Russian Arctic Deterrence Contention

Access to this material is free with site registration.

[Law of the Sea Daily Updates] [Law of the Sea Bibliography]

[Law of the Sea Piracy Advantage Answers] [Russian Conflict De-escalation Scenario]

Russia’s military buildup in the Arctic is increasing

Henry Holloway, 2018, January 9, The Daily Star, https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/675493/US-Russia-Arctic-War-Icebreakers-Cruise-Missiles-Gas-Oil-Resource-World-3-Nuclear-Soldiers Coldest war EVER? US arming icebreakers with MISSILES for Arctic showdown with Russia
Fears of a new and very real cold war loom over the move, while Russia also bolster its forces in the Arctic. Icecaps thawing has opened sea lanes which have long though to be impassable, sparking fears of a new war in the North Pole. A Russian infantry brigade learn to ride reindeer sleds A Russian infantry brigade learn to ride reindeer sleds Russia’s Northern Fleet’s Arctic mechanised infantry brigade ride snowmobiles during military exercises A Russian naval infantryman descends on a rope at the newly-opened mountain warfare training range Russian naval infantry take part in an exercise at a mountain warfare training range Russia’s Arctic Mechanised Infantry Unit hold military drills in Murmansk Region, Northwest Russia Russian reconnaissance and special forces units training in 2017 Molnia spacecraft, carrying a military spy satelite, prepares to launch from the Artic cosmodrome in Plesetsk “The fact remains the riches of the Arctic are drawing nations like miners to a gold rush” US Army Captain Douglas Cohn Coast Guard Commandant Paul Zukunft said the service are looking at equipping their icebreakers with weapons. He said: “We’ve been able to find offsets to drive the cost down and reserve the space weight and power necessary to fully weaponise these. “We need to make these a capable platform offensively in the event this world changes in the next five, 10, even 15 years from now.” Nuclear icebreakerGETTY RUSSIA: Putin already has nuclear powered icebreakers smashing through the Arctic Vladimir PutinGETTY VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia is expanding its military presence into the Arctic The US has just three icebreakers, while Russia have up to 40 as they patrol the largest Arctic coastline in the world. And Russian leader Vladimir Putin is said to be launching the largest expansion programme into the Arctic since the fall of the Soviet Union. Up to 22% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas is thought to be beneath the Arctic, and this treasure trove is viewed as key by Russia. Russia war rehearsals: Vlad’s Baltic Fleet holds MASSIVE military drill The war games will help Russia prepare for battle 1 / 22 Flares fill the air with thick smoke during the military exerciseVITALY NEVAR/TASS Flares fill the air with thick smoke during the military exercise Flares fill the air with thick smoke during the military exercise A controlled explosion sends debris flying during the drills A serviceman inside a UR-77 Meteorit mine clearing syste A sapper uses a mine detector A UR-77 Meteorit mine clearing system Engineer and sapper units of the Russian Navy’s Baltic Fleet hold a drill Soldiers advance under cover provided by thick smoke from flares US Army Captain Douglas Cohn wrote in his book WW4: “Despite all the diplomacy and talk of goodwill, rule of law and rational behaviour, the fact remains the riches of the Arctic are drawing nations like miners to a gold rush.” He added: “In the end, the natural resources of the region will simply be too alluring for Russia to back down.The Russian economy has been built on natural resources, especially oil and gas, and the NATO nations, not fully comprehending the extent of such dependence, will likely downplay the Russian threat until it is too late.” Russian submarineGETTY DEEP FREEZE: Russia sent a submarine beneath the ice to lay claim to the Arctic On the brink of APOCALYPSE: Chilling images from the Cold War Will North Korea tensions set the next Cold War between China and America? 1 / 28 Gorbachev (L) and Reagan (R) prepare to sign a 1987 nuclear treatyGETTY IMAGES Gorbachev (L) and Reagan (R) prepare to sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Gorbachev (L) and Reagan (R) prepare to sign a 1987 nuclear treaty Chemical weapons stored near the Russian city of Shchuchye during the height of the Cold War Brooklyn students have a ‘duck and cover’ drill in preparation for a nuclear attack Quantities of missiles are displayed in Red Square KGB spying materials included this method of hiding a gun The US Ambassador to the United Nations reads a newspaper’s explosive headline in 1949 A SS4 Sandal missile is pulled past the Kremlin in 1960 RELATED VIDEOS Ship remains believed to be Russian GHOST vessel Russia activates missile defence systems on North Korea border American jet targets Russian fighter plane Russia is believed to be building two revolutionary warships called “icebreaker corvettes” – which will be armed with missiles. US Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis has described Russia as taking “aggressive steps” towards the Arctic.

