investments required to recover these resources without the
legal certainty the Convention provides.30 This argument is demonstrably false. U.S. companies are already

successfully investing in an area of the extended continental shelf the western gap in the
Gulf of Mexico. There are two areas of submerged continental shelf in the Gulf, outside the Exclusive Economic Zones of both
the United States and Mexico, known as the Western Gap and the Eastern Gap. The Eastern Gap shares a nautical boundary with
Cuba, and its precise boundaries have not been negotiated. The boundaries of the Western Gap, however, were defined by a treaty
signed with Mexico in June 2000. This bilateral treaty has allowed both nations to proceed with

confidence in developing the extended continental shelf in the Western Gap. No objections have
been raised to the bilateral treaty and none are expected. As a result, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management has sold development rights in the Western Gap in several auctions since
the treaty was ratified in 2001. Clearly, companies are willing to make multimillion dollar
investments to recover resources even without the legal certainty the Convention provides, as
the U.S. Chamber put it. What of the Arctic? A 2011 Bloomberg BusinessWeek editorial argued: The U.S. continental shelf

off Alaska extends more than 600 miles into the Arctic Ocean. American companies have been reluctant to invest in exploiting this
underwater terrain, which contains vast untapped reserves of oil and natural gas. Thats because the U.S., as a nonparticipant in the
sea convention, has no standing to defend its ownership of any treasures that are found there.32 Yet this is exactly the same case as
in the Gulf of Mexico. Only three nations contest the ownership of resources in the extended North

American continental shelf in the Arctic: the United States, Canada and Russia. American
relations with Canada are friendly; therefore, a United States-Mexico-style treaty with Canada
demarcating appropriate lines north of Alaska should be relatively easy to achieve. Russia might be
perceived as a more intractable problem; but a 1990 treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union
defines the maritime boundary between the two powers. Under the Treaty, Russia has claimed vast areas
beneath the Arctic Ocean, but these claims in no way infringe upon the 1990 Treaty. Actually, they are a
challenge to Canada rather than the United States. South of the Arctic Ocean, the treaty line protects U.S.
claims to large areas of extended continental shelf in the Bering Sea and in the Pacific Ocean
southwest of the Alaskan Aleutian Islands. Accordingly, there is no barrier (barring the low one
of a necessity to negotiate a treaty with Canada) to the United States developing the extended
continental shelf in the Arctic and its environs in the same way it has in the Western Gap. As for

the ability to develop deep sea resources, the United States has a clear position, as close to the Grotian and Wilsonian ideals of the
free sea as one can get: Like the fish of the high seas the minerals of the deep seabed are open to anyone to take.34 This principle is
also embodied in the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980, which guarantees the right of U.S. citizens and corporations
to explore and develop such resources regardless of whether the United States accedes to the Treaty.

LOST Fails
UNCLOS will not prevent full-scale conflicts over resources, and court
composition ensures US will lose many trade disputes
Rabkin 06, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, former professor in the Department of Government at
Cornell University, on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace (originally appointed by President George W. Bush in
2007, then appointed for a second term by President Barack Obama and reconfirmed by the Senate in 2011), The Law of the Sea
Treaty: A Bad Deal for America, Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 1 2006, http://www.cei.org/pdf/5352.pdf, CBC
It is not even clear that the United States would benefit from having the option to pursue its own claims. In a direct confrontation
over a seizure, the United States has considerable resourcesnaval, diplomatic, and economicto

unilaterally pursue its demands for immediate release. But having subscribed to UNCLOS, the
United States would have much more difficulty wielding such pressures, if the state which effected the

seizure insisted that the matter should be taken to ITLOS for resolution. UNCLOS seems to provide protection against these
concerns by stipulating that states may opt out of its compulsory arbitration requirements when disputes concern military
activities...by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service.6 At its narrowest reading, this provision might
mean only that ITLOS will avoid intervening in full-scale confrontations between

opposing battle fleetsa situation that would create problems far beyond those of
dispute resolution. At its broadest, this exemption might mean that any seizure could be excluded from ITLOS review,

since seizures are never effectuated by unarmed commercial vessels, which would entirely negate the provision bestowing
mandatory jurisdiction on ITLOS for seizures at sea. So which is it? The only thing certain is that it will be up to ITLOS to decide
how far it wants to intrude into U.S. naval strategy. The State Department has proposed ratification with an understanding that the
military exemption will be read broadly. (Sec. 2, Par. 2 of Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification, printed with
Treaty Doc. 103-39 in Hearings on the Un Convention on the Law of the Sea, Ot. 21, 2003, along with Statement of William H. Taft,
Legal Adviser to the Department of Stat) But UNCLOS itself stipulates that states may not attach reservations to their ratification.7
Again, it will be up to ITLOS to decide what significance, if any, should be accorded such unilateral U.S. understandings. And the

courts composition is not encouraging. As of September 2005, a clear majority of the courts 21 judges
were from states that cannot be supposed to be friendly to American naval actionincluding
Russia, China, Brazil, Cameroon, Ghana, Senegal, Cape Verde, Tunisia, Lebanon, Grenada, and Trinidad.

