UNCLOS has rules defining where the continental shelf boundary can be considered to extend to, so it's probably wherever that line is (with carveouts for where it meets Russia and Canada's equivalent claims). This type of claim is only for the sea bed, not the water column, so it hasn't been economically viable to exploit in the past. That might be changing with the increased importance of rare earth metals

[–] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

According to the State Dept announcement, the new lines were determined by the Extended Continental Shelf Task Force, which is a cross-agency task force representing 14 different federal agencies. More likely, the expanded areas have a variety of resources that would be of interest to US industries.

[–] mtchristo@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Hey Canada. Do something. Canada, are you ded ?? 🤣🤣🤣

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Oink

[+] nekandro@lemmy.ml -15 points 2 years ago (6 children)

China attempts to maintain their territorial claims in the South China Sea after the Philippines and Vietnam conduct island-building operations there in the early-00s: CHINA BAD!!!

America expanding their territorial claims in the Pacific because they want more natural resources: Yeah, this is fine and reasonable and democratic.

Canada, who gets no say in the matter because we're entirely reliant on the US for trade and defence: fuck, eh?

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 35 points 2 years ago

China bad

America bad

Simple

[–] Skua@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

One of these claims is compatible with UNCLOS, the other absolutely is not. The US pulls plenty of international dickery, including not ratifying UNCLOS, but this claim fits within that existing international law just fine

[–] nekandro@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Except it's not really compatible with UNCLOS.

The US interpretation of UNCLOS would allow them to claim like half the Pacific

[–] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

What do you think isn't in line with it? This isn't an exclusive economic zone claim.

[–] Sheeple@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nice whataboutism.

[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Stick to the point, though. This is a dick move (increasing the territorial claims, that is - not pointing out whataboutism, that's all good!)

[–] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I did some reading and while it's true that the continued existence of the US federal government is a large collection of dick moves forming one gigantic meta-dick move, this is actually pretty straightforward. The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas defines a range of distances from the seashore where a state can claim the seafloor/minerals etc as its own; everything past that is the high seas. The US hadn't previously maxed out its claims, so there was wiggle room under UNCLOS to expand said claims.

Now, why would they bother, why is it suddenly worth the extra administrative cost of claiming even deeper offshore waters, that's an interesting question. I'd say it's a good indicator of the increasing cost and difficulty of extracting natural resources (likely technology has brought the cost down some, too), pushing nation-states to pursue ever more exotic and costly extraction methods, but overall this doesn't seem that significant (we all already knew that was a trend, that's why we're all on this community).

The push to expand territories is a troubling one, because sure, this is a legally uncontroversial move, but if expanding territories is at this point our best option for propping up the system, we're in for another era of wars. But we all knew that already.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

It should be noted that claim is not the same as the better-known exclusive economic zone. The continental shelf thing is only for seabed resources, not stuff in the water column. But that's all that the US is claiming, so it is indeed in line with UNCLOS

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'd argue that expanding the zones a bit doesn't incur costs other than updating some maps, as existing radar systems etc were already reaching into the newly claimed areas, undoubtedly.

Am I worried about my country's creeping reach, and have I suddenly realized there's yet another way to slowly encroach on territory? Yes.

E: why the downvotes?

[–] guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

policing a space/securing it for industry costs. They didn't change the maps just to feel good about themselves, this is only the first step to opening these spaces up for exploitation.

If nothing else, they need a presence to help the companies quash unionization efforts on the mining rigs, don't they? And that costs.

[–] Virkkunen@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I find it amazing how every time you see the shittiest take in this community, it's a lemmy.ml user. It never fails.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

That or hexbear but yeah

[–] library_napper@monyet.cc 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, they're both bad

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Not allowing your fledgling government to simply be devoured by the world empire doing illegal empire shit is as bad as being the empire.

Do you also think having a gun for protection is the same as having a gun for robbing people?

[–] Bloobish@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

So ngl when we say death to America that also includes Canada as another terrible settler state with a horrid fucking past and still pretty shit present, so like to be honest don't really care when a modern day fascist state is consuming/fucking over it's smaller petite fash state upstairs neighbor.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nor do I, but it's the hypocrisy that interests me

[–] Bloobish@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago

What hypocrisy? It's like if Nazi Germany decided to gobble up fascist Italy, both horrid rancid countries deserving of destruction. Fascist countries don't get to play victim when they get devoured by a larger fascist state they work alongside as a literal 2nd player in the North American stage.

Just to be sure we are talking about Canada right?

[–] BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which one is the fledgling government USA, China, or Canada?

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago

In this case China, their government being only 50 or so years old at the time