The build-up is aggressive

Andrew Osborne, 2017, January 30, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-arctic-insight/putins-russia-in-biggest-arctic-military-push-since-soviet-fall-idUSKBN15E0W0 Putin’s Russia in biggest Arctic military push since Soviet fall
Interviews with officials and military analysts and reviews of government documents show Russia’s build-up is the biggest since the 1991 Soviet fall and will, in some areas, give Moscow more military capabilities than the Soviet Union once had. The expansion has far-reaching financial and geopolitical ramifications. The Arctic is estimated to hold more hydrocarbon reserves than Saudi Arabia and Moscow is putting down a serious military marker. “History is repeating itself,” Vladimir Blinov, a guide on board the icebreaker Lenin, which is named after communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, told a recent tour group. “Back then (in the 1950s) it was the height of the Cold War and the United States was leading in some areas. But we beat the Americans and built the world’s first nuclear ship (the Lenin). The situation today is similar.” Sponsored Under President Vladimir Putin, Moscow is rushing to re-open abandoned Soviet military, air and radar bases on remote Arctic islands and to build new ones, as it pushes ahead with a claim to almost half a million square miles of the Arctic. It regularly releases pictures of its troops training in white fatigues, wielding assault rifles as they zip along on sleighs pulled by reindeer. The Arctic, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, holds oil and gas reserves equivalent to 412 billion barrels of oil, about 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. Low oil prices and Western sanctions imposed over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine mean new offshore Arctic projects have for now been mothballed, but the Kremlin is playing a longer game. It is building three nuclear icebreakers, including the world’s largest, to bolster its fleet of around 40 breakers, six of which are nuclear. No other country has a nuclear breaker fleet, used to clear channels for military and civilian ships. Russia’s Northern Fleet, based near Murmansk in the Kola Bay’s icy waters, is also due to get its own icebreaker, its first, and two ice-capable corvettes armed with cruise missiles. “Under (Soviet leader Mikhail) Gorbachev and (Russian President Boris) Yeltsin, our Arctic border areas were stripped bare,” said Professor Pavel Makarevich, a member of the Russian Geographical Society. “Now they are being restored.” ‘AGGRESSIVE STEPS’ The build-up, which echoes moves in Crimea and Kaliningrad, has been noticed in Washington. U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis told his confirmation hearing this month it was “not to our advantage to leave any part of the world” to others. Russian servicemen of the Northern Fleet’s Arctic mechanised infantry brigade participate in a military drill on riding reindeer and dog sleds near the settlement of Lovozero outside Murmansk, Russia January 23, 2017. Picture taken January 23, 2017. Lev Fedoseyev/Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation/Handout via REUTERS Mattis, in a separate written submission, described Moscow’s Arctic moves as “aggressive steps” and pledged to prioritize developing a U.S. strategy, according to Senator Dan Sullivan. That poses a potential dilemma for President Donald Trump, who wants to repair U.S.-Russia ties and team up with Moscow in Syria rather than get sucked into an Arctic arms race. The build-up is causing jitters elsewhere. Some 300 U.S. Marines landed in Norway this month for a six-month deployment, the first time since World War Two that foreign troops have been allowed to be stationed there. And with memories of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea still fresh, NATO is watching closely. Six of its members held an exercise in the region in 2015. The Soviet military packed more firepower in the Arctic, but it was set up to wage nuclear war with the United States not conventional warfare. Arctic islands were staging posts for long-range bombers to fly to America. But in an era when a slow-motion battle for the Arctic’s energy reserves is unfolding, Russia is creating a permanent and nimble conventional military presence with different and sometimes superior capabilities. Sergei Shoigu, the defense minister, is presiding over the re-opening or creation of six military facilities, some of which will be ready by the year’s end. They include an island base on Alexandra Land to house 150 troops able to survive autonomously for 18 months. Called the Arctic Trefoil, officials have said they may deploy military jets there. MiG-31 fighters, designed to shoot down long-range bombers, or the SU-34, a frontline bomber, are seen as suitable. Moscow’s biggest Arctic base, dubbed “Northern Shamrock”, is meanwhile taking shape on the remote Kotelny Island, some 2,700 miles east of Moscow. It will be manned by 250 personnel and equipped with air defense missiles. Soviet-era radar stations and airstrips on four other Arctic islands are being overhauled and new ground-to-air missile and anti-ship missile systems have been moved into the region. Russia is also spending big to winterize military hardware. “The modernization of Arctic forces and of Arctic military infrastructure is taking place at an unprecedented pace not seen even in Soviet times,” Mikhail Barabanov, editor-in-chief of Moscow Defense Brief, told Reuters. He said two special Arctic brigades had been set up, something the USSR never had, and that there were plans to form a third as well as special Arctic coastal defense divisions. “Russia’s military activity in the Arctic is a bit provocative,” said Barabanov. “It could trigger an arms race.”

