Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens Sovereignty

NewsMax ^ | Nov 24, 2004 | Paul Weyrich

[LarkNeelie]

I did some research and summarized the parts of the Treaty (see below).

After reading it, I think the "Law Of The Sea Treaty" is merely another poorly-disguised effort by the UN to birth a one-world government and institute socialist income redistribution by strangling First World nations (guess who?).

We, as citizens, must vociferously voice our protests to our lawmakers before they ratify this stupid thing, first rejected by Ronald Reagan in 1982. How do you think Kerry's going to vote on this?

After reading the following, anyone who is not completely outraged that our lawmakers are even considering this should examine their heads.

Right off the bat, the Preamble describes the committment to a world socialist order.

• In the Preamble of the Convention of the Law of The Sea Treaty.

  Bearing in mind that the achievement of these goals will contribute to the realization of a just and equitable international economic order which takes into account the interests and needs of mankind as a whole and, in particular, the special interests and needs of developing countries, whether coastal or land-locked,

  For your further edification, the following items are what are expected of signatories to the Treaty:

• PART ONE - defines the area of Treaty authority ""Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

• PART TWO - defines what can be considered sovereign waters not under the authority of the Treaty and how those 12 nautical miles can be measured. “Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.”

• PART THREE - defines approved status of waters forming straits used for international navigation

• PART FOUR - establishes approved methods by how "archipelagic States" (constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other islands) may define their territorial waters.

• PART FIVE - defines economic rights of signatory States

• PART SIX - defines legal and economic rights to the Continental Shelf mineral exploitation and provides for the payment to the Treaty Authority by signatory States for the privilege of “exploitation” of the site and then the distribution of those funds as follows: “The payments or contributions shall be made through the Authority, which shall distribute them to States Parties to this Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.”

• PART SEVEN - specifies activities permissible or prohibited on the “high seas”.

• PART EIGHT - defines what area of an island state/nation can be determined to be sovereign.

• PART NINE - defines rights and obligations re: semi-enclosed or enclosed sea areas that is shared by more than one nation/State.

• PART TEN - advises that land-locked states have the right of access to the sea through another State but that the host State is allowed to make sure the transit/method doesn‘t infringe on the host State‘s interests. It also restricts the duty and tariffs the host State can charge for transit. "Land-locked States shall have the right of access to and from the sea for the purpose of exercising the rights provided for in this Convention including those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common heritage of mankind. To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.”

• PART ELEVEN: Section 1 - defines terms i.e. “resources“, “minerals“ and “area” for purposes of the Treaty

• 11:Section 2 - provides for authority by the Treaty body over ‘rights’ resources, minerals and the Continental Shelf including what the area can be used for and how; provides for the equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits derived from activities; provides special assistance for ‘developing nations’ to participate in activities.

• 11:Section 3 - defines in detail “production ceilings”; all limits and authority to be exercised by the Treaty body without discrimination EXCEPT that special consideration of developing nation are permitted. It further specifies “the international regime designed to ensure equitable exploitation of the resources of the Area for the benefit of all countries, especially the developing States, and an Authority to organize, conduct and control activities in the Area”

• 11:Section 4 - reiterates the Authority’s jurisdiction. “1. The Authority is the organization through which States Parties shall, in accordance with this Part, organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area.”

• 11:Section 5 - defines the Seabed Dispute Chamber for purposes of arbitrating disagreements.

• PART TWELVE - deals with pollution and the rights and responsibilities of States on that front

• PART THIRTEEN - encourages marine research. Host States where the research is planned may not refuse permission unless certain criteria are met for that refusal

• PART FOURTEEN - States shall transfer marine technology and science to other States, especially to developing nations, on fair and reasonable terms and conditions.

• PART FIFTEEN - explanation of procedure for dispute arbitration and conciliation

• PART SIXTEEN - expectations of good faith and no abuse of rights provided by the Treaty: no use of the seas for other than peaceful purposes.

