Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:32:13 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/ OceanLaw.org en-us http://www.oceanlaw.org/images/logo.gif http://www.oceanlaw.org/ caitlyn@oceanlaw.org http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=78 June 23, 2008 RATIFY THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY Dear Colleague: Recently, 36 Members of Congress wrote to the Senate to oppose U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While I respect the position of my colleagues, such opposition should be based on accurate representations of the treaty and its implications for U.S. national and economic security. This is an urgent matter and, as a former Vice Admiral in the U.S. Navy, I can attest that this is a national security issue. Senate failure to accede to the Convention this year will adversely impact our economy, security and the environment: The Convention will greatly enhance U.S. national security. The Joint Chiefs have urged accession now in order to codify “navigation and over-flight rights and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global mobility of our armed forces.” The Coast Guard needs accession in order to “interdict illicit drug traffickers and illegal immigrants far beyond our own waters.” And the framework of rules provided by the Convention will strengthen our coalition efforts to fight nuclear proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative and regional maritime security arrangements. Norway and Russia have already submitted claims to extend recognition of their continental shelves in the Arctic – which only State Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention may do. The United States stands to gain recognition of continental shelf extensions as far as 600 miles offshore. But without a seat at the table, we cannot present data to substantiate our claims or to challenge Canada’s forthcoming claim, which will likely conflict with one of our own. Given the extensive resource wealth in the Arctic seabed, nothing less than the energy security of our country is at stake. The convention safeguards imperiled marine habitats by strengthening the ability of nations to enforce environmental regulations within their national jurisdiction and empower them to stop harmful pollution and ocean dumping caused by previously unregulated ships. The convention also contains special measures to save endangered whales, salmon, and other marine mammals. It allows U.S fisheries and those of other coastal states to set limits within their 200 miles economic zone while protecting dwindling migratory fish stocks such as tuna and billfish on the high seas. Please consider the following information when considering your position regarding this important treaty that could benefit U.S. national security, our economy, and the environment: If the U.S. were to join the Convention: the United States could extend its exclusive sovereignty over living and non-living resources of the continental shelf up to 600 miles offshore. the United States will have an effective veto over all critical decisions of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which recognizes claims to resources in the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. This includes the budget, rules and regulations, and distribution of royalty payments. U.S. oil and gas and deep-sea mining industries are in favor of the royalties regime set up under the Convention, which does not provide for taxation of American citizens. The 1994 Implementing Agreement to the Convention, which satisfied all of the Reagan Administration’s reservations, explicitly states that the mandatory technology transfer language in the Convention “does not apply.” Military activities are not subject to dispute resolution under the treaty. The United States has already agreed to provisions limiting military activities in the territorial waters of other states in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, to which the United States has been a State Party for over half a century. In fact, National Security Advisor Hadley has informed the Senate that joining is “essential to the formulation and implementation of the President’s National Security Strategy as well as the National Strategy for Maritime Security.” Negotiations on the Law of the Sea Convention were initiated by the U.S. and, as President Reagan said, are consistent with our balance of interests. Moreover, President Reagan clearly articulated U.S. objections to the original Convention, all of which were addressed in the 1994 Agreement. The diary entry quoted by my colleagues’ letter refers to the option of ratifying the treaty piecemeal, without the seabed mining provisions. President Reagan’s Secretaries of State, National Security Advisor, and numerous other officials in his administration agree that the Convention in its current form achieves all of U.S. goals in negotiations. Again, as a former Vice-Admiral in the U.S. Navy, I can attest to the great benefits that accession would offer to our men and women in uniform – and the unnecessary peril to them and to U.S. interests that our absence from the Convention is creating. As the only nation that is truly globally deployed, the U.S. has a unique stake in the stability and reliability of international ocean law. We cannot continue to rely on customary international law, which drifts over time and whose application can be unpredictable, to guarantee our rights at sea. I do not make these assertions merely on my own behalf. The views espoused in this letter are shared by all living State Department Legal Advisors, all living Chiefs of Naval Operations, as well as President Bush, his National Security Advisor and Council on Environmental Quality, and his Secretaries of State, Defense, Interior, Commerce, and Homeland Security. In addition, ratification is supported by a diverse coalition of business groups, environmental organizations, scientific and research institutes, and military reserve organizations. I urge you to carefully consider the question of advice and consent to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Convention and support United States accession. Sincerely, JOE SESTAK Member of Congress Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:32:13 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=77 The Law of the Sea Convention, along with the International maritime Organization and the Arctic Council, form the core of the regime that governs the Arctic. In this regime the five nations that border the Arctic Ocean have the primary responsibility to managing activities in the region, including both development and environmental protection. While the declaration recognizes the responsibilities on the five states that result from the legal regime, it also recognizes that other states will participate in development and protection under the provisions of international law and through the international Maritime Organization, the Arctic Council and other relevant international fora. View the Ilulissat Declaration of the five Arctic States, May 28, 2008. What the declaration does, however, is make clear that there will be no negotiation of an alternative