[DOCID: f:er010.108]
From the Executive Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]

108th Congress                                               Exec. Rpt.
                                 SENATE
 2nd Session                                                     108-10

======================================================================
 
                  UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW
                               OF THE SEA

                                _______
                                

                             March 11, 2004

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Lugar from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                   [To accompany Treaty Doc. 103-39]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred 
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 
Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI on the 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Annex 
(Treaty Doc. 103-39), having considered the same reports 
favorably thereon with declarations and understandings as 
indicated in the resolution of advice and consent, and 
recommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to 
accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement 
as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of 
advice and consent to ratification.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Convention and Implementing 
     Agreement........................................................2
 IV. Implementing Legislation.........................................6
  V. Committee Action.................................................6
 VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................6
VII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification........16
VIII.Annex I--Letter from State Department Legal Adviser William H. 
     Taft, IV to Chairman Lugar, dated March 1, 2004.................22
 IX. Annex II--Hearings on the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea 
     (Treaty Doc. 103-39), October 14 and 21, 2003...................23

                               I. Purpose

    The Convention, together with the related Agreement on 
Implementing Part XI of the Convention, establishes a 
comprehensive set of rules governing the uses of the world's 
oceans, including the airspace above and the seabed and subsoil 
below. It provides for jurisdiction, rights, and duties among 
States that carefully balance the interests of States in 
controlling activities off their own coasts and the interests 
of all States in protecting the freedom to use the oceans 
without undue interference. Among the central issues addressed 
by the Convention and Implementing Agreement are navigation and 
overflight of the oceans, exploitation and conservation of 
ocean-based resources, protection of the marine environment, 
and marine scientific research.

                             II. Background

    The Convention and Implementing Agreement are the product 
of over two decades of effort, led by the United States, to 
conclude a universally accepted treaty on the law of the sea. A 
widely ratified comprehensive law of the sea treaty has been a 
bipartisan goal of successive U.S. administrations for decades; 
the Congress endorsed this goal in the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard 
Mineral Resources Act. The Convention was negotiated under the 
auspices on the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of 
the Sea, which opened in 1973 and closed in December 1982 with 
the conclusion of the Convention.
    Upon the adoption of the Convention in 1982, the United 
States and other industrialized nations declined to sign or to 
ratify the Convention, though they supported most of its 
provisions, because they could not accept the regime it 
established to govern deep seabed mining in areas beyond 
national jurisdiction. Notwithstanding his decision that the 
United States would not sign the Convention, President Reagan 
issued a statement of United States oceans policy in March 1983 
indicating that the United States would accept and act in 
accordance with the Convention's balance of interests relating 
to the traditional uses of the oceans, and this has remained 
U.S. policy since that time.
    In the early 1990s, efforts were made to renegotiate the 
deep seabed mining provisions of the Convention that had 
prevented the United States and others from becoming parties to 
the Convention. These efforts culminated in the 1994 
Implementing Agreement. That agreement restructured the 
Convention's deep seabed mining regime in ways that met the 
objections of the United States and other industrialized 
nations. The United States signed the Implementing Agreement on 
July 29, 1994, and President Clinton submitted it together with 
the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent on 
October 7, 1994. At present, 145 countries are parties to the 
Convention and 114 countries are parties to the Implementing 
Agreement.

   III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Convention and Implementing 
                               Agreement

    A detailed article-by-article discussion of the Convention 
and Implementing Agreement may be found in the September 23, 
1994 Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 
President, which is reprinted in full in Senate Treaty Document 
No. 103-39. The Bush administration has confirmed its view 
that, generally, the Letter of Submittal appropriately analyzes 
and interprets the Convention, noting that the declarations and 
understandings in the resolution of advice and consent reported 
by the committee and endorsed by the administration further 
refine the analysis and interpretation contained in the Letter 
of Submittal, and that these declarations and understandings 
will prevail in the case of any inconsistency with the Letter 
of Submittal. The Executive Branch's views on particular 
provisions of the Convention and the Agreement are also found 
in testimony and responses to questions for the record at the 
committee's October 21, 2003 hearing. These are contained in 
the hearing record included as part of this report.
    In general, the Convention reflects a careful balance 
between the interests of the international community in 
maintaining freedom of navigation and those of coastal States 
in their offshore areas. The United States has important 
interests in both respects. As the world's preeminent maritime 
power, the United States has a vital interest in freedom of 
navigation to ensure that our military has the mobility it 
needs to protect U.S. security interests worldwide, as well as 
to facilitate the transport of goods in international trade. In 
2003, over 28 percent of U.S. exports were shipped on the 
oceans, amounting to over $200 billion in exports. As a major 
coastal State, the United States has substantial interests in 
developing, conserving, and managing the vast resources of the 
oceans off our coasts, in protecting the marine environment, 
and in preventing activity off our coasts that threatens the 
safety and security of Americans. Preserving the careful 
balance the Convention strikes ensuring protection of these 
various interests is of great importance to the United States.
    A summary of the key provisions of the Convention and 
Implementing Agreement is set forth below.

                             MARITIME ZONES

    The Convention establishes a jurisdictional regime for the 
world's oceans based on a series of zones defined by reference 
to distance from a State's coast. Under Part II of the 
Convention, a State may claim as its territorial sea an area up 
to 12 nautical miles (nm) from its coast. A State's territorial 
sea is subject to the State's sovereignty. Beyond 12 nm and up 
to 24 nm from its coast, a State may claim a contiguous zone in 
which the coastal State may exercise the limited control 
necessary to prevent or punish infringement of its customs, 
fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws and regulations in its 
territory or territorial sea. Beyond its territorial sea, Part 
V of the Convention provides that a State may claim an area up 
to 200 nm from its coast as an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in 
which it enjoys sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, 
exploiting, conserving and managing living and non-living 
natural resources, as well as jurisdiction as provided for in 
the Convention with respect to, inter alia, marine scientific 
research and the protection and preservation of the marine 
environment. Areas beyond 200 nm from a State's coastline are 
open to all uses and are not subject to the jurisdiction of any 
State. The Convention establishes rules for drawing baselines 
to be used in measuring the distances from a State's coast that 
define these various zones.

                           CONTINENTAL SHELF

    Part VI of the Convention provides that a coastal State 
exercises sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and 
exploiting the natural resources of its continental shelf, 
which comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas 
that extend beyond the territorial sea throughout the natural 
prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the 
continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nm from the 
baselines where the outer edge of the continental margin does 
not extend to that distance. The natural resources of the shelf 
consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the 
seabed and subsoil, together with the living organisms 
belonging to sedentary species. The Convention establishes 
rules defining the continental shelf, as well as an expert 
body, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, to 
consider and make recommendations to coastal States on matters 
related to the establishment of the outer limit of their 
continental shelf beyond 200 nm. If the coastal State agrees, 
the shelf limits set by that State on the basis of the 
recommendations are final and binding, thus providing important 
stability and certainty to these claims. Under Part XI of the 
Convention (see below), the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil 
thereof beyond national jurisdiction are governed by an 
international authority established by the Convention, and no 
State may claim or exercise sovereignty over the resources 
thereof, though States or individuals may exercise certain 
rights with regard to minerals in accordance with Part XI and 
the Implementing Agreement.

                  FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT

    The Convention provides protections for critical freedoms 
of navigation and overflight of the world's oceans. These 
include the prohibition of territorial sea claims beyond 12 nm 
and the express protection for and accommodation of passage 
rights through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters, 
including transit passage through straits and archipelagic 
sealanes passage. They also include the express protection for 
and accommodation of the high seas freedoms of navigation, 
overflight, laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and 
related uses beyond the territorial sea, including areas where 
there are coastal State sovereign rights and jurisdiction, such 
as the EEZ and the continental shelf. United States Armed 
Forces rely on these navigation and overflight rights daily, 
and their protection is of paramount importance to U.S. 
national security.

         PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

    The Convention includes numerous provisions related to 
protection of the marine environment. For example, Part XII 
addresses multiple sources of marine pollution, including, for 
example, pollution from vessels, seabed activities, ocean 
dumping, and land-based sources, and promotes continuing 
improvement in the health of the world's oceans. Depending upon 
the source of marine pollution and the particular maritime zone 
in question, Part XII sets forth various obligations and 
authorizations relating to coastal States, flag States, and/or 
all States (such as to develop international standards). The 
provisions encourage Parties to work together to address issues 
of common and pressing concern. Another example is Article 21 
which includes important rights for coastal States with regard 
to protection of the environment and natural resources in the 
territorial sea.

                        LIVING MARINE RESOURCES

    Most living marine resources of importance to coastal 
States are located within 200 nm from coasts. The Convention's 
authorization of the establishment of EEZs, and provision for 
the sovereign rights and management authority of coastal States 
over living resources within such EEZs, bring such living 
marine resources under the jurisdiction of coastal States. The 
Convention provides that each coastal State has the sovereign 
right to make determinations under the Convention related to 
utilization, conservation and management of living resources 
within its EEZ. The Convention also includes specific 
provisions for the conservation of marine mammals. While the 
Convention preserves the freedom to fish on the high seas, it 
makes that freedom subject to certain obligations, including 
the duty to cooperate in the conservation and management of the 
living resources in high seas areas.

                       MARINE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

    Part XIII of the Convention recognizes the critical role of 
marine scientific research in understanding oceanic processes 
and in informed decisionmaking about uses of the oceans. 
Following a maritime zone approach, it provides coastal States 
with greater rights to regulate marine scientific research in 
their territorial seas than in the EEZ and on the continental 
shelf. All States have the right to conduct such research 
freely in high seas areas. Part XIII also provides for 
international cooperation to promote marine scientific 
research.

                           DEEP SEABED MINING

    Part XI of the Convention, as fundamentally modified by the 
Agreement Relating to the Implementation of the Convention, 
establishes a regime governing the exploration and exploitation 
of the seabed, ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the 
limits of national jurisdiction. As modified, Part XI meets the 
objections raised by the United States and other industrialized 
countries concerning the original Convention. It is expected to 
provide a stable and internationally recognized framework in 
which mining can proceed in response to demand in the future 
for deep seabed minerals. It establishes an international 
organization, the International Seabed Authority, to administer 
the regime. The Authority includes a Council, which acts as its 
principal executive body; an Assembly, made up of all of States 
that are members of the Authority; and a Secretariat. The 
Council has primary responsibility for supervising the 
implementation of the seabed mining regime, including approving 
plans of work for exploration and exploitation of mineral 
resources and overseeing compliance with such plans. The 
Assembly has responsibility, on the basis of recommendations 
made by other Assembly bodies, to assess contributions, give 
final approval to rules and regulations and to the budget, and 
to decide on the sharing of revenues to the Authority from 
mining.
    Responding to a principal U.S. objection to the Convention 
as it was originally concluded in 1982, the Agreement provides 
for a decisionmaking structure for the Authority that protects 
U.S. interests. Under Section 3(15)(a) of the Annex to the 
Implementing Agreement, the United States is guaranteed a seat 
on the Council in perpetuity. As a general rule, the Council 
and Assembly take all decisions by consensus, though provisions 
are made for voting in the event consensus cannot be reached. 
Relevant voting rules prevent the Authority from adopting 
substantive decisions governing the administration of the deep 
seabed mining regime, or decisions having financial or 
budgetary implications, over the objection of the United 
States. In response to other U.S. objections, the Agreement 
also eliminates mandatory technology transfer provisions and 
non-market based controls on the levels of mineral production 
from the deep seabed that were part of the Convention as 
originally concluded.

