Talk:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmprice11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Blank Check
One of the anti-ratification arguments was that it gives a "blank check" to the UN. This doesn't make any sense. The term literally means the recipient can withdraw any amount of money he likes from the account, as with a check whose value is not specified by the giver. Perhaps it's slang and meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally, but slang should be avoided in an encyclopedia. The argument also said the US has "no control" over funding, which also doesn't make sense given that the US would have a seat on the Seabed Authority, which spends the funding.

Accordingly, I have changed the argument to remove any mention of "blank check" and change the phrase to "limited control". Xiphoris (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk 1
Wasn't there something people referred to as the "Law of the Sea" before the United Nations set up their rules, a set of traditions perhaps? Maby the history of that should be under "Law of the Sea" instead of the redirection? --Anders Törlind

Definitely, if you find something. Just keep a link to the agreement as well and I'll be happy. --Pinkunicorn

Certainly was - article is simply incorrect where it states that UNCLOS replaced older and weaker freedom of the seas conceptSuastiastu (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the article is unclear about units; it says "miles" without specifying nautical or statute. Reading the original treaty ( http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm ), it seems like most of these figures (12 miles, 24 miles) are specified in nautical miles -- in which case some of the kilometer conversions may be wrong. --Dan Egnor

I'm taking Oceans Law at UVa with a strongly pro-LoS professor, so I'll try to improve the Criticism section soon to give a better idea of the pros and cons. Also I've got the treaty beside me, so I can add some refs. --Kris Schnee 15:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whew. Added the arguments pro and con from a variety of articles. Citations given outside the Criticism section. Bear in mind that I wrote a mostly pro-treaty viewpoint. Would it help to reorganize the section more by theme, or as paragraphs rather than bullet points, or in a point-counterpoint style? --Kris Schnee 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would point out that the added info seems almost entirely from a U.S. perspective. Perhaps the section should be renamed "Criticism in the U.S."? Rwendland 10:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. My point was to discuss why the US hasn't ratified it. --Kris Schnee 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the names of key ambassadors included, meaning those who were credited with major contributions to the Treaty as finalized. 24.32.172.230 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Dave Crane

Worldview
The entire 'criticism' section is written from a US point of view - I've tagged it with 'worldview'. Cynical 00:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK; what would be good to add there? I'm not familiar with the internal debate on the treaty in other countries, except that:
 * -There are disputes over both polar oceans, likely to heat up if global warming makes sea passage there more practical.
 * -Antarctica is covered by a separate treaty, but is linked to the north polar ocean debate because of the pie-wedge system of territorial claims.
 * -Artificial islands could be built by any nation or NGO.
 * -Numerous special cases have been built into the treaty to handle local situations without naming them explicitly, eg. by tweaking the definition of an archaepelago.
 * -Some nations refrain from claiming the full territory allowed them under the treaty because of special situations, eg. Turkey threatening war with Greece if Greece claims a 200-mile zone around all its tiny islands.
 * -Storms and possibly global warming threaten to alter borders, by literally wiping small islands off the map when said islands are used to define borders.
 * -A key but subtle feature of the treaty is submarines' right to traverse straits while submerged, a provision sought by the US to protect nuclear missile subs. The argument was that if the subs were forced to surface, an enemy would find that the best time to attack them -- which would result in missiles hitting the strait countries.
 * --Kris Schnee 20:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about this article again. I could pretty much list the above comments in the main article, but if I did so it would be "original research" -- me saying "these are probably important" -- wouldn't it? These are issues that came up in the context of a class on ocean law, but I'm not sure if I can dig up references to prove that other countries have indeed raised them. I could at least cite chapter and verse from the treaty, on artificial islands and some of the weird archaepelago rules, but where in the article would such things go?--Kris Schnee 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tried to reduce the US-centric aspects of this article by moving the US parts to the bottom of the page and retitling. This is an International treaty, a main heading of "Debate" should be about an International debate between nations, not an internal political wrangle in the US ,similarly with titles such as "Arguement" and "Response", hence these have been reduced to sub-headings under USA.Koonan the almost civilised 07:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be better if the "United States non-ratification" section of this article was an article in its own right? Oniscoid 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a good idea, the US is only one of 24 states that have signed but not ratified the treaty, there can't be a section on all of them, certainly not as long as the current section on the US (OK, so I doubt whether anyone's going to write a section about the "Non-Ratification of Liechtenstein", but still...). Bistromathic 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. The former content of "United States non-ratification" can now be found at: United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS. AtticusX (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant to note that opponents refer to it as LOST? Or is this a justified contribution? INTUNEevolution 00:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit misplaced to me, too. I think it should be either removed or placed somewhere below. I just did a quick Google search and found several mentions it, all of them in American media. I suspect it to be derived from a US political campaign (maybe against the ratification of the treaty), however, I don't have any sources for this. Does anybody know more about it? Deivo (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

