Law of Sea Treaty Could Cost U.S. Trillions

Human Events ^ | July 6, 2011 | Steven Groves

[RWGinger]

This is insane
But 0dumbo will push for it I am sure

[EternalVigilance]

Personally, the financial and political empowerment of foreign tyrants and unelected, unaccountable global UN bureaucrats disturbs me more than the loss of revenue to the United States, as bad as that is.

[longtermmemmory]

The US ALREADY abides by the treaty.

The US could/can elect to have all disputes involving the US heard in the us arbitration panels

Since the US is not part of the treaty the russians are claiming the new arctic sea lanes and resources.

this is not the rejected first treaty, this is the treaty rewritten AFTER ronald regan rejected the first one.

[longtermmemmory]

PS the author is idiotically refering to the wrong treaty!

[EternalVigilance]

So, you think we should get LOST, eh?

[longtermmemmory]

you do realize the revised treaty, not the one this author is mistakenly referencing, provides that the USA can require all disputes involving the usa are arbitrated in the USA with non UN arbitrators.

[Loud Mime]

Amazing - - - they’re at this again!!

[RWGinger]

“Personally, the financial and political empowerment of foreign tyrants and unelected, unaccountable global UN bureaucrats disturbs me more than the loss of revenue to the United States, as bad as that is.”

This is an aspect I didn’t consider but once you pointed it out I can see this is more dangerous.

[longtermmemmory]

actually there is no “LOST” treaty. It is just a detractor pr name. I think before people assume something based on an article refering to the wrong treaty. (seriously who writes an article with that type of mistake?)

here is the actual treaty which also covers the air and space.

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

[Scotsman will be Free]

Our Navy can guarantee freedom of navigation. As for the rest of it, if McCain is for it(the dirty, traitorous, RINO swine)I’m against it.

[MosesKnows]

so it must be time to debate the Law of the Sea Treaty

Twenty-five years, when we had a real President, the Law of the Seas Treaty was rejected, and correctly so. Nothing is different between then and now and once again, it should be rejected.

[Melchior]

There also exist the issues of deep sea mining and international fisheries. In a world bereft of bureacrats and ruled by Socraatic intellects the LOS would be just fine. As the world now is, only a fool would support its passage. John McCain has found as the world now exists, the Chinese won’t play ball. If the US has a seat at the table, nothing will change, it will still be just another inept UN bureaucracy who have little control over events.

[longtermmemmory]

One the sections Reagan fixed.

Keep in mind, much in the treaty already is practice.

Some does not apply to the USA as we are not land locked.

PART VI
CONTINENTAL SHELF
Article 76
Definition of the continental shelf
1. The continental shelf of a coastal State comprises the seabed and
subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea
throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of
the continental margin, or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured where the
outer edge of the continental margin does not extend up to that distance.

2. The continental shelf of a coastal State shall not extend beyond the
limits provided for in paragraphs 4 to 6.

3. The continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the
land mass of the coastal State, and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the
shelf, the slope and the rise. It does not include the deep ocean floor with its
oceanic ridges or the subsoil thereof.

[muawiyah]

New arctic sea lanes ~ hmm ~ where would that be?

Is somebody taking AGW seriously?

[longtermmemmory]

Regan rejected the FIRST treaty, and right so. This is a different version:

for example this was added:

Article 77
Rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf

1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign
rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that
if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural
resources, no one may undertake these activities without the express consent
of the coastal State.

[EternalVigilance]

You might want to check your link. It’s still the Law of the Sea Treaty, or UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

And tweaks don’t make it one bit more palatable.

This treaty gives unelected global bureaucrats taxing authority for the first time, and control over 7/10s of the earths surface, and the resources that go with that.

Reagan was able to rein in the UN because he could withhold the U.S. funds that kept it afloat.

Making them financially self-sustaining seems to me to be one of the absolute worst ideas I’ve ever heard of.

[EternalVigilance]

I completely agree.

[EternalVigilance]

That’s exactly why we have a Navy, you betcha.

[longtermmemmory]

not man made. These are just normal ice variations over time. There are actual sea lanes that have opened up. The russians are attempting to claim the natural resources as theirs. Even to the extent of sending a sub which planted a russian flag.

again NOT man made, just regular over time ice shifting.