                      IV. Implementing Legislation

    The United States has acted in accordance with the 
Convention's balance of interests relating to the traditional 
uses of the oceans since a 1983 statement issued by President 
Reagan making this U.S. policy. As explained in the March 1, 
2004 letter from State Department Legal Adviser William H. 
Taft, IV to Chairman Lugar attached as an annex to this report, 
U.S. law and practice are already generally compatible with the 
Convention and the United States does not need to enact new 
legislation upon accession to supplement or modify existing 
U.S. law. The one area in which implementing legislation would 
be necessary at some point after U.S. accession is legislation 
to enforce decisions of the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber, which is 
addressed below in connection with understanding 22 of the 
resolution of advice and consent.

                          V. Committee Action

    The committee held public hearings on the Convention and 
the Implementing Agreement on October 14, 2003 and October 21, 
2003, where it heard testimony from experts on oceans law and 
policy, former U.S. negotiators of the Convention, 
representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, and the 
U.S. Coast Guard, and representatives of organizations 
interested in oceans issues. (A transcript of this hearing and 
questions and answers for the record may be found in Annex II 
to this report.) On February 25, the committee considered the 
Convention and Implementing Agreement and ordered them 
favorably reported by a vote of 19-0, with the recommendation 
that the Senate give its advice and consent to accession to the 
Convention and ratification of the Implementing Agreement, 
subject to declarations and understandings contained in the 
resolution of advice and consent.

               VI. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The committee recommends that the Senate advise and consent 
to accession to the Convention and ratification of the 
Implementing Agreement. The committee believes that the 
Convention advances important U.S. interests in a number of 
areas. It advances U.S. national security interests by 
preserving the rights of navigation and overflight across the 
world's oceans, on which our military relies to protect U.S. 
interests around the world, and it enhances the protection of 
these rights by providing binding mechanisms to enforce them. 
It advances U.S. economic interests by enshrining the right of 
the United States to explore and exploit the vast natural 
resources of the oceans out to 200 miles from our coastline, 
and of our continental shelf beyond 200 miles, and by 
protecting freedom of navigation on the oceans over which more 
than 28 percent of all U.S. exports and 48 percent of all U.S. 
imports are transported. It advances U.S. interests in the 
protection of the environment by creating obligations binding 
on all States to protect and preserve the marine environment 
from pollution from a variety of sources, and by establishing a 
framework for further international action to combat pollution. 
Becoming party to the Convention also advances the ability of 
the United States to play a leadership role in global oceans 
issues, including by allowing the United States to participate 
fully in institutions created by the Convention such as the 
International Seabed Authority, the Commission on the Limits of 
the Continental Shelf, and the International Tribunal for the 
Law of the Sea.
    The committee also believes it important that U.S. 
accession to the Convention be completed promptly. The 
Convention comes open for amendment for the first time in 
November 2004. As noted above, in negotiating the Convention, 
the United States was successful in achieving a regime that 
struck a careful balance in ensuring protection of many 
important U.S. interests. If the United States is not party to 
the Convention when it comes open for amendment, our ability to 
protect the critically important balance of rights that we 
fought hard to achieve in the Convention will be significantly 
diminished. In addition, the Convention's Commission on the 
Limits of the Continental Shelf will soon begin making 
decisions on claims to continental shelf areas that could 
affect the United States' own claims. Full U.S. participation 
in this process requires us to be party to the Convention.
    The Bush administration has expressed its strong support 
for ratification of the Convention, as did the Clinton 
administration before it. The committee has also received 
statements in support of U.S. accession to the Convention from, 
inter alia, the U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy (an official 
body established by Congress), the American Petroleum 
Institute, the International Association of Drilling 
Contractors, the National Oceans Industries Association, the 
National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Chamber of 
Shipping of America, the U.S. Tuna Foundation, the Ocean 
Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane Society of the 
United States, the American Bar Association, the Council on 
Ocean Law, and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission.
    The committee has included a number of declarations, 
understandings, and conditions in the resolution of advice and 
consent. Article 309 of the Convention provides that no 
reservations or exceptions may be made to the Convention unless 
expressly permitted by other articles (such as with respect to 
disputes settlement, see below). Article 310 provides that a 
State may, however, make declarations or statements, however 
phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization 
of its laws and regulations with the provisions of the 
Convention, provided they do not purport to modify the effect 
of the Convention in their application to that State.
    Section two of the resolution contains two declarations 
relating to the dispute settlement procedures under the 
Convention. The first declaration concerns the forum for 
dispute settlement. A State, when adhering to the Convention or 
thereafter, is able to choose, by written declaration, one or 
more of the means for the settlement of disputes (i.e., the 
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the 
International Court of Justice, arbitration under Annex VII, or 
special arbitration under Annex VIII for certain disputes, such 
as fisheries and marine scientific research). The declaration 
states that the United States chooses special arbitration for 
all the categories of disputes to which it may be applied and 
arbitration for other disputes.
    The second declaration concerns the exclusion of certain 
categories of disputes from dispute settlement procedures. The 
Convention permits a State to opt out of binding dispute 
settlement procedures with respect to one or more enumerated 
categories of disputes, namely disputes regarding maritime 
boundaries between neighboring States, disputes concerning 
military activities and certain law enforcement activities, and 
disputes in respect of which the UN Security Council is 
exercising the functions assigned to it by the UN Charter. The 
declaration states that the United States elects to exclude all 
three of these categories of disputes from binding dispute 
settlement. With respect to disputes concerning military 
activities, the declaration further states that U.S. consent to 
accession is conditioned upon the understanding that, under 
article 298(1)(b), each State Party has the exclusive right to 
determine whether its activities are or were ``military 
activities,'' and that such determinations are not subject to 
review.
    Section three of the resolution contains a series of 
understandings and declarations addressing specific issues 
raised by the Convention. The first five understandings relate 
principally to freedoms of navigation and overflight and 
related uses of the sea under the Convention. As noted above, 
these rights and freedoms are of critical importance to the 
U.S. military, and in particular its need for global mobility.
    The first understanding states that nothing in the 
Convention impairs the inherent right of self-defense or rights 
during armed conflict, including any Convention provisions 
referring to ``peaceful uses'' or ``peaceful purposes.'' This 
understanding underscores the importance the United States 
attaches to its right under international law to take 
appropriate actions in self-defense or in times of armed 
conflict, including, where necessary, the use of force.
    The second, third, and fourth understandings address 
navigational rights and freedoms in various maritime zones 
under the Convention. The second understanding focuses on 
innocent passage in the territorial sea, the third focuses on 
transit passage and archipelagic sea lanes passage under Parts 
III and IV of the Convention, and the fourth focuses on high 
seas freedoms of navigation and overflight in the exclusive 
economic zone. Collectively, these understandings confirm that 
various activities historically undertaken by the U.S. Armed 
Forces in these zones are consistent with the rights and 
freedoms set forth in the Convention.
    Several points are worth noting in particular in connection 
with the second understanding regarding innocent passage.

  <bullet> Paragraph 2(B) states that article 19(2) of the 
        Convention contains an exhaustive list of activities 
        that render passage non-innocent. The committee 
        understands that the list of activities in no way 
        narrows the right of innocent passage the United States 
        currently enjoys under the 1958 Territorial Sea 
        Convention and customary international law. On the 
        contrary, the Convention improves upon the 1958 
        Convention's innocent passage regime from the 
        perspective of U.S. navigational mobility by 
        establishing a more objective standard for the meaning 
        of ``innocent'' passage based on specifically 
        enumerated activities, and by setting forth an 
        exhaustive list of those activities that will render 
        passage not ``innocent.'' (Article 20 provides that 
        submarines and other underwater vehicles are required 
        to navigate on the surface and to show their flag in 
        order to enjoy the right of innocent passage; however, 
        failure to do so is not characterized as inherently not 
        ``innocent.'') The committee further understands that, 
        as in the case of the 1958 Convention, the innocent 
        passage provisions of the Convention set forth 
        conditions for the enjoyment of the right of innocent 
        passage in the territorial sea but do not prohibit or 
        otherwise affect activities that are not entitled to 
        that right.

  <bullet> Paragraph 2(A) states the U.S. understanding that, 
        among other things, the ``purpose'' of a ship is not 
        relevant to the enjoyment of innocent passage, and 
        paragraph 2(C) states the U.S. understanding that a 
        determination of non-innocence cannot be made, among 
        other things, on the basis of a ship's ``purpose.'' The 
        reference to ``purpose'' is intended to make clear, for 
        example, that a ship navigating for the sole purpose of 
        exercising its right of innocent passage is entitled to 
        the right of innocent passage but that would not 
        preclude a ship's purpose from being taken into account 
        in assessing whether that ship posed a threat to use 
        force within the meaning of article 19(2)(a).

  <bullet> Understanding 2(D) reiterates the longstanding U.S. 
        position that the Convention does not authorize a 
        coastal State to condition the exercise of the right of 
        innocent passage by any ships, including warships, on 
        the giving of prior notification to or the receipt of 
        prior permission from the coastal State. The 
        Convention, and this understanding, do not, however, 
        affect the ability of Parties to the Convention to 
        agree among themselves to a prior notification regime. 
        For example, such regimes have been negotiated under 
        the auspices of the International Maritime 
        Organization. In this regard, regulation V/11 (ship 
        reporting systems) and regulation V/19.2.4 (automatic 
        identification systems) of the regulations annexed to 
        the International Convention for the Safety of Life at 
        Sea, 1974, as amended should be noted.

