from the convention. many other nations that have exceeded have already exempted their military activities from the treaty without dispute. some they sat joining the convention will require us to surrender our sovereignty over our warships and other military ve vessels. i can assure you we will not let this happen. the convention does not requirement. it further protects our sovereignty in this regard well before we would have to resort to any use of force. others say it will cause us to have to alter our rules of engagement. this is also false. i can tell you that joining the convention would not require any change whatsoever in the rules of engagement that we employ today including and especially our right to self-defense. still others say that it means our naval activities will be restricted in or beyond areas in which we now operate. rather, if we do not join the conventions we're at more risk than ever of nations attempting to impose such limitations

around evolving interpretations of customary international law. that body of law is not static. joining the convention will protect us from ongoing and persistentest s efforts on at of number of nations incloud colluding those with growing economic and military power to advance their laws and set precedence that could restrict our maritime activities particularly within the bounds of their exclusive economic zones. we attach the term "law fare" to these efforts to erode the customary international law. it's a trend that's real and pressing and could place your navy at legal disadvantage unless we join the convention. the nations that would challenge us in this and other ways are, frankly, delighted that we are not a party to the convention. joining will also give us a stronger moral standing to support partners who are being intimidated over questions of sovereignty that should be resolved peacefully and voluntarily under the

convention. i join my boss secretary panetta and marty dempsey in finding it awkward to suggest that other nations should follow rules that we have not yet agreed to ourselves. and joining will give us the ability to influence key decisions of our sovereign rights and those of our partners and friends in the arctic and elsewhere, and this grows more important each day. the real question to me is whether our country will choose to lead in maritime environment from the inside or will follow from the outside. senator, you know i tell my sons that there are three kinds of people in this world. those who make things happen, those who watch what happened, and those who wonder what happened. i do not want to see the united states or our navy or coast guard wondering what happened when key decisions, potentially december ri detrimental to our sovereignty, are made in our absence by the 161 members of the treaty. our recommendations to join

reflect nearly two decades of military leaders who have studied this problem closely and arrived at the same conclusion, ratification is in our best interests. today i join the officers including every chairman of the joint chiefs since 1994 in giving my support to the law of the sea convention and asking for your advice and consent. i thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning and i look forward to your questions. thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. admiral greenhart? >> thank you, chairman kerry, ranking member lugar, distinguished members of the committee. i'm honored to appear before you to discuss the law of the sea convention. you'll have to excuse me, i have a little bit of laryngitis, but i'll get through this. this morning i'd like to make three points if i may. number one, the law of the sea convention will help ensure the access that the navy needs to operate forward. senator, operating forward is what we're about. that's when we're at our best, that's when we serve the nation best. that's the key to our effectiveness.

number two, the convention will provide a formal and consistent framework with certainty to peacefully settle maritime disputes. number three, convention will help ensure we remain consistent with our principles and will enhance our multilateral cooperation. that i found in spades as i've interfaced with my heads of navy around the world . provides our operatipperatioope especially rights on the high seas and inside exicuslusive economic zones of the other nations. for example, in the past several years some nations in the middle east and asia pacific region complained about u.s. navy survey ships operating within their exclusive economic zones. commanders have consistently responded by asserting our rights under the convention and customary international law. however, our argument would carry much more weight if the u.s. were party to the convention. joining the convention would

give our day-to-day maritime operations a firmer codified legal foundation. it would enable and strengthen our military efforts. it won't limit them. the convention provides a formal and consistent framework for peaceful resolution of maritime disputes. the convention defines the extent of control nations can legally assert at sea and prescribes procedures to peacefully resolve differences. it's an important element preventing disagreements from escalating into a confrontation or potentially conflict. recent interference with our operations in the western pacific and some rhetoric by iran about closing the strait of hormuz underscore the need to be able to use the convention to clearly identify and respond to violations of international law that might attempt to constrain our access. as a member of the convention, our ability to press the rule of law and to peacefully deter conflict will certainly be enhan enhanced. remaining outside the convention is just inconsistent with our

principles. our national security strategy and our leadi ining position in maritime affairs. for example, our forces in the u.s. fifth fleet in the arabian gulf lead a force that enforces maritime security in the greater middle east. out of the 26 nations that serve in this coalition, only three, including the united states, are not a matter to the convention. this coalition asserts rights on a daily basis under the convention to visit vessels, counter piracy and render assistance to vessels in danger. america's status as a nonparty to the convention is sometimes questioned by our coalition partners. aseeding to the convention will enhance our position as a leader of that coalition and a leader in the world of maritime nations. in the middle east and elsewhere. in closing, aided by the framework provided by the convention, your navy will continue to be a critical to our nation's security and prosperity. i appreciate the committee's

lo longstanding support of the men and women of the navy. i look forward to continuing to work with you as we address the senators. >> we appreciate it. commandant? >> chairman kerry, senator lugar, distinguished members of the committee. it's my privilege to testify before you here today on how the united states should aseed to the law of the sea convention because it will enhance the coast guard's operations in maritime leadership. like six previous commandants i ask you to without further delay. having served in four coast guard cutters, i view things through a sailor's eye. the "master and commander" book series always positioned his ship in battle so he could hold the weather gauge. the ship with the weather gauge is called wind. it has greater ability to maneuver greater to other ships and maintains its position of advantage and is able to dictate

the determines of engagement. i can think of no better analogy than to describe the law of the sea convention than providing the coast guard with a weather gauge to protect americans on the sea, protect america from threats from the sea and protect the sea, itself. since the founding of our nation, american prosperity has depended upon having safe, reliable and secure maritime trade. today, the convention's provisions set forth the global maritime framework, among other things. the convention's provisions contain internationally recognized sovereign maritime boundaries. this is framework that we reply upon every day to aid mariners in distress, to protect our fish stocks, to intercept elicit traffickers attempting to deliver drugs, persons and other illegal cargos to our shores and to preserve our maritime sovereignty, navigational rights and freedoms. indeed, our many bilateral and multilateral law enforcement agreements we rely upon to stop drug smugglers, intintradi arct

traffickers, our convention. the fabric of the law of the sea are concluded, interpreted and enforced under the convention's framework. the convention also provides us with the largest exclusive economic zone, or eez, of any coastal state. eez contains vast fisheries, energy and other resources. beyond the eez lies the extended continental shell for ecs. its seabed, particularly off alaska, is a new frontier that contains 2 s 20% to 30% of the untapped fuel resources and convention that contains the mechanisms to seek and ensure international recognition of our sovereign ecs rights. joining the convention will not only put the sovereign rights on the strongest legal footing but also bolster our ability to ensure stewardship of our ecs resources. there's no better example of this than the emerging arctic. our ability to effectively plan and allocate arctic resources

depends on part upon the delineation of mare taitime rig privileges and navigational freedoms. as we look alongside our partners on governance, search and rescue agreements, oil spill prevention and result protocols and delineation of maritime claims, we remain the only arctic nation that's not a party to the convention. being a nonparty detracts from our ability to best provide for the safety, security and stewardship of our vast resource-rich maritime and emerging arctic domains. the convention contains established legal framework for the oceans. unlike customary international law, which can change, the convention codifies this framework. we follow this framework. we demand others do so yet we remain outside of it. in sailor's terms, this puts us downwind and forces us to tack up into the wind when we should be leading on maritime issues. that's why i'm urging you today to seize the weather gauge and

aseed to the convention. thank you for chrthis opportuni to testify. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, sir. we appreciate it. general frazier? >> chairman kerry, ranking member lugar, and distinguished members of this committee. it's indeed my privilege to be here today representing united states transportation command. i appreciate this opportunity to testify concerning the law of the sea convention. and i join an array of other senior military officers both past and present who support the law of the sea convention. the united states transportation command is the department of defense's distribution process owner and global distribution synchronizer, responsible for planning global deployment and distribution operations. u.s. trans-com relies on unfettered global mobility. unimpeded flow of cargo by air and sea through strategic choke points and unchallenged access to the world's navigation lanes.

by our military assets and our commercial industry partners to support our forces around the globe. on any given day, u.s. trans-com has approximately 30 ships loading, unloading or on their way. we have a mobility aircraft taking off and landing every 90 seconds. these assets are operated by our military components and our commercial partners. it's vital we maintain freedom of the high seas and international overflight routes for our military and our commercial operations. as these freedoms are essential to our nation's strategic mobility. our military conducts activities and operations across air, ocean, and sea lanes. unobje unobstructed passage through the lanes is paramount for united states transportation command as we provide support and sustainment through our war fighters around the world. for example, our civilian air carriers and transporters

transport almost all of our military passengers and much of our air cargo over the ocean and sea lanes. unhindered overflight of these transports is crucial to our mission's success. moreover, the vast majority of our military equipment and supplies are transported around the world through ocean and sea lanes by our commercial partners. they conduct these movements typically without escort or onboard security teams. in today's environment, we assess our navigation and overflight rights through customary international law. to better secure our global access, joining the law of the sea convention would provide a solid legal foundation to our military and commercial partners that transport the lifeline of supplies and equipment to our war fighters around the globe. specifically, the law of the sea convention secures navigation and overflight rights for the vessels and aircraft operated by both our military and our commercial partners. the law of the sea convention protects our military mobile by

