|
News » Articles
Posted by Admin on Feb 03, 2010 - 01:53 PM
The new Quadrennial Defense Review, published on February 1, 2010, provides the first official Department of Defense endorsement of the Law of the Sea Convention during the Obama Administration. The QDR uses US interests in a changing Arctic to illustrate the reasons for its endorsement of US accession to the Convention.
The effect of changing climate on the Department's operating environment is evident in the maritime commons of the Arctic. The opening of the Arctic waters in the decades ahead which will permit seasonal commerce and transit presents a unique opportunity to work collaboratively in multilateral forums to promote a balanced approach to improving human and environmental security in the region. In that effort, DoD must work with the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security to address gaps in Arctic communications, domain awareness, search and rescue, and environmental observation and forecasting capabilities to support both current and future planning and operations. To support cooperative engagement in the Arctic, DoD strongly supports accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (emphasis added)
Quadrennial Defense Review report, February 2010, page number 86 (page 108 of the PDF file)
Available on-line at: http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/issues/graphics/Defense-Review-2010.PDF
Posted by Admin on Feb 23, 2009 - 04:34 PM
Published today on the Council on Foreign Relations website:
Climate Right for U.S. Joining Law of Sea Convention
Authors:
Scott G. Borgerson, Visiting Fellow for Ocean Governance
Thomas R. Pickering, Vice Chairman, Hills & Company
December 23, 2009
Delegates unable to strike a grand compromise at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen last week should look to the UN Law of the Sea Conference for inspiration on how to successfully negotiate a complicated global accord. Settling on an agreed set of rules for the world's oceans was also a massive undertaking, requiring decades of patience, hard work, and deft diplomacy to iron out an agreement that would be acceptable to a diverse community of nations. Facilitated by principled leadership by the United States, ultimately 157 countries have now signed and ratified the Law of the Sea Convention, which provides the overarching framework for managing the world's oceans and what lies above and beneath them. This year marks the fifteenth anniversary since the treaty has come into force.
Yet despite its central role shaping the convention and securing significant amendments to address outstanding concerns, the United States has failed to join. The United States remains among only a handful of countries with a coastline, including Syria, North Korea, and Iran, to not yet accede to the treaty. While remaining non-party to the convention might seem a point of diplomatic inconsequence, emerging issues like the melting Arctic make joining increasingly urgent. The polar ice cap is melting at an unprecedented clip, and the Arctic Ocean is on pace to be seasonally ice-free within a decade. In the next few years, do not be surprised if the sea ice covering the North Pole disappears for the first time in recorded history. As the Copenhagen process drove home, this fastest-warming region on earth is an imperative for action to reduce green house gas emissions, yet it is also relevant for a host of traditional geostrategic maritime issues covered under the Law of the Sea.
Arctic Maritime Opportunities
For starters, the retreating ice is creating more effective shipping shortcuts like the Northeast Passage over Russia that opened to commercial navigation for the first time this past summer. This sea change is also yielding access to an estimated quarter of the world's remaining hydrocarbon reserves, which has set off a full court press among Arctic nations to extend the legal definition of their continental margins. Virgin fishing stocks are also becoming accessible, spurring the recent decision by Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke to secure exploitation of some of these resources in domestic waters and helping to inspire President Barack Obama to charter a White House Ocean Policy Task Force whose final recommendations are expected any day. Despite these opportunities and threats, by stubbornly remaining non-party to the Law of the Sea Convention, the United States remains hobbled on the Arctic's geopolitical sidelines.
The United States is unilaterally freezing itself out of important international policymaking bodies, literally forfeiting a seat at decision-making tables. One very important forum where the United States has no say is the commission vested with the authority to validate country's claims to extend their exclusive economic zones on the outer continental shelf (OCS), a process that is the last great partitioning of sovereign space on earth.