    The fifth understanding concerns marine scientific 
research. Part XIII of the Convention addresses the rights of 
coastal States to require consent for marine scientific 
research undertaken in marine areas under their jurisdiction. 
The understanding indicates that the term ``marine scientific 
research'' does not include certain activities, such as 
military activities, including military surveys. It is an 
illustrative list; therefore, there are other activities, such 
as operational oceanography, that are also not considered 
marine scientific research.
    The sixth understanding expresses the U.S. view that those 
declarations and statements of other States Parties that 
purport to limit navigation, overflight, or other rights and 
freedoms in ways not permitted by the Convention (such as those 
not in conformity with the Convention's provisions relating to 
straits used for international navigation) contravene the 
Convention (specifically article 310, which does not permit 
such declarations and statements). While it is not legally 
necessary for the United States to comment on declarations and 
statements that are inconsistent with the Convention, given 
that reservations are not permitted under the Convention, the 
committee believes it appropriate and desirable to make clear 
the U.S. position on such declarations and statements.
    The resolution next contains a series of understandings 
addressing principally environment-related aspects of the 
Convention, including provisions of the Convention addressing 
marine pollution enforcement. Over the past decade or more, the 
Executive Branch has vigorously enforced U.S. marine pollution 
laws consistent with the Convention's provisions relevant to 
foreign flag vessels. In light of substantial experience 
gained, the Executive Branch has proposed, and the committee 
agrees, that it would be desirable to highlight certain aspects 
of the Convention's provisions, including to harmonize certain 
terminology as between the Convention and U.S. law.
    The seventh understanding addresses an unmeritorious 
assertion that has occasionally been made in relation to 
various U.S. laws that restrict the import of goods to promote 
observance of a particular environmental or conservation 
standard, such as the protection of dolphins or sea turtles. It 
confirms that the Convention in no way limits a State's ability 
to prohibit or restrict imports in order to, among other 
things, promote or require compliance with environmental and 
conservation laws, norms, and objectives.
    The eighth understanding states that certain Convention 
provisions apply only to a particular source of marine 
pollution (namely, pollution from vessels, as referred to in 
article 211) and not other sources of marine pollution, such as 
dumping. The ninth understanding harmonizes the Convention's 
``clear grounds'' standard in articles 220 and 226 with the 
U.S. ``reasonable suspicion'' standard. The tenth understanding 
concerns article 228(2), which provides for a three-year 
statute of limitations concerning certain marine pollution 
proceedings. The understanding sets forth the limits of the 
applicability of the provision. As under current U.S. law, 
fraudulent concealment from an officer of the United States of 
pertinent information tolls the statute of limitations.
    The eleventh understanding addresses the scope of article 
230, which governs the use of monetary penalties in cases 
involving pollution of the marine environment by foreign 
vessels. The understanding harmonizes aspects of article 230 
with U.S. law and practice for the enforcement of pollution 
laws. The reference to ``corporal punishment'' in the 
understanding is not addressed to any U.S. laws authorizing 
such punishment with regard to ship master and sailors (the 
committee is unaware of any such laws); rather it is aimed at 
other States that may provide for such punishment. The article 
thus provides certain protections for U.S. ship masters and 
sailors abroad.
    The twelfth understanding clarifies that the marine 
pollution provisions of the Convention, specifically sections 6 
and 7 of Part XII, do not limit a State's authority to impose 
penalties, among other things, for non-pollution offenses (such 
as false statement violations under 18 U.S.C. 1001) or for 
marine pollution violations that take place in a State's ports, 
rivers, harbors, or offshore terminals.
    The thirteenth understanding provides that the Convention 
confirms and does not constrain the longstanding right of a 
State to impose and enforce conditions for the entry of foreign 
vessels into its ports, rivers, harbors, or offshore terminals. 
This sovereign right enables States to address important 
concerns, such as security and pollution, regardless of whether 
action to address such concerns has been or will be taken at 
the international level and regardless of whether or not the 
condition is directly related to the ports, rivers, harbors, or 
offshore terminals. These conditions might also apply as a 
matter of port departure and compliance with such conditions 
can be considered in approving subsequent port entries. The 
understanding contains illustrative examples of an 
environmental nature, namely a requirement that ships exchange 
ballast water beyond 200 nautical miles from shore and a 
requirement that tank vessels carrying oil be constructed with 
double hulls. Another example of the U.S. exercise of this 
right is the requirement for prior notice of arrival in port of 
foreign vessels.
    The fourteenth understanding relates to article 21(2) of 
the Convention, which provides that the laws that a coastal 
State may adopt relating to innocent passage through the 
territorial sea shall not apply to the ``design, construction, 
manning or equipment'' of foreign ships unless they are giving 
effect to ``generally accepted international rules or 
standards.'' This understanding makes clear that certain types 
of measures would not constitute measures applying to ``design, 
construction, manning or equipment'' of foreign ships and would 
therefore not be limited by this provision. The list is 
illustrative, not exhaustive.
    The fifteenth understanding addresses the issue of 
potential marine pollution from industrial operations (such as 
seafood processing) on board a foreign vessel. This 
understanding makes clear that the Convention supports a 
coastal State's regulation of discharges into the marine 
environment resulting from such operations. A variety of 
provisions in the Convention might be applicable depending upon 
the circumstances. It should be noted that the United States 
currently regulates discharges from seafood processing 
operations on board foreign vessels in its territorial sea and 
EEZ.
    Similarly, the sixteenth understanding addresses the issue 
of invasive species, which is a major environmental issue 
facing many States in the United States. This understanding 
affirms that the Convention supports the ability of a coastal 
State, such as the United States, to exercise its domestic 
authority to regulate the introduction into the marine 
environment of alien or new species. A variety of Convention 
provisions might be applicable, depending upon the 
circumstances, for example, articles 21, 56, 196, or 211. The 
ability to rely on various authorities is important to assure 
that the United States and other coastal States have 
appropriate flexibility to fully address this problem.
    The seventeenth understanding addresses fisheries 
management issues. The United States implements the living 
marine resource provisions of the Convention through a variety 
of domestic laws. For fisheries issues, these provisions are 
implemented primarily through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Article 56(1)(a) of the Convention 
establishes that, in the exclusive economic zone, a coastal 
State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and 
exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, 
whether living or non-living. In the United States, such 
measures have included fisheries management pursuant to the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the establishment of no-anchoring areas 
to protect coral reefs, and the creation of marine sanctuaries 
under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. This provision also 
provides authority to address such threats as ship strikes of 
cetaceans.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides a national framework for 
conserving and managing marine fisheries within the U.S. EEZ. 
The Act is completely consistent with the Convention and 
enables the United States to exercise its rights and implement 
its fisheries conservation and management obligations under 
articles 61 and 62 of the Convention. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
provides the United States with the authority to make 
determinations related to utilization, conservation and 
management of living resources within its EEZ, including 
defining optimum yield and allowable catch, considering effects 
on non-target species, and determining what, if any, surplus 
may exist. Articles 61 and 62 provide that the coastal State 
has the exclusive right to make these determinations. In 
particular, under both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and article 
62(2), the United States has no obligation to give another 
State access to fisheries in its EEZ unless, after determining 
the optimum yield and allowable catch under the Act, the United 
States has determined both that there is surplus over and above 
the allowable catch and that the coastal State does not or will 
not have the capacity to harvest that surplus. In such event, 
access may be provided under reasonable terms and conditions 
established by the coastal State. The Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
other legislation provide the United States with the authority 
to cooperate with other States in managing fisheries resources 
that are highly migratory or that straddle jurisdictional 
lines, in order to comply with obligations under articles 63, 
64, 118, and 119. Consistent with article 297(3), binding 
dispute settlement does not apply to disputes relating to a 
coastal State's discretionary powers for determining the 
allowable catch, its harvesting capacity, the allocation of 
surpluses to other States, and the terms and conditions 
established in its conservation and management laws and 
regulations.
    The eighteenth understanding concerns article 65, which 
addresses marine mammals. In part, article 65 provides that the 
Convention does not restrict the right of a coastal State or 
the competence of an international organization to take 
stricter measures than those provided in the Convention. With 
respect to this provision, the understanding notes that it lent 
direct support to the establishment of the international 
moratorium on commercial whaling that is in place and that it 
lends current support to the creation of sanctuaries and other 
conservation measures. Article 65 also provides that, in the 
case of cetaceans, States shall work through appropriate 
international organizations for their conservation, management 
and study. The understanding indicates, with respect to this 
provision, that such cooperation applies not only to large 
whales but to all cetaceans.
    The nineteenth understanding makes clear that the term 
``sanitary laws and regulations'' in article 33 is not limited 
to the transmittal of human illnesses, but may include, for 
example, laws and regulations to protect human health from 
pathogens being introduced into the territorial sea. This 
example is non-exhaustive.
    The next five understandings and declarations generally 
address procedural and constitutional matters.
    The twentieth understanding relates to decisionmaking in 
the Council, the executive organ of the International Sea-Bed 
Authority that has substantial decisionmaking authority. 
Article 161(8)(d) provides for certain decisions of the Council 
to be taken by consensus. The United States will, by virtue of 
the 1994 Agreement, have a permanent seat on the Council. As 
such, the United States will be in a position to block 
consensus in the Council on decisions subject to consensus 
decisionmaking. The Convention, as modified by the Agreement, 
is structured to ensure consensus decisionmaking for the most 
significant decisions, including decisions resulting in binding 
substantive obligations on States Parties. The understanding 
reinforces the negotiated agreement that decisions adopted by 
procedures other than the consensus procedure in article 
161(8)(d) will involve administrative, institutional or 
procedural matters and will not result in binding substantive 
obligations on the United States.
    The twenty-first understanding addresses certain decisions 
of the Assembly, the primary body of the International Sea-Bed 
Authority. Specifically, the Assembly, under article 160(2)(e), 
assesses the contributions of members to the administrative 
budget of the Authority until the Authority has sufficient 
income from other sources to meet its administrative expenses. 
Section 3(7) of the Annex to the 1994 Agreement provides that 
``[d]ecisions of the Assembly . . . having financial or 
budgetary implications shall be based on the recommendations of 
the Finance Committee.'' Under Section 9(3) of the Annex to the 
1994 Implementing Agreement seats are guaranteed on the Finance 
Committee for ``the five largest contributors to the 
administrative budget of the Authority'' until the Authority 
has sufficient funds other than assessed contributions to meet 
its administrative expenses. Because such contributions are 
based on the United Nations scale of assessments (and because 
the United States is the largest contributor on that scale), 
the United States will have a seat on the Finance Committee so 
long as the Authority supports itself through assessed 
contributions. The understanding ties these related provisions 
together to make clear that no assessed contributions could be 
decided by the Assembly without the agreement of the United 
States in the Finance Committee.
    The twenty-second declaration addresses article 39 of Annex 
VI of the Convention, which provides for decisions of the Sea-
Bed Disputes Chamber to be enforceable in the territories of 
the States Parties in the same manner as judgments or orders of 
the highest court of the State Party in whose territory the 
enforcement is sought. Because of potential constitutional 
concerns regarding direct enforceability of this provision in 
U.S. courts and because article 39 does not require any 
particular manner in which Chamber decisions must be made 
enforceable, the declaration provides that, for the United 
States, such decisions shall be enforceable only in accordance 
with procedures established by implementing legislation and 
that such decisions shall be subject to such legal and factual 
review as is constitutionally required and without precedential 
effect in any court of the United States. Given the current 
undeveloped state of deep seabed mining, such legislation would 
not be necessary before U.S. accession to the Convention.
    The twenty-third understanding focuses on the adoption of 
amendments to section 4 of Annex VI of the Convention, which 
relates to the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber, which is established 
under the Convention to resolve certain disputes arising in 
connection with deep sea bed mining. The basic rules for 
amending Annex VI are set forth in section 5 of that Annex. It 
is clear from article 41 of that Annex, with respect to 
amendments to Annex VI other than to section 4, that the United 
States could block adoption of such an amendment (either 
through the ability to block afforded by article 313(2) or 
through the consensus procedure at a conference of the States 
Parties). Regarding amendments to section 4 of Annex VI, 
related to the Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber, article 41(2) of Annex 
VI provides that such amendments may be adopted only in 
accordance with article 314, which in turn requires that such 
amendments be approved by the Assembly following approval by 
the Council. Article 314 does not specify the decisionmaking 
rule by which the Council must approve the amendment before the 
Assembly may adopt it; article 161(8), which lists certain 
categories of decisions and their corresponding decisionmaking 
rules, also does not specifically address adoption of 
amendments to section 4 of Annex IV. Turning to article 
161(8)(f) to determine the default rule for decisions within 
the authority of the Council for which the decisionmaking rule 
is not specified, the Council is to decide ``by consensus'' 
which subparagraph of article 161(8) will apply. Section 3 of 
the Annex to the 1994 Agreement conflates subparagraphs (b) and 
(c) of article 161(8), but it does not affect situations where 
the Convention, as in the case of 161(8)(f), provides for 
decision by consensus in the Council. Because the analysis 
reaches the same result as, but is not as straightforward as, 
the case of amendments to section 4 of Annex VI as it is for 
other amendments to Annex VI, the committee agrees with the 
Executive Branch that an understanding on this point is 
desirable.
    The twenty-fourth declaration relates to the question of 
whether the Convention and Agreement are self-executing in the 
United States. The committee has included a declaration that 
the Convention and Agreement, including amendments thereto and 
rules, regulations, and procedures thereunder, are not self-
executing for the United States, with the exception of 
provisions related to privileges and immunities (articles 177-
183, article 13 of Annex IV, and article 10 of Annex VI). 
Consistent with the view of both the committee and the 
Executive Branch, this declaration states that the Convention 
and Agreement do not create private rights of action or other 
enforceable legal rights in U.S. courts (e.g., for persons 
accused of criminal violations of U.S. laws, including 
environmental pollution and general criminal laws). As stated 
in the March 1, 2004 letter from State Department Legal Adviser 
William H. Taft, IV to Chairman Lugar attached as an annex to 
this report, the United States, as a party, would be able to 
implement the Convention through existing laws, regulations, 
and practices (including enforcement practices), which are 
consistent with the Convention and which would not need to 
change in order for the United States to meet its Convention 
obligations. Except as noted in connection with declaration 
twenty-two above, the United States does not need to enact any 
new legislation to supplement or modify existing U.S. law.
    Section four of the resolution contains five conditions 
that relate to procedures within the United States for 
considering amendments proposed to be made to the Convention. 
The first three conditions provide for the President to inform 
and consult with the Foreign Relations Committee about proposed 
amendments to the Convention. The fourth condition provides 
that all amendments to the Convention, other than amendments 
under article 316(5) of the Convention of a technical or 
administrative nature, shall be submitted by the President to 
the Senate for its advice and consent. The committee expects 
that any such technical or administrative amendments would not 
impose substantive obligations upon the United States.
    The fifth condition relates to article 316(5) of the 
Convention, which provides for any amendment relating 
exclusively to activities in the Area (which is defined in 
article 1(1)(1)) and any amendment to Annex VI to enter into 
force for all States Parties one year following the deposit of 
instruments of ratification or accession by three fourths of 
the States Parties. There is thus a possibility that such an 
amendment, if adopted (which would require the consent or 
acquiescence of the U.S. Executive Branch via the U.S. 
representative on the Council), could enter into force for the 
United States without U.S. ratification. The declaration 
provides that the United States will take all necessary steps 
under the Convention to ensure that amendments subject to this 
procedure are adopted in conformity with the treaty clause in 
Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. This might involve 
not joining in consensus if an amendment were of such a nature 
that it was constitutionally imperative that it receive Senate 
advice and consent before binding the United States. The 
declaration highlights the amendment procedure but does not 
specifically address under what circumstances a constitutional 
issue might arise.

