To rebuild trust in maritime policy, the US must ratify the Law of the Sea

The United States’ failure to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has quietly eroded its standing as a maritime leader, even as global competition over oceans intensifies. The stakes are higher than ever: maritime trade underpins over 80% of world commerce, and rising tensions—from Chinese aggression in the South China Sea to piracy off the Horn of Africa—demand cohesive international rules. Without ratifying UNCLOS, Washington cedes influence to nations like China, which has aggressively expanded its claims under the treaty’s framework, while America’s refusal to join weakens its ability to shape norms on everything from resource extraction to environmental protection. The irony is stark: a nation built on naval power and maritime trade now risks being sidelined in the very forums that govern the seas it once dominated. This isn’t just about symbolism. UNCLOS, often called the "constitution of the oceans," provides the legal backbone for resolving disputes, ensuring freedom of navigation, and protecting marine ecosystems. The U.S. already abides by most of its provisions—navies rely on its navigational rules, and companies follow its environmental standards—but refusal to ratify leaves it without a vote in critical bodies like the International Seabed Authority, where deep-sea mining rules are being hashed out. Meanwhile, adversaries exploit the vacuum. China’s sweeping South China Sea claims, justified under UNCLOS, contrast with America’s inability to challenge them directly, undermining its alliances in Southeast Asia. The Coast Guard’s growing role in countering illegal fishing and smuggling also depends on the treaty’s enforcement mechanisms, which Washington forfeits by staying outside the system. The path forward is murky. Domestic politics have long stalled ratification, with opponents framing it as an overreach by international bureaucracies. Yet the cost is mounting: as climate change opens new Arctic routes and nations race to exploit seabed minerals, the U.S. risks being seen as a bystander. The question now is whether Washington can reconcile its sovereignty concerns with the reality that leadership on the high seas requires more than military might—it demands a seat at the table where the rules are written. Without it, trust in America’s maritime stewardship will continue to fray, leaving the seas—and the prosperity they sustain—adrift in an era of rising disorder.