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
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.
Ok, so it is the "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea". That sounds just as awful to me. The idea of forking over royalties for US hard work extracting resources to an organization where we have only a single vote compared to the myriad of US-hating countries makes zero sense to me. Freedom of navigation is a red herring: that's why we have the world's best navy, and if the Red Chinese are not going to respect the US Navy, they surely are going to ignore any provisions of this convention that they do not like. Just as they and other countries routinely ignore their treaty obligations in a host of other areas, while suckers like the US and UK try to comply with them. This treaty is a dog and should be voted down. (Further evidence: which Republicans are really pushing this thing today? Dick Lugar, John McCain, no doubt Lyndsey Graham..... gets a man to thinking)