第三次聯合國海洋法會議召開期間，美國代表團主導了有關爭端解決條款的協商。美國認為，爭端之和平與強制解決方式乃通過一個具全面、完整性海洋法所欲達致的主要目標之一。儘管會議中有必要透過妥協交換以達致共識，但美國對公約之協商，以及對公約最終獲得通過之約文的影響仍然十分明顯。雖然在一九九四年之前的美國歷任政府都支持加入一九八二年聯合國海洋法公約，在柯林頓政府時期視為公約之主要，且吸引人之處，亦即有關爭端解決之條款，卻被小布希政府認為不重要，也不具吸引力。小布希政府的提議之中，有一項是美國意圖去利用的，亦即將軍事活動視為管轄例外的排他性解釋權保留給美國。目前美國的態度可概述為尋求最少的承諾，爭取最大的控制。美國現在的立場可由美國參院傳統上不願接受爭端強制解決的承諾、討好軍方的必要（此乃最支持公約者所提出之兩個理由）、以及二○○一年九一一事件後美國對安全議題更加關切等三方面去解釋。

At the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, the United States delegation took the lead in negotiations concerning provisions on the settlement of disputes. In its view, a system of peaceful and compulsory settlement of disputes was one of the main objectives to be pursued as one of the essential aspects of an overall comprehensive law of the sea settlement. The influence of the United States on the negotiations and on the final text of the Convention is evident, notwithstanding the many permutations made necessary by the compromises reached in order to obtain consensus. Although, after 1994, all of the Administrations have been in favor of the U.S. accession to the Convention, the dispute-settlement provisions that were considered among the main attractions of the Convention by the Clinton Administration, are viewed as much less important and attractive by the present Administration, which has, inter alia proposed that the exception to compulsory jurisdiction for military activities, that the U.S. intend to utilize, be reserved for exclusive interpretation by the U.S.. The current U.S. attitude might be summarized as one seeking minimum commitment together with maximum control. The need to take into account the traditional reluctance of the Senate as regards accepting commitments to compulsory settlement of disputes and the need to please the military, which are among the strongest advocates of the Convention, and the enhanced concerns for security issues following 11 September 2001, explain the present U.S. position.