link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 
January 29, 2024
Implementing Agreements Under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
For over 40 years, Congress has deliberated, to varying
not sign UNCLOS or announced they could not ratify it
degrees, the potential pros and cons of the 1982 United
without changes to Part XI of UNCLOS, which deals with
Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Law of the Sea
deep-seabed resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
(UNCLOS) as it pertains to U.S. ocean policy and interests.
In addition to objections over the treatment of deep-seabed
UNCLOS established a comprehensive international legal
resources (i.e., minerals), the United States also objected to
framework to govern activities related to the global ocean
UNCLOS provisions on technology transfers and
and often is referred to as the constitution of the oceans.
compulsory dispute resolution.
The United States is not a party to UNCLOS, but related
U.S. law largely comports with its provisions. In addition,
1994 Agreement
the United States has historically considered portions of
In 1994, UNGA adopted the 1994 Agreement, which
UNCLOS to reflect customary international law binding
amended UNCLOS Part XI by removing many of the
the conduct of states even in the absence of a treaty.
provisions objectionable to certain industrialized nations. In
addition, the 1994 Agreement provided that the 1994
UNCLOS divides the ocean into maritime zones and
Agreement and UNCLOS shall be interpreted and applied
describes the basic rights and obligations of states therein.
together as a single document. After the adoption of the
During the negotiation of UNCLOS, some states objected
1994 Agreement, UNCLOS received the necessary number
to some of these rights, in particular the treatment of seabed
of signatories to enter into force (Table 1).
minerals in areas beyond national jurisdiction. After the
adoption of UNCLOS, some stakeholders worked to
UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority
modernize, elaborate, and operationalize the conservation
(ISA), which regulates all seabed mineral-related activities
and management of certain marine resources (e.g., highly
in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The ISA came into
migratory fish stocks). In response to objections or calls to
existence with the adoption of the 1994 Agreement, which
build on the legal framework, the U.N. General Assembly
made changes to the deep-seabed mining regime under
(UNGA) adopted three implementing agreements under the
UNCLOS. The ISA became fully operational as an
UNCLOS rubric. This In Focus provides context for these
autonomous international organization in 1996. The United
implementation agreements and their relationship to
States participates as an observer state in the ISA but has no
UNCLOS. In addition, the In Focus describes which of
vote in the ISA Assembly or Council and cannot apply for
these agreements the United States has ratified or has the
or obtain a contract or license for seabed mining activities.
option to ratify in the absence of U.S. accession to
For the United States to participate as a member of the ISA,
UNCLOS. The three implementing agreements are as
it would have to become party to UNCLOS and the 1994
follows:
Agreement, requiring Senate advice and consent. For more
information about seabed mining and the ISA, see CRS
• Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of
Report R47324, Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Jurisdiction: Issues for Congress.
(commonly known as the 1994 Agreement)
For the United States, UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement
• Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of
are to be considered as a package. On July 29, 1994, the
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of
United States signed the 1994 Agreement (Table 1). In
10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and
October 1994, President Clinton submitted UNCLOS and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
the 1994 Agreement as a package to the Senate for advice
Migratory Fish Stocks (commonly known as the 1995
and consent to accession (Treaty Doc. 103-39). The Senate
U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement [UNFSA])
Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on
UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement in the 108th (2003),
• Agreement Under the United Nations Convention on the 110th (2007), and 112th (2012) Congresses.
Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use
of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond
In the 108th Congress, the Senate Committee on Foreign
National Jurisdiction (commonly known as the
Relations favorably reported and recommended that the
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction [BBNJ]
Senate give its advice and consent to UNCLOS and the
Agreement or the High Seas Treaty)
1994 Agreement. However, the Senate did not consider
UNCLOS on the floor.
