2

The U.S. claims territory in the Pacific as seen in the map below illustration the U.S. exclusive economic zones.

enter image description here

The question is: are these claims complying with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? If not, what is/are the U.S. legal argument(s) for not complying with UNCLOS in regard to its territorial claims in the Pacific?

  • 1
    "What is/are the U.S. legal argument(s) for not complying with UNCLOS in regard to its territorial claims in the Pacific?" Well, the United States is not a party to UNCLOS, so... it's not bound to comply under any legal argument. I'm not sure what more can be said. Perhaps you could refine your question? – bishop May 18 '19 at 3:55
1

are these claims complying with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? If not, what is/are the U.S. legal argument(s) for not complying with UNCLOS in regard to its territorial claims in the Pacific?

From the looks of:

... the answer to your first question appears to be Yes:

The United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law.

Part XI establishes the International Seabed Authority to organize, regulate and control all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and the US refused to submit to its authority.

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .