Free Republic

The decisions of the UNCLOS “compulsory” arbitration tribunal are not enforceable in the conventional legal sense The international arbitration tribunal, constituted under Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), issued its final Award on July 12th in the so-called “compulsory” arbitration instituted by the Republic of the Philippines against the People’s Republic of China. The Philippines had sought rulings on a number of issues, including the source of the parties’ rights and obligations in the South China Sea and the effect of UNCLOS on China’s claims to historic rights within its claimed ‘nine-dash...

Tribunal’s conduct serves as a case study of the dangers in delegating too much ill-defined juridical power to an unaccountable, non-democratic transnational institution Multilateral treaties have become a bedrock of international law, especially since the end of World War II. More than 600 multilateral treaties have been sponsored by the United Nations out of the approximately 8,000 multilateral treaties entered into since World War II. In setting out the parties’ rights and obligations, norms of behavior and dispute resolution mechanisms, carefully written treaties that have buy-in from the member countries can reduce the potential for resort to armed conflict or...

At last. After weeks of Hamlet-esque public debate, U.S. defense officials ordered Aegis destroyer USS Lassen to cruise within 12 nautical miles (nm) of Subi Reef on Oct. 27. The reef is an undersea rock in the South China Sea that Beijing has built into an artificial island in the contested Spratly Islands. It wants it to be considered a real island, with a “territorial sea” surrounding it. That means a 12-nm zone where Chinese domestic law prevails, just like Beijing. China claims it has the right to do so based on “historic” claims to most of the South China...

In a legal setback for Beijing, an arbitration court in the Netherlands ruled on Thursday that it has jurisdiction to hear some territorial claims the Philippines has filed against China over disputed areas in the South China Sea. Manila filed the case in 2013 to seek a ruling on its right to exploit the South China Sea waters in its 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as allowed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration rejected Beijing’s claim that the disputes were about territorial sovereignty and said additional hearings...

Palin supporters on FR been getting hit by anti-Palin FReepers (including EternalVigilance and the late-zotted pissant) over a letter Palin wrote to AK's Senators supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), specifically adjudication over mineral rights. The PDSer's claim this letter is irrefutable proof that Palin wants to destroy US sovereignty. It looks to me like Palin, as usual for that period, was more interested in mineral rights and what was good for Alaska than subverting US sovereignty, as the PDSer's claim. Here is an analysis of the letter that seems to support what I'm thinking: http://opiniojuris.org/2008/10/09/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-letter-in-support-of-the-law-of-the-sea-convention/ Palin wrote...

Does anybody know of a list of which Senators support and which Senators oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.

http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/we-just-got-screwed-the-house-passed-the-clear-act-hr-3534-209-193-july-30-2010/ don’t recall hearing anything about this in the news over the summer: Randy’s Right http://gulagbound.com/5833/us-house-puts-oceans-coasts-under-un-senate-vote-will-seal-the-deal by Carmen Reynolds, Paul McKain and Karen Schoen originally published at Boogai.net on September 21, 2010 It’s too late; it’ll just have to be stopped in the Senate,” Tom, the young male answering the phone in U.S. Rep. John Boehner’s (R-Ohio)Washington D.C. office, said about HR 3534 (CLEAR Act). This is the globalist bill designed to give away our land, oceans, adjacent land masses and Great Lakes to an international body, and makes us pay $900 million per year until 2040. HR 3534 is...

The United States Senate may vote very soon on one of the most far-reaching and dangerous treaties our government has ever considered for ratification: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST). The treaty, which has simmered on the back burners of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for decades, would give the United Nations control and jurisdiction over the world's oceans, nearly three-quarters of the surface of our planet. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface and...

<p>The Law of the Sea Treaty, which awaits a ratification vote in the U.S. Senate, declares most of the earth's vast ocean floor to be "the common heritage of mankind" and places it under United Nations ownership "for the benefit of mankind as a whole."</p>

The More People Know About Sea Treaty, The Less They Support ItSenate Committee Approves Treaty, But With Sharp Increase in Opposition Statement of David A. Ridenour, Vice President, The National Center for Public Policy Research on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on the Law of the Sea Treaty this morning:The more people learn about the Law of the Sea Treaty, the less they like it.  That's the message from this morning's vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Although the Committee voted to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration, there was a marked increase in opposition...

