It’s not just a TV show:
LOST — the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, also called the Law of the Sea Treaty — regulates all things oceanic, from fishing rights, navigation lanes and environmental concerns to what lies beneath: the seabed’s oil and mineral wealth that companies hope to explore and exploit in coming years.
But critics say the treaty, which declares the sea and its bounty the “universal heritage of mankind,” would redistribute American profits and have a reach extending into rivers and streams all the way up the mighty Mississippi.
There’s a curious assortment of bedfellows pusing for ratification of the treaty, including business interests, environmentalists, the Center for American Progress and the US Navy.
I admit to not knowing enough about the underlying issues to be stumped as to an opinion, but the fact that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are pushing hard for ratification does give me the shivvahs.
Still, even a painted clock is right twice a day.
Maybe I am wrong but, you seemed to be in favor of this treaty a year ago.
I don’t so much know that I was in favor, so much as feeling unqualified to make a judgment. I still sorta feel that way.
Hopefully, our Navy’s crack legal team has done the appropriate analysis on national security impacts.
Lex, Agree … this dosen’t begin to pass the smell test especially with those sh*t-birds Kerry and Clinton on board …add the flippen UN to the mix and it positvely reeks… as for me I’ll continue to count on the USN & the USCG to keep our sea lanes open. Best
PS, Re ” even a painted clock is right twice a day” makes no sense…have you ever seen a painted clock?… I haven’t … so please note for future reference…the correct phrase goes like this…” even a broken/stopped clock ( analog of course) is right twice a day”.
Ratification of a treaty takes 67 Senators. That’ll be a hard sell even in this Senate.
On the flip side, theoretically a new LOST will prevent, oh, say CHINA from claiming that conducting undersea surveillance within an EEZ is a violation of international law.
Maybe Navy is willing to let a UN court sue Mississippi for dumping into the sea, so long as they have a good idea where those Chinese diesel boats are operating.
But Lex — as much as I feel like a traitor to the profession for saying it — treaties, conventions, and contracts don’t actually prevent anyone from doing anything. They just alter the cost-benefit analysis (and often only around the margins when you’re striking close to a nerve).
From what I understand, ratifying this would subject us to international courts for arbitration of disputes. Russia signed, but is threatening to pull out of it because of its potential to interfere with their intentions in the Arctic.
Hmmm… another UN bureaucracy to oversee a global network? C’mon, what could possibly go wrong? I mean, considering the UN’s record of success in… umm…er… oh wait, nevermind.
well, as long as land-locked Austria is on-board with it, how bad could it be?
I like legal certainty as much as anyone else, but the language of any treaty is going to leave a lot of gray areas in its application. All else being equal, I’d prefer not to turn over arbitration of gray areas surrounding the USN’s freedom of navigation rights to an international bureaucracy headquartered in Jamaica. And while I understand the argument about wanting to have a “seat at the table,” sometimes the trouble with sitting at tables is that you end up having to recognize the authority of dinner companions that you didn’t choose. Better, I think, to stand nearby, joining in the conversation, but ultimately relying on the force of customary international law and the existence of the United States Navy (possession of a bluewater fleet being 9/10s of the law, so to speak).
That, of course, is being very rude and unilateralist. And it assumes certain things about our place in the world. If in thirty years we expect our maritime capabilities to follow that of the Royal Navy, then by all means save us a seat at the table!
ABSOLUTELY just wild conjecture on my part, but I’ll wager that the Navy’s support has mainly to do with locking in certitude about sea-lane status which, while already covered by various treaties and precedents in int law, the LOST would serve ( the Navy wrongly thinks, IMO) as a handy one-stop shopping referral guide to use in protecting it’s right of ways in int. waters by codifying many int. court cases.
But while the Navy’s self-deception is bad enough, whatever marginal improvements it MIGHT garner thru LOST are as of nothing compared to the potential loss of sovereignty over our nation’s waterways that will ensue if we subject ourselves to this monstrosity, the dangers of which the article clearly points out.
Finally, the article also points to the “Little Red Hen In Reverse” aspects of the treaty in which profits from minerals mined from the sea-bed in Int. waters at great cost will have to be shared with the non-participants–like say, most of the nations in the world that harbor terrorists, for starters–with the prospect that some of these nations will even sit on the governing bodies which will regulate such mining efforts. What a delightful prospect–profits from mining efforts at great cost to ourselves used to fund terrorists so they can kill us.
I think this is a bad, bad, treaty which will cause unmitigated headaches for us in the future by ceding much of our sovereignty over our national waters to an international body–let alone the problems it will cause for the Navy–which means a Democrat-controlled Senate will ratify it and a Socialist (at best) Obama will sign it. Wonderful.
RJL/
If we follow the trends of the Royal Navy eventually we, like they seem to be inevitably destined for, will end up with a Navy consisting of nothing but Admirals and no ships–so what’s the worry?
Well…
I guess it would allow us to propose a motion to discuss a vote to impose a fine on the Chinese for conducting environmentally-disruptive CV operations too close to a protected maritime species zone…
Lex … If Kerry and Hillary are enthusiastic about this, it raises those little hairs on the back of my neck, as snake eater says. It practically guarantees that there are dark persons in the woodpile, if I may be politically incorrect, as I delight in being.
Most treaties are notable for hidden hazards.
Marianne
Given below is a link to an article in The New American magazine on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/801
Actually, the current UNCLOS defines military surveys as legal w/in the EEZ. I think that China considers here EEZ as her territorial waters tends to be the problem. They have an extended claim. If you think the new LOST will fix that, and that China will adhere to it, then you are very naive.
It is a very bad treaty if you read it and we should ensure that the US never becomes a part of it…
I think each boat should have a copy and someone from JAG to interpret it on the spot!