No China Monopoly Now

China says its REM resources are sharply declining now
BBC 12 BBC News- Business, China warns its rare earth reserves are declining, BBC News Business, June 20
2012, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18516461, CBC

China referred to "excessive mining" of rare earth reserves China

has warned that the decline in its rare earth

reserves in major mining areas is "accelerating", as most of the original resources are depleted. In

a policy paper, China's cabinet blamed excessive exploitation and illegal mining for the decline. China accounts for more than 90% of
the world's rare earth supplies, but has just 23% of global reserves. It has urged those with reserves to boost production of the
elements, which are used to make electrical goods. "After more than 50 years of excessive mining, China's rare

earth reserves have kept declining and the years of guaranteed rare earth supply have been
reducing," China's cabinet said in the paper on the rare earth industry published by the official Xinhua news agency. We're

willing to cooperate with the parties involved to solve the dispute as soon as possible. At the same time, we will actively use WTO
rules to defend China's legitimate rights and interests Gao YunhuRare Earth Office The term rare earth refers to a group of 17
elements that are used to make a range of hi-tech gadgets. These elements are used in products ranging from MP3 players to mobile
phones, flatscreen TVs and hybrid batteries. With those products becoming increasingly popular, the demand for rare earths has
been rising. But China has imposed export quotas on these elements. It says it has done so to prevent excessive mining of these
elements, which also causes damage to the environment. The US, Japan and the European Union have called the quotas illegal and
dragged Beijing to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the matter. However, Gao Yunhu, deputy chief of the Rare Earth Office
at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, said China's policies were in compliance with the WTO rules and that
Beijing was keen to settle the dispute with its trading partners. "We're willing to cooperate with the parties involved to solve the
dispute as soon as possible," Mr Gao was quoted as saying by Xinhua. "At the same time, we will actively use WTO rules to defend
China's legitimate rights and interests." In the policy paper, China added that it would implement "stricter standards" and
"protective exploitation policies" to ensure sustained growth of the sector.

China losing its REM monopoly now- US will soon be able to mine its own minerals
in the status quo
ZEW 5/6, Centre for European Economic Research, China's Monopoly on Rare Earth Market
in Decline, Centre for European Economic Research, May 6 2014,
http://www.zew.de/en/press/2630/chinas-monopoly-on-rare-earth-market-in-decline, CBC
China will lose its monopoly position on the rare-earth market by the end of this decade. New
suppliers will enter the market and weaken China's market power. The current Chinese mark-up
on global rare-earth prices will practically disappear. The world-market price for light rare
earths will drop substantially in the coming three years; with regard to heavy rare earths, China
will be able to maintain its monopoly position until the end of the decade. These are the findings of a
study conducted by the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) on the basis of METRO, a newly developed model of the
metal market. Of the 110,000 tonnes mined per year, about 90 per cent of rare-earth elements are obtained by China. China has the
power to restrict rare-earth exports, thereby increasing world-market prices significantly. For companies it is very difficult to replace
rare earths by alternative raw materials. Moreover, global demand is increasing, since rare-earth elements are in particular utilised
in key technologies and high-tech. In the coming years, however, new providers like the US, Australia and

Canada will emerge on the market for light rare earths, the more plentiful rare-earth metals.

Based on the METRO model of the metal market, the ZEW study suggests that up to 140,000 tonnes of rare earths could be mined
annually outside China by 2020. This amount would equal about 50 per cent of the global output expected for that time. But putting
a rare-earths mine into operation takes ten to 15 years. For this reason, the reduction of Chinas monopoly position is to be
considered a long-term process. Moreover, the mines that are currently being explored contain only relatively small quantities of
heavy rare earths. Consequently, China will be able to maintain its monopoly power in this area longer than on the market for light
rare earths.

Environment Turn
REM extraction contaminates water supplies and disrupts ecosystems
MIT No Date Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Future of Strategic Natural
Resources, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/environment.html, CBC
The list of environmental concerns that can be connected with rare earth elements is not a brief
one. Throughout the cycle of mining processes that rare earth elements go through, there is
potential for negative effects on the environment. Extracting rare earth elements begins with
mining. This is followed by the refining process, and then disposal. All of the stages of mining,
refining, and disposal come with unique issues. The physical process of removing the ores from
the ground is disruptive to the environment. Most rare earth elements are mined through open
pit mining, which involves opening the surface of the earth using heavy equipment and
machinery. Creating this disruption on the surface of the earth disrupts thriving ecosystems.
Furthermore, mines are the point source of release for three major contaminants: are
radionuclides, rare earth elements, and dust and metal. Each of these contaminants escapes the
mines in different ways and they each have different detrimental effects on the environment.
The goal of mining is to end up with a mostly pure and usable element that can be utilized in
whatever way necessary. However, the ores that are extracted from the earth do not come out
pure, instead they need to undergo a refining process. This refining process introduces another
set of environmental concerns, mostly revolving around the release of metal byproducts into the
environment. It is very easy for metals to enter the air, ground, or waters in an environment,
and once there it is nearly impossible to remove them. The metals in an environment can also
prove devastating to organisms. The byproduct of mining rare earth elements is usually waste
that is full of further threats to the environment. Generally, waste is categorized into two
different types: tailings and waste rock stockpiles. It is the tailings that are of particular concern
as they are full of small, fine particles that can be absorbed into the water and ground
surrounding a particular mine. Regardless of whether a contaminant is deemed tailings or waste
rock stockpiles, however the contamination of the water is the main concern. Water can be
contaminated in three ways: sedimentation, acid drainage, and metals deposition, and once
contaminated is difficult to restore to its original quality.
REM extraction produces massive toxic waste- large global demand ensures lax
environmental standards
Ives 13, The International Herald Tribune, The Economist, Boom in Mining Rare Earths
Poses Mounting Toxic Risks, Yale Environment 360, January 28 2013,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks/26
14/, CBC
In November, the first shipment of raw rare earth minerals arrived at an $800 million
processing plant on Malaysias east coast near the home of Tan Bun Teet. The plant, run by
Australias Lynas Corporation, has since begun refining the rare earth metals, essential
components in wind turbines, hybrid cars, smart phones, cruise missiles, and other high-tech
products. Once fully operational, the plant would become the worlds largest processing facility
of rare earths, breaking Chinas near-monopoly on producing the prized elements. But Tan and
others in the region are concerned that the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant, known as LAMP,
will be plagued by the severe environmental problems that have been the hallmark of rare earths
processing plants in China and, more than two decades ago, in Malaysia itself. The plant lies in
an industrial zone atop reclaimed swampland, just 12 miles from Kuantan, a city of 600,000.

