; Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would reinforce the United States perspective into permanent international law; Whereas becoming a party to the treaty would give the United States standing to participate in discussions relating to the treaty and thereby improve the United States ability to intervene as a full party to disputes relating to navigational rights, and to defend United States interpretations of the treaty’s provisions, including those relating to whether coastal states have a right under UNCLOS to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs; Whereas relying on customary international norms to defend United States interests in these issues is not sufficient, because it is not universally accepted and is subject to change over time based on state practice; Whereas relying on other nations to assert claims on behalf of the United States at the Hague Convention is woefully insufficient to defend and uphold United States sovereign rights and interests; Whereas the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in their July 12, 2016, ruling on the case In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration, stated, “the Tribunal forwarded to the Parties for their comment a Note Verbale from the Embassy of the United States of America, requesting to send a representative to observe the hearing” and “the Tribunal communicated to the Parties and the U.S. Embassy that it had decided that “only interested States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will be admitted as observers” and thus could not accede to the U.S. request.”; Whereas the past Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, stated “as a party to UNCLOS, we will be in a better position to counter the efforts of coastal nations to restrict freedom of the seas” on February 16, 2012, before the Senate Armed Services Committee; Whereas the Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Ray Mabus, stated, “the UNCLOS treaty guarantees rights such as innocent passage through territorial seas