• PART SEVENTEEN - procedures for ratifying the Treaty; amending or adding to.

• Annex I: Identification of highly migratory ocean species.

• Annex II: Establishes the “Commission On The Limitations Of The Continental Shelf” and authority of the Commission.

• Annex III: Further defines rules and rights according the Treaty authority on prospecting for minerals, rights of the prospectors, and sharing of the proceeds; technology advances must be submitted to the Authority; all work must be approved by the Authority; a fee of US$500,000 for processing an application for permission to carry out a project; a fee of US$1,000,000 or production charge (whichever is greater) payable annually to the Authority by the contractor of said project; the contractor must provide training programs for and participation by personnel of the Authority and/or a developing nation; restrictions and determination of price schedules re: the allowable prices to be charged for the extracted materials is determined by the Treaty Authority.

• Annex IV: Defines the entity known as the “Enterprise” as follows: The Enterprise is the organ of the Authority which shall carry out activities in the Area directly, pursuant to article 153, paragraph 2 (a), as well as the transporting, processing and marketing of minerals recovered from the Area. (A UN controlled contractor, financially supported by the payments made to the Treaty Authority by member States)

• Annex V: More information on “conciliation” committees and procedures for same

• Annex VI: Establishment and procedures for the “International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea” governing Treaty activities.

• Annex VII: Further definition of arbitration procedures

• Annex VIII: Provides for “special” arbitration

• Annex IX: Invites international organizations to sign the Treaty; and procedures and participation rules for same.

• Annex X: Not listed.

• Agreement on Part XI: further defines and reiterates rights of the Treaty authority and the Treaty Enterprise and responsibility to submit to same by signatories.

  Do you think America should submit itself to this treaty?

[PeterFinn]

America should evict the UN and pave over any pissant Turd World country that wants to f*ck with us.

These filthy, evil, socialist despots will never, NEVER stop until they force America to her knees with UN Blue Helmets on every street corner.

This crap just reinforces our need for a Navy that commands, dominates, and controls the seas.

[Edgerunner]

No...No...A thousand times NO!!!

[26lemoncharlie]

Time to Hammer them with e-mails and phone calls. We should be getting out of the UN and getting the UN out of the US!!

[cll]

Me thinks the UN and most everyone in it should be tossed into the frigid North Atlantic. If the U.S. Senate ratifies this I would consider independence for this U.S. island/commowealth.

CLl

[LarkNeelie]

Peter, unfortunately, the US Navy SUPPORTS this idiocy!! On that UN website, a list of donors is available. There are several US entities, including a PEW institute.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

This is little more than a permanent meal ticket for UN bureaucrats. This would allow them free reign. Time to make them pay as you go.

[TexasTransplant]

How? Could you site a source for this info?

[hedgetrimmer]

The PEW institute is a major arm of the UN agenda. It is one of the hand selected "civil society" organizations that the UN uses to replace duly elected governmnent.

The UN is pushing this treaty again, because they want to get it passed before Americans kick them out of the country.

They are also in a rush to get the world under the thumb of their socialist, centralized government plan, called sustainable development.

UN Wants Faster Action On Sustainable Development
http://www.europaworld.org/week201/unwants191104.htm

[hedgetrimmer]

Search on keyword LOST, on this site:



Rescuing the Law of the Sea

Posted by Pikamax
On News/Activism 08/21/2004 9:41:24 PM PDT · 10 replies · 245+ views

NYTIMES ^ | 08/22/04 | Editoral
worthy global treaty has been awaiting Senate ratification for 22 years. If a tiny but noisy group of xenophobic activists, assisted by a callow Senate leadership, have their way, it will wait forever. And the world, the oceans and the strategic interests of the United States will be the poorer. The treaty in question is the Law of the Sea, which, despite its soporific name and noble intent, has inspired lively ideological warfare over the years. Written in 1982 under United Nations auspices, it gives each nation control over its own coastal waters - an "exclusive economic zone" extending 200...