     VII. Text of Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO DECLARATIONS AND 
                    UNDERSTANDINGS.

    The Senate advises and consents to the accession to the 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with annexes, 
adopted on December 10, 1982 (hereafter in this resolution 
referred to as the ``Convention''), and to the ratification of 
the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the 
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with annex, 
adopted on July 28, 1994 (hereafter in this resolution referred 
to as the ``Agreement'') (T.Doc.103-39), subject to the 
declarations of section 2, to be made under articles 287 and 
298 of the Convention, the declarations and understandings of 
section 3, to be made under article 310 of the Convention, and 
the conditions of section 4.

SEC. 2. DECLARATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 287 AND 298.

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declarations:
          (1) The Government of the United States of America 
        declares, in accordance with article 287(1), that it 
        chooses the following means for the settlement of 
        disputes concerning the interpretation or application 
        of the Convention:
                  (A) a special arbitral tribunal constituted 
                in accordance with Annex VIII for the 
                settlement of disputes concerning the 
                interpretation or application of the articles 
                of the Convention relating to (1) fisheries, 
                (2) protection and preservation of the marine 
                environment, (3) marine scientific research, 
                and (4) navigation, including pollution from 
                vessels and by dumping; and
                  (B) an arbitral tribunal constituted in 
                accordance with Annex VII for the settlement of 
                disputes not covered by the declaration in 
                subparagraph (A).
          (2) The Government of the United States of America 
        declares, in accordance with article 298(1), that it 
        does not accept any of the procedures provided for in 
        section 2 of Part XV (including, inter alia, the Sea-
        Bed Disputes Chamber procedure referred to in article 
        287(2)) with respect to the categories of disputes set 
        forth in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of article 
        298(1). The United States further declares that its 
        consent to accession to the Convention is conditioned 
        upon the understanding that, under article 298(1)(b), 
        each State Party has the exclusive right to determine 
        whether its activities are or were ``military 
        activities'' and that such determinations are not 
        subject to review.

SEC. 3. OTHER DECLARATIONS AND UNDERSTANDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 310.

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declarations and understandings:
          (1) The United States understands that nothing in the 
        Convention, including any provisions referring to 
        ``peaceful uses'' or ``peaceful purposes,'' impairs the 
        inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 
        or rights during armed conflict.
          (2) The United States understands, with respect to 
        the right of innocent passage under the Convention, 
        that--
                  (A) all ships, including warships, regardless 
                of, for example, cargo, armament, means of 
                propulsion, flag, origin, destination, or 
                purpose, enjoy the right of innocent passage;
                  (B) article 19(2) contains an exhaustive list 
                of activities that render passage non-innocent;
                  (C) any determination of non-innocence of 
                passage by a ship must be made on the basis of 
                acts it commits while in the territorial sea, 
                and not on the basis of, for example, cargo, 
                armament, means of propulsion, flag, origin, 
                destination, or purpose; and
                  (D) the Convention does not authorize a 
                coastal State to condition the exercise of the 
                right of innocent passage by any ships, 
                including warships, on the giving of prior 
                notification to or the receipt of prior 
                permission from the coastal State.
          (3) The United States understands, concerning Parts 
        III and IV of the Convention, that--
                  (A) all ships and aircraft, including 
                warships and military aircraft, regardless of, 
                for example, cargo, armament, means of 
                propulsion, flag, origin, destination, or 
                purpose, are entitled to transit passage and 
                archipelagic sea lanes passage in their 
                ``normal mode'';
                  (B) ``normal mode'' includes, inter alia--
                          (i) submerged transit of submarines;
                          (ii) overflight by military aircraft, 
                        including in military formation;
                          (iii) activities necessary for the 
                        security of surface warships, such as 
                        formation steaming and other force 
                        protection measures;
                          (iv) underway replenishment; and
                          (v) the launching and recovery of 
                        aircraft;
                  (C) the words ``strait'' and ``straits'' are 
                not limited by geographic names or categories 
                and include all waters not subject to Part IV 
                that separate one part of the high seas or 
                exclusive economic zone from another part of 
                the high seas or exclusive economic zone or 
                other areas referred to in article 45;
                  (D) the term ``used for international 
                navigation'' includes all straits capable of 
                being used for international navigation; and
                  (E) the right of archipelagic sea lanes 
                passage is not dependent upon the designation 
                by archipelagic States of specific sea lanes 
                and/or air routes and, in the absence of such 
                designation or if there has been only a partial 
                designation, may be exercised through all 
                routes normally used for international 
                navigation.
          (4) The United States understands, with respect to 
        the exclusive economic zone, that--
                  (A) all States enjoy high seas freedoms of 
                navigation and overflight and all other 
                internationally lawful uses of the sea related 
                to these freedoms, including, inter alia, 
                military activities, such as anchoring, 
                launching and landing of aircraft and other 
                military devices, launching and recovering 
                water-borne craft, operating military devices, 
                intelligence collection, surveillance and 
                reconnaissance activities, exercises, 
                operations, and conducting military surveys; 
                and
                  (B) coastal State actions pertaining to these 
                freedoms and uses must be in accordance with 
                the Convention.
          (5) The United States understands that ``marine 
        scientific research'' does not include, inter alia--
                  (A) prospecting and exploration of natural 
                resources;
                  (B) hydrographic surveys;
                  (C) military activities, including military 
                surveys;
                  (D) environmental monitoring and assessment 
                pursuant to section 4 of Part XII; or
                  (E) activities related to submerged wrecks or 
                objects of an archaeological and historical 
                nature.
          (6) The United States understands that any 
        declaration or statement purporting to limit 
        navigation, overflight, or other rights and freedoms of 
        all States in ways not permitted by the Convention 
        contravenes the Convention. Lack of a response by the 
        United States to a particular declaration or statement 
        made under the Convention shall not be interpreted as 
        tacit acceptance by the United States of that 
        declaration or statement.
          (7) The United States understands that nothing in the 
        Convention limits the ability of a State to prohibit or 
        restrict imports of goods into its territory in order 
        to, inter alia, promote or require compliance with 
        environmental and conservation laws, norms, and 
        objectives.
          (8) The United States understands that articles 220, 
        228, and 230 apply only to pollution from vessels (as 
        referred to in article 211) and not, for example, to 
        pollution from dumping.
          (9) The United States understands, with respect to 
        articles 220 and 226, that the ``clear grounds'' 
        requirement set forth in those articles is equivalent 
        to the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard under United 
        States law.
          (10) The United States understands, with respect to 
        article 228(2), that--
                  (A) the ``proceedings'' referred to in that 
                paragraph are the same as those referred to in 
                article 228(1), namely those proceedings in 
                respect of any violation of applicable laws and 
                regulations or international rules and 
                standards relating to the prevention, reduction 
                and control of pollution from vessels committed 
                by a foreign vessel beyond the territorial sea 
                of the State instituting proceedings; and
                  (B) fraudulent concealment from an officer of 
                the United States of information concerning 
                such pollution would extend the three-year 
                period in which such proceedings may be 
                instituted.
          (11) The United States understands, with respect to 
        article 230, that--
                  (A) it applies only to natural persons aboard 
                the foreign vessels at the time of the act of 
                pollution;
                  (B) the references to ``monetary penalties 
                only'' exclude only imprisonment and corporal 
                punishment;
                  (C)  the requirement that an act of pollution 
                be ``wilful'' in order to impose non-monetary 
                penalties would not constrain the imposition of 
                such penalties for pollution caused by gross 
                negligence;
                  (D) in determining what constitutes a 
                ``serious'' act of pollution, a State may 
                consider, as appropriate, the cumulative or 
                aggregate impact on the marine environment of 
                repeated acts of pollution over time; and
                  (E) among the factors relevant to the 
                determination whether an act of pollution is 
                ``serious,'' a significant factor is non-
                compliance with a generally accepted 
                international rule or standard.
          (12) The United States understands that sections 6 
        and 7 of Part XII do not limit the authority of a State 
        to impose penalties, monetary or nonmonetary, for, 
        inter alia--
                  (A) non-pollution offenses, such as false 
                statements, obstruction of justice, and 
                obstruction of government or judicial 
                proceedings, wherever they occur; or
                  (B) any violation of national laws and 
                regulations or applicable international rules 
                and standards for the prevention, reduction and 
                control of pollution of the marine environment 
                that occurs while a foreign vessel is in any of 
                its ports, rivers, harbors, or offshore 
                terminals.
          (13) The United States understands that the 
        Convention recognizes and does not constrain the long-
        standing sovereign right of a State to impose and 
        enforce conditions for the entry of foreign vessels 
        into its ports, rivers, harbors, or offshore terminals, 
        such as a requirement that ships exchange ballast water 
        beyond 200 nautical miles from shore or a requirement 
        that tank vessels carrying oil be constructed with 
        double hulls.
          (14) The United States understands, with respect to 
        article 21(2), that measures applying to the ``design, 
        construction, equipment or manning'' do not include, 
        inter alia, measures such as traffic separation 
        schemes, ship routing measures, speed limits, 
        quantitative restrictions on discharge of substances, 
        restrictions on the discharge and/or uptake of ballast 
        water, reporting requirements, and record-keeping 
        requirements.
          (15) The United States understands that the 
        Convention supports a coastal State's exercise of its 
        domestic authority to regulate discharges into the 
        marine environment resulting from industrial operations 
        on board a foreign vessel.
          (16) The United States understands that the 
        Convention supports a coastal State's exercise of its 
        domestic authority to regulate the introduction into 
        the marine environment of alien or new species.
          (17) The United States understands that, with respect 
        to articles 61 and 62, a coastal State has the 
        exclusive right to determine the allowable catch of the 
        living resources in its exclusive economic zone, 
        whether it has the capacity to harvest the entire 
        allowable catch, whether any surplus exists for 
        allocation to other States, and to establish the terms 
        and conditions under which access may be granted. The 
        United States further understands that such 
        determinations are, by virtue of article 297(3)(a), not 
        subject to binding dispute resolution under the 
        Convention.
          (18) The United States understands that article 65 of 
        the Convention lent direct support to the establishment 
        of the moratorium on commercial whaling, supports the 
        creation of sanctuaries and other conservation 
        measures, and requires States to cooperate not only 
        with respect to large whales, but with respect to all 
        cetaceans.
          (19) The United States understands that, with respect 
        to article 33, the term ``sanitary laws and 
        regulations'' includes laws and regulations to protect 
        human health from, inter alia, pathogens being 
        introduced into the territorial sea.
          (20) The United States understands that decisions of 
        the Council pursuant to procedures other than those set 
        forth in article 161(8)(d) will involve administrative, 
        institutional, or procedural matters and will not 
        result in substantive obligations on the United States.
          (21) The United States understands that decisions of 
        the Assembly under article 160(2)(e) to assess the 
        contributions of members are to be taken pursuant to 
        section 3(7) of the Annex to the Agreement and that the 
        United States will, pursuant to section 9(3) of the 
        Annex to the Agreement, be guaranteed a seat on the 
        Finance Committee established by section 9(1) of the 
        Annex to the Agreement, so long as the Authority 
        supports itself through assessed contributions.
          (22) The United States declares, pursuant to article 
        39 of Annex VI, that decisions of the Seabed Disputes 
        Chamber shall be enforceable in the territory of the 
        United States only in accordance with procedures 
        established by implementing legislation and that such 
        decisions shall be subject to such legal and factual 
        review as is constitutionally required and without 
        precedential effect in any court of the United States.
          (23) The United States--
                  (A) understands that article 161(8)(f) 
                applies to the Council's approval of amendments 
                to section 4 of Annex VI;
                  (B) declares that, under that article, it 
                intends to accept only a procedure that 
                requires consensus for the adoption of 
                amendments to section 4 of Annex VI; and
                  (C) in the case of an amendment to section 4 
                of Annex VI that is adopted contrary to this 
                understanding, that is, by a procedure other 
                than consensus, will consider itself bound by 
                such an amendment only if it subsequently 
                ratifies such amendment pursuant to the advice 
                and consent of the Senate.
          (24) The United States declares that, with the 
        exception of articles 177-183, article 13 of Annex IV, 
        and article 10 of Annex VI, the provisions of the 
        Convention and the Agreement, including amendments 
        thereto and rules, regulations, and procedures 
        thereunder, are not self-executing.