regime for the Arctic Ocean that would be contrary to the provisions of the LOS Convention. Thu, 29 May 2008 15:07:20 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=75 Heritage Foundation, April 15, 2008 Edwin Williamson: “Edwin Williamson, Sullivan and Cromwell, You’re here in the bowels of one of the most outspoken critics of the Law of the Sea Convention, Heritage web site claims, for example, that the ratification of this treaty will undermine our military and intelligence operations – shouldn’t you take this opportunity to comment on the nature and quality of this criticism and the importance of ratification of this treaty?” Admiral Mullen: “I think it’s very important that we ratify this treaty, I am in the military and I don’t subscribe to those views, and in fact, I think that ratification of this treaty offers an opportunity to participate, and part of this for me is the world that we’re living in now versus the world when that treaty came online initially back in the early 80s I think and there were some challenges with that and those have been repaired, those have been changed, not the least of which was the issue tied I think to mineral rights… I’m someone that grew up around the world and engaging… and I’m very sensitive quite frankly, to the sea aspect of this and the constraints that certain countries could have on the freedom of being able to navigate around the world in a world that’s getting smaller not physically but certainly from the global perspective… so I think those rights that are tied to what’s on that treaty are very important, not just now, but in the future. We are one of the very few outliers in terms of ratification of that treaty, and my view is I think it’s more important to be at the table than to be outside trying to make your case out there and it’s an important one to us in the military.” Mon, 05 May 2008 17:10:02 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=74 On January 29, 1982, President Reagan announced that his administration had completed its review of the draft convention on the law of the sea and was returning to the negotiations to negotiate an acceptable convention. He identify six areas, all in the deep seabed mining provisions, that needed to be addressed and sated that if acceptable solutions were obtained to these issues then his administration would support ratification of the resulting convention. Recently, opponents of the Convention have tried to cast Reagan's opposition in broader terms, but this statement, which was intended for foreign as well as domestic audiences, makes clear the limited nature of his opposition: Excerpt from the full statement: Our review has concluded that while most provisions of the draft convention are acceptible and consistent with U.S. interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable. I am announcing today that the United States will return to those negotiations and will work with other countries to achieve an acceptable treaty. In the deep seabed mining area, we will seek changes necessary to correct those unacceptable elements and to achieve the goal of a treaty that will: Not deter development of any deep seabed mineral resources to meet national and world demand; Assure national access to these resources by current and future qualified entities to enhance U.S. security of supply, to avoid monopolization by the operating arm of the international authority, and to promote the economic development of the resources; Provide a decisionmaking role in the deep seabed regime that fairly reflects and effectively protects the political and economic interests and financial contributions of participating states; Not allow for amendments to come into force without approval of the participating states, including, in our case, advice and consent of the Senate; Not set other undesirable precedents for internatiional organizations; and Be likely to receive the advice and consent of the Senate. In this regard, the convention should not contain provisions for mandatory transfer of private technology and participation by and funding for national liberation movements. The United States remains committee to the multilateral treaty process for reaching agreement on law of the sea. If working together at the conference we can find ways to fulfill these key objectives, my Administration will support ratification. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:25:11 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=73 For those people who have been told otherwise, President Reagan's objections to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were limited to the deep seabed mining provisions of the Convention (and these provisions were addressed and remedied in the 1994 Agreement of Part XI of the Convention). President Reagan took public note of this in his 1983 statement on US ocean policy. In the statement below I have highlighted sections reflecting President Reagan's position on the deep seabed mining provisions and other aspects of law of the sea in the Convention President Ronald Reagan Statement on United States Oceans Policy March 10, 1983 The United States has long been a leader in developing customary and conventional law of the sea. Our objectives have consistently been to provide a legal order that will, among other things, facilitate peaceful, international uses of the oceans and provide for equitable and effective management and conservation of marine resources. The United States also recognizes that all nations have an interest in these issues. Last July, I announced that the United States will not sign the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention that was opened for signature on December 10. We have taken this step because several major problems in the Convention's deep seabed mining provisions are contrary to the interests and principles of industrialized nations and would not help attain the aspirations of developing countries. The United States does not stand alone in those concerns. Some important allies and friends have not signed the convention. Even some signatory states have raised concerns about these problems. However, the convention also contains provisions with respect to traditional uses of the oceans which generally confirm existing maritime law and practice and fairly balance the interests of all states. Today I am announcing three decisions to promote and protect the oceans interests of the United States in a manner consistent with those fair and balanced results in the Convention and international law. First, the United States is prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests relating to traditional uses of the oceans -- such as navigation and overflight. In this respect, the United States will recognize the rights of other states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the Convention, so long as the rights and freedoms of the United States and others under international law are recognized by such coastal states. Second, the United States will exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a manner that is consistent with the balance of interests reflected in the convention. The United States will not, however, acquiesce in unilateral