legally binding favorable transit rights that support our ability to operate around the globe any time and anywhere. our sea lift industry partners will be internationally protected as. as a transit, the strategic choke points from the straits, and the straits of hormuz. support of law of the sea convention is essential to our national strategy and security. chairman kerry, ranking member lugar, and all the members of this committee, i want to thank you for your continued support of united states transportation command. to all of our men and women in uniform, and especially to their families. i'm grateful for this opportunity to be here today with my distinguished colleagues at this table, and i ask that my written same tatement be submit to the record. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, general. let me just say that all written testimonies will be placed in the record in full as if delivered in full and we look

forward to having them part of the record. gentleman jacoby. >> chairman kerry, senator lugar, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. as commander of u.s. northern command, i'm assigned responsibility for military defense of our continental united states homeland and nearby waters. as commander of north america aerospace defense command, i'm assigned responsibility for maritime and aerospace warning and aerospace control to the governments of the united states and canada. based on my command responsibilities, principally in the arctic, my experience and our changing on rae ining opera environment, there's a compelling reason for the united states for the law of sea convention for the safety and security of our homeland. our military defensive operations are best served by a clear, stable, rules-based cooperative international framework that helps our friends an allies work with us, helping us be the security partner of choice.

now, arctic cooperative security is one of the five lines of operated delineated in u.s. northern commands theater campaign plan. u. it would be helpful in supporting peaceful opening of the arctic, which is my mission. showing interest in engaging in the arctic, engaging sovereignty, natural resource, infrastructure, communication, navigation, military presence and public safety issues in the arctic as human activity increases. for our maritime warning mission, ek session to the convention will help us establish global operational relationships critical to information sharing, recognition of patterns of activity, and quick identification of safety, security, and defense issues. we are grateful for everything the members of this community have done to ensure our ability to defend our citizens here at home. i'm honored to be here and i

look forward to your questions. >> thank you, sir. gentleman admiral locklear? >> chairman kerry, senator lugar and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the subject of strategic importance and how it relates to the asia pacific region. as a commander of the united states pacific command, i join my colleagues and my other combatant commanders in recommending that the united states aseed to the law of the sea convention. after careful reflection, i'm fully confident it will advance u.s. national security interests in the pacific command area of responsibility. as you know, this region is predominantly maritime. covers half the planet. it's home to three dozen nations. over 3.6 billion people. the world's largest economies. a significant part of our national economy. world's largest militaries. as well as some of the most

important sea and air lines of communication. as the united states military executes our rebalance to the pacific, the convention is essential to locking in a stable, legal framework for the maritime domain that is favorable to our national interests and preserves our access to this critical region. and as a pacific power, united states must continue to lead the effort, maintain security in the region, which has defended freedom, enabled prosperity, protected peace there in that area for more than six decades. joining the convention will reinforce the united states' international leadership in the maritime domain. the convention specifically codifies the rights of freedoms and the uses of the sea that are critical for our forces to transit through and operate in the waters of the asia pacific region. as the populations and the economies of the asia pacific region continue to grow, competing claims in the maritime domain by some coastal states are becoming more numerous and contentious.

some of these claims, if left unchallenged, will put us at risk. our operation the rights and our freedoms in key areas of the asia pacific. nowhere is this for prevalent than in the south china sea, where claimants asserted broad, territorial sovereignty rights over land features, sea space and resources in the area. the convention is an important component of a rules-based approach that encourages peaceful resolution of these maritime disputes. moreover, the convention codifies an effective balance of coastal right and maritime state rights, a stable legal framework that we help to negotiate that is favorable to our interests and that we should leverage as a check on states that attempt to assert excessive maritime claims. currently the united states is forced to rely on customary international law for our rights and freedoms in the maritime domain.

because we're not a party of the convention our challenges are less credible than they might otherwise be. by joining the convention we place ourselves in a much stronger -- rules contained in it, rules we have been protecting from the rules in it. thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important convention as if relates to this critical region. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, admiral. thank you to all of you for your testimony. let me begin -- i want to try to clear up on something and pick up the theme that senator lugar opened up in his opening comments. some in our very diverse media platforms that we have today and whether it's in editorial or blog or wherever, have tried to suggest, you know, these guys in the military are just coming there because the administration has told them to come there and they're going to say what they have to say, but we can sort of

discount it. so i want to get right at that right up front if i can. each of you when you are confirmed, you agree before the senate that you will live up to a sort of individual advice and do what is in your conscience and so forth, but are you appearing today, any of you, under any kind of sort of order or coercion or here because you believe in this treaty and you are expressing your personal view to the senate as the best advice that you can give the senate to perform our function. do you want to begin, admiral? >> i would invite my colleagues to speak up as well. nobody twisted my arm in any way to be here today. i'm here because i believe we should ratify the treaty, yes, sir. >> the reasons you gave to the treaty are reasons you believe