SEC. 4. CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The advice and consent of the Senate under 
section 1 is subject to the following conditions:
          (1) Not later than 15 days after the receipt by the 
        Secretary of State of a written communication from the 
        Secretary-General of the United Nations or the 
        Secretary-General of the Authority transmitting a 
        proposal to amend the Convention pursuant to article 
        312, 313, or 314, the President shall submit to the 
        Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a copy of 
        the proposed amendment.
          (2) Prior to the convening of a Conference to 
        consider amendments to the Convention proposed to be 
        adopted pursuant to article 312 of the Convention, the 
        President shall consult with the Committee on Foreign 
        Relations of the Senate on the amendments to be 
        considered at the Conference. The President shall also 
        consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
        Senate on any amendment proposed to be adopted pursuant 
        to article 313 of the Convention.
          (3) Not later than 15 days prior to any meeting--
                  (A) of the Council of the International 
                Seabed Authority to consider an amendment to 
                the Convention proposed to be adopted pursuant 
                to article 314 of the Convention, or
                  (B) of any other body under the Convention to 
                consider an amendment that would enter into 
                force pursuant to article 316(5) of the 
                Convention,
        the President shall consult with the Committee on 
        Foreign Relations of the Senate on the amendment and on 
        whether the United States should object to its 
        adoption.
          (4) All amendments to the Convention, other than 
        amendments under article 316(5) of a technical or 
        administrative nature, shall be submitted by the 
        President to the Senate for its advice and consent.
          (5) The United States declares that it shall take all 
        necessary steps under the Convention to ensure that 
        amendments under article 316(5) are adopted in 
        conformity with the treaty clause in article 2, section 
        2 of the United States Constitution.
    (b) Inclusion of Certain Conditions in Instrument of 
Ratification.--Conditions 4 and 5 shall be included in the 
United States instrument of ratification to the Convention.
                             VIII. Annex I


                                  The Legal Adviser
                                        Department of State
                                          Washington, March 1, 2004

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar,
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.

    Dear Mr. Chairman:

    I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate and 
elaborate upon some of the matters addressed in my testimony to 
the Committee regarding the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention 
(``the Convention'').
    Given that the United States is a party to the 1958 law of 
the sea conventions, that the United States heavily influenced 
the development of the Convention, and that U.S. policy since 
1983 has been to act in accordance with the Convention's 
provisions governing traditional uses of the oceans, U.S. law 
and practice are already generally compatible with the 
Convention. Except as noted below regarding deep sea-bed 
mining, the United States does not need to enact new 
legislation to supplement or modify existing U.S. law, whether 
related to protection of the marine environment, human health, 
safety, maritime security, the conservation of natural 
resources, or other topics within the scope of the Convention. 
The United States, as a party, would be able to implement the 
Convention through existing laws, regulations, and practices 
(including enforcement practices), which are consistent with 
the Convention and which would not need to change in order for 
the United States to meet its Convention obligations. For 
example, U.S. law and practice for managing its natural 
resources, including its fishery resources, are consistent with 
the Convention's provisions with respect to the exploration, 
utilization, conservation, and management of natural resources.
    The one area in which implementing legislation would be 
necessary at some point after U.S. accession is legislation to 
enforce decisions of the Sea-bed Disputes Chamber, with respect 
to which the Administration proposed a declaration for 
inclusions in the Senate's resolution.
    Finally, I note that, consistent with another declaration 
proposed by the Administration, the Convention would not create 
private rights of action or other enforceable rights in U.S. 
courts, apart from its provisions regarding privileges and 
immunities to be accorded to the Convention's institutions.

            Sincerely,
                                        William H. Taft, IV
                              IX. Annex II


                              HEARINGS ON


     THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (TREATY DOC. 103-39)

                              ----------                              


                            C O N T E N T S


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003

                                                                    Page

Department of Commerce, letter to Hon. Richard G. Lugar, Chairman, 
    Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from Theodore W. 
    Kassinger, General Counsel, providing Department views on 
    accession to the Law of the Sea Convention....................   148
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening 
    statement.....................................................    26
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, Chairman, Senate 
    Commerce Committee, statement submitted for the record........    27
Moore, Prof. John Norton, director, Center for Oceans Law and 
    Policy, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville, 
    VA............................................................    49
    Prepared statement............................................    53
Oxman, Prof. Bernard H., University of Miami School of Law, Coral 
    Gables, FL, statement submitted for the record................    35
Prueher, Admiral Joseph, USN (Ret.), former U.S. Commander-in-
    Chief Pacific and former U.S. Ambassador to China, Virginia 
    Beach, VA.....................................................    48
Schachte, Rear Admiral William L., Jr., JAGC, USN (Ret.) 
    Charleston, SC................................................    59
    Prepared statement............................................    62
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, Chairman, Senate 
    Appropriations Committee......................................    28
    Prepared statement............................................    31
Watkins, Admiral James D., USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission 
    on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC...............................    39
    Prepared statement............................................    42

                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003

                                PANEL I

Crowley, Rear Admiral John E., Jr., Chief Counsel and Judge 
    Advocate General, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland 
    Security, Washington, DC......................................   107
    Prepared statement............................................   108
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Biden.......................................................   170
Esper, Mark T., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
    Negotiations Policy, Department of Defense, the Pentagon, 
    Washington, DC................................................    96
    Prepared statement............................................   100
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Biden.......................................................   172
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening 
    statement.....................................................    82
Mullen, Admiral Michael G., Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Joint 
    Chiefs of Staff, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC.......   102
    Prepared statement............................................   104
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Biden.......................................................   172
Taft, Hon. William H., IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State, 
    Washington, DC................................................    88
    Prepared statement............................................    91
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Lugar.......................................................   168
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Biden.......................................................   176
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Kerry.......................................................   183
Turner, Hon. John F., Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of 
    Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 
    Department of State, Washington, DC...........................    84
    Prepared statement............................................    85
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Lugar.......................................................   168
    Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator 
      Biden.......................................................   173

                                PANEL II

Cox, Joseph J., president and CEO, Chamber of Shipping of America, 
    Washington, DC................................................   138
    Prepared statement............................................   140
Kelly, Paul L., senior vice president, Rowan Companies, Inc., 
    Houston, TX...................................................   113
    Prepared statement............................................   117
Rufe, Vice Admiral Roger T., Jr., USCG (Ret.), president, The 
    Oceans Conservancy, Washington, DC............................   121
    Prepared statement............................................   124
Thomas, Ms. Randi, national representative, U.S. Tuna Foundation, 
    Washington, DC................................................   134
    Prepared statement of David Burney, U.S. Tuna Foundation, 
      submitted by Ms. Thomas.....................................   135

             ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

American Bar Association, Dennis W. Archer, president, Washington, 
    DC............................................................   150
Council on Ocean Law..............................................   151
Humane Society of the United States, submitted testimony on 
    History and Interpretation of Article 65, by Patricia Forkan, 
    executive vice president......................................   152
Kerry, Hon. John F., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts,.............   159
National Marine Manufacturers Association, Monita W. Fontaine, 
    Esq., vice president, Government Relations....................   160
U.S. Arctic Research Commission, George B. Newton, chairman, 
    Washington, DC................................................   161
White House Fact Sheet--Proliferation Security Initiative: 
    Statement of Interdiction Principles..........................   165
World Wildlife Fund, Brooks B. Yeager, vice president, Global 
    Threats Program...............................................   166


     THE U.N. CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (TREATY DOC. 103-39)

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar 
(chairman of the committee), presiding.
    Present: Senator Lugar.
    The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee is called to order. The committee meets today to 
begin consideration of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the 
Sea. This treaty represents the culmination of decades of work 
to produce a comprehensive international framework governing 
the use of the world's oceans. The Law of the Sea Convention 
has great potential to advance United States interests related 
to the navigation of the seas, the productive use of their 
resources, and the protection of the marine environment.
    The United States played a leading role in negotiating the 
convention in the 1970s and the early 1980s. Because of 
concerns about its deep sea mining provisions, however, the 
United States declined to sign the convention when it was 
initially concluded in 1982. Subsequently the United States led 
a successful effort to revise the deep sea mining provisions of 
the convention. As a result, the United States signed the 
convention in 1994.
    Congress had expressed its support, stating in the Deep 
Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 that: ``It is in the 
national interest of the United States and other nations to 
encourage a widely acceptable Law of the Sea Treaty which will 
provide a new legal order for the oceans covering a broad range 
of ocean interests.''
    Although the convention was submitted to the Senate for its 
advice and consent in October 1994, the Foreign Relations 
Committee has not held a hearing on it since that time. I am 
pleased the committee will now have that opportunity.
    Today's hearing is the first step in that process. We will 
hold a second hearing to examine the treaty on October 21. 
Following these hearings, it is my intention to work on a 
resolution of advice and consent, with the hope that the 
committee can mark up such a resolution early next year.
    More than 140 nations are party to the Law of the Sea 
Convention, including all other permanent members of the U.N. 
Security Council and all but two other NATO members. The 
absence of American leadership in the convention diminishes its 
effectiveness and our own influence over international ocean 
policy. As a maritime state and the world's only superpower, 
the United States has vital economic and security interests in 
preserving freedom of navigation of the oceans and in 
preventing piracy, smuggling, terrorism, and other criminal 
activity from occurring off our shores. Our ability to import 
goods from abroad and to sell our goods to other countries 
depends on transporting these goods by sea.
    As a coastal state, we also have important interests in 
protecting the marine environment while managing and making 
productive use of the resources off our coasts. These include 
petroleum and mineral resources as well as fishery resources.
    We are fortunate today to have two extremely knowledgeable 
panels of witnesses to discuss the convention. First we will 
have the privilege of hearing from our distinguished colleague 
Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, who has long been interested in the convention and 
its ratification. Although our schedule did not permit the 
attendance of Senator John McCain, he similarly expressed his 
desire to speak on behalf of the convention.
    Thus, we begin our inquiry with the knowledge that Senate 
consideration of the convention is supported by the chairmen of 
the Appropriations and Commerce Committees of the Senate. This 
underscores the active interest that Members of the Senate have 
taken in the Law of the Sea Convention during the long course 
of its negotiation.
    I want also to take this opportunity to recognize the 
commitment and leadership of a former chairman of this 
committee, Senator Claiborne Pell. Senator Pell brought passion 
and expertise to his work on the Law of the Sea and our current 
examination of the treaty benefits greatly from his 
contributions.
    In our second panel we will also welcome four witnesses 
with exceptional expertise on the convention and related 
maritime issues: Admiral James Watkins, Admiral Joseph Prueher, 
Professor John Norton Moore, and Admiral William Schachte. I 
will introduce this panel in greater detail after we have heard 
from Senator Stevens. I thank all of you for joining us today 
and we look forward to your insights.
    [The opening statement of Senator Lugar follows:]