acts of other states designed to restrict the rights and freedoms of the international community in navigation and overflight and other related high seas uses. Third, I am proclaiming today an Exclusive Economic Zone in which the United States will exercise sovereign rights in living and nonliving resources within 200 nautical miles of its coast. This will provide United States jurisdiction for mineral resources out to 200 nautical miles that are not on the continental shelf. Recently discovered deposits there could be an important future source of strategic minerals. Within this Zone all nations will continue to enjoy the high seas rights and freedoms that are not resource related, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight. My proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine mammals, and fisheries, including highly migratory species of tuna which are not subject to United States jurisdiction. The United States will continue efforts to achieve international agreements for the effective management of these species. The proclamation also reinforces this government's policy of promoting the United States fishing industry. While international law provides for a right of jurisdiction over marine scientific research within such a zone, the proclamation does not assert this right. I have elected not to do so because of the United States interest in encouraging marine scientific research and avoiding any unneccessary burdens. The United States will nevertheless recognize the right of other coastal states to exercise jurisdiction over marine scientific research within 200 nautical miles of their coasts, if that jurisdiction is exercised reasonably in a manner consistent with international law. The Exclusive Economic Zone established today will also enable the United States to take limited additional steps to protect the marine environment. In this connection, the United States will continue to work through the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations to develop uniform international measures for the protection of the marine environment while imposing no unreasonable burdens on commercial shipping. The policy decisions I am announcing today will not affect the application of existing United States law concerning the high seas or existing authorities of any United States Government agency. In addition to the above policy steps, the United States will continue to work with other countries to develop a regime, free of unnecessary political and economic restraints, for mining deep seabed minerals beyond national jurisdiction. Deep seabed mining remains a lawful exercise of the freedom of the high seas open to all nations. The United States will continue to allow its firms to explore for and, when the market permits, exploit these resources. The administration looks forward to working with the Congress on legislation to implement these new policies. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:53:42 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=72 Some opponents of the LOS Convention have claimed that President Reagan objected to provisions of the LOS Convention outside of the seabed mining provisions. In particular, some have said that the provisions on the territorial sea and innocent passage were objectionable. That would be news to President Reagan who adopted the Convention's provisions related to the territorial sea in his proclamation extending our own territorial sea in 1988: From PROCLAMATION 5928 issued by President Reagan on Dec. 27, 1988: In accordance with international law, as reflected in the applicable provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, within the territorial sea of the United States, the ships of all countries enjoy the right of innocent passage and the ships and aircraft of all countries enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits. Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:17:43 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=71 Reagan Supported Most of Law of the Sea Treaty Letter to the Editor, The Wall Street Journal, October 22, 2007 William Clark and Edwin Meese doubtless have rich personal perceptions of President Reagan's attitudes ("Reagan and the Law of the Sea," editorial page, Oct. 8). But, as a man of his word, what counts for the rest of us is what he told the American people. Following a lengthy review of the draft convention on the law of the sea by his administration, on Jan. 29, 1982, President Reagan stated, "While most provisions of the draft convention are acceptable and consistent with U.S. interests, some major elements of the deep seabed mining regime are not acceptable." He then identified six objectives for the ensuing negotiations; all six related exclusively to the deep seabed mining regime. President Reagan unequivocally stated that if the negotiations could fulfill these "six key objectives," the "administration will support ratification" of the convention. Although those six objectives were not fulfilled while Reagan was in office, his successor, George H.W. Bush, initiated new negotiations that eventually succeeded in doing just that. It is that package -- the agreement changing the deep seabed mining regime coupled with the text that Reagan deemed acceptable -- that his secretaries of state, Alexander Haig and George Shultz, as well as his chief of staff and secretary of the treasury, James Baker, urged the Senate to approve. Bernard H. Oxman Professor of Law University of Miami Miami Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:43:55 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=70 In compiling the list of endorsements, letters, articles and testimony in support of the Law of the Sea Convention, I note that the letters from the Chiefs of Naval Operations to the Senate leadership and their statements to Senate Committees demonstrate support for US accession to the Convention from the officers who served as Chief of Naval Operations over the past four decades: NamePeriod as CNOEndorsement ADM Gary Roughead2007 – PresentCNO Confirmation Hearings ADM Michael Mullen2005 – 20072007 CJCS Confirmation Hearings ADM Vern Clark2000 – 20052004 Testimony ADM Jay L. Johnson1996 – 2000Letter in 2000 ADM Frank B. Kelso II1990 – 19941998 Letter ADM Carlisle A.H. Trost1986 – 19901998 Letter ADM James D. Watkins1982 – 19861998 Letter ADM Thomas B. Hayward1978 – 19821998 Letter ADM James L. Holloway III1974 – 19781998 Letter ADM Elmo R. Zumwalt1970 – 19741998 Letter ADM Thomas H. Moorer1967 – 19701998 Letter This list includes 11 of the past 12 Chiefs of Naval Operations (Jeremy Boorda, CNO from 1994 to 1996, died before the opportunity to support the convention arose). The careers of the men represented span the post-World War II period in which the old notion of a narrow territorial sea and a vast ocean in which coastal states had little say over offshore activities changed almost beyond recognition. As such, they developed a thurough understanding of the importance of the Convention in protecting navigation rights that have been tested and threatened by coastal state encroachment. Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:20:19 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=69 In the April 13th, 2008 edition of the Amarillo Globe-News, Professor Syed Tariq Anwar of West Texas A&M University presented a case for US leadership in protecting the Arctic. Among his points was this comment regarding the Law of the Sea Convention: From a global business perspective, we need a unified Arctic plan based on an acceptable treaty. Being the most powerful nation on earth, it is expected that the U.S. will be supporting the Law of the Sea Treaty, which was favored by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 17-4 vote last November. It is also critical that we favor the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Many people and organizations are endorsing this treaty. Two former secretaries of state (James Baker and George Shultz), former admirals, various industry organizations, politicians and business leaders from the U.S. have supported the treaty. For the U.S., the contentious treaty issues continue to be national sovereignty and security, coastal state extension and the continental shelf beyond 200 miles, taxation, exploration and licensing rights, and problems of eminent domain. Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:31:19 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=68 March 13, 2008 To: Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Cc: Senators Lugar, Stevens and Murkowski From: Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C. (original copy signed by Rev. Hesburgh) Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, I am writing concerning the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention was voted on favorably by the foreign Relations Committee and needs to be brought to the full Senate for a vote. I have followed the Law of the Sea negotiations since the late 1970s and I support US ratification of the Convention. Timing is critical and recent events clearly illuminate the importance of the Law of the Sea Convention to our nation. Last summer Russian politicians and scientists used submersibles to plant their flag at the North Pole. This event was carried out to enhance the Russian claim for an extended continental shelf in the Arctic. Flag planting does not constitute a claim. However the event does confirm the strategic value of obtaining the undisputed rights of the Arctic seafloor. The other circum-Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark (for Greenland)and Norway have ratified the convention and have or are preparing to submit their claims for extended continental shelves on other sections of the Arctic seafloor. Because we have not ratified the Convention, our nation is completely out of the game as these claims are evaluated. In addition our nation has no feasible avenue to introduce our own claim to the Arctic seafloor, where our national jurisdiction could extend 600 miles north of the Alaskan coast. The Arctic is not the only location off the US coast where we could claim an extended continental shelf. Other nations among them: Australia, Brazil, France, Mexico and New Zealand have submitted extensive seafloor claims. Again, because we have not ratified the Convention we are excluded from commenting on their claims or participating in the evaluation process. It is time for this situation to change and for the Senate to vote and ratify the Convention. The Convention is the constitution for the seas. The continental shelf claims are currently in the limelight, but the other aspects of the Convention, national security, environmental protection and dispute settlement are no less important. In closing, I recognize that the Convention is not perfect, no document negotiated over 75 weeks by 130 plus nations could be. Nevertheless, more than 154 nations have ratified the Convention. These nations are at work implementing the Convention and our nation needs to join them, not only for our own purposes by to insure legitimate governance of the world's resources. Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:39:54 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=67 It has become popular among parties on both side of the LOS issue to tell others what Ronald Reagan felt about the LOS Convention. I think it is best to let President Reagan's own words, carefully considered and distributed around the world, speak for him. The following statement was given by President Reagan after he and his national security council decided that the United States would not continue in the LOS process and would not sign the Convention that emerged from the final negotiating session earlier that year. It is a definitive and unbiased source - much more so than the statements of policy advisors overruled by Reagan in 19882 or a short, ambiguous comment in his nighttime diary. This statement is what Ronald Reagan told the world - his honor and reputation stood behind it. The sections related to President Reagan's reasons for rejecting the convention is underlined in the text below. Otherwise this is the complete and unedited statement by the president. Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States Statement on United States Actions Concerning the Conference on the Law of the Sea July 9th, 1982 The United States has long recognized how critical the world's oceans are to mankind and how important international agreements are to the use of those oceans. For over a decade, the United States has been working with more than 150 countries at the Third United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea to develop a comprehensive treaty. On January 29 of this year, I reaffirmed the United States commitment to the multilateral process for reaching such a treaty and announced that we would return to the negotiations to seek to correct unacceptable elements in the deep seabed mining part of the draft convention. I also announced that my administration would support ratification of a convention meeting six basic objectives. On April 30 the conference adopted a convention that does not satisfy the objectives sought by the United States. It was adopted by a vote of 130 in favor, with 4 against (including the United States) and 17 abstentions. Those voting "no" or abstaining appear small in number but represent countries which produce more than 60 percent of the world's gross national product and provide more than 60 percent of the contributions to the United Nations. We have now completed a review of that convention and recognize that it contains many positive and very significant accomplishments. Those extensive parts dealing with navigation and overflight and most other provisions of the convention are consistent with United States interests and, in our view, serve well the interests of all nations. That is an important achievement and signifies the benefits of working together and effectively balancing numerous interests. The United States also appreciates the efforts of the many countries that have worked with us toward an acceptable agreement, including efforts by friends and allies at the session that concluded on April 30. Our review recognizes, however, that the deep seabed mining part of the convention does not meet United States objectives. For this reason, I am announcing today that the United