U.S. Objections to UNCLOS
In 1982, UNGA adopted UNCLOS (Table 1). At that time,
In the 110th Congress, the Senate Committee on Foreign
the United States and some other industrialized nations did
Relations held two hearings on UNCLOS. The committee
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 link to page 2 link to page 2 Implementing Agreements Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
favorably reported UNCLOS on December 19, 2007, and
the BBNJ Agreement. The United States signed the BBNJ
again recommended the Senate give its advice and consent
Agreement on September 20, 2023 (Table 1). The President
to UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement, but the Senate did
has not transmitted the BBNJ Agreement to the Senate for
not take up these instruments. During then-Secretary of
advice and consent to ratification. For more information
State Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing, then-Senator
about the BBNJ Agreement, see CRS In Focus IF12283,
John Kerry, the committee chair, stated that UNCLOS also
The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement
would be a committee priority, but the committee took no
(High Seas Treaty).
action on UNCLOS during the 111th Congress.
Policy Considerations
In the 112th Congress, the Committee on Foreign Relations
In the 118th Congress, some Senators called on the Senate to
held three hearings on UNCLOS but took no action to
give advice and consent to accession to UNCLOS and the
recommend that the full Senate give its advice and consent
1994 Agreement (S.Res. 466). These Senators contend U.S.
to accession to UNCLOS.
accession to UNCLOS would allow the United States to be
a member of the ISA and participate in setting policies
1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement
related to international seabed mining activities as global
The UNFSA implements UNCLOS provisions concerning
demand for critical minerals increases. In a December 7,
international cooperation to ensure long-term conservation
2023, letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, 31
and promotion of optimum utilization of fisheries resources
Members expressed concern over the potential pressure
within areas of national jurisdiction (i.e., the 200-nautical
China is putting on the ISA to adopt regulations for the
mile exclusive economic zones) and on the high seas (i.e.,
exploitation of mineral resources in areas beyond national
international waters). While the UNFSA is based on
jurisdiction, calling on the Department of Defense to work
UNCLOS provisions, a state need not be a UNCLOS party
with allies to “ensure that China does not seize unfettered
to become party to UNFSA. The United States, as a
control of deep-sea assets.” The letter did not discuss U.S.
UNCLOS non-party, signed UNFSA in 1995. The Senate
accession to UNCLOS as a potential option that would
provided consent to ratification in 1996 (Treaty Doc. 104-
allow the United States to formally participate in ISA
24), and the United States ratified UNFSA in August 1996
policy setting decisions.
(Table 1). For more information about UNCLOS living
resources provisions and the UNFSA, see CRS Report
The UNFSA and BBNJ Agreement are separate agreements
R47744, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
under UNCLOS. States can join UNCLOS without joining
(UNCLOS): Living Resources Provisions.
either one of these agreements, and states can join one or
both of these two agreements without joining UNCLOS
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (e.g., see UNFSA in Table 1). Should the President
Agreement
transmit the BBNJ Agreement to the Senate for advice and
The BBNJ Agreement is intended to ensure conservation
consent to ratification, Congress may consider the
and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond
obligations, if any, the BBNJ would create for the United
national jurisdiction. UNGA adopted the BBNJ Agreement
States. In addition, Congress may determine whether new
in 2023. As with UNFSA, the BBNJ Agreement is intended
legislation would be required for U.S. implementation of
to implement relevant UNCLOS provisions, but a state does
the BBNJ Agreement.
not need to be a UNCLOS state party to become party to
Table 1. Timeline of United Nations and United States Actions on UNCLOS and Its Implementing Agreements
U.S.
Requires U.S.
Adopted by
Entered into
Accession/
Accession to
U.N.
Force
U.S. Signature
Ratification
UNCLOS?
UNCLOS
1982
1994
NA
No
NA
1994 Agreement
1994
1996
1994
No
Yes
UNFSA
1995
2001
1996
1996
No
BBNJ Agreement
2023
No
2023
No
No
Source: United Nations, “Status of Treaties, Chapter XXI: Law of the Sea,”
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=21&subid=A&clang=_en.
Notes: NA = not applicable. U.S. accession to UNCLOS does not require U.S. signature.
Matthew C. Weed, Specialist in Foreign Policy Legislation
IF12578
Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources
Policy
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Implementing Agreements Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12578 · VERSION 1 · NEW