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
  • 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, 2019 at 3:55

1 Answer 1

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.

You must log in to answer this question.

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