Sovereignty obsession blunts region's steps

Posted by hedgetrimmer
On News/Activism 08/12/2004 8:27:06 PM PDT · 15 replies · 178+ views

Shipping News ^ | August 12, 2004 | Shipping News
Anti-piracy advocate calls for changes to UN Convention (SINGAPORE) International shipping is paying the price for the 'obsessive' emphasis on sovereignty in the Straits of Malacca, said anti-piracy advocate Alan Chan who is urging changes to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The 22-year-old Unclos needs to be updated to extend its emphasis on safety to include security, said the anti-piracy advocate and chairman of tanker firm Petroships. 'Unclos is very much concerned with safety,' Mr Chan told delegates at the recent International Maritime & Port Security Conference. 'In those days the issue of security...



Why is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty?

Posted by MindFire
On News/Activism 07/20/2004 12:57:53 PM PDT · 74 replies · 838+ views

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE ^ | July 19, 2004 | John Gizzi
http://www.humaneventsonline.com Why Is Bush for Law of Sea Treaty? by John Gizzi Posted Jul 19, 2004 Despite its strong record of standing up to the United Nations, the Bush Administration has dismayed conservatives by supporting ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Originating in the 1970s as part of the UN agenda, critics say LOST would severely weaken U.S. sovereignty over territorial waters and subject U.S. oil exploration and other activities on the high seas to the jurisdiction of an international tribunal. In 1982, President Reagan refused to sign the treaty. Twelve years later, with diplomats claiming...



U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty

Posted by datura
On News/Activism 07/10/2004 4:55:55 AM PDT · 30 replies · 739+ views

Eco Logic Powerhouse ^ | 10 Jul 04 | Tom DeWeese
Obstructed freedom... U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty By Tom DeWeese National Sovereignty Vote Index Those driving the battle to entangle the United States in the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) are fighting back, determined to paint any opponent as a radical who is out of touch with the way the world really works. Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) and his allies are mad because they had hoped to sneak LOST through the Senate before anyone noticed. Opponents to the Treaty foiled that trick, and blasted it to the nation. Americans rose...

there's quite a few more.

[Eastbound]

If this treaty is enacted the United Nations will have control of all the oceans and seas of the world and all land under the water.

Today, a 12-mile buffer zone. Tomorrow, no buffer zone. The next day, jurisdiction over all the waterways of the world that feeds the oceans, rivers, lakes, streams and ponds.

Hey wait! They are doing things backwards! The UN already did that.

[LarkNeelie]

I"m sorry, I have misplaced the specific link (among HUNDREDS! egad)on the UN Website with that particular list. It was a fairly short list, and included an outfit in San Jose (CA), La Jolla, US Navy (Newport), PEW and a couple others I could identify as US based.

Perhaps someone else more skilled in web searching than me can find it!

[Ben Ficklin]

You omitted the part about the Exclusive Economic Zone?

[zeugma]

I believe this treaty also concerns assets that might exist on the moon. This treaty is bad news.

[Eastbound]

It is easy to visualize thousands upon thousands of UN oceancraft patrolling the open seas, checking every boat and ship afloat for registration, insurance, flotsom and jetsom, and contraband fish.

[RightWhale]

Outer Space is following the model of the Law of the Sea. The underdeveloped countries are holding us back in case we might pick off the plums leaving nothing for them in 100,000 years when they finally get out there.

[LarkNeelie]

No, these are brief summaries. Economic restrictions on member States and other economic issues are mentioned throughout.

The entire thing is available at the link in my original comment (Preamble) if you want to examine the treaty in more detail.

[Ben Ficklin]

Thanks, but I don't rely on Newsmax as a credible source.

[LarkNeelie]

My source for this information is the UN Website itself, not NewsMax. You may see for yourself if you go to the UN Website. (Hopefully, you can navigate the maze well enough to find the list I mentioned)

[Ben Ficklin]

Allow me to suggest a key words search at www.state.gov/