Politics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people interested in governments, policies, and political processes. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The U.S. claims territory in the Pacific as seen in the map below illustration the U.S. exclusive economic zones.
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?
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
... 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.