States will not sign the convention as adopted by the conference, and our participation in the remaining conference process will be at the technical level and will involve only those provisions that serve United States interests. These decisions reflect the deep conviction that the United States cannot support a deep seabed mining regime with such major problems. In our view, those problems include: Provisions that would actually deter future development of deep seabed mineral resources, when such development should serve the interest of all countries. A decision-making process that would not give the United States or others a role that fairly reflects and protects their interests. Provisions that would allow amendments to enter into force for the United States without its approval. This is clearly incompatible with the United States approach to such treaties. Stipulations relating to mandatory transfer of private technology and the possibility of national liberation movements sharing in benefits. The absence of assured access for future qualified deep seabed miners to promote the development of these resources. We recognize that world demand and markets currently do not justify commercial development of deep seabed mineral resources, and it is not clear when such development will be justified. When such factors become favorable, however, the deep seabed represents a potentially important source of strategic and other minerals. The aim of the United States in this regard has been to establish with other nations an order that would allow exploration and development under reasonable terms and conditions. Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:35:16 +0200 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=66 Law of the Sea debates can be both intense and boring - after all, the negotiations were once selected as one of the 10 Most Boring Things in New York City. Every once in a while it helps to look at the subject from a new perspective. Gail Collins at the New York TImes gives just such a look in her column of November 3rd. She gives a quick snapshot of the opposing sides: ...While the pros will tell you all about the importance of having a rational system for arbitrating disputes over the Alaskan continental shelf, the cons spin up conspiracy theories about how the International Seabed Authority will force us to give up our cars and cancel the war on terror. Just take my word. The Navy wants the treaty. Greenpeace wants the treaty. The oil and gas industry wants the treaty. Her real point is aimed at the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination. After poking John McCain for his campaign conversion, she shines some light on others in the crowd: The other candidates have issued statements that seem to reflect an inability to come up with any rational arguments. Rudy Giuliani said he “cannot support the creation of yet another unaccountable international bureaucracy that might infringe on American sovereignty and curtail America’s freedoms,” and Fred Thompson roused himself long enough to announce that “the efforts of treaty proponents would be better spent reforming an ineffective, unaccountable and corrupt United Nations.” Mitt Romney’s spokesman just said Mitt has “concerns.” Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee called the treaty “the dumbest thing we’ve ever done.” Pause now to make a list of things we’ve done that you think might be dumber. Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:48:04 +0200 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65 Loreliei Kelly, writing at Democracy Arsenal, discusses linkages between national security and the environment. She points to the Law of the Sea Convention as an example of linkages between security and the environment, and other issues as well. She also points out the difficulty of addressing these issues, each difficult on their own and much more so for their interlinkages. The problem is made more difficult by opponents of the convention who base their opposition on faulty interpretations of the convention, misinformation and a record of failure in building productive relationships with other countries. Her two sentence summary of the issue of Senate approval of the Convention is: There is a huge upside to America signing this treaty versus a negligible downside. At the end of the day, the Law of the Sea detractors are global anti-socials whose preferred method of interaction for nearly every international problem is physical intimidation. Lorelei is right - the LOS Convention greatly expands the area of the ocean and continental shelf under sovereign US control, it provides the basis for a comprehensive regime for the Arctic that protects our sovereignty, our security and our sustainable use of resources. It creates the legal regime that can allow US industry to rebuild itself as a leader in deep seabed mining. At the same time, it protects our rights to transit critical international straits, gives access to distant water fisheries, sets requirements for countries from Russia to the least developed states for the protection of the marine environment, and provides ways to settle disputes without recourse to armed conflict. And it accomplishes all this at an insignificant cost while even improving relationships with our allies, neighbors and maritime partners. Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:03:56 +0200 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=64 October 14, 2003 - Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE I am pleased to testify, today in support of the Senate's ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over oceans, and maritime and ocean navigation, I believe ratification of this important Convention would help strengthen our national security, promote the free and unimpeded flow of inter-national trade and commerce, and protect our vital natural resources. Its ratification would enable the United States to regain its leadership role in promoting the rule of law for the oceans and encouraging respect for traditional navigational freedoms. Throughout our nation's history, our security and economic well-being have long been dependent on our free access to the world's seas. The oceans have helped to protect us against potential adversaries, facilitate the transportation and trade of our products, and provided abundant fish and natural resources in the waters off our shores. The United States has historically been a global leader in advocating the Law of the Sea. After World War II, the United States was at the forefront in calling for a formal Law of the Sea and was one of its champions during the two decade struggle to draft this Convention. However, when the Convention was opened for signature in 1982, much of the developed world, led by the United States, refused to sign it over concerns with the provisions related to deep seabed exploitation. In the early 1990s, the United States helped craft an important compromise which satisfied the many objections to the deep seabed mining provisions. Yet despite removing this impediment, we still have not ratified this Convention, which to date has been ratified by 143 countries. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea provides a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas and it serves as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established. As a global power, the United States depends on ready and unrestricted access to the world's oceans and international airspace. The navigational rights and freedoms codified by the Convention would ensure our military continues to have the mobility it needs to maintain a military presence around the world and move military forces where needed. Additionally, these rights and freedoms will ensure our nation's ability to ship goods and materials throughout the world using the most expeditious routes. Support for Convention ratification within the United States is widespread and diverse, including environmental groups, the maritime industry, the oil and natural gas industry, and the oceanographic research community. The Clinton Administration previously supported ratifying the Convention and now the U.S. State Department has indicated its support of ratification. Additionally, in one of its first official acts, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy publicly called for ratification of the Convention. As a result of our failure to ratify the Convention, our national interests have suffered. We are now barred from membership on the Law of the Sea Tribunal and the Continental Shelf Commission as well as the right to name members to special arbitration panels which are responsible for settling interstate disputes. In these bodies, the United States has been relegated to observer status. Furthermore, the United States is barred from membership in the International Seabed Authority where parties to the Convention organize and direct ventures to exploit the mineral resources of the deep seabed. The importance of the U.S. ratification of the Convention is further compounded by the emerging issues brought about because of Global Climate. For example, as the Arctic icecap around the Canadian Arctic archipelago continues to shrink and thin, some scientists have suggested the Northwest Passage could be open for possible year-round navigable passage within 10 to 15 years. As a result, the contentious issue of whether this passage will be an international strait or considered part of Canadian waters will need to be determined. It has been more than nine years since the Convention was transmitted to the Senate for ratification, where it has since resided with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Today's hearing is an important step toward finally addressing this critical international issue and I hope it prompts Senate ratification of the Convention in the near future. Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:59:24 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=63 For many people who are considering the Law of the Sea Convention for the first time, the question "What Would Reagan Do?" takes on special interest. Former advisors who once stood to Reagan's right say he would oppose the Convention, but Reagan's senior foreign policy advisors and the staff that prepared his decision memorandum on the Convention say he would support the Convention once it was modified according to his criteria in 1994. National Journal published a story last Friday that addresses this issue. It is an interesting story that should be read by anyone interested in Reagan's legacy in foreign policy and the attempts by some to stretch his legacy to pet causes. The conclusion, however, leaves us all on our own to resolve the issue: As for Reagan, it isn't clear what he would say. He believed in guns, but he also believed in diplomacy. He undertook a massive buildup of American arms, but he also negotiated arms reductions with the Soviet Union. He distrusted the United Nations, but he believed in American business. People can ask what he would do, but he's dead. He can't answer. Mon, 22 Oct 2007 13:30:56 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=62 ABA President William H. Neukom urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month to pass an advise and consent resolution for the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which provides a legal framework governing the uses of the oceans and their resources. More than 150 nations are party to the treaty, which was negotiated in the 1970s and early 1980s and signed in 1994 by the United States only after major revisions were made in the deep seabed mining provisions. That same year, the treaty went into force and President Clinton submitted it to the Senate. "The convention was carefully drafted to preserve freedom of navigation, not only on the high seas but through all international straits and waterways, and to protect economic interests relating to off-shore resources, notably oil and fisheries," Neukom wrote in a statement submitted for a Sept. 27 hearing. Pointing out that the United States was very involved in the drafting of the treaty, he said this country "must become a party to the convention and resume our leadership role in order to protect our future interests." Under the 1994 amendments to the convention, the United States, when it becomes a party to the treaty, will be a permanent member of the Governing Council of the International Seabed Authority and of the Finance Committee, which operate by consensus. "Our failure to become a party to the convention and take advantage of these changes negotiated in the agreement will become more problematic in the future when and if mining of the deep seabed becomes commercially feasible," Neukom cautioned. In addition, he said that the United States currently cannot participate in critical discussions now being held and decisions being made that impact U.S. interests in the Arctic and other areas around the world. Neukom emphasized that none of the dire consequences that had been predicted by opponents of the convention has come to pass, including inhibiting anti-terrorist activities on the high seas, imposing any taxes, or creating any international forces. In addition, he said that the alarmist objections regarding the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea created under the convention are "patently untrue," and the convention "does not and will not award any control over U.S. military activities to any international court or international bureaucracy." John D. Negroponte, deputy secretary for the State Department, expressed the Bush administration's strong support for the treaty, testifying at the hearing that "U.S. accession to the convention is the best way to secure navigational and economic rights related to the law of the sea." Gordon England, deputy secretary of defense, focused on the national security interests of the United States, emphasizing that the navigation and overflight rights and high-seas freedoms codified in the convention are essential for the global mobility of the armed forces and the sustainment of combat forces overseas. Additional hearings scheduled for early October focused on the views of non-governmental organizations Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:01:28 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61 The Center for Oceans Law and Policy has updated their