The US extended its claims on the ocean floor by an area twice the size of California, securing rights to potentially resource-rich seabeds at a time when Washington is ramping up efforts to safeguard supplies of minerals key to future technologies.
One of these claims is compatible with UNCLOS, the other absolutely is not. The US pulls plenty of international dickery, including not ratifying UNCLOS, but this claim fits within that existing international law just fine
One of these claims is compatible with UNCLOS, the other absolutely is not. The US pulls plenty of international dickery, including not ratifying UNCLOS, but this claim fits within that existing international law just fine
Except it’s not really compatible with UNCLOS.
The US interpretation of UNCLOS would allow them to claim like half the Pacific
What do you think isn’t in line with it? This isn’t an exclusive economic zone claim.
You’re arguing with a pro-Russia commenter, so keep that in mind.
Part XI
There are 58 articles in part XI. Which ones are you talking about?