US v. U.S. (again)
Look, I know that both are "correct". For what it's worth, I like "U.S." better and use it and feel it is still the most common usage here, but let's at least shoot for consistency within the same article, people. Come on! I have changed every "U.S." I saw in the article to "US", if I missed any I invite and encourage you to do the same, or, for all I care, you can change every single one back to U.S., but please, no mixing of the two in the same article. It makes Wikipedia look stupid, which it (mostly) really is not. Rlquall 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we presume you are referring to the United States of America? If so, why not use U.S.A? It reads kinda like a royal "we" where us and them makes for U.S.A and the rest of the world. Just adds to the parochial point of view feel to a page about international law...just saying...Suastiastu (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of 'republic'?
"Dispute settlement: The International Seabed Authority's jurisdiction applies only to seabed mining, and the Law of the Sea Tribunal offers several alternative forms of arbitration. The treaty offers a peaceful way to resolve disputes with Canada, India, and other republics."

Is the use of 'republics' just a lapse here? Canada is a constitutional monarchy and I assume the treaty offers a peaceful way to resolve disputes with other non-republics too? JoelUK 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * True, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and I occasionally rail against other governments of that form, like Japan's. It's common though to call them republics, I think, because the monarchy part is mostly ceremonial these days. The point of the article's wording is, "Without this treaty we Americans have one less way to resolve disputes peacefully with countries we have no desire to shoot at." (See the Moore quote that says this explicitly.) I'm not sure what a better wording would be. If I say "free countries," somebody's going to call NPOV on the theory that Iran and North Korea are "free," right? What about, say, "with Canada, India, and other friendly nations?" Or we could just replace Canada. --Kris Schnee 10:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not common to call a constitutional monarchy a republic, it's not common to call anything that isn't a republic a republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.249.69 (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Should UNICPOLOS be discussed here?
There's an annual process (reviewed every 3 years, I think) where the UN General Assembly asks the Department of Ocean Affairs and Law Of the Sea (DOALOS) to discuss and give recommendations on various LOS-related issues.

Each year, typically in June, States meet at UN headquarters in New York for the week-long UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law Of the Sea (aka UNICPOLOS, ICP, or "the Consultative Process.")

This has been going on since... around 2000. I'm actually typing this from the front table at UNICPOLOS-8. :)

I think it might be helpful to mention UNICPOLOS, because without it, it sounds like UNCLOS happened in 1982 and nothing much has happened since other than the occasional ratification.

Dan 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete neutrality tag?
On September 13, 2007, 75.176.87.154 tagged the section "United States non-ratification" with a POV dispute tag. This was a hit and run tagging. From WP:NPOVD:"Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Given that 75.176.87.154 is quiet on the reasons or suggestions for improvement, I recommend that we remove this tag. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore | talk 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it. &#8756; Therefore | talk 16:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

--- I think the tag should be reinstated. I think there SHOULD be a neutrality tag, until the following issues are addressed:

MAIN ISSUE 1 : The article’s poor balancing and worldview that “this is all about the U.S.” defies the fact that 40 other countries have either not signed, or have not ratified.

MAIN ISSUE 2 : The whole “Debate” section about the United States’ internal politics should be put on its own separate page, with a Neutrality Tag.

MAIN ISSUE 3 : There needs to be better citation throughout, especially as to many of the more obvious unattributed statements (From the Pentagon, from the Defense Department, etc, etc)

MAIN ISSUE 4 : There needs to be some talk as to why all those other countries have refused to sign, or to ratify, in order to balance the world view, and show that there are (indeed) “non-U.S. specific” reasons to not ratify. Again, if this were an entire article about the United States, I'd see why there's almost no mention of any other country (and why the United States fills about 1/2 of the entire (UN) article)

Examples of biases and worldview issues with the article:

1) 1/2 of the entire article is dedicated to the United States. This is supposed to be an article about the United Nations, not the United States.  (In points 2-4, you will see why this matters and why it creates a worldview problem which is inappropriate when the article should be about the UN)

2) The article’s compostion (in both quantity of information, and format by which it is presented) frames the dissent from the treaty as being almost uniquely a United States phenomenon. Clearly it is not.

