The Law of the Sea

[PatrickHenry]

This topic has been neglected on this forum.

There is a UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

I don't think it is wise to post the full text on the forum, but please quote the sections you approve or disagree with.

Should the US approve it? It has not done so as of yet. One hundred fifty-five nations have ratified it.

Is it an assault on US national sovereignty?

Or is it a means of managing conflict that would be inevitable unless we can have an international agreement?

[Truth_and_Power]

it would be nice if i could find the part that actually means something. i just wasted a part of my life reading stuff that defines terms and states in oh so many words that signing the agreement means you agree.

[PatrickHenry]

Here's a link that may help research it.
http://www2.spfo.unibo.it/spolfo/SEALAW.htm

However Cato opposes it: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2567
The Law of the Sea Treaty originated in the 1970s as part of the United Nations' redistributionist agenda known as the "New International Economic Order." The convention covers such issues as fishing and navigation, but the controversy arose mainly over seabed mining. In essence, the Law of the Sea Treaty was designed to transfer wealth and technology from the industrialized states to the Third World.

Two decades ago, President Ronald Reagan ignored criticism of American unilateralism and refused to sign the treaty. U.S. leadership caused the Europeans and even the Soviet Union to stay out. Many Third World states eventually acknowledged the treaty's many flaws.

But treaties attract diplomats as lights attract moths. The first Bush and Clinton administrations worked to "fix" the treaty, leading to a revised agreement in 1994. Washington signed, leading to a cascade of ratifications from other countries. GOP gains in Congress, however, dissuaded the Clinton administration from pushing for ratification. Now George W. Bush has stepped in where Bill Clinton feared to tread.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well I certainly see the need for something like this, but I agree with cato that we don't need another global wealth redistribution agreement where those who pay are consistenly outvoted.

[JohnnyAwake]

We were just talking about this in my Marine Engineering class yesterday. Funny.

[PatrickHenry]

We were just talking about this in my Marine Engineering class yesterday. Funny.
Your opinion?

[lily]

Is it an assault on US national sovereignty?

Or is it a means of managing conflict that would be inevitable unless we can have an international agreement?



Hey Pat........I'm in a lazy mood today and don't feel like doing a lot of reading, so answer my question........Would it help prevent what we saw this summer between Iran and England?

[PatrickHenry]

...my question........Would it help prevent what we saw this summer between Iran and England?
I assume you refer to the capture of British naval personnel by an Iranian vessel? That was in March of 2007?

Allegations of wrong-doing on both sides...
Actually that incident was likely in retailiation or as a bargaining chip after the detention of Iranian nationals in northern Iraq a bit earlier.

In any case, I don't think that's the purpose of the Convention.

[lily]

Thanks PH!

[genraidar]

Well I certainly see the need for something like this, but I agree with cato that we don't need another global wealth redistribution agreement where those who pay are consistenly outvoted.


I agree. It's not in the national interest to be getting involved with the UN or socialist stuff.

I've been considering ideas like privatization of the oceans, but I am unsure how that will work out for international politics.