About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (January 20, 2026)

handle is hein.crs/govetkx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Con re sCan JR SE informing I len I ive de a Updated January 20, 2026 Implementing Agreements Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) For over 40 years, Congress has deliberated, to varying degrees, the potential pros and cons of the 1982 United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as it pertains to U.S. ocean policy and interests. UNCLOS established a comprehensive international legal framework to govern activities related to the global ocean and often is referred to as the constitution of the oceans. The United States is not a party to UNCLOS, but related U.S. law largely comports with its provisions. In addition, the United States historically has considered portions of UNCLOS to reflect customary international law binding the conduct of states even in the absence of a treaty. As of January 2026, 170 states and the European Union have ratified UNCLOS. UNCLOS divides the ocean into maritime zones and describes the basic rights and obligations of states therein. During the negotiation of UNCLOS, some states objected to some of these rights, such as the treatment of seabed minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction. After the adoption of UNCLOS, some stakeholders worked to modernize, elaborate, and operationalize the conservation and management of certain marine resources (e.g., highly migratory fish stocks). To build on the legal framework, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted three implementing agreements under the UNCLOS rubric. The three implementing agreements are as follows: * Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (commonly known as the 1994 Agreement) * Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (commonly known as the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement [UNFSA]) * Agreement Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (commonly known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction [BBNJ] Agreement or the High Seas Treaty) U.S. Objections to UNCLOS In 1982, UNGA adopted UNCLOS (Table 1). At that time, the United States and some other industrialized nations did not sign UNCLOS or announced they could not ratify it without changes to Part XI of UNCLOS, which deals with deep-seabed resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In addition to objections over the treatment of deep-seabed resources (i.e., minerals), the United States objected to UNCLOS provisions on technology transfers and compulsory dispute resolution. 1994 Agreement In 1994, UNGA adopted the 1994 Agreement, which amended UNCLOS Part XI by removing many of the provisions objectionable to certain industrialized nations. In addition, the 1994 Agreement provided that the 1994 Agreement and UNCLOS shall be interpreted and applied together as a single document. After adoption of the 1994 Agreement, UNCLOS received the necessary number of signatories to enter into force (Table 1). UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which regulates all seabed mineral-related activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The ISA came into existence with the adoption of the 1994 Agreement, which made changes to the deep-seabed mining regime under UNCLOS. The ISA became fully operational as an autonomous international organization in 1996. The United States participates as an observer state in the ISA but has no vote in the ISA Assembly or Council and cannot apply for or obtain a contract or license for seabed mining activities. For the United States to participate as a member of the ISA, it would have to become party to UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement, which would need Senate advice and consent. On July 29, 1994, the United States signed the 1994 Agreement. In October 1994, President Clinton submitted UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement as a package to the Senate for advice and consent to accession (Treaty Doc. 103-39). The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement in the 108th (2003), 110th (2007), and 112th (2012) Congresses. In the 108th Congress, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations favorably reported and recommended that the Senate give its advice and consent to UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement. However, the Senate did not consider UNCLOS on the floor. In the 110th Congress, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held two hearings on UNCLOS. The committee favorably reported UNCLOS on December 19, 2007, and again recommended the Senate give its advice and consent to UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement, but the Senate did not take up these instruments. During then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing, then-Senator John Kerry, the committee chair, stated that UNCLOS also would be a committee priority, but the committee took no action on UNCLOS during the 1 1th Congress. In the 112th Congress, the Committee on Foreign Relations held three hearings on UNCLOS but took no action to