3) There are 41 countries which have either refused to ratify, or refused to sign the treaty. The labeling of anti-treaty arguments in a "U.S.-centric" manner causes biases in readers, especially those readers who come to the table with “anti-U.S. leanings”

4) The article heavy-handedly creates an implicit argument that if you’re against the U.S., you’re for ratification. But the article tries to sidestep the importance of George W. Bush’s stance of being in *favor* of ratification.  How about if we change the title:  “United States non-ratification” to read instead “George Bush favors ratification”?  (An equally politically charged way of stating it)

5) The accounts in the “Debate” header have almost no sources cited at all, even though such sources should be easily attainable if they are indeed valid. Such as:  “Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth”;   “the Pentagon believes it risks compromising…”;   “The US military, … has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS.”;   and so many other places where there is a clear source, speaking on some clear instance, and yet no citation to back it up.

NOTE: Much of this can be solved by moving the “Arguments” and “Debate” sections to another page, and labeling *that* page with “WP:NPOVD” (Neutrality tag). I think this would be the best solution, but until then, the article itself should get a Neutrality tag.

MORE PROBLEMS: Within the Arguments section itself There are further issues within the "Arguments" section. Many of the “Pro-ratification” and “Anti-ratification” arguments given are equally applicable to either side of the argument.

For example: “Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth.”

…Ok, so the U.S. should ratify. After all, there should better rules to govern this vast area.

…Or, the U.S. should not ratify. After all, it would leave a non-governing unelected entity with vast power over a large part of the earth.

Furthermore: Will ratification (or non ratification) increase/decrease the amount of Earth covered by oceans somehow? The whole statement is a bit of a non sequitur.

There are several instances of bias, such as this one which rings out on three distinct levels:

“The Bush administration, a majority of the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favor ratification, as do representatives of scientific and international legal scholars, and mining and environmentalist groups.”

Problem 1) The Bush Administration runs the Pentagon.  This article tries to bolster Bush’s political backing by “double-counting” his subordinates.  Bush is commander in chief of all the armed forces, and he is the chief executive over the departments of defense and state.  That’s the pentagon.  It is entirely under the President.  This is like saying “Bush backs ratification…and so does his cabinet”.  Since they report directly to him, I suppose they might agree.

Problem 2) “…environmentalist groups. [favor ratification]” (part I).  Which ones? There is no citation or list.  Furthermore, that statement flies in the face of another statement in this same article:   “…requirements that nations either harvest their entire allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.[4]”

Problem 3) “…environmentalist groups. [favor ratification]” (part II).  By its wording, the statement fails to mention the possibility that there are other environmentalist groups which do not favor ratification.  As a form of lying through omission, the statement implies a unified front of environmentalists which likely does not exist.

TWO MORE MIS-CHARACTERIZATIONS:

NUMBER ONE: "...without ratification, the US has no peaceful recourse if another non-signatory party decides to close its straits to navigation."

"No peaceful recourse"? This statement is simply fiction. It ignores: diplomacy, sanctions, suspension of aid, blockades, tit-for-tat denial of access to US straits, applying political leverage to countries allied to the party, giving aid and intelligence to the party's regional opponents, and a host of other solutions.

NUMBER TWO: "It helps American business...the American zone is larger than that of any other country in the world."

and

"The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles - bigger than the lower 48 states combined."

Which "zone" are we talking about here? There are two kinds: "Exclusive Economic Zone" and "Contiguous Zone". Both are mentioned on the map, but are left ambiguous in the statement. There is a huge difference (see the map: 12 miles vs 200 miles).