web site with a reference page of materials related to the Law of the Sea Convention. The Center is actively expanding the materials available on their site, so consider book marking their page and visiting on a regular schedule. Visit the COLP LOS Site Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:29:41 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=60 San Diego Union-Tribune October 14, 2007 Debating 'LOST' - Should The U.S. Ratify The Law Of The Sea Treaty? Yes: A plus for the Navy, U.S. maritime industries By James D. Watkins and Leon E. Panetta As politicians in Washington, D.C., struggle to find common ground on issues of national importance, one that is ripe for action - that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support - is United States accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. The convention is vital to our national security interests, sovereignty, maritime industry and our leadership role in international ocean policy. Thankfully, recent hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations have rekindled attention within the Senate and the opportunity to take action on a treaty that would greatly advance U.S. interests is easily within the Senate's grasp. Support for the convention comes from a broad, bipartisan coalition of political, military, economic, academic and environmental leaders. This support is clearly articulated in a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Sept. 24 from 101 prominent leaders, including 16 former Cabinet-level officials; nine governors; representatives of major oil and gas, commercial shipping and fishing industries; and the environmental community. The letter urges the Senate to expeditiously approve U.S. accession to the convention, stating "[i]t is clear that accession will protect and enhance our country's sovereign military, economic, and environmental interests." The convention has the support of President Bush, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national security adviser and the secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, Homeland Security and Interior. A personal statement issued by President Bush on May 15 states that "[j]oining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted." Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:13:41 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=59 Copies of prepared statements of Senators Menendez and Lugar and of the seven witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 4, 2007 are available to view or download at the Senate Foreign Relations COmmittee web site on the page for the October 4th hearing. In addition, the video feed of the hearing is available The hearings begin at 20 minutes and 47 seconds into the recording so use the RealPlayer slider to advance to that point to view the hearing from the beginning. Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:41:31 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=58 In an odd turn of events, long time LOS opponent Frank Gaffney recommended to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Arctic Council, an international environment and cultural organization that heretofore has had little authority, be considered as a forum to replace the technical body assigned by the LOS Convention to confirm or reject proposed seabed boundaries based on scientific data. This is combined with an unwarranted assumption as to current US influence from its position outside the Convention that was presented in his October 4th testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: The United States was able to play a role in the Commission's non-acceptance of Russia's first claim to the Arctic seabed back in 2001, even though it was not a part to LOST -- and, therefore, not at risk of being bound by adverse Commission decisions. this episode demonstrates that, by remaining outside of the Treaty, America can retain its freedom of action (including the use of bilateral diplomacy and more constructive multilateral mechanisms, such as the Arctic Council) and still challenge such over-reaching Russian claims and win. Unfortunately for this argument, just because the US sent scientific information to the Commission does not mean that the information was read or used - and there is no evidence to support Mr. Gaffney's contention that it was. It is notable that Mr. Gaffney believes that the seven other members of the Arctic Council would abandon the LOS Convention at the request of the United States. For the rest of the world, the Law of the Sea is settled and they can live with or without US participation. Most amazing, though, is that Mr. Gaffney would even suggest the Arctic Council as a venue in which to consider the extent of national sovereignty over the seabed. The Arctic Council is an organization with an environmental and cultural focus, not a geological or territorial one: The Arctic Council (AC) is a high-level forum for cooperation, coordination and interaction between Arctic states, indigenous communities and other Arctic residents on issues such as sustainable development and environmental protection. The AC provides a valuable platform for discussions on all issues of relevance to the Arctic and the people who live there. Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:16:13 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57 Gaffney Lost on Law of the Sea by Martine Apodaca The UN Convention on Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994 and has been ratified by 154 countries and the European Community, has been gathering steam in the U.S. Senate, is widely supported by both government and business leaders, and appears to be on track for ratification by the U.S. This seems to be frightening a fringe group led by Frank Gaffney, a neocon columnist for the Washington Times and the National Review online, who has launched a nonsensical attack on the effort for U.S. ratification, claiming that the bid is a "UN power grab" and that US accession would transform the UN into a "world government" and force the United States to surrender sovereignty and immense resources in the sea and on the sea bed. Those unfounded views are reflected in Gaffney's column yesterday in the Washington Times. Gaffney apparently thinks he knows how to protect U.S. national and security interests better than the President, the Secretary of the Navy, and the combined leaders of the U.S. petroleum, fishing, mining, and shipping industries. That's not a bet that the U.S. Senate should take. Rather than acknowledge and debate the vast military, economic, and environmental benefits of UNCLOS, Mr. Gaffney chooses to scare-monger about "international taxes" and "world government." UNCLOS establishes neither. Mr. Gaffney also doesn't acknowledge that an international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes has begun and is being accelerated by global warming as the arctic ice cap recedes. At stake are a possible 460,000 square miles of Arctic seabed that could hold as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas, valuable commodities like gold, diamonds, fishing stocks, and lucrative freight routes. The race is on. Other nations are moving to take advantage