If the US does not stand up to Russia, we could end up in World War III

Butters 15 (analyst citing British Intelligence Experts from Chantam House which is a independent policy institute based in London. The report was authored by two former British ambassadors to Moscow. http://www.inquisitr.com/2143988/world-war-iii-the-west-must-face-up-to-vladimir-putin-or-risk-moscows-use-of-tactical-nuclear-weapons-british-intelligence-experts-warn/
If the West fails to stand up to Vladimir Putin and Moscow, then it could initiate a chain of events which would lead to World War 3, British intelligence experts have warned. The U.K’s foreign affairs think-tank, Chatham House, has issued a report which states that Putin and Moscow could easily use tactical nuclear weapons on Europe in the future and create a possible World War 3 scenario. “Just because something is unimaginable for Western planners does not mean it is not considered a viable option by Russia.” The authors of the report include Sir Roderic Lyne and Sir Andrew Wood. The two former ambassadors to Moscow are well-aware just how ruthless Vladimir Putin can be. They are hypercritical in their condemnation of the Western leaders’ failure to predict the Ukraine crisis, and its potential to be one of the contributing factors to a World War 3 scenario. The report accuses U.S. President Barack Obama and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron of suffering from a “collective amnesia,” and whose “weak and unconvincing responses” have encouraged Putin to further his global interests and ambitions. “The Kremlin perceives that the West lacks the will to pay the necessary price to defend its principles.” The report states that lack of effective support for the “outgunned and outmanned” Ukrainian government by the West would have far reaching consequences for the Western alliance, namely the possible risk of a World War 3 situation. “The conflict in Ukraine is a defining factor for the future of European security. Russia may have the greater interest in Ukraine, but the West has an even bigger interest in preserving the post-Cold War environment. If that is dismantled, it is conceivable that Nato and the EU could collapse too.” The report, which indicates World War 3 could be a possible outcome of current global situations if the West refuses to act accordingly, also admits that Putin currently faces the biggest challenge of his 15-year rule. However, the British intelligence experts stress that Putin’s fragile position could make the Russian bear even more dangerous if provoked. “Indeed one school of thought holds that Moscow is at its most dangerous when weak.” The Express reports that the intelligence paper arrives at a time when both Europe and the U.S. are facing increasing aggression and bullish manoeuvres from Putin. In May of this year, both Britain and Sweden scrambled fighters to intercept Russian bombers who were close to violating their respective airspaces, and a Russian fighter’s “sloppy and unsafe” interception of a U.S. reconnaissance plane in international aerospace above the Baltic Sea has caused the United States to file a complaint with Russia. Europe Minister David Lidington has announced, in no uncertain terms, Europe’s intentions to curb Putin’s aggressive tactics. “The blame for the current crisis lies squarely with Russia and the separatists in eastern Ukraine, who are backed by the Russian authorities. The UK is working closely with EU and G7 partners in response to Russian actions in Ukraine. By imposing a robust sanctions regime, we have shown Russia that its unjustifiable and illegal actions will not be tolerated.” What respect Putin will give to such words is questionable, but as the British intelligence report indicates, the West must start effectively standing up to Putin and defend what it holds dear if it is to prevent the hell and horror of a World War 3 scenario.

