Why the U.S. May Regret Its UNCLOS Exclusion | Taiwan Talks EP409

[@LB-tm4vv]

Its just hypocricy in China's part being a signatory of UNCLOS and never follow it. 😅😅😅

[@ajaxjaiswal3442]

Hypocrisy on the part of US who never signed it, but cry to every country to follow it. Lol

[@ColoniaMurder20]

@@ajaxjaiswal3442 did U.S. claimed someone EEZ? at least U.S. follow UNCLOS even tho they're not signatory.

[@hitthedeck4115]

@@ColoniaMurder20 It was actually the US in the '80-90s which "made" the UN revise UNCLOS to include 200 nautical miles EEZ to individual countries, the term didn't exist before. According to old UNCLOS, countries had exploitation rights extending only to their continental shelf limit (this is normally far below 200 nmi). This new 200 nmi is both a boon and a "curse", like in regions such as Southeast Asia where countries are sitting next to each other so that the many EEZes overlap.

[@ColoniaMurder20]

@@hitthedeck4115 Southeast Asia region dont have problem with their EEZ.. until china started claimed EEZ in Southeast Asia region.. just look at Europe, Middle East dont have problem with their EEZ.. China just wants to control huge natural gas reserve located near in Palawan Island in Philippines. natural gas found in Reed Bank is much bigger than in Qatar.

[@ColoniaMurder20]

@@hitthedeck4115 EEZ in Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunie, Philippines and Indonesia is rich of oil deposits..

[@uco1235]

The US not having ratified the UNCLOS is fine as it is behaving according to the rules. The bad actors are those that ratified the UNCLOS but which only apply it's rule of law when advantageous. Example: China refusing to honor the 2016 UNCLOS decision. When I say China, it means both mainland and Taiwan. The China government with its people that got defeated during the China civil war and fled to Formosa (Taiwan) started the dash lines claim. To this day, China still claims the validity of the 9-lines, 10-lines or 11-lines despite the 2016 UNCLOS EEZ for the Philippines is permanent.

[@LSmoney215]

Which is way n worst tho. ?

[@RealJeep]

Mainland China is actually West Taiwan. The CCP's days are numbered.

[@phil20_20]

The U.S. needs to set an example and start joining these international treaties when they are reasonable. We have let too many of these organizations be corrupted by nations whose intentions have changed since the treaties were conceived. There has been no remedy for malicious behavior among participants.

[@RealJeep]

The United States has not signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for several reasons, primarily related to concerns about sovereignty, national security, and economic interests. Sovereignty Concerns: Some U.S. lawmakers and interest groups have expressed concern that signing UNCLOS could compromise U.S. sovereignty. They argue that the convention could subject U.S. activities, particularly those related to military operations and resource exploitation, to international regulations and oversight, which they view as an unacceptable limitation on national sovereignty. Dispute Resolution Mechanism: UNCLOS includes a compulsory dispute resolution mechanism that could obligate the United States to submit to the jurisdiction of international tribunals. Opponents of the treaty are concerned that these tribunals could rule against U.S. interests, particularly in areas such as military activities and the extraction of natural resources from the ocean floor. Economic Concerns: There are also concerns about the treaty's provisions related to the exploitation of seabed resources beyond national jurisdictions. UNCLOS establishes an international body, the International Seabed Authority, to regulate the extraction of these resources and requires member states to share a portion of the revenue generated from seabed mining. Some U.S. opponents argue that this could hinder American companies' ability to profit from deep-sea mining. National Security: Military concerns also play a role. Although UNCLOS guarantees freedom of navigation, some U.S. military officials and lawmakers worry that the treaty's provisions could be used by other nations to restrict U.S. military movements or activities in international waters. Despite these concerns, many U.S. military leaders, legal scholars, and business interests have supported ratifying UNCLOS, arguing that it would benefit U.S. interests by providing a clear legal framework for maritime operations and resource claims. However, the treaty has never garnered enough support in the U.S. Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required for ratification.

[@Discus1948]

China may be in race to the bottom but. it’s not the sea bottom.

[@PandemoniumMeltDown]

No necessary biodiversity on the mined seabed, just a mine to be exploited?

[@josephtempongko8914]

What “Law of Sea”, UN or US?

[@galaxyA-mv8xo]

Well., for me the main question is, When do China will follow the UNCLOS?😆😆😆

[@raymonreynoso8005]

Propaganda machine of China in full blast!

[@DineshTwanabasu]

Haha hypocrisy of not ratifying laws and want to ompose on others

[@Brisamars-q1c]

What a yawn.... DPP operators in a small room.

[@thedailyvibes4033]

B̶a̶r̶b̶a̶r̶i̶c̶ C̶h̶i̶n̶e̶s̶e̶ P̶i̶r̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ i̶s̶ a̶ m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ o̶f̶ U̶N̶C̶L̶O̶S̶ a̶n̶d̶ y̶e̶t̶ t̶h̶e̶y̶ a̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶t̶ o̶b̶e̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ t̶h̶e̶ i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ l̶a̶w̶. P̶i̶r̶a̶t̶e̶ S̶q̶u̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ B̶a̶r̶b̶a̶r̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ o̶f̶ A̶s̶i̶a̶

[@mhoadievdelapaz3703]

There's no such word as Babaric lol🤡