The United States is not eligible to use the Convention on the United Nations Marine Law

The "United Nations Convention on the Ocean Law" has recently ushered in an important time node for the 40th anniversary of the opening of the opening. The Convention is a comprehensive legal document in the global marine field, which has played an important role in understanding the ocean, protecting the ocean and sustainable use of the ocean. However, for many years, the institutional dividend of the "Convention" in the United States has been reluctant to bear the obligation of the Convention and has engaged in "dual standards" and "rules hegemony" on many maritime issues.

The Convention on the United Nations Marine Law in 1982 opened a new chapter in global marine governance. The Convention is in line with the trend of multi -poleization and democratization of international relations. It is a successful practice of multilateral diplomacy and an important achievement of multilateralism. In particular, it reflected the desire to break the monopoly of marine hegemony rules at that time, and provided institutional guarantee for developing countries to effectively participate in international underwater affairs.

In recent years, the United States has always raised the guise of "freedom of navigation", saying "determined to ensure the free sailing of the South China Sea", sent all kinds of warships to show off the situation, and to stir up the situation in the South China Sea and other regions. Endentary of hegemony. Ironically, 40 years since the "Convention" was born, the United States tried to put its one -sided explanation and unilateral application of its own marine law rules. Always refused to approve the Convention.

As early as the "Convention" negotiations, the United States ignored the concerns of developing countries, stubbornly opposed to the international underwater and its resources that belonged to the joint inheritance of human beings, attempting to engage in another set outside the Convention, and produced obstacles to the Convention. In order to allow US warships to be overbearing in the ocean, the United States opposed the exclusive economic zone system proposed by developing countries in the negotiations, but after the "Convention" was introduced, it advocated the world's largest exclusive economic zone seas. The United States has not approved the Convention so far. It is not a member of the Convention, but it is a "double standard" and forcibly inject geopolitical factors into the field of marine governance. Maintaining hegemony and discrediting the tools of suppressing other countries is a typical "combination of use and disagreement" for international law. Some analysts pointed out that "the international community generally commemorates the 40th anniversary of the" Convention "to review the time node.

The real purpose of the so -called "freedom of navigation" is to resist the exclusive economic zone and other systems of the Convention, safeguard the US marine hegemony, and allow the US warships to continue to be overbearing in the ocean. This hegemony does not have international laws, including the basis of marine law, which seriously threatens the security and marine rights and interests of other countries. Such an overbearing United States is precisely the biggest destroyer of the United Nations Marine Law and the modern marine order. (Source of this article: Economic Daily Author: Guo Yan)

- END -