Editing International Seabed Authority (section)

=== United States' non-ratification of UNCLOS ===
The exact nature of the ISA's mission and authority has been questioned by opponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty who are generally skeptical of multilateral engagement by the United States.<ref>[http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org Law of the Sea Treaty.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180909025127/http://www.unlawoftheseatreaty.org/|date=9 September 2018}} National Center for Public Policy Research.</ref> In 2007, although the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in favor of treaty ratification, the full Senate failed to ratify the treaty, with some Republicans arguing UNCLOS might threaten national security by interfering with ocean military operations and hinder seabed mining corporations by imposing environmental regulations.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2007-10-31 |title=U.S. Senate panel backs Law of the Sea treaty |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN31335584 |access-date=2022-04-20 |archive-date=20 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220420220727/https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN31335584 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=U.S. WILL NOT SIGN SEA LAW TREATY | work=The New York Times |url=http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/07/10/007695.html?pageNumber=5 |access-date=2022-04-22 |language=en}}</ref>

One of the main anti-ratification arguments being a charge that the ISA is flawed or unnecessary. In its original form, the Convention included certain provisions that some found objectionable, such as:
* Use of collected money for [[wealth redistribution]] in addition to ISA administration<ref>{{cite web |title=Opponents who argue UNCLOS would impose U.N. law on U.S. ignore long negotiation history and U.S. leadership in writing treaty {{!}} UNCLOSdebate.org |url=https://www.unclosdebate.org/evidence/1133/opponents-who-argue-unclos-would-impose-un-law-us-ignore-long-negotiation-history-and |access-date=2022-04-22 |website=www.unclosdebate.org |archive-date=22 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220422111258/https://www.unclosdebate.org/evidence/1133/opponents-who-argue-unclos-would-impose-un-law-us-ignore-long-negotiation-history-and |url-status=live }}</ref>
* Mandatory technology transfer<ref>{{cite web |title=U.S. would be obligated to transfer technology under UNCLOS {{!}} UNCLOSdebate.org |url=https://www.unclosdebate.org/argument/662/us-would-be-obligated-transfer-technology-under-unclos |access-date=2022-04-22 |website=www.unclosdebate.org |archive-date=22 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220422111256/https://www.unclosdebate.org/argument/662/us-would-be-obligated-transfer-technology-under-unclos |url-status=live }}</ref>

Because of these concerns, the United States pushed for modification of the Convention, obtaining a 1994 Agreement on Implementation that somewhat mitigates them and thus modifies the ISA's authority.<ref>{{cite web |title=The 1994 Agreement explicitly dealt with and resolved concerns U.S. had with ratifying UNCLOS {{!}} UNCLOSdebate.org |url=https://www.unclosdebate.org/argument/939/1994-agreement-explicitly-dealt-and-resolved-concerns-us-had-ratifying-unclos |access-date=2022-04-22 |website=www.unclosdebate.org |archive-date=7 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707161810/https://www.unclosdebate.org/argument/939/1994-agreement-explicitly-dealt-and-resolved-concerns-us-had-ratifying-unclos |url-status=live }}</ref> Despite this change the United States has not ratified the Convention and so is not a member of ISA, although it sends sizable delegations to participate in meetings as an observer.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31335584 U.S. Senate panel backs Law of the Sea treaty | Reuters.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214081844/http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31335584 |date=14 February 2009 }} 31 October 2007.</ref>

As an observer, not an UNCLOS signatory, the U.S. will not be allowed to vote on approval of final commercial mining regulations and will be unable to sponsor companies to apply for contracts in international waters. This is because the ISA requires contractors be sponsored by a state that is a signatory to UNCLOS. U.S.-based military contractor Lockheed Martin, however, is participating in two British deep sea mining projects.<ref name="Wolman"/>