of this situation. In August 2007, Russia planted its national flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole, calling international attention to a dubious claim to ownership of the North Pole and the Lomonosov Ridge -- with substantial potential oil, gas, and mineral deposits. The Canadians are staking claims in the arctic as well. In August 2007, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper set off on a three-day tour of the region and announced plans to build two new military bases to reinforce Canada's territorial claims, and the Canadians are spending $7 billion on new arctic patrol vessels. The U.S., however, has taken itself out of the race; only nations who are party to the Convention can make such claims -- or challenge the claims of others. Thus, while nations struggle for control of the arctic, the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines. In truth, Mr. Gaffney is nearly alone on the far fringes in opposition to the Convention. Perhaps that is why he is making such desperate and outlandish arguments. I've left Gaffney's sovereignty claims until last because they are perhaps the most ridiculous. The Convention has, in fact, been called, correctly, a U.S. land grab because it expands U.S. sovereignty and sovereign rights over extensive maritime territory and natural resources off its coast. It provides a 12-mile territorial sea subject to U.S. sovereignty, U.S. sovereign rights over resources within a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, and U.S. sovereign rights over offshore resources (including minerals) to the outer edge of the continental margin, which extends well beyond 200 miles in several areas, including up to 600 miles off Alaska. This Convention clearly expands our sovereignty. The Convention has a built-in, dispute-resolution forum where nations can come together to peacefully and efficiently settle disagreements. The deep seabed mining provisions would not apply to any areas in which the U.S. has sovereignty or sovereign rights. Further, these rules will facilitate mining activities by U.S. companies. Investors would have the legal certainty of the convention to protect their claims and investments. And the navigational provisions ensure that U.S. military and commercial vessels have worldwide maritime mobility with the backing of international law and not subject to the whims of any nation. Senate ratification of the convention is inarguably in America's best interest. Scaremongering to the contrary is simply irresponsible. Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:46:43 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=56 During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 11, 2005,, John Bolton was asked to discuss the Proliferation Security Initiative and its relation to the Law of the Sea Convention. Bolton was the definitive witness on this topic because he had been Under Secretary of State that oversaw the creation of the PSI. LUGAR: [D]o you see any potential entanglement of the United States with the Law of the Sea Treaty and loss of sovereignty to the U.N. or to any other world body? BOLTON: No, I don't see that the Law of the Sea Treaty implicates the United Nations in any material respect. And those that have gone over the question of the seabed conclude there's no risk of taxation or anything like that. As I say, my own review and that of the bureaus that report to me was on the importance that our military attached to it. I will say, perhaps, one related point. A number of people have asked about the relationship of the Law of the Sea Treaty to the Proliferation Security Initiative. And you know, I don't think that if the Senate were to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty and the president were to make the treaty, that it would have any negative impact whatsoever on PSI. One of the things the PSI statement of interdiction principle says very clearly is that any actions taken pursuant to PSI would be done in accordance with existing national and international authority. And of course all of our other core group members of the PSI are states party to the Law of the Sea Treaty. We would not ask them, obviously, to do anything that would violate their obligations. And so, in effect, we built that into the PSI base as it were. The key lines of Mr. Bolton's testimony are: "I don't think that if the Senate were to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty and the president were to make the treaty, that it would have any negative impact whatsoever on PSI." "I don't see that the Law of the Sea Treaty implicates the United Nations in any material respect." "And those that have gone over the question of the seabed conclude there's no risk of taxation or anything like that." Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:28:36 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=55 Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff sent a letter of support for Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Convention to Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and Chair and Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A copy of the letter sent to Senator Biden can be viewed by clicking here. Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:09:47 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=54 September 27, 2007 NewsDay published an editorial today endorsing the Administration's request for Senate advice and consent to join the Law of the Sea Convention. An impressive coalition of environmental, military and business leaders urged the United States Senate this week to do what it should have done 25 years ago: become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Far from eroding American sovereignty, as critics have oddly maintained, this agreement can protect the nation's vital interests on a broad array of issues - but only if we're at the table, along with 155 other nations. After reviewing the history of US leadership in creating the Convention, its endorsement by over 100 civic leaders, headed by Admiral James Watkins and Leon Panetta, and the US interests promoted by the Convention in establishing our claim to the Arctic seabed, NewsDay went on to say: Even President George W. Bush, no fan of international accords, supports this move. Let's hope he shows leadership and pushes the Senate to get it done. Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:50:48 +0300 http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=53 Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez and Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne sent a joint letter of support for Senate approval of the Law of the Sea Convention to Senate Majority and Minority Leaders and the Co-Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Citing the nations history as a seafaring nation and one of the earliest international treaties that established rights at sea with Morocco during the Jefferson administration, the Secretaries recounted their departmental responsibilities and national interests and concluded with their belief that it is imperative that the US join the LOS Convention. Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:42:56 +0300