By being the last significant maritime nation in the world to formally join the treaty, the United States is forgoing an opportunity to extend its national jurisdiction over a vast amount of ocean area on its Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf Coasts--equal to almost half the size of the Louisiana Purchase--while simultaneously abdicating an opportunity to have a say in deliberations over other nation's claims elsewhere. This was highlighted by Russia's stunt to plant a flag at the North Pole's sea floor. The United States also marginalizes itself in the International Seabed Authority, the UN body established by the convention to oversee deep seabed mining, an important emerging industry.
Debating the value of international agreements is a great U.S. pastime, but the truth here is that the convention actually allows for an expansion of U.S. sovereignty--extending American sea borders; guaranteeing the freedom of movement of ships and airplanes for the world's most powerful navy; and enhancing legal tools to combat scourges at sea such as piracy, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Potential participants in U.S.-organized flotillas in the Indian Ocean to protect vital shipping routes from piratical attacks and U.S.-led coalitions to prosecute North Korean contraband shipments under the Proliferation Security Initiative rightly question why they should assist the United States in enforcing the rule of law when it refuses to recognize the convention that guides the actions of virtually every other nation.
National Interests in other Waters
The Law of the Sea is also an important vehicle for the United States in coordinating action on a host of environmental crises, from collapsing fisheries and the ravages of climate change like ocean acidification and sea level rise, to the growing problem of marine pollution. The convention is also critical to U.S. economic security as it governs commercial activities on, in, and under the world's oceans. With one-third of the world's oil and gas already produced offshore, the future of hydrocarbon extraction is moving into ever-deeper waters. Deep-seabed mining is also an emerging industry, and the convention establishes the legal regime for extracting mineral resources from the ocean floor. Joining the central agreement governing maritime issues is directly germane to a maritime power where half of its (and the world's) population lives within fifty miles of a coast, 90 percent of all its trade is ferried by sea, and U.S. ocean-dependant industries contribute $138 billion to the nation's economy.
Why is it imperative for the United States to join the convention after all these years, and why now in the midst of investing so much energy into trying to draft a new climate agreement? First, the loss of a unique opportunity; the United States is experiencing a convergence of circumstances that includes the ascendance of a national security strategy founded on conflict prevention and partnership building, a community of nations eager for renewed American multilateralism, and a formidable list of ocean challenges demanding coordinated policy action.
Second, officially becoming party to the treaty would provide the legal foundation necessary to protect and enhance U.S. sovereign and security interests; assure unilateral rights and jurisdiction in offshore zones and the freedom of passage for U.S. military forces in strategic waterways; and ensure protection for U.S. maritime research interests. And lastly and equally significant on the heels of a climate conference that failed expectations, the United States would seize an opportunity to restore the mantle of international leadership over nearly three-quarters of the earth. This would also send the right message at the right time to the international community that the United States can be trusted to negotiate complicated treaties in good faith.
The United States joining the Law of the Sea Convention enjoys broad bipartisan support, including endorsement by both the two previous presidential administrations; is championed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and leading senators of both parties on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and has been recommended by every major ocean constituency. This broad consortium needs President Obama's support early in 2010 to help guide the treaty through the Senate approval process before Washington can credibly help lead a new comprehensive climate regime. The political stars are aligned in the Senate for passage, and a formal endorsement of the convention by the president in the coming weeks would send the necessary signal to the Congress and the world that the United States is ready to join this widely accepted corpus of international law.
Scott G. Borgerson is the visiting fellow for ocean governance at the Council on Foreign Relations. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering is a former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Foot notes: Source: Council on Foreign Relations. Click here to open in a new window.
Posted by Admin on Feb 11, 2009 - 02:09 PM
The current issue of "Navy," the monthly publication of the Association of the United States Navy, includes an article analyzing the LOS Convention in terms of Navy and National interests and comes to the conclusion that the United States should join the Convention. The concluding paragraph of the article reads:
In short, the US stands only to gain by ratifying the LOS Treaty. The rapidly changing environment of the Arctic region makes it all the more urgent for the US to join. Receding ice due to global warming has opened up new waterways and led to an increase in development of the region’s vast oil and gas reserves, and countries are laying claims to these resources. By joining UNCLOS, we would be able to secure the rights over resources in the Arctic and play a prominent role in the governance of this region and beyond.