The chief worry is that the rare earth elements are bound up in mineral deposits with the lowlevel radioactive element thorium, exposure to which has been linked to an increased risk of
developing lung, pancreatic, and other cancers. The Lynas plant in Malaysia is set to become the
world's largest processing facility of rare earths. We are not against rare earths processing,
says Tan, a retired schoolteacher who leads a citizens group opposed to the plant. Were only
against the inappropriate choice of site, and the way theyre going to keep the waste. Tan echoes
scientists concerns that the plants toxic wastewater will leach into groundwater, and that its
storage ponds are vulnerable to the monsoons that slam the swampy coastline every autumn. As
global demand has surged in recent years for rare earth elements, fears have grown that China,
which accounts for more than 95 percent of rare earths output, will withhold supplies, as it did
temporarily two years ago during a dispute with Japan. As a result, across five continents and
numerous countries including the United States, Brazil, Mongolia, and India rare earth
processing projects are being launched or revived. With them comes the potential threats to the
environment and human health that have plagued Chinas processing sites. As the worlds
hunger for these elements increases... the waste is going to increase, says Nicholas Leadbeater,
a chemist at the University of Connecticut whose research focuses on developing green
technologies. The more mines there are, the more trouble theres going to be. To avoid such
problems, Leadbeater says some researchers are now looking into ways of recovering rare earths
from existing products, and of manufacturing products capable of running without rare earths.
Toyota, for example, is developing an electric motor that does not use rare earths in its battery,
as most currently do. Contrary to their name, the 17 rare earth elements are relatively common
their rarity comes from the labor involved in separating them from surrounding rock. The
process requires a cocktail of chemical compounds Market pressures for cheap rare earths may
lead managers to skimp on environmental protections. and produces a tremendous amount of
solid waste, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chinas rare earths mines
have used only a fraction of the worlds total supply, and substantial untapped reserves are
found in Australia, the United States, parts of the former Soviet Union, and other countries.
Global demand for rare earths dipped last year on the heels of a speculative bubble, but the EPA
said in December there is a high likelihood that some of the elements will be in short supply by
2014. In California, Molycorp Minerals recently reopened a rare earths processing operation
that it abandoned in 2002 near Death Valley, after retooling its operation to meet
environmental concerns over contaminated groundwater. In Brazil, mining giant Vale is
considering whether to process rare earths at a copper mine in the Amazon. India recently
agreed to export rare earths to Japan, and a Toyota subsidiary is preparing to mine rare earths
in Vietnam. In Greenland, several companies are preparing to mine and process that islands
abundant rare earth resources, which will become more accessible as Greenlands ice sheet
continues to melt. All of these projects, however, must come to grips with the toxic and
radioactive legacy of rare earth mining. Scientists say under-regulated rare earths projects can
produce wastewater and tailings ponds that leak acids, heavy metals and radioactive elements
into groundwater, and they point out that market pressures for cheap and reliable rare
earths may lead project managers to skimp on environmental protections . In
Malaysia, Mitsubishi Chemical is now engaged in a $100 million cleanup of its Bukit Merah rare
earths processing site, which it closed in 1992 amid opposition from local residents and
Japanese politicians and environmentalists. It is one of Asias largest radioactive waste cleanup
sites, and local physicians said the thorium contamination from the plant has led to an increase
in leukemia and other ailments. The legacy of that project has led many Malaysians to be wary of
rare earths mines. Few independent studies chart the industrys global ecological fallout. But no
country has as many rare earths processing plants, and their attendant environmental problems,
as China. Last year, Chinas State Council A half-century of rare earths mining in China has
caused serious environmental problems. reported that the countrys rare earths operations are
causing increasingly significant environmental problems. A half century of rare earths mining

and processing has severely damaged surface vegetation, caused soil erosion, pollution, and
acidification, and reduced or even eliminated food crop output, the council reported, adding
that Chinese rare earths plants typically produce wastewater with a high concentration of
radioactive residues. Bayan-Obo, Chinas largest rare earths project, has been operating for
more than four decades. According to the Germany-based Institute for Applied Ecology, the site
now has an 11-square-kilometer waste pond about three times the size of New York Citys
Central Park with toxic sludge that contains elevated concentrations of thorium.
Environmental impacts cost billions for China- landslides, clogged rivers, major
accidents
Paramaguru 13, Communications Executive at the Carbon Disclosure Project - Global
environmental reporting system, former reporter and researcher for Time Magazine, former
Assistant Editor at Essex Human Rights Review, Rethinking Our Risky Reliance on Rare Earth
Metals, TIME, December 20 2013, http://science.time.com/2013/12/20/rare-earths-are-toorare/, CBC
However increased mining for these scarce resources can have some nasty side effects for the
environment. China, which has intensively mined for rare earths with little regulation, allowing
it to dominate the global industry since 1990, has acknowledged the incredible environmental
harm caused by the process. Excessive rare earth mining has resulted in landslides, clogged
rivers, environmental pollution emergencies and even major accidents and disasters, causing
great damage to peoples safety and health and the ecological environment, read a white paper
issued by the Chinese cabinet in June last year. The government is now spending billions of
dollars attempting to clean up this damage, and on Dec. 13 Beijing signalled once again that it
would seek to cut exports of rare earthsalthough some critics have accused China of using
environmental concerns as an excuse to use its control of the rare earths market to punish
countries it doesnt like, such as Japan.

T-Exploration / Development
Ratification does not directly create anything
Langer 12 - Andrew attended the College of William and Mary in Virginia, where he received a
BA in International Relations. He also holds a Masters in Public Administration. His writings
have appeared in both national and international publications. He frequently appears on talk
radio programs throughout the country, and has appeared on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Al
Jazeera. He is currently authoring a book entitled, The War on Small Business. He is also the
host of The Liberty Line podcast, a show whose guests have included presidential candidates,
actors from Oscar-nominated films, and entrepreneurs. Current position is President at Small
Business Political Alliance. Past positions are Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs at National
Federation of Independent Business Associate Director, Development at Competitive Enterprise
Institute Director, Florida Project at Defenders of Property Rights, Legal Assistant at Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld (11/28/2012, Andrew, Real Clear Politics, The Case for
Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/28/the_case_for_ratification_of_the_law_
of_the_sea_treaty_116272.html // SM)
Myth: Ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty will create a United Nations bureaucracy. Fact: Not true. Ratifying the LOTS
creates nothing. Ratifying the treaty will give the United States a seat on the already-formed
International Seabed Authority. The International Seabed Authority has existed for over 20 years. The ISA is the
international authority that grants exploration and mining and drilling permits to all nations. The ISA also creates clear, legally
binding, protocols for ships while navigating foreign waters. This is long established, current international law. The U.S. opting not
to join the ISA does nothing except prevent America from receiving mining and drilling permits, while also creating a gray area
legally for our military and for U.S. companies when dealing with waterways belonging to foreign nations. That is why every U.S.
business association, including the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and every sitting
military leader of a U.S. Command including the Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff - supports the treatys ratification.

T-Military
LOST contains several military provisions
Moore 4 John Norton Moore, who joined the University of Virginia School of Law faculty in
1966, is an authority on international law, national security law and the law of the sea. He also
teaches advanced topics in national security law and the rule of law. Moore taught the first
course in the country on national security law and conceived and co-authored the first casebook
on the subject. From 1991-93, during the Gulf War and its aftermath, Moore was the principal
legal adviser to the Ambassador of Kuwait to the United States and to the Kuwait delegation to
the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission. Titles include: Walter L. Brown
Professor of Law Director, Center for National Security Law Director, Center for Oceans Law
and Policy (5/12/2004, John Norton Moore, Prepared Testimony before the House Committee
on International Relations, UNITED STATES ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF THE SEA
CONVENTION A COMPELLING NATIONAL INTEREST,
http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/house-testimony.pdf // SM)
Of further great importance, this Convention protects the sovereign rights of the United States
over our military and commercial vessels; rights that are critical 10 to the economic and security
interests of our Nation. In the ongoing struggle for oceans law, these are our sovereign rights
that are at the greatest risk, and adherence to the Convention will unequivocally serve this
national interest in protecting navigational freedom. The Convention not only protects
navigational freedom through an improved regime of innocent passage in the territorial sea and
full freedom of navigation in the new economic zone , but it creates a critical new regime
of straits transit passage permitting our submarines to transit straits submerged
and our aircraft to enjoy overflight rights over such straits. And it recognizes immunity
for our warships and government ships operated for non - commercial purposes.

Politics Links

PTX Link Plan Unpop

Ratifying LOST is wildly unpopular.
Tennant 12. Michael Tennant, staff writer for the New American. Will Our Freedoms Be LOST
at Sea? http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/11824-will-ourfreedoms-be-lost-at-sea. MMG *This card has been modified for ableist language.
Although the Obama administration is putting on the drive to get the Senate to ratify LOST, its
success is by no means certain. The House of Representatives recently voted to deny the
administration millions of dollars in funding for LOST organizations, which suggests that the
anti-LOST movement is strong and well-organized. Kerry has said he will not bring the
treaty up for a vote before the November election because, according to The Hill, some
lawmakers on and off the committee have candidly told him theyd be more comfortable if
they could avoid having to cast the controversial vote during the campaign season another
indication that the treaty is widely unpopular. Kerry will likely try to get LOST through the
Senate during the lame-duck session after the election. That may not be easy: At least 27
Senators have signed a letter circulated by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) stating that they will not
vote to ratify LOST, and it only takes 34 Senators in opposition to sink its ratification. If the
vote is delayed until the next President is inaugurated, it could end up being opposed from the
White House, which would likely prevent ratification. Obamas presumptive Republican
opponent, Mitt Romney, has signaled his unease with LOST; and while the Libertarian Partys
nominee, Gary Johnson, does not appear to have taken a stand on LOST, the party has in
the past specifically praised U.S. refusal to join the accord.
LosT is not politically feasible flagged as a threat to American sovereignty
Patrick 12 - Stewart M. Patrick is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (where he
writes the blog The Internationalist) and Director of the Program on International Institutions
and Global Governance. (6/10/2012, Stewart, The Atlantic, (Almost) Everyone Agrees: The
U.S. Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/-almost-everyone-agrees-the-usshould-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty/258301/ // SM)
Securing a two-thirds Senate majority will not be easy. Opponents are pulling out all the stops,
invoking the GOP's patron saint to scuttle its prospects. According to Edwin Meese, former
attorney general for Ronald Reagan, the Gipper abandoned the treaty as "a direct threat to
American sovereignty"--conveniently ignoring that the offending provisions were written out of
the current treaty in a 1994 negotiation, precisely to alleviate U.S. concerns.
Plan saps PC royalties are controversial
Stearns 6/2 Scott Stearns is VOAs State Department correspondent. He has worked as
VOAs Dakar Bureau Chief, White House correspondent, and Nairobi Bureau Chief since
beginning his career as a freelance reporter in the Liberian civil war. He has written for the BBC,
UPI, the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post, and The Economist. Scott has a Bachelors and
Masters in Journalism from Northwestern University. (2014, Scott, Voice of America, Obama
Pushes Law of the Sea to Help Settle S. China Sea Claims,
http://www.voanews.com/content/obama-pushing-un-law-of-the-sea-to-help-settle-southchina-sea-claims/1928052.html // SM)
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea -- or UNCLOS -- establishes rules for commercial
and military shipping as well as the distribution of offshore oil and gas royalties. That has made
it a target for the president's opponents, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"I do not believe the United States should endorse a treaty that makes it a legal obligation for
productive countries to pay royalties to less-productive countries based on rhetoric about
common heritage of mankind," he said.