US ratification limits Russian aggression in three ways.

First, If the US was a party to the treaty it could force Russia into arbitration to resolve Russia’s territorial assertions in the Arctic

Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013, https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e-315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S–Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
U.S. freedom of navigation interests in the Arctic would be bolstered by joining UNCLOS. Both Russia and Canada have maritime claims in the Arctic that are inconsistent with the rules contained in the Convention. Russia37 and Canada38 draw excessive straight baselines in the Arctic and restrict the right of transit passage in various international straits in the Arctic, including the Northeast Passage, the Northwest Passage and vari- ous straits located within Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR)—the Demitri, Laptev and Sannikov Straits. Russia’s straight baselines closing the NSR straits and Canada’s straight baselines around its Arctic Islands do not meet the legal criteria contained in Article 7 of the Convention.39 Accord- ing to UNCLOS Article 5, the correct baseline for these areas is the low- water line. UNCLOS Article 38 also provides that the right of transit pas- sage through international straits cannot be suspended or impeded by the bordering States. Use of straight baselines by Russia and Canada to close these international straits is therefore inconsistent with the Convention. Furthermore, under UNCLOS Article 8(2), all nations enjoy at least the right of innocent passage in areas within newly drawn straight baselines. The United States has diplomatically protested and operationally chal-lenged these excessive straight baseline claims under the U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program, citing the provisions of UNCLOS and customary in-ternational law.40 However, the U.S. legal position would be on better foot- ing if the United States was a party to the Convention. Russia and Canada have also enacted domestic laws and regulations to regulate maritime traffic in their Arctic waters, citing UNCLOS Article 234 as their legal basis.41 Although Article 234 does allow coastal States to adopt and enforce measures to prevent, reduce and control vessel-source pollution in ice-covered areas, such measures must have “due regard to navigation.” Both the Russian and Canadian laws and regulations in ques- tion, however, exceed what is permissible under international law, including the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)42 and UNCLOS. They also exceed current International Maritime Organization (IMO) construction, design, equipment and manning (CDEM) standards set out in the IMO Polar Code.43 Russia’s NSR regulations44 and Canada’s Northern Canada Vessel Traf- fic Service Zone Regulations (NORDREGS)45 were unilaterally adopted without IMO approval. However, mandatory ship routing,46 mandatory ship reporting47 and mandatory vessel traffic services (VTS)48 that apply beyond the 12-nm territorial sea of a coastal State must be submitted to and approved by the IMO under SOLAS Chapter V. SOLAS Regulations V/10(9) and V/11(8) further provide that all routing and reporting “sys- tems and actions taken to enforce compliance with those systems shall be consistent with international law, including . . . [UNCLOS].” Coastal State maritime traffic regulations adopted by the IMO must al- so be applied consistent with the right of transit passage guaranteed to all ships and aircraft by Part III of UNCLOS.49 To the extent that the Russian and Canadian regulations require compulsory pilotage and prior permission to transit international straits, they violate UNCLOS Articles 38 and 42, which prohibit coastal States from adopting domestic measures that im- pede or “have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage.”50 Application of domestic environmental laws and regulations adopted pursuant to Article 234 is also subordinate to UNCLOS Article 236, which exempts all sovereign immune vessels from the environmental provisions of the Convention.51 NORDREGS exempts warships from compliance; however, other government sovereign immune vessels are not exempt. The NSR regulations do not exempt sovereign immune vessels from the duty to comply. To the extent that the Russian and Canadian laws and regulations apply to sovereign immune vessels, they are inconsistent with international law, including UNCLOS Article 236 and SOLAS, Regulation V/1.52 As a party to UNCLOS, U.S. opposition to these unilateral laws and regulations would be strengthened to include the possibility of compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention. Application of these domestic measures in the EEZ and in international straits clearly interferes with U.S. high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the seas. Such actions also exceed IMO-approved rules and stand- ards for the protection of the marine environment in the EEZ. Moreover, neither government has provided sufficient data to demonstrate that their domestic laws and regulations are based on the best available scientific evi- dence, as required by UNCLOS Article 234. The Convention’s compulsory dispute settlement procedures can be invoked by a State Party for a num- ber of reasons, including interference with high seas freedoms of naviga- tion and overflight and other lawful uses of the sea in the EEZ (Article 297(1)(a)) and contravention of international rules and standards for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the EEZ (Article 297(1)(c)).