You may view a PDF of the full article by clicking the link below:
View the full article at the AUSN site
Posted by Admin on Feb 18, 2009 - 03:25 PM
On March 10th, 1983, and after months of consideration of the implications of the adoption of the final act of the Law of the Sea Conference and the signature of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by 119 nations, President Ronald Reagan issued his statement of US Oceans policy.
After noting that the US would not join the 1982 Convention because of its provisions related to the resources of the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction, he went on to say that the balance of the Convention was in the interest of the United States and would be observed by the US. He went on to declare the non-seabeds parts to be "fair and balanced results" and specified three areas for specific comment:
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.
In the rest of the statement, President Reagan went on to address related matters, such as the right of coastal states to manage marine scientific research in their EEZs and on their Continental Shelves, while noting that the US would not implement such a regime in spite of its legal right to do so.
At a time when the sportfishing organizations have questioned whether the LOS Convention would affect their rights at sea, it is well to note that 26 years ago President Reagan accepted the fisheries provisions of the Convention and they have been observed in US law and regulation ever since.
(click 'Read More" for full text of Reagan 1983 ocean Policy Statement)
Posted by Admin on Feb 21, 2009 - 01:51 PM
The following letter was sent to Sen. John F. Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee A similar letter was sent to Sen. Richard Lugar, Ranking Minority member of the Committee.
October 16, 2009
The Honorable John F. Kerry, Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Recognizing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's intention to consider
the Convention on the Law of the Sea, I offer my strong support for U.S. accession to
the convention.
As you are aware, the convention protects and advances the national security,
economic, and environmental interests of the United States. In particular, the
convention codifies navigational rights and freedoms critical to U.S. military and
commercial vessels and secures U.S. economic rights to natural resources off-shore.
In addition, as a party, the United States would have access to procedures that would
maximize international recognition and legal certainty for U.S. sovereign rights over
offshore resources (including minerals) beyond 200 miles of our coastline.
The United States, as a major maritime power, the country with the largest
exclusive economic zone, and one of the largest continental shelves, stands to gain
more from this treaty in terms of economic and resource rights than any other
country. Having a seat at the table as a party would allow the United States to
participate more effectively in the interpretation and development of the convention
and the ability to participate formally in its institutions.
As the committee proceeds toward hearings on the convention, the Department
of State stands ready to facilitate the Senate's consideration of this treaty by
providing witnesses, testimony, and overall support.
I appreciate your leadership in our efforts to gain the necessary support for
advice and consent to accession of this vitally important treaty.
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Foot notes: A PDF of the letters to both Sen. Kerry and to Sen. Lugar is available for display or download here.
Posted by Admin on Feb 12, 2009 - 03:30 PM
00 Enrolled HJR 22
01 Urging the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
02 Sea (the Law of the Sea Treaty).
03 _______________
04 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
05 WHEREAS, in August 2007, Russia sent two small submarines into the Arctic Ocean
06 to plant that nation's flag under the North Pole to support its territorial claim that its
07 continental shelf extends to the North Pole; and
08 WHEREAS Denmark is exploring whether a mountain range under the Arctic Ocean
09 is connected to Greenland, a territory of Denmark; and
10 WHEREAS Canada is considering the establishment of military bases to protect its
11 claim to the Northwest Passage; and
12 WHEREAS the actions taken by Russia, Denmark, and Canada have been exercised
13 under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; and
14 WHEREAS the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea permits member
15 nations to claim an exclusive economic zone out to 200 nautical miles from shore, with an
16 exclusive sovereign right to explore, manage, and develop all living and nonliving resources,
17 including deep sea mining, within that exclusive economic zone; and
01 WHEREAS the United States Arctic Research Commission estimates that the United
02 Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would permit the United States to lay claim
03 beyond the present 200-mile exclusive economic zone to an area of the northern seabed off
04 Alaska that is equal in size to California; and
05 WHEREAS 155 nations have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of
06 the Sea, including all allies of the United States and the world's maritime powers; and
07 WHEREAS ratification of the current form of the United Nations Convention on the
08 Law of the Sea has been pending before the United States Senate since 1994, and hearings on