in? >> yes. >> can we run through in the order you testified. >> i'm here to give you my best professional and military advice on the treaty and i support the treaty fully. >> yes, sir, i fully believe in this. as i said in my opening comments as a person out there operating on the seas for nearly four decades, i believe in this and more than anything else i believe in it because we have young lieutenants that are commanding patrol boats, we have mates making law enforcement boardings and they need the clarity and continuity and predictability that this convention provides in terms of making determinations on a daily basis on jurisdictional issues and other things. >> chairman, i am here too because i want to be especially because of not only the extensive career that i've had and been on the receiving end of certainly the support that an

operation like transcom has provided and also study of this convention and in engaging commercial partners in the need for us to be able to deploy, sustain and then return home our war fighters whether they are supporting humanitarian operations or responding to another type of crisis. i will provide you my honest assessment. >> chairman kerry, i'm here to support the law of the sea based on my professional responsibilities, my experiences as a commander, and in every theater and i'm fully committed to this approach. thank you. >> senator kerry, the men and women of pacific command live this issue every day. they are confronted with the aspects of ambiguities of not being part of this treaty. i'm here because i support this treaty. i support what the framework it

gives the military commanders and those that work under me our ability to make decisions that will be in the best interest of this nation, it will be in the best interest of ensuring that we can follow rule of law and not have miscalculations that lead us in directions that we would not want to go as a nation. i'm here to support this treaty and both professionally and personally support it. >> i thank each of you. i had no doubt but i thought it was important to have those statements on the record and i appreciate your candid answers. admiral, you made a statement in the beginning of your testimony in which you talked about the misplacing of this notion about giving up our sovereignty in any way. in fact, you said it's the opposite. we would be growing our sovereignty. preliminary studies indicate that the extended continental

shelf, which we don't yet -- it's not fully defined yet. part of the reason for joining this treaty as i understand it is to have that clarity about our extended continental shelf, but right now the estimates are continental shelf we would have exclusive rights to could conceivably be as high as 1 million square kilometers, an area about twice the size of california, nearly half of the louisiana purchase. what we're looking at here, are we not, is the opportunity for us to in fact gain exclusivity and gain clarity with respect to exploited the rights over this vast area of additional land mass to the united states, is that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> and can you sort of explain -- some people say, what the heck? we got the strongest navy in the world. we're paying a lot of money for it. nobody is going to stand up to us. we'll just go out and do what we

want to do and need to do and if somebody gets in our way, we'll enforce it. what's wrong with that? >> there are a couple things. specifically related to the continental shelf, notwithstanding the potential economic benefits which i think would be cover in a different setting for the committee, we would have much more control over the -- as you point out the extended continental shelf. as of today theoretically, absent a clear line of that, someone could be away from our coastline which if the extended continental shelf is defined the way we think it ought to under the convention, they would not be able to do. now there comes in question with how they would enforce that under existing customary law or full force of the convention behind him. >> what's wrong with the approach of people who say we'll just go ahead and kick them out. what the heck? >> if the president tells us to do that, we certainly would be ready and willing and able to do

that. i think we would rather apply a legal approach in step form before we got to potential use of force. >> admiral, can you speak to this question of added sovereignty. >> absolutely, sir. and while most of us in the theme of this is looking at national defense, i would suggest that national security is only part of that as defense. there's also economic security, environmental security and energy security and others that come into the whole equation of national security. when we're talking about the extended continental shelf and making determinations on where it might be, we need that clarity. and i have a slightly more nuanced view perhaps than my colleagues because the coast guard is one of five armed services that has the responsibility for law enforcement, u.s. laws on our waters and on the high seas. so we look at it from a law enforcement perspective. use of force is one of our last

resorts in abiding through the rule of law and so we have to think on a daily basis how we conduct our law enforcement operations and we need predictability and stability of what those determinations are based upon which the convention gives us. >> senator lugar? >> gentlemen, you have discussed two areas that i want to touch upon in these questions. one of them was the growing complexity of the arctic situation. this may in part be because of melting of ice floes or ambition of other countries to create sea lanes in the arctic well beyond which we have had before and it does raise points which you made that it's not really clear just in terms of law enforcement not of sovereignty but simply of

indiscretions of various people involved. or rescue missions for people who get caught in the situation who does what and how all of this is to be worked out. i am hopeful that one or more of you are doing some scholarly work that will be help to each of us to explain what the circumstances are for a sea which either expands or constricts or so forth quite apart from what claims may be in terms of sovereignty of all of the boundaries. but i want to specifically on the pacific because we've had an interesting visit last week where some of us visited with the president of the philippines that came over. a very good time in terms of our relations with the philippines because of the growing of their economy. the president is