Second, ratification would bolster US freedom of navigation in the Arctic and keep Russia in check.

Pedrozo 13 – professor of international law at US Naval War College (Raul, former Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Head Law of the Sea Branch International and Operational Law, “Arctic Climate Change and U.S. Accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea”, USWC, 2013, https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e9991b89-1193-4b32-a87e-315e06e4a5f2/Arctic-Climate-Change-and-U-S–Accession-to-the-Un.aspx., 7-25-14) JJ
U.S. freedom of navigation interests in the Arctic would be bolstered by joining UNCLOS. Both Russia and Canada have maritime claims in the Arctic that are inconsistent with the rules contained in the Convention. Russia37 and Canada38 draw excessive straight baselines in the Arctic and restrict the right of transit passage in various international straits in the Arctic, including the Northeast Passage, the Northwest Passage and vari- ous straits located within Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR)—the Demitri, Laptev and Sannikov Straits. Russia’s straight baselines closing the NSR straits and Canada’s straight baselines around its Arctic Islands do not meet the legal criteria contained in Article 7 of the Convention.39 Accord- ing to UNCLOS Article 5, the correct baseline for these areas is the low- water line. UNCLOS Article 38 also provides that the right of transit pas- sage through international straits cannot be suspended or impeded by the bordering States. Use of straight baselines by Russia and Canada to close these international straits is therefore inconsistent with the Convention. Furthermore, under UNCLOS Article 8(2), all nations enjoy at least the right of innocent passage in areas within newly drawn straight baselines. The United States has diplomatically protested and operationally chal- lenged these excessive straight baseline claims under the U.S. Freedom of Navigation Program, citing the provisions of UNCLOS and customary in-ternational law.40 However, the U.S. legal position would be on better foot- ing if the United States was a party to the Convention. Russia and Canada have also enacted domestic laws and regulations to regulate maritime traffic in their Arctic waters, citing UNCLOS Article 234 as their legal basis.41 Although Article 234 does allow coastal States to adopt and enforce measures to prevent, reduce and control vessel-source pollution in ice-covered areas, such measures must have “due regard to navigation.” Both the Russian and Canadian laws and regulations in ques- tion, however, exceed what is permissible under international law, including the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS)42 and UNCLOS. They also exceed current International Maritime Organization (IMO) construction, design, equipment and manning (CDEM) standards set out in the IMO Polar Code.43 Russia’s NSR regulations44 and Canada’s Northern Canada Vessel Traf- fic Service Zone Regulations (NORDREGS)45 were unilaterally adopted without IMO approval. However, mandatory ship routing,46 mandatory ship reporting47 and mandatory vessel traffic services (VTS)48 that apply beyond the 12-nm territorial sea of a coastal State must be submitted to and approved by the IMO under SOLAS Chapter V. SOLAS Regulations V/10(9) and V/11(8) further provide that all routing and reporting “sys- tems and actions taken to enforce compliance with those systems shall be consistent with international law, including . . . [UNCLOS].” Coastal State maritime traffic regulations adopted by the IMO must al- so be applied consistent with the right of transit passage guaranteed to all ships and aircraft by Part III of UNCLOS.49 To the extent that the Russian and Canadian regulations require compulsory pilotage and prior permission to transit international straits, they violate UNCLOS Articles 38 and 42, which prohibit coastal States from adopting domestic measures that im- pede or “have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage.”50 Application of domestic environmental laws and regulations adopted pursuant to Article 234 is also subordinate to UNCLOS Article 236, which exempts all sovereign immune vessels from the environmental provisions of the Convention.51 NORDREGS exempts warships from compliance; however, other government sovereign immune vessels are not exempt. The NSR regulations do not exempt sovereign immune vessels from the duty to comply. To the extent that the Russian and Canadian laws and regulations apply to sovereign immune vessels, they are inconsistent with international law, including UNCLOS Article 236 and SOLAS, Regulation V/1.52 As a party to UNCLOS, U.S. opposition to these unilateral laws and regulations would be strengthened to include the possibility of compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention. Application of these domestic measures in the EEZ and in international straits clearly interferes with U.S. high seas freedoms of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the seas. Such actions also exceed IMO-approved rules and stand- ards for the protection of the marine environment in the EEZ. Moreover, neither government has provided sufficient data to demonstrate that their domestic laws and regulations are based on the best available scientific evi- dence, as required by UNCLOS Article 234. The Convention’s compulsory dispute settlement procedures can be invoked by a State Party for a num- ber of reasons, including interference with high seas freedoms of naviga- tion and overflight and other lawful uses of the sea in the EEZ (Article 297(1)(a)) and contravention of international rules and standards for the protection and preservation of the marine environment in the EEZ (Article 297(1)(c)).