             Opening Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar

    The committee meets today to begin consideration of the U.N. 
Convention on the Law of the Sea. This treaty represents the 
culmination of decades of work to produce a comprehensive international 
framework governing the use of the world's oceans. The Law of the Sea 
Convention has great potential to advance U.S. interests related to the 
navigation of the seas, the productive use of their resources, and the 
protection of the marine environment.
    The United States played a leading role in negotiating the 
Convention in the 1970s and early 1980s. Because of concerns about its 
deep sea mining provisions, however, the United States declined to sign 
the Convention when it was initially concluded in 1982. Subsequently, 
the United States led a successful effort to revise the deep sea mining 
provisions of the Convention. As a result, the United States signed the 
Convention in 1994.
    Congress had expressed its support for these efforts, stating in 
the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act of 1980 that: ``it is in the 
national interest of the United States and other nations to encourage a 
widely acceptable Law of the Sea Treaty, which will provide a new legal 
order for the oceans covering a broad range of ocean interests.''
    Although the Convention was submitted to the Senate for its advice 
and consent in October 1994, the Foreign Relations Committee has not 
held a hearing on it since that time. I am pleased that the committee 
will now have the opportunity to consider this treaty. Today's hearing 
is the first step in that process. We will hold a second hearing to 
examine the treaty on October 21. Following these hearings, it is my 
intention to begin work on a resolution of advice and consent, with the 
hope that the committee can mark up such a resolution early next year.
    More than 140 nations are party to the Law of the Sea Convention, 
including all other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and 
all but two other NATO members. The absence of American leadership from 
the Convention diminishes its effectiveness and our own influence over 
international ocean policy.
    As a maritime state and the world's only superpower, the United 
States has vital economic and security interests in preserving freedom 
of navigation on the oceans and in preventing piracy, smuggling, 
terrorism, and other criminal activity from occurring off our shores. 
Our ability to import goods from abroad and to sell our goods to other 
countries depends on transporting these goods by sea. As a coastal 
state, we also have important interests in protecting the marine 
environment while managing and making productive use of the resources 
off our coasts. These include petroleum and mineral resources, as well 
as fisheries resources.
    We are fortunate to have two extremely knowledgeable panels of 
witnesses with us this morning to discuss the Convention. First, we 
will have the pleasure of hearing from our distinguished colleague 
Senator Stevens, who has long been interested in the Convention and its 
ratification. Although our schedule did not permit the attendance of 
Senator McCain, he similarly expressed his desire to speak on behalf of 
the Convention. Thus, we begin our inquiry with the knowledge that 
Senate consideration of the Convention is supported by the chairmen of 
the Appropriations and Commerce Committees. This underscores the active 
interest that Members of the Senate have taken in the Law of the Sea 
Convention during the long course of its negotiation.
    I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the commitment 
and leadership of a former chairman of this committee, Senator 
Claiborne Pell. Senator Pell brought passion and expertise to his work 
on the Law of the Sea, and our current examination of the treaty 
benefits greatly from his contributions.
    We also welcome five witnesses with exceptional expertise on the 
Convention and related maritime issues: Admiral James Watkins, Admiral 
Joseph Prueher, Professor John Norton Moore, Admiral William Schachte, 
Jr., and Professor Bernard Oxman.
    First we will hear from Admiral James Watkins. Admiral Watkins 
served from 1982 to 1986 as Chief of Naval Operations. From 1989 to 
1993 he was U.S. Secretary of Energy. Currently, Admiral Watkins is the 
Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
    Our second witness on the panel is Admiral Joseph Prueher. Admiral 
Prueher served for 35 years in the U.S. Navy. From 1996 to 1999, he was 
Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command. From 1999 to 2001, he 
served as U.S. Ambassador to China.
    Next we will hear from Professor John Norton Moore. From 1973 to 
1976, Professor Moore served as Ambassador and Deputy Special 
Representative of the President to the Third U.N. Conference on the Law 
of the Sea. He also was Chairman of the National Security Council's 
Interagency Task Force on the Law of the Sea. Currently he is the 
Walter L. Brown Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School 
of Law and Director of the University's Center for Oceans Law and 
Policy.
    Finally we will hear from Admiral William L. Schachte, Jr. During 
his Navy career, Admiral Schachte served in many capacities related to 
ocean policy. He was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Third U.N. 
Conference on the Law of the Sea. He is currently special counsel to 
Tetra Tech, Inc. Welcome to each of you.
    We were to hear from a fifth witness, Professor Bernard Oxman. 
Unfortunately, Professor Oxman has fallen ill and is not able to be 
hear today. If there are no objections, his prepared written statement 
will be included in the record in full. Professor Oxman served as 
United States Representative and Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Delegation 
to the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. He is also a former 
Assistant Legal Adviser for Oceans, Environment, and Scientific Affairs 
in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the Department of State. 
Professor Oxman is currently a Professor at the University of Miami Law 
School and serves as a Judge Ad Hoc on the International Tribunal for 
the Law of the Sea.

    [The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona, 
                  Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee

    I am pleased to testify, today in support of the Senate's 
ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. As Chairman 
of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which 
has jurisdiction over oceans, and maritime and ocean navigation, I 
believe ratification of this important Convention would help strengthen 
our national security, promote the free and unimpeded flow of 
international trade and commerce, and protect our vital natural 
resources. Its ratification would enable the United States to regain 
its leadership role in promoting the rule of law for the oceans and 
encouraging respect for traditional navigational freedoms.
    Throughout our nation's history, our security and economic well-
being have long been dependent on our free access to the world's seas. 
The oceans have helped to protect us against potential adversaries, 
facilitate the transportation and trade of our products, and provided 
abundant fish and natural resources in the waters off our shores.
    The United States has historically been a global leader in 
advocating the Law of the Sea. After World War II, the United States 
was at the forefront in calling for a formal Law of the Sea and was one 
of its champions during the two decade struggle to draft this 
Convention. However, when the Convention was opened for signature in 
1982, much of the developed world, led by the United States, refused to 
sign it over concerns with the provisions related to deep seabed 
exploitation.
    In the early 1990s, the United States helped craft an important 
compromise which satisfied the many objections to the deep seabed 
mining provisions. Yet despite removing this impediment, we still have 
not ratified this Convention, which to date has been ratified by 143 
countries.
    The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea provides a comprehensive 
regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas and it serves as 
an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the 
oceans and their resources are established. As a global power, the 
United States depends on ready and unrestricted access to the world's 
oceans and international airspace. The navigational rights and freedoms 
codified by the Convention would ensure our military continues to have 
the mobility it needs to maintain a military presence around the world 
and move military forces where needed. Additionally, these rights and 
freedoms will ensure our nation's ability to ship goods and materials 
throughout the world using the most expeditious routes.
    Support for Convention ratification within the United States is 
widespread and diverse, including environmental groups, the maritime 
industry, the oil and natural gas industry, and the oceanographic 
research community. The Clinton Administration previously supported 
ratifying the Convention and now the U.S. State Department has 
indicated its support of ratification. Additionally, in one of its 
first official acts, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy publicly 
called for ratification of the Convention.
    As a result of our failure to ratify the Convention, our national 
interests have suffered. We are now barred from membership on the Law 
of the Sea Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission as well as the 
right to name members to special arbitration panels which are 
responsible for settling interstate disputes. In these bodies, the 
United States has been relegated to observer status. Furthermore, the 
United States is barred from membership in the International Seabed 
Authority where parties to the Convention organize and direct ventures 
to exploit the mineral resources of the deep seabed.
    The importance of the U.S. ratification of the Convention is 
further compounded by the emerging issues brought about because of 
Global Climate. For example, as the Arctic icecap around the Canadian 
Arctic archipelago continues to shrink and thin, some scientists have 
suggested the Northwest Passage could be open for possible year-round 
navigable passage within 10 to 15 years. As a result, the contentious 
issue of whether this passage will be an international strait or 
considered part of Canadian waters will need to be determined.
    It has been more than nine years since the Convention was 
transmitted to the Senate for ratification, where it has since resided 
with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Today's hearing is an 
important step toward finally addressing this critical international 
issue and I hope it prompts Senate ratification of the Convention in 
the near future.

    The Chairman. Let me now give a special welcome to my 
colleague Ted Stevens. We really do appreciate your coming this 
morning, Ted, on this important issue.

   STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA, 
CHAIRMAN, APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, U.S. SENATE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We do 
have our supplemental on the floor at 10 o'clock. I wish I 
could join you to listen to these panels. However, I have 
confidence that they will present substantial testimony in 
favor of the Law of the Sea Convention.
    I do thank you for holding the first of the two hearings on 
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. In 1969, Mr. 
Chairman, my first full year in the Senate, Senator Warren 
Magnuson, then Chairman of the Commerce Committee, asked me to 
monitor the Law of the Sea negotiations. As a freshman minority 
member at that time and assigned to attend all of the 
negotiations around the world, I learned a great deal from the 
discussions on the Law of the Sea that took place all over the 
world, and the work on the Magnuson-Stevens Act was really a 
product of those negotiations. The concepts embodied in that 
act I believe were ahead of its time by 20 to 30 years.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize the balance of my 
statement and ask you to print the full statement in the record 
if you will.
    The Chairman. It will be published in full in the record.
    Senator Stevens. I am proud that Congress and the President 
approved Alaskans' suggestions that are now part of the U.N. 
Convention on the Law of the Sea. These include many of the 
provisions of the convention that are consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act on living resource management, 
conservation and exploitation. Before the passage of this act, 
fisheries around the world, including those off our State of 
Alaska, were being overfished, primarily by distant foreign 
fleets.
    Second, the moratorium on high seas driftnets. In 1987, the 
Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control Act 
directed the Secretary of the Interior to negotiate observer 
and enforcement agreements with nations whose vessels used 
large-scale driftnets on the high seas. It also began the 
process that eventually led to the U.S. recommendation that the 
U.N. adopt our suggestion for a global moratorium on large-
scale driftnet fishing on the high seas.
    Third, the agreement on conservation and management of 
straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species. The 
Convention on Conservation and Management of Pollock Resources 
in the Central Bering Sea, otherwise known as the Donut Hole 
and the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, attempted to better 
define the obligations and redress for countries where highly 
migratory species and straddling fish stocks originate.
    The Donut Hole agreement was the model for the global 
treaty that became the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. I 
carried the commitment to ratify this agreement to the United 
Nations General Assembly and the U.S. did the right thing by 
ratifying it in August 1996.
    I believe the Donut Hole and the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement 
cleared up many concerns that had been voiced about the 
efficacy of enforcing living marine resource laws 
internationally under this convention. The agreements have 
proven to be critical first steps toward cooperative 
international management of transboundary stocks.
    I do recommend ratification of the Convention on the Law of 
the Sea and related agreements, provided the following concerns 
are adequately addressed: First, potential surpluses of U.S. 
fish stocks must not lead to arguments by foreign nations to 
gain access to these marine resources. The quotas for all 
groundfish contained in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands are 
capped at a maximum of 2 million metric tons annually, which 
include pollock, Pacific cod, yellowfin sole, turbot, 
arrowtooth flounder, rock sole, Alaska plaice, sablefish, 
Pacific Ocean perch, northern rockfish, rougheye, atka 
mackerel, and squid. This is the most bountiful place I think 
in the world for fisheries today that are under sound 
management.
    This cap is enforced regardless of the maximum recommended 
acceptable biological catch level. This is one of the longest 
standing conservation measures in the North Pacific.
    The pollock biomass is now at an all-time high, with 2002 
overfishing levels at 3.54 million metric tons. As you know, 
article 62 of the convention is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for authorizing the allocation of any surplus to 
foreign States and provides terms and conditions for any 
foreign fishing in the U.S. exclusive zone.
    Apparently, recent changes or proposals to the Law of the 
Sea have not changed this and I hope we will be vigilant, if we 
ratify this convention, to assure that strong conservation 
measures to protect species in U.S. waters do not lead to 
claims by foreign fleets to gain access to our living marine 
resources.
    Mr. Chairman, it is very important, because we do not 
allocate to maximum availability. We allocate so that the 
stocks are constantly increasing in biomass, and we have proven 
that with our pollock. It is growing substantially.
    Third, next, the deep seabed claims by Russia on the Arctic 
shelf. It is my understanding that the United States 
successfully negotiated favorable terms on the deep sea mining 
agreement which should guarantee us a seat on the 
decisionmaking body of the International Seabed Authority and 
eliminate mandatory transfer of technology provisions. Further, 
it scales back the administrative structure for the mining 
regime. I do believe, from the mining point of view, that this 
convention is now acceptable if that understanding is correct, 
Mr. President.
    The Arctic continental shelf extends beyond the U.S. 200-
mile exclusive economic zone and is of great interest to 
Alaska. As a matter of fact, two-thirds of the United States 
continental shelf is off Alaska. Article 76 of the convention 
allows member States to lay claim to all bottom resources on 
their continental shelves beyond 200 miles. It is my 
understanding that Russia has recently proposed claims to a 
large area of the Arctic shelf to the International Seabed 
Authority. Aggressive claims such as these raise a question of 
whether the U.S. would be better situated if it became a party 
to the convention and had a seat on the authority that oversees 
these claims.
    In addition, if we ratify the convention pursuant to 
article 76 the U.S. could lay claim to an area of about 62,000 
square kilometers north and east of the Bering Strait. I 
recommend that this committee closely review the agreement on 
deep seabed mining with regard to the outer continental shelf 
off our State. I strongly recommend this committee work closely 
with our Commerce Committee on the various issues that I raised 
today and I know the Chairman, Senator McCain, will raise, and 
others that are very much within our committee's jurisdiction.
    We believe that the provisions of the convention must be 
specific to avoid future misinterpretation. Proponents of 
ratifying the Law of the Sea argue that active U.S. 
participation in the convention and agreements will guarantee 
that the protections and restrictions are applied in a fair and 
commensurate manner. I urge caution. The Law of the Sea 
Convention and other related agreements must not be open-ended 
and some of them are, Mr. Chairman. But these provisions must 
be specific and precise to prevent future misinterpretation. I 
do believe your committee has a real task ahead of itself to 
find out how we might make certain that these future 
interpretations do not enlarge the scope of foreign invasion of 
our basic 200-mile limit. If those determinations are not 
clear, later interpretations will seriously erode the U.S. 
policy that I have described.
    The U.S. Commission on Oceans Policy is expected to release 
its report on oceans policy next month, and I see Admiral 
Watkins is here, who has done a magnificent job with the 
Commission. Their report, I am told, will include a 
recommendation for the United States to become a party to the 
convention.
    The Senate should seriously consider their recommendation. 
The Law of the Sea Convention has benefited from the laws that 
originated here in the United States that I have recited. This 
convention now embodies the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, 
provisions to prevent destructive fishing practices, and 
conservation and management of shared living resources. But 
Congress needs further assurance that the Law of the Sea will 
not undermine future conservation and management initiatives or 
security measures.
    In this and future centuries, Mr. Chairman, demands on the 
world's oceans will only increase, as we all know. If properly 
managed, oceans will become an even more important and 
bountiful source of food as well as a place of commerce, 
communication, and resource development. The Law of the Sea can 
provide us with the comprehensive legal framework that we need 
to maximize our utilization of the ocean resources while 
ensuring their healthiness and productivity for generations to 
come.
    Again, I congratulate you for holding these hearings and 
look forward to working with you as this convention comes to 
the floor. I thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska, 
               Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee

    Chairman Lugar, thanks for holding this first of two hearings on 
the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. In 1969, my first full year 
in the Senate, Senator Warren Magnuson asked me to monitor the Law of 
the Sea negotiations. As a freshman minority member then, and assigned 
to attend all of those negotiations, I learned a great deal from the 
discussions on the Law of the Sea that took place all over the world, 
and work on the Magnuson-Stevens Act was really a product of those 
negotiations. The concepts embodied in that Act were ahead of its time 
by 20 or 30 years.
    Many of the provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention are 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act on living resource management, 
conservation and exploitation. Before passage of our Act fisheries 
around the world, including those off the coast of Alaska, were being 
overfished, primarily by distant foreign fleets. These fleets engaged 
in ``pulse fishing'' in U.S. waters. ``Pulse fishing'' exploits one 
fishery until its collapse and then move on to another fishery and 
decimate those stocks. This practice was devastating for our fisheries, 
and until the 200-mile exclusive economic zones were established there 
was very little international cooperation to manage or to protect 
shared fisheries.
    After the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone for U.S. waters was 
implemented, attention turned to the fishing practices on the high seas 
and the adverse affects on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory 
species. Addressing this problem was extremely important for Alaska 
because of the high seas interception of Alaska salmon by foreign 
fleets. Wild salmon prices were strong at the time, and high seas 
fishing was damaging the resource by reducing the overall 
sustainability of the stocks. In response to this problem, the Driftnet 
Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control Act was introduced in 1987. 
That Act directed the Secretary of State to negotiate observer and 
enforcement agreements with nations whose vessels used large scale 
driftnets on the high seas. It also began the process that eventually 
led to the U.S. recommendation that the U.N. adopt our suggestion for a 
global moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas.
    The Law of the Sea Convention incorporated the 200-mile exclusive 
economic zones and placed substantive restrictions, such as the 
moratorium on large-scale driftnets, on the freedom of fishing on the 
high seas under Article 87. These are real protections that will allow 
for conservation and management of the world's shared living marine 
resources. They establish a precedent that, particularly on the high 
seas outside the jurisdiction of any country, destructive fishing 
practices will not be tolerated. These important provisions make the 
Law of the Sea Convention a much better body of international law.
    From 1990 to 1994, the U.S. participated in consultations designed 
to remedy the problems with the deep seabed provisions of the Law of 
the Sea Convention. President Clinton signed the 1994 Agreement on the 
revised deep seabed mining provisions, which was referred to this 
committee in October of that year. It is my understanding that the U.S. 
successfully negotiated favorable terms on the deep seabed mining 
Agreement, which should guarantee the U.S. a seat on the decision-
making body of the International Seabed Authority and eliminates 
mandatory transfer of technology provisions. Further it scales back the 
administrative structure for the mining regime.
    The Arctic continental shelf extends beyond the U.S. 200-mile 
exclusive economic zone and is of great interest to Alaska, in fact 2/
3rds of the continental shelf off the U.S. is off Alaska. Article 76 of 
the Convention allows member States to lay claim to all bottom 
resources on their continental shelves beyond 200-miles based on the 
appropriate charting and relevant geodetic data. It is my understanding 
that Russia has recently proposed claims to large areas of the Arctic 
shelf to the International Seabed Authority. These claims may be of 
little consequence to the U.S. because we are not a party to the 
Agreement on deep seabed mining and would likely not respect or 
recognize these claims. However, it does raise a question of whether we 
would be better situated if the U.S. became a party to the Convention 
and were represented on the Authority that oversees these claims. In 
addition, if we ratify the convention, pursuant to Article 76 the U.S. 
could lay claim to an area of about 62,000 square kilometers, an area 
roughly larger than West Virginia, north and east of the Bering Strait. 
I recommend that this committee closely review the Agreement on deep 
seabed mining.
    Around the same time the agreement on deep seabed mining was 
completed, work was being done on two other important agreements. Those 
agreements attempt to better define the obligations and redress for 
countries where highly migratory species and straddling fish stocks 
originate. They were titled the ``Convention on Conservation and 
Management of Pollock Resources in the Central Bering Sea'' otherwise 
know as the Donut Hole, and the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. The 
Donut Hole agreement restricted the U.S., Russia and the four former 
high seas fishing states--Japan, South Korea, China and Poland--from 
fishing for pollock within an area in the Central Bering Sea until 
those stocks recovered.
    The Donut Hole agreement was important because it effectively 
coordinated international fishing efforts on certain pollock straddling 
stocks, and it also was the model for the global treaty that became the 
1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. I carried the commitment to ratify 
this agreement to the United Nations General Assembly, and the U.S. did 
the right thing by ratifying it in August of 1996. I believe the Donut 
Hole and U.N. Fish Stocks Agreements cleared up many concerns that had 
been voiced about the efficacy of enforcing living marine resource laws 
internationally under the Convention. To this date to my knowledge none 
of the countries party to the Donut Hole agreement have permitted 
fishing in the restricted area and those stocks continue to rebuild. 
The agreements have proven to be critical first steps toward 
cooperative international management of transboundary stocks. Because 
of good management practices the biomass of pollock off Alaska 
continues to grow.
    The international agreements on shared stocks, especially those in 
the Bering Sea, demonstrates an important issue on conservation and 
management under the Convention. The quotas for all groundfish combined 
(which include pollock, Pacific cod, yellowfin sole, turbot, arrowtooth 
flounder, rock sole, Alaska plaice, sablefish, Pacific Ocean perch, 
northern rockfish, rougheye, atka mackerel, and squid) in the Bering 
Sea and Aleutian Islands are capped at a maximum of 2 million metric 
tons annually, regardless of the maximum recommended acceptable 
biological catch levels. This is one of the longest standing 
conservation measures in the North Pacific. For the past 25 years, 
annual catch limits for groundfish have been set at or below the 
acceptable biological catch levels recommended by fishery scientists. 
The pollock biomass is currently near all-time high levels, with a 2002 
overfishing level of 3.54 million metric tons and an acceptable 
biological catch level of 2.1 million metric tons--this is for pollock 
alone, not combining the rest of the groundfish species in the Bering 
Sea, and still the Council conservatively does not allow harvesting 
over the cap. The North Pacific presently has large surpluses of 
pollock because of the conservative and science-based management by the 
Regional Council. As you know, Article 62 of the Convention is 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act for authorizing the allocation 
of any surplus to foreign States and provides terms and conditions for 
any foreign fishing in the U.S. exclusive economic zone.
    Apparently, recent changes or proposals to the Law of the Sea have 
not changed this, but we must be vigilant if we ratify this Convention, 
to assure that strong conservation measures to protect species in U.S. 
waters do not lead to arguments by foreign fleets to gain access to our 
living marine resources.
    I would also recommend this committee look closely at the 
provisions in the Convention relating to freedom of navigation in 
territorial seas. As a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, tankers 
operating in U.S. waters must be double-hulled. There should be a 
clarification in Part II, Article 21 pertaining to laws and regulations 
of the coastal State relating to innocent passage. Section 2 of this 
Article specifies that such laws and regulations of a coastal State 
shall NOT apply to the design or construction of foreign ships. 
Therefore, foreign ships carrying toxic materials would be allowed to 
move freely in the territorial seas of coastal States and not have to 
meet certain design requirements, such as double-hulls. The spills of 
the past, such as that off the coast of Spain and Portugal last year 
should have taught us that some foreign fleets do not meet even basic 
maintenance and structural integrity requirements. We should not permit 
this Convention to erode the stringent environmental standards required 
in the U.S.
    I strongly recommend that this committee work closely with the 
Commerce Committee on the various issues I have raised today, as they 
are very much within that committee's jurisdiction.
    Proponents of ratifying the Law of the Sea argue that active U.S. 
participation in the Convention and Agreements will guarantee the 
protections and restrictions are applied in a fair and commensurate 
manner. I urge caution: the Law of the Sea Convention and other related 
agreements must not be open ended; provisions must be specific and 
precise to prevent future misinterpretation. If those determinations 
are not clear, later interpretations will seriously erode U.S. policy.
    Finally, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is expected to release 
its report on Ocean Policy next month. It is my understanding their 
report will include a recommendation for the U.S. to become a party to 
the Convention. The Senate should consider seriously their 
recommendation. The Law of the Sea Convention has benefited from the 
laws that originated in the U.S. This Convention now embodies the 200-
mile exclusive economic zone, provisions to prevent destructive fishing 
practices, and conservation and management of shared living resources. 
But Congress needs assurance that the Law of the Sea will not undermine 
future conservation and management initiatives or security measures.
    In this and future centuries, demands on the world's oceans will 
only increase. And, if properly managed oceans will become an even more 
important and bountiful source of food as well as a place of commerce, 
communication and resource development. The Law of the Sea can provide 
us with the comprehensive legal framework we need to maximize our use 
of the oceans' resources, while ensuring their healthiness and 
productivity for generations to come.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Stevens. I thank 
you again, as you have recited the many ways over decades in 
which you have participated in this public policy issue. My 
background is not nearly as extensive as yours, but I was 
impressed at an Aspen Institute conference in Rome this year 
about the conservation and security issues that you have 
mentioned and the fact that we must not undermine those. These 
are a very important part of the heritage that you have brought 
to this and that we hope to continue. I would think that we 
would want to work carefully with the Commerce Committee, and 
likewise with yourself, given your background, as we get the 
advice and consent resolution prepared after our hearings are 
concluded.
    We look forward to working with you and we appreciate your 
strong testimony.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Matt Paxton of my 
staff has worked with me on this matter and I would urge that 
he be permitted to stay as long as he can as an observer of 
these hearings.
    The Chairman. We welcome him with you today and we welcome 
his continuing as an observer working with our committee. Thank 
you very much. Good luck on the floor.
    I would like to welcome now our second panel. We are 
pleased this morning to have four outstanding witnesses to 
discuss the implications of the Law of the Sea Convention. 
First we will hear from Admiral James Watkins. Admiral Watkins 
served from 1982 to 1986 as Chief of Naval Operations. From 
1989 to 1993 he was United States Secretary of Energy. 
Currently Admiral Watkins is the Chairman of the United States 
Commission on Ocean Policy, and the report which Senator 
Stevens referenced will be forthcoming shortly and of benefit 
to our committee.
    Our second witness on the panel is Admiral Joseph Prueher. 
Admiral Prueher served for 35 years in the United States Navy. 
From 1996 to 1999 he was Commander-in-Chief of the United 
States Pacific Command. From 1999 to 2001 he served as the 
United States Ambassador to China.
    Next we will hear from Professor John Norton Moore. From 
1973 to 1976 Professor Moore served as Ambassador and Deputy 
Special Representative of the President to the Third United 
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. He also was Chairman 
of the National Security Council's Inter-Agency Task Force on 
the Law of the Sea. Currently he is the Walter L. Brown 
Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law 
and director of the University's Center for Oceans Law and 
Policy.
    Finally, we will hear from Admiral William Schachte. During 
his Navy career, Admiral Schachte served in many capacities 
related to ocean policy. He was a member of the United States 
Delegation to the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. 
He is currently special counsel to Tetra Tech, Inc.
    We welcome each of you. I would indicate that we were to 
hear from a fifth witness, Professor Bernard Oxman. 
Unfortunately, Professor Oxman has fallen ill and is not able 
to be here today. If there are no objections, and the Chair 
hears none, his prepared statement will be included in the 
record in full.
    Professor Oxman has served as United States Representative 
and Vice Chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the Third U.N. 
Conference on the Law of the Sea. He is also the former 
Assistant Legal Advisor for Oceans, Environment, and Scientific 
Affairs in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of 
State. Professor Oxman is currently a professor at the 
University of Miami Law School and serves as a judge ad hoc on 
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
    [The prepared statement of Professor Oxman follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Prof. Bernard H. Oxman,\1\ University of Miami 
                             School of Law