Bilateral Treaties CP
(Potential Counterplan Card) The US should reject UNCLOS and negotiate
bilateral boundary delimitation treaties prevents economic loss and allows US to
keep sovereignty
Groves and Loris 12, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the
Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies; Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe
Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
(Steven and Nicolas, Heritage Foundation, Issue Brief #3659 on International Law, Law of the Sea Treaty: Bad for American
Energy Policy, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/law-of-the-sea-treaty-bad-for-american-energy-policy, AZHU)
Actions for the Federal Government

The U.S. should take every action necessary to develop the oil and gas resources on its extended
continental shelf. Furthermore, additional analysis is needed to address the potential legal, economic, and political
consequences that an adverse judgment from an UNCLOS tribunal would have for the U.S. The federal government
should:
Conduct an interagency review of the conventions compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms
to determine both the extent to which acceding to UNCLOS would expose the U.S. to baseless
lawsuits and the potential economic and political costs that could result from accession;
Hold oversight hearings on potential lawsuits and how an adverse judgment would affect U.S.
environmental, economic, and military interests; and
Reject UNCLOS and negotiate a series of bilateral boundary delimitation treaties
with nations with which it shares maritime and ECS boundaries.[3]
Harmful for America

Accession to UNCLOS would sacrifice American sovereignty by exposing our nation to baseless
environmental lawsuits that would punish Americans both as taxpayers and as consumers. The
treaty would further sacrifice sovereignty by requiring the U.S. to forfeit billions of dollars in oil
and gas royalty revenue.
The U.S. should pursue oil and gas development as a sovereign nation, continuing the tradition
of American Presidents in proclaiming the nations maritime and resource rights and without
acceding to a deeply flawed treaty or seeking the approval of an international commission of experts housed at the
United Nations.

Ratification PIC
CP solves without ratifying the treaty and is politically feasible
Pecquet 12 Foreign affairs reporter at The Hill (6/5/2012, Julian, The Hill, Kyl offers
compromise on Law of Sea treaty, http://thehill.com/policy/international/230905-kyl-offerscompromise-on-law-of-the-sea-treaty // SM)
Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.), the Senate's second-ranking Republican, said Congress should pass
legislation codifying the parts of the Law of the Sea Treaty the United States is comfortable with,
in essence separating the wheat from the chaff. The Obama administration says joining the
160 nations that have already ratified the convention would help develop mutually agreed-upon
rules for protecting the rights of all nations to free and open access to the seas, but
Republicans have longstanding issues with other provisions . Congress could
enact a statute that makes the navigational parts of the treaty , which codify the
historical practice of seafaring nations, the law of the land, Kyl told an American
Enterprise Institute panel on sovereignty Monday evening, according to his prepared remarks.
Then the Senate need not ratify the treaty, which still contains unacceptable
provisions , including issues related to the exploitation of the seabed. A statute, in effect, can
separate the wheat from the chaff. And the United States will contribute to the clarification of
customary international law, by contributing its practices and legal opinions on the law of the
sea.

OTHER STUFF

Warming Impact
That leads to extinctionmultiple warrants
Coyne and Hoekstra 07 (Coyne, Jerry [Jerry Coyne is a professor in the department of
ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago.]. Hoekstra, Hopi E. [Hopi E. Hoekstra is
John L. Loeb associate professor in the department of organismic and evolutionary biology at
Harvard University and curator of mammals at Harvards Museum of Comparative Zoology.].
Diversity lost as we head towards a lonely planet: Waiting in the wings is a fate worse than
global warming. The Australian, November 10th, 2007.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/ne ws/diversity-lost-as-we-head-towards-a-lonelyplanet/story-e6frg8gf-1111114841209?nk=7fc1471795f047865a7e8c8874391ccb [accessed July
15th, 2014])//ALepow
To scientists, this is an unparalleled calamity, far more severe than global warming which is,
after all, only one of many threats to biodiversity. Yet global warming gets far more press. Why?
One reason is that, while the increase in temperature is easy to document, the decrease of
species is not. Biologists don't know, for example, exactly how many species exist on Earth.
Estimates range widely, from three million to more than 50million, and that doesn't count
microbes, critical (albeit invisible) components of ecosystems. We're not certain about the rate
of extinction, either; how could we be, since the vast majority of species have yet to be
described? We're even less sure how the loss of some species will affect the ecosystems in which
they're embedded, since the intricate connection between organisms means that the loss of a
single species can ramify unpredictably. But we do know some things. Tropical rainforests are
disappearing at a rate of 2 per cent a year. Populations of most large fish are 10 per cent of what
they were in 1950. Many primates and all great apes, our closest relatives, are nearly gone from
the wild. And we know that extinction and global warming act synergistically. Extinction
exacerbates global warming: by burning rainforests, we're not only polluting the atmosphere
with carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) but destroying the plants that can remove this gas from
the air. Conversely, global warming increases extinction, directly (killing corals) and indirectly
(destroying the habitats of Arctic and Antarctic animals). As extinction increases, then, so does
global warming, which in turn causes more extinction and so on, into a downward spiral of
destruction. Why, exactly, should we care? Let's start with the most celebrated case: rainforests.
Their loss will worsen global warming, raising temperatures, melting icecaps and flooding
coastal cities. And, as the forest habitat shrinks, so begins the inevitable contact between
organisms that have not evolved together, a scenario played out many times and one that is
never good. Dreadful diseases have successfully jumped species boundaries, with humans as
prime recipients. We have got AIDS from apes, severe acute respiratory syndrome from civets
and Ebola from fruit bats. Additional worldwide plagues from unknown microbes are a real
possibility. But it isn't just the destruction of the rainforests that should trouble us. Healthy
ecosystems the world over provide hidden services such as waste disposal, nutrient cycling, soil
formation, water purification and oxygen production. Such services are best rendered by
ecosystems that are diverse. Yet, through intention and accident, humans have introduced exotic
species that turn biodiversity into monoculture. Fast-growing zebra mussels, for example, have
outcompeted more than 15 species of native mussels in North America's Great Lakes and have
damaged harbours and water-treatment plants. Native prairies are becoming dominated by
single species (often genetically homogenous) of corn or wheat. Thanks to these developments,
soils will erode and become unproductive which, along with temperature change, will diminish
agricultural yields. Meanwhile, with increased pollution and run-off, as well as reduced forest
cover, ecosystems will no longer be able to purify water, and a shortage of clean water spells
disaster. In many ways, oceans are the most vulnerable areas of all. As overfishing eliminates