Furthermore, the idea is that ratification will "help American business" by expanding American authority into the sea. However, there is 1) No citation as to where the "3.36 million square miles" figure is derived. 2) No reference as to the U.S.'s current claims to the sea. Without these two things, one can not possibly determine whether ratification expands, or reduces U.S. claims to the sea. Perhaps the pre-treaty American zone was already "larger than any other country", but will now be cut in half (along with everyone else). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.156.11 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. The article obviously requires some work; perhaps a tag stating just that would suffice. Texasfirebrand 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As suggested, the U.S.-centric content of the "United States non-ratification" section has now been moved to its own article: United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS. AtticusX (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Debate Section Tag
The argument presented in this section is oversimplified and stacked in favor of ratification. Probably unconscious bias, but it should still be fixed. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Boundary diagram
The diagram explaining the boundaries (which is duplicated in the EEZ article) appears to be in error. The baseline should not be cutting through the island, and the bay to the left appears to be too broad and shallow to have a straight baseline across it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardog (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

US Non-Ratification
This is an interesting section and certainly worthy of merit, but I'm not certain it should be on the main UNCLOS page. It should instead have a page of its own, since it deals with a specific case only, and not a matter of general interest to all UNCLOS Participating States and other States. If someone knows how to move that to its own page, please do so. -dmhaglund, 2130, 28 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.62.98 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, please move the US-centric parts to a proper article. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. United States non-ratification contents can now be found in their own article at: United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS. AtticusX (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

US Has not signed the treaty
According to the Official UN site of the UNCLOS, the US has neither signed or ratified it.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/status2008.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeetypeety (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted the last edit before I saw your comment here. Sorry if it seemed high-handed - I'll revert myself until we've had a chance to discuss the issue.
 * That table describes itself as "unofficial, quick reference information", which doesn't seem entirely definitive. Another UN site includes this page, which says 'The Final Act [i.e. the 1982 UNCLOS] was signed, in each instance, on 10 December 1982: "In the name of the following States: Algeria, Angola, Australia, [...], United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, [...]', although a table of signatories there also seems to omit the US. The contradictions here puzzle me.
 * In the paper I linked to in my edit summary (Christopher C. Horner (2003). The perils of “soft” and unratified treaty commitments. Washington, DC; Competitive Enterprise Institute.), on page 42, it quotes a court decision (for Sarei et al. v. Rio Tinto, 221 F.Supp.2d 1116 (CD CA 9 July 2002)) which states: "Although the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, it has signed the treaty. [...] The Convention has been signed by the President, but it has not yet been ratified by the Senate." As this issue was apparently central to the court's ruling, this seems pretty clear-cut to me. Do you have any objection to the article reflecting this source? -- Avenue (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don Kraus writes in Foreign Policy in Focus: "During the administration of George H.W. Bush, the United States negotiated an annex to the treaty that addressed all of these concerns. The United States finalized and signed the treaty during the Clinton administration. However, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), then chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, strongly objected to the treaty (along with most other multilateral efforts) and refused to have it come before his committee."


 * In 2003, Roger Rufe testified: "The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in late 1973.  The Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature.  As time went on, it became clear that developed states were not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals.  Thus, modifications to that provision were negotiated, and an amending agreement was finalized in July of 1994.   The U.S. signed the Agreement in 1994 and recognizes the Convention as general international law, but has not ratified it at this time.   UNCLOS entered into force in November of 1994 with the requisite sixty ratifications." -Statement of Roger Rufe, President of the Ocean Conservancy, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, October 21, 2003 (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/RufeTestimony031021.pdf) AtticusX (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-looking into this, the US did not sign the convention itself, but just the "Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982" done afterwards & awaiting it's ratification. I have corrected this oversight as it pertains to it. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Guyana 60 th State???
Guyana was the 59th state to sign the convention! According to the UN HP it was Bosnia and Herzegovina (12 January 1994) who was the 60th!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.75.141 (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that Guyana is listed as 59th here, but we cite another UN document that clearly states Guyana was 60th. In this paper, there is a similar list that shows Guyana as the 60th; the difference is that it includes Yugoslavia as the 29th country to sign (on 5 May 1986). Yugoslavia is missing from the other list. -- Avenue (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Image error
See, the Contiguous Zone should state 24 miles, not 12 or should change the arrow like <-->. Please correct or tell me if I am wrong. Thank you for your attention! OboeCrack (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkey
Why Turkey has not signet it? --Nandus (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Palestine as non-signatory
Please don't delete Palestine (Palestinian Authority), or any other party to the Freedom Flotilla incident, from the non-signatory list without a cite that they have signed it. Thanks. Spark240 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Palestine isn't a country, so shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.210.238 (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Differences between map and list
Mali is grey (non-signatory) in the map, but is not in the list. Because having no shore? San Marino neither! Please correct some of them. Sobreira (parlez) 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mali is no longer in the list because they signed the treaty in 1985. The maps shows it correctly.--88.66.22.166 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Iran is listed as signed-not-ratified, but the map displays it as ratified. See UN list of ratifications. -- 130.108.59.151 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The maps shows this correctly since a year now. --88.66.22.166 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The map shows the US as having signed but not ratified (bright green), the list to the left says the US has not signed, not ratified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.23.190 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Add John Birch Society criticism?
99.109.124.90 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * John Birch Society, More LOST Opposition Found Among GOP Senators 13.July.2012 written by Michael Tennant