Third, ratification will give the US influence over the trade routes Russia wants to control

Bonnie S. Glaser is a senior advisor for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at CSIS, where she works on issues related to Chinese foreign and security policy. She is concomitantly a non-resident fellow with the Lowy Institute in Sydney, a senior associate with CSIS Pacific Forum and a consultant for the U.S. government on East Asia, Why the US Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, 2016, the Cipher Brief, July 13, https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-the-u-s-should-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty
By joining the Convention, the U.S. will be better positioned to respond to Russian efforts to exert influence over the new passage that is opening in the Arctic as the ice melts, which will provide a maritime trade route that shortens transit to Asia by over 30 days. Assuming a seat at the UNCLOS table will allow the U.S. to have a voice in establishing ground rules for how the Arctic Ocean will be governed.

And it would only benefit, not harm, the US military, as the US military already complies with the treaty. It could only serve to strengthen our freedom of navigation patrols

Bonnie S. Glaser is a senior advisor for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at CSIS, where she works on issues related to Chinese foreign and security policy. She is concomitantly a non-resident fellow with the Lowy Institute in Sydney, a senior associate with CSIS Pacific Forum and a consultant for the U.S. government on East Asia, Why the US Should Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, 2016, the Cipher Brief, July 13, https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-the-u-s-should-ratify-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty
Ratification benefits the United States militarily as well. The U.S. Navy has long supported and adhered to the treaty, because it preserves navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms for its fleet, which remains the largest in the world. UNCLOS grants the right of innocent passage for all vessels on the high seas, including within other countries’ 12nm territorial sea. The U.S. Freedom of Navigation (FON) program that asserts navigation and overflight rights and freedoms globally, including in the South China Sea, can gain further legitimacy and support if the United States is an UNCLOS signatory.

And LOST doesn’t subject the US military to foreign courts

Leon Panetta, (former) Secretary of Defense, 2012, https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SecDef_Leon_Panetta_Testimonydocx.pdf   SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
Third, some allege that in joining, our military would be subject to the jurisdiction of international courts – and that this represents a surrendering of U.S. sovereignty. But once again, this is not the case. The Convention provides that a party may declare it does not accept any dispute resolution procedures for disputes concerning military activities. This election has been made by 20 other nations that have joined the Convention, and the United States would do the same. The bottom line is that neither U.S. military activities nor a U.S. decision as to what constitutes a U.S. military activity would be subject to review by any international court or tribunal