important predators, while polluted and warming waters kill off phytoplankton, the intricate
aquatic food web could collapse from both sides. Fish, on which so many humans depend, will
be a fond memory. As phytoplankton vanish, so does the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon
dioxide and produce oxygen. (Half of the oxygen we breathe is made by phytoplankton, with the
rest coming from land plants.) Species extinction is also imperilling coral reefs, a big problem
since these reefs have more than recreational value: they provide tremendous amounts of food
for human populations and buffer coastlines against erosion. Indeed, the global value of hidden
services provided by ecosystems - those services, such as waste disposal, that aren't bought and
sold in the marketplace - has been estimated to be as much as $US50 thousand billion ($53.8
thousand billion) a year, roughly equal to the gross domestic product of all countries combined.
And that doesn't include tangible goods such as fish and timber. Life as we know it would be
impossible if ecosystems collapsed. Yet that is where we're heading if species extinction
continues at its present pace. Extinction also has a huge impact on medicine. Who really cares if,
say, a worm in the remote swamps of French Guiana becomes extinct? Well, those who suffer
from cardiovascular disease. The recent discovery of a rare South American leech has led to the
isolation of a powerful enzyme that, unlike other anticoagulants, not only prevents blood from
clotting but also dissolves existing clots. And it's not just this species of worm: its wriggly
relatives have evolved other biomedically valuable proteins, including antistatin (a potential
anti-cancer agent), decorsin and ornatin (platelet aggregation inhibitors) and hirudin (another
anticoagulant). Plants, too, are pharmaceutical goldmines. The bark of trees, for example, has
given us quinine (the first cure for malaria), taxol (a drug that is highly effective against ovarian
and breast cancer) and aspirin. More than one-quarter of the medicines on our pharmacy
shelves were originally derived from plants. The sap of the Madagascar periwinkle contains
more than 70 useful alkaloids, including vincristine, a powerful anti-cancer drug that saved the
life of one of our friends. Of the roughly 250,000 plant species on Earth, fewer than 5 per cent
have been screened for pharmaceutical properties. Who knows what life-saving drugs remain to
be discovered? Given present extinction rates, it's estimated that we're losing one valuable drug
every two years. Our arguments so far have tacitly assumed that species are worth saving only in
proportion to their economic value and their effects on our quality of life, an attitude that is
strongly ingrained, especially in Americans. That is why conservationists always base their case
on an economic calculus. But we biologists know in our hearts that there are deeper and equally
compelling reasons to worry about the loss of biodiversity: namely, morality and intellectual
values that transcend pecuniary interests. What, for example, gives us the right to destroy other
creatures? And what could be more thrilling than looking around us, seeing that we are
surrounded by our evolutionary cousins and realising that we all got here by the same simple
process of natural selection? To biologists, and potentially everyone else, apprehending the
genetic kinship and common origin of all species is a spiritual experience, not necessarily
religious but spiritual nonetheless, for it stirs the soul. But whether or not one is moved by such
concerns, it is certain that our future is bleak if we do nothing to stem this sixth extinction. We
are creating a world in which exotic diseases flourish but natural medicinal cures are lost; a
world in which carbon waste accumulates while food sources dwindle; a world of sweltering
heat, failing crops and impure water. In the end, we must accept the possibility that we are not
immune to extinction. Or, if we survive, perhaps only a few of us will remain, scratching out a
grubby existence on a devastated planet. Global warming will seem like a secondary problem
when humanity finally faces the consequences of what we have done to nature; not just another
Great Dying, but perhaps the greatest dying of them all.

Ocean Acidification Defense

Ocean acidification does not destroy coral reefs- Palau reefs
NSF 14 National Science Foundation, Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification, January 16, 2014, National
Science Foundation, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=130129, CBC

Marine scientists working on the coral reefs of Palau have made two unexpected discoveries that could provide

insight into corals' resistance and resilience to ocean acidification. The team collected water samples at nine points along a transect
that stretched from the open ocean, across a barrier reef, into a lagoon, and into the bays and inlets around the Rock Islands of Palau
in the western Pacific Ocean. With each location they found that the seawater became increasingly more acidic

as they moved toward land. "When we first plotted those data, we were shocked," said chemical oceanographer Kathryn
Shamberger of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). "We had no idea the level of acidification we would find.

We're looking at reefs today that have levels that we expect for the open ocean in that region by
the end of the century." Shamberger conducted the fieldwork with other WHOI researchers, including biogeochemist Anne

Cohen, as well as with scientists from the Palau International Coral Reef Center. The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the
research through its Ocean Acidification Program, part of the agency's Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability
Investment. "This important study documents a coral reef system that's apparently resistant to the

effects of ocean acidification," said David Garrison, program director in NSF's Division of Ocean Sciences.