UNCLOS and Customary International Law
There is a sentence that "However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.". The comment is more or less free-standing and goes nowhere - the answer is of course that the treaty does whatever any treaty does and make arrangements between nation states which inter-se redefine their international law obligations but cannot derogate from jus cogens norms. Unless all nations are party, it cannot codify customary international law, because its terms are simply not agreed by all nations and there can be no opinion juris on the part of non-signatories and non-parties. I suggest that the sentence be simply deleted or a paragraph setting out the general effect of treaties on customary international law be inserted. Suastiastu (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree and so shall remove that sentence. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Historical Background
This section is completely unreferenced and a glib description of the previous law of the sea arrangements and does not actually describe the background to UNCLOS, but rather the history of the law of the sea. Needs referencingSuastiastu (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Archipelagic Waters
UNCLOS does not in fact give complete sovereignty over archipelagic waters, but subject to rights including traditional fishing ...I'm just going to include this and if someone objects they can reverse it out. Fairly topical at present as China is now claiming traditional fishing rights entitled its boats to fish in waters claimed by Indonesia.Suastiastu (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

EEZ
There is a conflation of Exclusive economic zone with the continental shelf - they are not the same thing and apply in different ways. For example the Australian continental shelf lies (in part) under the Indonesian exclusive economic zone. In that overlap, Australia has the rights to the minerals and sedentary fisheries, but Indonesia has rights to the water column and pelagic fisheries. Would like to tidy up and reference these definitionsSuastiastu (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061229231026/http://seaaroundus.org:80/eez/eez.aspx to http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803022821/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2005/ipresscom2005-23_20051107.htm to http://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Room for expansion
This article seems to do a good overview of the law of the sea based on the UN Convention, but other treaties on Wikipedia go in much further depth. How about we add brief descriptions of the articles, or at least sections and maybe subsections?

We should include things like how it affects military versus commercial transits. How does it affect aviation and scientific research vessels? The article should at least go over the fundamentals of boundaries other than the basic 12, 50, and 200 nm distances. There are a long list of caveats to these rules like bilateral agreements in place all over the world, straits, archipelagos, islets, and other lesser known features that UNCLOS III addressed. What do y'all think? Cmprice11 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019095511/http://web.unimc.it/internazionale/sea.htm to http://web.unimc.it/internazionale/sea.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.sopac.org/tiki-index.php?page=Pacific+Island+Regional+Maritime+Boundaries+Project

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Pursuit under UNCLOS
I removed the sentence under Internal Waters that said, "Pursuit of a ship by the Coastal State may only take place in the internal waters and is required to end when reaching the contiguous zone." This sentence conflicts with article 111 of UNCLOS.

Under UNCLOS article 111, hot pursuit can continue until a pursued vessel enters the territorial waters of that vessel's own state or a third state.

I've quoted the relevant paragraphs of Article 111 below, and here's a link to the UN page where I found it (the rest of 111 covers what constitutes hot pursuit): https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm

Article111

Right of hot pursuit

1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CruiserBob (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

External links list needs culling
I think the "external links" list is too long and needs culling. What do others think? EMsmile (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now culled it a little bit but I think it needs further culling. EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
Some suggestions for improvement that were collated as part of this project (but we ran out of time):
 * Section on "Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction" needs updating after the meetings during 2018-2020.
 * Article could be updated with new developments.
 * Examples of some of the conflicts/claims could be a new sub-section. EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Provided an update on the section on BBNJ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#Biodiversity_beyond_national_jurisdiction
 * ASRASR (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)