U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty -- Updated and Bumped
Information Dissemination posted a follow-up.
-------------
Some more thoughts on UNCLOS and Customary International Law: Information Dissemination posted some thoughts on the ratification of the UNCLOSin response to the Boston Globe Op. Ed.
Just last week, RADM Gene Brooks, Commander of the 17th Coast Guard District in Alaska, testified before the Alaska House State of Affairs Committee on the Coast Guard's position on the Law of the Sea Convention. Considering RADM Brooks' background, I thought followers of this topic might find his opinions interesting as well. /D17%20LOSC%20Statement.doc
-------------
Shipmates,
The following link U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty Op-Ed contains an op-ed piece written by Melissa Bert, a National Security Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and Captain in the US Coast Guard, and Mark Schlakman, a senior program director at Florida State University's Center for the Advancement of Human Rights.
What are your comments and opinions on this treaty?
ADM A
-------------
Some more thoughts on UNCLOS and Customary International Law: Information Dissemination posted some thoughts on the ratification of the UNCLOSin response to the Boston Globe Op. Ed.
Just last week, RADM Gene Brooks, Commander of the 17th Coast Guard District in Alaska, testified before the Alaska House State of Affairs Committee on the Coast Guard's position on the Law of the Sea Convention. Considering RADM Brooks' background, I thought followers of this topic might find his opinions interesting as well. /D17%20LOSC%20Statement.doc
-------------
Shipmates,
The following link U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty Op-Ed contains an op-ed piece written by Melissa Bert, a National Security Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and Captain in the US Coast Guard, and Mark Schlakman, a senior program director at Florida State University's Center for the Advancement of Human Rights.
What are your comments and opinions on this treaty?
ADM A
Posted at
2:00 PM
6 Comments:
Admiral,
It is long past due that the U.S. ratify this treaty. The only public arguments made against this treaty are based on blatantly false readings of the convention text or fear-mongering along the lines of "new world order" craziness. This treaty gives nations authority and responsibility over their own waters and creates a peaceful process for the resolution of differences. Anyone claiming to the contrary hasn't read the treaty and/or hasn't looked at the last twenty years the treaty has been in effect.
Sincerely,
A. Bradley Soule
The oceans are now global commons and mutli-lateral approaches to managing them the only best forward. A demonstrated by the U.S. Coast Guard's involvement in several multi-lateral Forums like the North Pacific and North Atlantic Coast Guard Forums; multi-lateral approaches can evolve into cooperation and collaboration. Much like the Internet, another global common, frameworks for expected behaviors become defacto rules adhered to by the collaborative society. The treaty provides this framework and would make it easier to clearly see who is clearly operating outside of "due bounds" agreed to by the majority.
I've not read the treaty but I know some of the arguments against ratification lie with continued scrutiny of the U.N., especially after the oil-for-food scandal. My understanding of the treaty is that it will levy international taxes on U.S. companies. Where will this money go? Could this treaty threaten U.S. sovereignty?
This treaty has been in limbo in Congress for some 26 years. I just can't help to think maybe there is a reason for that. Once again I'm not privvy to all the facts nor do I claim to be so if anyone has any feedback I'm all ears.
v/r - BMC Woody
Tim, the convention has hardly been in limbo over the past 25 years. It has been ratified by 156 nations plus the EC, has been in force since 1994 and is considered the legal foundation for all ocean activities. Its rules have also been incorporated into the Naval Commanders guide for operations at sea. The US objection under President Reagan was limited to six aspects of the regime for deep seabed mining. A subsequent binding multilateral agreement resolved all six issues to US satisfaction in 1994 and the convention was sent to the Senate for consideration. Jesse Helms, then chair of the foreign relations committee, refused to hold hearings on the convention so it was not considered until Richard Lugar took over in 2003. Since that time the convention has advanced through the senate process and has gained bipartisan support. I anticipate it will go to the floor for a vote this year and will receive the Senate's advice and consent.
In spite of the title "The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea," the United Nations does not have a role in the implementation or application of the Convention beyond acting as a repository for the official documents and providing staff support for the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Convention represents a set of rules all states parties have agreed to follow, as well as processes to resolve disputes over their application. In the few areas where international organizations were needed, the Convention either uses existing organizations (e.g. the IMO) or creates new ones in which we have greater power over their operation, such as a permanent US seat in decision making and a veto over rules, amendments and budgets (or will have once we ratify the Convention). As to revenue sharing, this applies only to resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and sharing is done directly to states party to the Convention. There is no provision that even allows sharing of revenues with the United Nations.
The Convention is not only in our interests now, it provides a fair and even advantageous set of rules for protecting US interests in new regions, notably the Arctic. By being outside the Convention, the US has weakened our leverage with other states in developing maritime partnerships and virtually eliminated the possibility for US industry to take part in the development of mineral and energy resources outside of our own 200 nm EEZ.
Sincerely,
Caitlyn Antrim
With so much more "open water" along our northern shores than ever before, ratification of this treaty is needed more than ever before. It is time to clearly mark our boundaries and it's a large step toward the goal of protecting our national security interests.
Unfortunately, the 'positives' about US UNCLOS accession are highly overstated, and the 'negatives' inadequately considered.
In addition, Congress has failed to undertake its constitutional role of adequately vetting international treaties before they have been submitted for a Senate floor vote. This is most pronounced in the case of the UNCLOS, wherein the Congress has NOT adequately vetted, on a substantive and publicly transparent basis, its more than 45 articles, regulations, protocols and annexes to see how they would impact US constitutionally guaranteed private property rights, US national economic interests, US military security and US sovereignty.
Ms. Antrim flagrantly misrepresents the UNCLOS 'positives', and flat out misunderstands the intimate relationship between the UNCLOS and the UN Secretariat, let alone the relationship between the UNCLOS and a host of other multilateral environmental treaties.
Americans have a constitutionally guaranteed 'right to know' about the environmental regulatory dimensions of the UNCLOS, especially since it comprises approximately 1/3 of the 200 page treaty document.
Hopefully, the Obama administration will call for congressional transparency and accountability, and perhaps, Congress might finally do its homework.
A recent law review article calls upon the Congress and the Obama administration to do just that.
Please See:
"What Goes Around, Comes Around: How UNCLOS Ratification Will Herald Europe's Precautionary Principle as US Law", an authorized pre-publication advance copy of a law review article appearing within the forthcoming issue of the Santa Clara Journal of International Law.
The article is accessible on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1356837
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home