"Understanding what factors account for this will be critical follow-on research." While ocean chemistry varies naturally at different
locations, it is changing around the world due to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs
atmospheric carbon dioxide, which reacts with seawater, lowering the water's overall pH and making it more acidic. This process
also removes carbonate ions needed by corals and other organisms to build their skeletons and shells. Corals growing in low pH
conditions, both in laboratory experiments that simulate future conditions and in other naturally low pH ocean environments show
a range of negative effects. These include juveniles of various species with difficulty constructing skeletons, fewer varieties of corals,
less coral cover, more algae growth and more porous corals with greater signs of erosion from other organisms. The new research
results, published in a paper in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, explain the biological
and geomorphological causes of the more acidic waters near Palau's Rock Islands. The paper also describes a surprising second
finding--that the corals living in those more acidic waters were unexpectedly diverse and healthy.

The unusual finding, contrary to what has been observed in other naturally low pH coral reef ecosystems, has important
implications for the conservation of corals in all parts of the world. "When you move from a high pH reef to
a low pH neighboring reef, there are big changes, and they are negative changes," said Cohen, a co-author of the paper and principal
investigaor of the project. "However, in Palau wherever the water is most acidic, we see the opposite. There's a coral

community that is more diverse, hosts more species and has greater coral cover than in the nonacidic sites.

Democracy Defense
Democratic peace is wrong- theres only a risk that democratic nations are more
prone going to war
McKenna, 2004- Assistant political science professor at the University of Prince Edward
(Peter, 12/23/04, We need to take a deeper look at the causes of war to find lasting peace,
Published in the Guardian, Accessed in Lexis FG)
It seems that the prevailing wisdom in international affairs these days revolves around the
following axiom: specifically, greater democratization equals less war. In his speech to a gathering at Pier

21 in Halifax, President George Bush was quick to point out that our commitment "is to enhance our own security by promoting
freedom and hope and democracy in the broader Middle East." Both Bush and Prime Minister Paul Martin have spoken forcefully
about the current political impasse in Ukraine, emphasizing the need to bolster democracy there through free and fair elections.
Canada is also on record as strongly endorsing democratic "good governance", the strengthening of civil society, and respect for the
rule of law and basic human rights in a host of other countries. Why? The thinking here assumes two critical

elements - namely, that democratic states are inherently more peaceful than non-democratic
countries (and thus less susceptible to harbouring terrorist groups) and, secondly, that democracies do not go to
war against other democratic governments. Accordingly, the likelihood of war, and threats of war
against other countries, would diminish as more and more states embraced a democratic form of government. As a wave of
democratization sweeps across the globe, so the argument goes, a cavalcade of peace should break out all over. Indeed,
democracies are seen as being more peaceful, and thereby less prone to war, because they respect constitutional
principles, cherish political rights and freedoms, and espouse a general culture of democratic values. Moreover, they tend to
resolve internal disputes peacefully, to strive for a negotiated compromise when positions differ sharply, and to seek
change through dialogue and electoral participation - thus fostering a more peaceful manner of behaving on the international stage.

Democratic states like Canada, the United States and Australia are also constrained by political
structures and institutional arrangements like parliaments, national assemblies or legislative bodies. They can't
simply go to war without securing political consent, co-opting the media, and creating a positive public frame of mind. The fear
of a major domestic backlash, and thus potentially an electoral defeat down the road, acts as a
significant brake on democracies opting for war over conflict resolution. Many advocates of the
democratic peace proposition, like Bush and Martin, argue that empirical evidence confirms their
thesis since western democracies have not gone to war against other democratic states since, arguably, the late 1930s. Indeed,
there is something intrinsically powerful about democratic peoples sharing common ideals and values, along with a basic mutual
respect, that sharply reduces the likelihood of them going to war against one another. Equally convincing are the

arguments that it had something to with the constraints of the Cold War, membership in a
collective security/defence alliance, and the fact that most states (irrespective of their political dispensation)
rarely go to war under any circumstances. However, some commentators have even suggested that
democratic states are not only less peaceful, but they are more prone to going to
war than non-democratic countries.

Just look at democratic nations like India, Israel and the United States,

which have all gone to war against other non-democratic states several times. In

fact, democracies may be

prepared to fight harder to win such wars- rightfully fearing a crushing defeat at the polls
should they lose. In some cases, public sentiment can demand that a democracy go to war to exact retribution or revenge
(remember Britain's involvement in the 1982 Falkland's War). Think of the strong public endorsement exhibited by Americans (at
least initially) for the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. But what about democracies going to

war against other democracies? In other words, would the U.S. refrain from going to war
against North Korea or Iran if they suddenly became more democratic? Hardly.
Furthermore,

if Fidel Castro were to win credible presidential elections in Cuba - as he

surely would - does that mean that the U.S. would desist from its undeclared war
against this tiny Caribbean nation? Not likely. Maybe both Bush and Martin should rethink their
support for the democratic peace proposition. Whether states go to war against each other may have very

little to do with their particular form of government or political system. While it sounds
plausible to hope for a more peaceful world by advocating the spread of democratic pluralism,
our hopes may in fact be misplaced. Perhaps we need to look deeper at the individual, political and structural causes of
war if we ever hope to find the answers to achieving a lasting global peace.

Hegemony Defense
Economic strength and military dominance make hegemony inevitable
Kagan 2012- American author and Policy Analyst at the Brookings Institution (Robert,
1/11/12, Not Fade Away,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/99521/america-world-powerdeclinism?passthru=ZDkyNzQzZTk3YWY3YzE0OWM5MGRiZmIwNGQwNDBiZmI&utm_sour
ce=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_campaign=PANTHEON_STRIPPED&utm_medium=PANT
HEON_STRIPPED, Accessed: 6/29/14 FG)
SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS for Americas relative decline these days would be more potent if
they had not appeared only in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. Just as one swallow does not make a spring, one recession,
or even a severe economic crisis, need not mean the beginning of the end of a great power. The United
States suffered deep and prolonged economic crises in the 1890s, the 1930s, and the 1970s. In each case, it rebounded in the following decade and actually ended up in a stronger position relative to other powers

Less than a decade ago, most observers

spoke not of Americas decline but of its enduring primacy. In 2002, the historian Paul Kennedy, who in the late 1980s had written a muchdiscussed book on the rise and fall of the great powers, America included, declared that never in history had there been such a great disparity of
power as between the United States and the rest of the world. Ikenberry agreed that no other great
power had held such formidable advantages in military, economic, technological, cultural, or
political capabilities.... The preeminence of American power was unprecedented. In 2004, the pundit Fareed
than before the crisis. The 1910s, the 1940s, and the 1980s were all high points of American global power and influence.