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
    It is an honor to appear before you today to testify on the United 
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Implementing Agreement 
Regarding Part XI of the Convention.
    I must begin by begging your indulgence. I returned to the United 
States from Hamburg only last Friday after serving for several weeks on 
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as a judge ad hoc 
appointed by one of the states party to the case. One unfortunate 
consequence is that my statement today is less polished and thorough 
than I would have liked. In this respect I fortunately had the luxury 
of relying on what I anticipated to be the comprehensive statements of 
others here today.
    Whatever the utility of my remarks, I hope the Committee will bear 
in mind the authority, insight and conviction with which the case for 
the Convention would have been presented by two extraordinary 
individuals with whom it was my great honor to work most closely, the 
late Ambassador John R. Stevenson and the late Ambassador Elliot L. 
Richardson. Both served at critical formative periods as Special 
Representative of the President for the Law of the Sea and are 
unquestionably regarded throughout the world as among the small handful 
of individuals singularly responsible for the ultimate shape of the 
Convention.
    Mr. Chairman, it is my strongly held opinion that it is in the 
interests of the United States to become party to the Convention as 
soon as possible. We are, and have been since the founding of the 
Republic, a seafaring nation that relies on the right to move off 
distant shores. Our security is dependent upon the unchallenged global 
mobility of our armed forces to respond to any threat, whatever its 
nature, emanating from any part of the world; our prosperity is 
dependent upon the unimpeded global movement of goods and persons to 
and from our shores; and our future well-being may increasingly depend 
on the uninterrupted global carriage of telecommunications by submarine 
cable.
    Ambassador Stevenson and I put it this way:

          From the perspective of international security, the basic 
        question is whether forces may be moved from one place to 
        another without the consent or interference of states past 
        whose coasts they proceed. Global mobility is important not 
        only to naval powers but to other states that rely on those 
        powers to maintain stability and deter aggression, directly or 
        through the United Nations. As the size of major navies is 
        reduced after the Cold War, the adverse impact on their ability 
        to perform their primary missions will increase if they must 
        divert scarce resources to challenging coastal state claims 
        that prejudice global lines of communication or set adverse 
        precedents. Enhancing the legal security of navigation and 
        defense activities at sea maximizes the efficient use of 
        defense resources.

          From the perspective of trade and communications, the basic 
        question is whether two states may communicate with each other 
        by sea without interference by a third state past whose coast 
        they proceed. Restrictions imposed by a coastal state along the 
        route may well result in increased costs for industries 
        dependent upon trade and communications and for countries whose 
        exports or imports are affected.\2\

    The historic tension in the law of the sea has been a struggle 
between the freedom of the seas and coastal state sovereignty over the 
seas. The two are, in their purest forms, directly contradictory. The 
duty of all states to respect the freedoms of the seas is in principle 
equal. If one coastal state can impose a limitation, all can.
    Thus, when in 1945 President Truman claimed the natural resources 
of the continental shelf beyond the territorial sea of the United 
States, we willingly ceded the same exclusive control to other coastal 
states that we claimed for ourselves. The difficulty is that we were 
unable to control the process. We were emulated, so to speak, beyond 
our wildest expectations. It was plausibly argued that since, as the 
uncontested global maritime power at the time, we had the greatest 
interest in preventing coastal state incursions on freedom of the seas, 
any claims of exclusive coastal state control that we made were the 
minimum, not the maximum, that might be regarded as reasonable. Where 
we limited our claim to the seabeds, others claimed the waters and even 
the airspace over vast areas as well. Where we limited our claim to 
natural resources, others claimed sovereignty and with it control over 
all activities, including navigation and overflight.
    Our official position that coastal state sovereignty ended at the 
three-mile limit, and therefore that the free high seas began at that 
limit, became increasingly untenable. What was emerging was a sense 
that any coastal state could claim what it wished and might well get 
away with it; in opposing those claims, the United States and other 
maritime nations were regarded as hypocritical because they too claimed 
what they wished off their own coasts. If the United States could 
unilaterally try to strike the right balance between its coastal 
interests in control of foreign uses of the sea off its own coast, and 
its maritime interests in the free use of the sea off foreign coasts, 
why couldn't others strike a balance that suited them better? That very 
process ironically made it harder for the United States to protect its 
interests off its own coast, for fear that new assertions of right 
would abet a process that would further degrade what remained of the 
platform of principle upon which the U.S. operated off foreign shores. 
In short, the interests of the United States in both global mobility 
and in protection of its interests off its own shores were caught in a 
stultifying conundrum.
    Needless to say, the United States had the ability to challenge 
foreign states that interfered with its perceived rights. But to 
physically challenge every coastal state that made a claim contrary to 
our view of our rights would have required far greater resources than 
we were prepared to divert to such a project, and would have come at a 
significant cost to other U.S. interests in the various countries 
concerned. Moreover, both domestic and international public opinion 
demanded a platform of principle for such overt assertions of right off 
foreign shores that was substantially more legitimate than nostalgic 
invocation of what once may have been the law.
    As stated in a study by the Panel on the Law of Ocean Uses, of 
which I was rapporteur at the time,\3\ the United States was faced 
``with three expensive choices when confronted with a foreign state's 
claim of control over our navigation or military activities off its 
coast in a manner inconsistent with our view of the law:

          1. resistance, with the potential for prejudice to other U.S. 
        interests in that coastal state, for confrontation or violence, 
        or for domestic discord;

          2. acquiescence, leading inevitably to a weakening of our 
        position of principle with respect to other coastal states 
        (verbal protests to the contrary notwithstanding) and domestic 
        pressures to emulate the contested claims; or

          3. bilateral negotiation, in which we would be expected to 
        offer a political, economic or military quid pro quo in 
        proportion to our interest in navigation and military 
        activities that, under the Convention's rules, can be conducted 
        free of such bilateral concessions.''

    The fundamental truth is that the most difficult and potentially 
costly policy decisions made by the President and the Congress 
regarding activities at sea turn not on what our own lawyers say our 
rights are under the law of the sea, but what foreign states perceive 
our rights to be. And what we saw in the 1960's was an accelerating 
collapse of any semblance of consensus on the fundamental question: 
Where is there freedom and where is there sovereignty?
    This is the setting in which President Nixon made his historic 
decision in 1970 to launch a new oceans policy. The challenge was to 
devise a political strategy for stabilizing and enhancing our ability 
to influence the perceptions of foreign coastal states as to their 
rights and duties, and hence their perceptions as to our rights and 
duties, off their coasts. The key to that policy was a new multilateral 
elaboration of the law of the sea. The object was a widely ratified 
convention of highly legitimate pedigree that, by balancing the 
conflicting interests not only between but within states, stabilized 
the law of the sea over the long term and protected our fundamental 
interests in global mobility. This in turn would provide us a common 
platform of principle to influence foreign perceptions of their rights 
and duties as well as our rights to operate off foreign coasts and to 
regulate activities off our own coast.
    Ambassador Richardson put the objective in the following way:

          A Law of the Sea treaty creating a widely accepted system of 
        international law for the oceans would--if the rules it 
        contains adequately meet U.S. needs--be the most effective 
        means of creating a legal environment in which our own 
        perception of our rights is essentially unchallenged. We would 
        then, for the first tim