West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

AT: Economy DA

2AC AT: Econ DA

LOST sustains the economy by securing offshore resources

Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State, 2012, “Republican Secretaries of State Endorse Law of Sea Convention,” http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/republican-secretaries-state-endorse-law-sea-convention, accessed 4/28/14

The Convention of the Law of the Sea is again under consideration by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests. The convention's primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation, allocate resource rights, establish the certainty necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea, and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deep-seabed mining, which prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, because it is in the best interest of our nation. Yet the U.S. remains one of the few major countries not party to the convention. The treaty provides substantial economic benefits to the U.S. It accords coastal states the right to declare an "Exclusive Economic Zone" where they have exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, living and nonliving resources extending 200 nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation's exclusive zone would be larger than that of any country in the world covering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. In addition, the zone can be extended beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met; this has significant potential benefits where the U.S.'s continental shelves may be as broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, where vast natural resources lie.

LOST preserves economic access to the oceans

Pew Center, Global research and public policy organization, 2009, “Law of the Sea,” http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_detail.aspx?id=328754, access date 5/5/14

The Law of the Sea (LOS) Convention ensures international stability and peaceful use of the world’s seas and oceans by governing all activities on, over and under international waters. The treaty clearly defines its signatories’ rights to offshore fishing, deep sea mining and navigation, while sustaining ocean resources for future generations. The treaty also guarantees the global mobility of United States armed forces and provides clearly defined laws for countries to follow in order to prevent international military incidents. To date, 161 countries and the European Union have ratified the Treaty, while only 35 nations, including the United States, Libya and North Korea, have not. The U.S. would be the single largest beneficiary of the Law of the Sea Treaty because it has the longest coastline of any nation in the world. The benefits of U.S. participation in the treaty include: A Stronger Economy: For example, the treaty would grant the United States worldwide commercial access to undersea communications cables that keep America connected across the globe. Enhanced National Security: For example, the U.S. military would be in the strongest possible position to protect our legal rights to move through and over the world’s oceans (via ships and aircraft), and ensure unimpeded access to critical maritime transit routes. This includes traveling through geopolitically important choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz. Extension of U.S. Sovereignty: The treaty would strengthen America’s claim to the full outer continental shelf. In the case of Alaska, this would extend U.S. sovereignty 600 miles offshore, instead of the current 200-mile limit.

2AC AT: Econ DA

Economic benefits outweigh risks of ratification

Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State, 2012, “Republican Secretaries of State Endorse Law of Sea Convention,” http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/republican-secretaries-state-endorse-law-sea-convention, accessed 4/28/14

As the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more than any other country to gain and to lose based on how the convention's terms are interpreted and applied. By becoming party to the treaty, we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations and negotiations involving other nations' attempts to extend their continental boundaries. The U.S. currently has no input into international deliberations over rights to the Arctic, where rich energy and mineral resources are found more than 200 nautical miles from any country's shoreline. Russia has placed its flag on the North Pole's ocean floor. This is a largely symbolic act, but the part of the Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia could hold oil and gas deposits equal to about 20% of the world's current oil and gas reserves. As a nonparty to the treaty, the U.S. has limited options for disputing such claims and is stymied from taking full advantage of resources that could be under U.S. jurisdiction. Lack of participation in the convention also jeopardizes economic opportunities associated with commercial deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones opportunities now pursued by Canadian, Australian and German firms.

2AC AT: Sovereignty Link

Non-ratification hurts sovereignty

Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State, 2012, “Republican Secretaries of State Endorse Law of Sea Convention,” http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/republican-secretaries-state-endorse-law-sea-convention, accessed 4/28/14

Some say it's good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary international law, and if that approach fails then we can use force or threaten to do so. But customary law is vague and doesn't provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. What's more, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis, gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone.

The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation's authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our national and economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy.

1AR XT: Resource Access

LOST secures our right to extract resources --- causes massive economic expansion

Douglas Peters, member of Truman Project’s Veteran Leadership Academy, 2009, “Why the UN Law of the Seas Treaty means Jobs and Security for America,” http://trumanproject.org/doctrine-blog/why-the-u-n-law-of-the-seas-treaty-means-jobs-and-security-for-america/, accessed 5/4/14

Economic security is vital to our national security. Yet, there are very few laws that pass through Congress that share such a strategic nexus. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has that nexus – if ratified, it will provide economic benefits and strengthen our national security. Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to ratify the international treaty even after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved it in 2004, and Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush advocated for its ratification. In fact, there are few pieces of legislative work that enjoy such bi-partisan support. The Chamber of Commerce and domestic industries to include shipping, fisheries, telecommunications, and energy agree that ratification means new or approved markets. Even non-governmental organizations who are concerned with the protection of natural resources have consistently supported accession to the treaty. UNCLOS creates Exclusive Economic Zones, or sovereign rights to manage an ocean’s natural resources within a 200 mile zone starting from a member nation’s coast. No country stands to benefit more than the United States – the exclusive zone that the United States would inherit by ratifying UNCLOS is bigger than its lower 48 states combined. In other words, access to opportunity – opportunity to mine seabed mineral resources, tap oil and gas fields, and lay fiber optic cables with international legal protection and certainty.

Arctic resources result in extraordinary economic benefit – LOST is key

Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State, 2012, “Republican Secretaries of State Endorse Law of Sea Convention,” http://www.oceanlaw.org/content/republican-secretaries-state-endorse-law-sea-convention, accessed 4/28/14

Our planet's environment is changing, and there is an increasing need to access resources responsibly. We can expect significant change and resulting economic benefit as the Arctic opens and delivers potentially extraordinary economic benefit to our country. Our coastline, one of the longest in the world, will increase. These changes and the resulting economic effects are the substance of serious international deliberations of which we are not a part. Time moves on and we are not at the table. This is a serious problem and a significant cost for future generations of Americans. Maritime claims not only in the Arctic but throughout the world are becoming more contentious. As aggressive maritime behavior increases, the U.S. military has become more, not less, emphatic on the need to become party to this treaty. Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving disputes. We have been on the sidelines long enough. Now is the time to get on the field and lead.

AT: Burdensome Regulations

No business harassment – LOST facilitates offshore development

Ernest Bower, Senior adviser and director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2012, “Advancing the National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea,” http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea, 5/2/12

Fortunately for the law’s proponents, each of these ideological battles has been fought and won, especially following the treaty’s renegotiation. The first objection has largely been dropped in the face of more than two decades of overwhelming support from every branch of the U.S. military. The second is clearly not a concern to the U.S. industries actively pushing U.S. ratification. The ISA’s 39 staff and narrow jurisdiction have little chance of bullying the United States or anyone else. U.S. mining interests meanwhile are sitting on the sidelines while the ocean’s resources are claimed by others, and U.S. telecom companies lack the protections and dispute resolution mechanisms for undersea cables that all their international competitors enjoy.

AT: Taxation/Re-Distribution

Taxation would be small and outweighed by benefits

Ernest Bower, Senior adviser and director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2012, “Advancing the National Interests of the United States: Ratification of the Law of the Sea,” http://csis.org/publication/advancing-national-interests-united-states-ratification-law-sea, 5/2/12

Regarding the third concern, the taxation on resource extraction in exclusive economic zones amounts to just over 2 percent on average, a price that mining and hydrocarbon companies have signaled they are willing to pay as the world’s energy markets hunger for new resources and prices of commodities climb. As for revenue redistribution, opponents too often overlook the fact that following renegotiation of the Law of the Sea, the United States is guaranteed the only permanent veto on how funds are distributed. It is also exempt from any future amendments to the treaty without Senate approval. In other words, the United States would enjoy a position of unequaled