Zakaria described the United States as enjoying a comprehensive uni-polarity unlike anything seen since Rome. But a mere four years later Zakaria was writing about the post-American world and the rise of
the rest, and Kennedy was discoursing again upon the inevitability of American decline.

Did the fundamentals of Americas relative

power shift so dramatically in just a few short years? The answer is no. Lets start with the basic
In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth,
Americas position in the world has not changed. Its share of the worlds GDP has held remarkably
steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the U nited S tates produced roughly a quarter of the worlds economic output.
indicators.

Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it

world.

remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the

People are rightly mesmerized by the rise of China, India, and other Asian nations whose share of the global economy has been climbing steadily, but this has so far come almost entirely at the

expense of Europe and Japan, which have had a declining share of the global economy. Optimists about Chinas development predict that it will overtake the United States as the largest economy in the world

the sheer size of an

economy is not by itself a good measure of overall power within the international system. If it were, then early nineteenth-century China, with
what was then the worlds largest economy, would have been the predominant power instead of the prostrate victim of smaller European nations. Even if China does reach this
pinnacle againand Chinese leaders face significant obstacles to sustaining the countrys growth indefinitelyit will still remain far behind both the United
States and Europe in terms of per capita GDP. Military capacity matters, too, as early nineteenth-century China learned and Chinese leaders
know today. As Yan Xuetong recently noted, military strength underpins hegemony. Here the U nited S tates remains
sometime in the next two decades. This could mean that the United States will face an increasing challenge to its economic position in the future. But

unmatched. It is far and away the most powerful nation the world has ever
known, and there has been no decline in Americas relative military capacity at least not
yet. Americans currently spend less than $600 billion a year on defense, more than the rest of the
other great powers combined. (This figure does not include the deployment in Iraq, which is ending, or the combat forces in Afghanistan, which are likely to diminish steadily
over the next couple of years.) They do so, moreover, while consuming a little less than 4 percent of GDP annuallya higher
percentage than the other great powers, but in historical terms lower than the 10 percent of GDP that the United States spent on defense in the
mid-1950s and the 7 percent it spent in the late 1980s. The superior expenditures underestimate Americas actual superiority in military capability. American land and air
forces are equipped with the most advanced weaponry, and are the most experienced in actual
combat. They would defeat any competitor in a head-to-head battle. American naval power
remains predominant in every region of the world.

Russia War Defense

Mutually Assured Destruction ensures no US-Russia War
Moran 14, foreign affairs columnist for GlobalPost and wrote one of the very first pieces ever published by the site when it

launched in January 2009. He is also vice president, global risk analysis, for Control Risks, an international political, security and
integrity risk consultancy.
(Michael, Global Post, Here's why the US and Russia would be MAD to go to war,
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-unraveler/united-states-russia-nuclear-warheads-mad, April 5, 2014,
A.ZHU)
Start with MAD: mutually

assured destruction. It means maintaining a large-enough nuclear force

with which to retaliate after a surprise attack so that the mutual carnage a first strike would
entail guarantees no one would be crazy enough to order one. The concept of a first strike or
fear of it spurred a huge nuclear arms race during the Cold War, first involving atomic bombs
and long-range strategic bombers, then nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles housed in hardened silos in remote areas of the

US and Soviet Union. The final evolution of those weapons was the nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine (SSBN) armed with
multiple independent re-entry vehicles, or MIRV warheads. In effect, these giants, which still ply the worlds

oceans, can lurk undetected a few hundred miles off the US East Coast and obliterate the
countrys most populated area before anything could be done to prevent it. Some carry as many
as 24 nuclear missiles each one of them with as many as four warheads that could fly to four
different cities. The math, as Thompson says above, doesnt take a genius. Just one of Americas 14

SSBNs boomers in Navy parlance or Russias eight could destroy America's entire urban population. Russia launched its latest
such submarine on Jan. 2. MAD indeed! Of course, viewed in hindsight (and notwithstanding the enormous opportunity
cost of spending tens of billions of dollars on such weapons instead of, say, educating our children), MAD did have its silver lining.

Proponents point out that in spite of almost incessant proxy wars during the long period after
World War II, Armageddon was avoided largely because both sides accepted the
logic of MAD. It did not prevent them from facing off indirectly elsewhere over Korea, Vietnam, in numerous Middle
Eastern, African and Central American conflicts of varying intensity, the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Cuban missile
crisis. But ultimately, in spite of it all, the big nuclear exchange never happened. So far, there is precious little
acknowledgement of this dynamic at play in the Crimea crisis but it surely is making itself felt. While politicians, particularly those
prone to portray Obama as a dupe in international affairs, in opposition, have the right and luxury of demanding a military option,
the idea that either NATO or Russia has such options in the classic sense i.e. war is
nonsense. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, hawkish leaders like Khrushchev and
Kennedy, Nixon and Brezhnev, Reagan and Andropov, shrank from direct military
confrontation when it came to international crises. The order of the day was feint and rhetoric,
none of which ever came directly to superpower blows. In Berlin 1948, Hungary in 1956, the
Cuban missile standoff of 1961, Prague in 1968, and through a variety of Arab-Israeli wars that
pitted Soviet-backed Arab regimes against western-armed Israel, the brink was hinted at but
never crossed. Both sides, it seemed, knew better.