Wrong again, chief!
The Reagan Administration's public position was that they opposed the "seabed mining" provisions of Part XI of the Treaty. The seabed mining provisions were amended to incorporate those objections and became a binding part of the Treaty when it went into effect in 1994.
I understand the incremental argument and agree with it. Sarah Palin understands it, Ronald Reagan understood it, John Bolton understands it, we all understand it. That doesn't solve the problem of how we protect 80+ billion barrels of oil and 1,500+ trillion cubic feet of natural gas from being frittered away by lunatic administrations like the Obama Administration.
Even though Reagan refused to seek ratification of UNCLOS, he directed that all portions of the treaty EXCEPT the seabed mining provisions would be adhered to as "customary practice" by the U.S. He also declared that a U.S. "Exclusive Economic Zone" in coastal waters consistent with UNCLOS would be in force.
President Reagan's 1983 Ocean Policy Statement
There are plenty of pros and cons. The U.S. Navy, for instance, has supported ratification of LOST since it was negotiated in the late '70s and further negotiated during the Reagan Administration. Their position is that it codifies very favorable "customary practices" as it relates to access to certain territorial waters to keep sea lanes open.
There are sound reasons to oppose this treaty and, on balance, I'm against it as long as we are willing to protect undersea resources (that the treaty grants to us as "ours") whether we are a signatory or not.
This was Palin's concern as governor of Alaska and she had every reason to be concerned about it with 25% of the undeveloped oil & gas reserves on the planet sitting off the coast in international waters in what would have been the "Exclusive Economic Zone" of the U.S. under the treaty, and with Russia and others chomping at the bit to get at these resources while we do nothing to develop or protect them.
The U.N doesn't even administer this treaty but the treaty DOES set up international tribunals to arbitrate seabed disputes. As the only major power not to ratify the treaty, we don't participate. Fine by me, but we must assert our rights to seabed resources that are ours. This was Governor Palin's concern. Presidential candidate Sarah Palin might very well "revise and extend" her position.; Maybe she'll station a couple of carrier battle groups in the Aleutians to protect the resources.
As I said, I'm opposed to the thing on balance, but the Navy and others disagree. There are plenty of pros and cons but it's extremely easy to demagogue this thing and that's exactly what's going on here with your nonsense.
That's why we have a Navy. It's to protect what is ours, not to push the takeover of a majority of the planet by the UN.
Go ahead, spin it all you want. But conservatives aren't going to buy it.