The Discerning Texan

As Carrie Donovan points out, the Treaty allows for the regulation of intelligence and submarine activities even when they are conducted in territorial waters. Additionally, the Treaty's mandatory dispute resolution provisions under the auspices of the United Nations naturally raise sovereignty questions and the fact that the United Nations is hardly a model international institution does little to raise one's confidence in placing jurisdiction on maritime issues in the hands of the U.N.

Over three years ago, Doug Bandow highlighted additional problems with the Treaty, including the fact that the United States would be putting up approximately 25% of the funds for the International Seabed Authority, which would regulate mining and mineral extraction, while at the same time receiving an inordinately small share of voting rights. This, as Bandow notes, is a typical problem with U.N.-sponsored institutions; they rely heavily on American funding while denying the United States the commensurate amount of power to influence the activities of those institutions. In addition, while the Treaty has some attractive provisions regarding freedom of navigation, there is no impediment whatsoever to America's power to navigate the high seas now or in the immediate future given the overwhelming state of American naval superiority. So in the end, the Treaty's guarantees of freedom of navigation do little—if anything—to advance American interests.