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote today on the ratification of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure critics say will grant the U.N. control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans. With Democrats in nearly unanimous agreement with the treaty and the Bush administration behind it, it will be up to a handful of determined Republican senators to derail it. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he will oppose the plan, and other senators have indicated they have heard from constituents who are afraid of the proposal. "In the same way...

The Law of the Sea Treaty (“LOST” to opponents, “UNCLOS” to supporters) is up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this Thursday, November 1. The State Department pushed this treaty in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was President. He rejected it, primarily because of Part XI of the Treaty, which regulates minerals on the seabed outside any sovereign state's territorial waters. It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty. President Reagan strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI, saying that they were unfavorable to...

In over 30 years of working in and watching the ways of Washington, I must say, I have never seen anything quite like it. According to Senator Jon Kyl, the entire Senate Republican leadership is now opposed to a controversial treaty supported by the president and an implausible alliance of special interests – from the U.S. Navy to Greenpeace. At a joint press conference last Wednesday, he was one of several Senators to declare that, as a result, supporters would be unable to muster the necessary 67 votes for ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Yet, it...

When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a controversial June 6 speech on the subject of "The United States and International Law," he mentioned that the Bush Administration had "put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea." The latter is now up for Senate ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But now...

His campaign was unable to return calls for my story, but apparently Sen. John McCain has now flipped and will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. It's quite a move for a guy who joined with some of the Senate's most liberal senators in 1998 in urging favorable consideration and who was actually scheduled to testify on behalf of the treaty in 2003, as then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar says in his opening statement from that hearing.

In a press release, the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty acknowledges the growing field of G.O.P. Presidential candidates who publicly have expressed opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST. Former NYC mayor and GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani is notably missing from the field. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, through a statement by his spokesperson published October 26, has become the latest Presidential candidate to oppose LOST, notes the group: "Governor Romney has concerns with the Law of the Sea Treaty. He believes giving unaccountable international institutions more power is a serious problem." Other Presidential candidates who have...

Amid debate on the decades-old Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the Senate, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) urged his colleagues to follow the lead set by President Reagan by defeating the treaty. Explaining the dangers of the treaty, Hunter detailed, "It is imperative that our nation does not surrender decision making power for military navigation or resource extraction, especially in this age of terrorism with technology and weapons proliferation. And adding a new set of UN bureaucrats with license to tax and adjudicate disputes is the last thing this country needs." Hunter continued, "Rest assured no...

In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President Bush said, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.” Members of both parties and Houses of Congress applauded. But if the U.S. Senate votes to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea — known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or its appropriate acronym, LOST — he and his successors are going to need lots of permission slips. In 1982, Ronald Reagan, concerned about the treaty’s implications for our sovereignty and national security, formally rejected LOST because it did “not...

Is the tide of public opinion running out on the Law of the Sea Treaty? A brief notice appeared in last week's "Washington Wire" column in The Wall Street Journal that proclaimed the conservatives have succeeded -- for now -- in preventing the Bush Administration from promoting ratification of the Treaty. It appears highly unlikely that the Senate will be able to debate and vote on this Treaty this year. But we have not yet sent this Treaty down to a watery grave. There are six other committees that could hold hearings. In the words of a close friend, "The...

This Convention on the Law of the Sea has been kicking around since Ronald Reagan kicked it out of his administration. ....Clinton had the treaty reworked, and asked the Senate to ratify it. The Republican Senate refused. George Bush asked the Senate to ratify it during his first term; the Senate refused. Now, the administration is again pushing for ratification.... .....requires that the U.S. subject its sovereignty over its territorial seas to the treaty. Article 2(3) says: "... sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law." .... "dispute resolution" panels...