09 the treaty were held by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 1994,
10 2003, and 2004, and on September 27, 2007, and October 4, 2007; and
11 WHEREAS, despite favorable reports by the United States Senate Committee on
12 Foreign Relations regarding the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 2004
13 and 2007, the United States Senate has yet to vote on the ratification of the Convention; and
14 WHEREAS the United States, with 1,000 miles of Arctic coast off of the State of
15 Alaska, remains the only Arctic nation that has not ratified the United Nations Convention on
16 the Law of the Sea; and
17 WHEREAS, until the United States Senate votes to ratify the United Nations
18 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United States may not have the authority to promote its
19 claims to an extended area of the continental shelf, refute the claim of authority by other
20 nations to exercise greater control over the Arctic, or take a permanent seat on the
21 International Seabed Authority Council; and
22 WHEREAS, until the United States ratifies the United Nations Convention on the
23 Law of the Sea, the United States cannot participate in deliberations to amend provisions of
24 the Convention that relate to the
25 (1) oil, gas, and mineral resources in the Arctic Ocean and other northern
26 waters;
27 (2) conduct of essential scientific research in the world's oceans;
28 (3) right of the United States to the use of the seas;
29 (4) rules of navigation;
30 (5) effect of the use of the seas on world economic development; and
31 (6) environmental concerns related to the use of the seas; and
01 WHEREAS the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will have an
02 important and beneficial effect on virtually all states, both coastal and noncoastal, because the
03 United States is heavily dependent on the use, development, and conservation of the world's
04 oceans and their resources; and
05 WHEREAS the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea will not interfere
06 with the intelligence-gathering efforts of the United States or the navigational freedom of the
07 United States Navy; and
08 WHEREAS ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has
09 wide bipartisan support;
10 BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature urges the United States Senate
11 to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
12 COPIES of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Vice-
13 President of the United States and President of the U.S. Senate; the Honorable John F. Kerry,
14 Chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; the Honorable Richard G. Lugar,
15 ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; the Honorable Lisa
16 Murkowski and the Honorable Mark Begich, U.S. Senators, members of the Alaska
17 delegation in Congress; and all other members of the United States Senate.
Posted by Admin on Feb 05, 2009 - 02:20 AM
The news this weekend is that we have the year's first endorsement of US accession to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea from inside the Executive Office of the President. CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley, joined by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen published an article in the Seattle times on the topic of stewardship of the Oceans in which they had this to say:
We strongly support ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. The oceans have been called, "the last global commons," and their sustained global health can best be maintained by a stable, universally accepted convention that promotes the key interests of the United States, its allies and its trading partners. Ratification would ensure our ability to participate in interpreting and applying the convention to the changing realities of the global maritime environment and preserves our ability to protect our domestic interests, including our extended continental shelf claims.
View the Full article in a new page.
Posted by Admin on Feb 05, 2009 - 02:02 AM
The hearings convened by Sen. Lisa Murkowski on August 20th keep bearing fruit. Here, from "Examiner.com", comes the statement of Sean Parnell, the new governor of Alaska. This news from Alaska somehow qualified as local DC news, but I won't look a gift horse in the mouth:
Foreign Policy For much of its history, the Arctic has been both ungoverned and ungovernable. Even as the eight Arctic nations have increased economic activity, the Arctic climate has impeded economic and social development, transportation, and research. That era must end.
I strongly urge the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Once ratified, the treaty will allow us to claim jurisdiction over the offshore continental shelf behind the 200-mile limit. U.S. boundaries could grow into areas that may hold large deposits of oil, natural gas and other resources. Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norwayhave claims to Arctic territory under the auspices of the Law of the Sea. Without ratification, the U.S. cannot fully participate in adjudication of these claims.
Foot notes: You will find the foreign policy comment on page 3 of the <a href="http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/Parnell_testimony-20Aug09.pdf" target=_blank>written testimony.
Posted by Admin on Feb 24, 2009 - 04:11 AM
The following letter endorsing U.S. accession to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea was sent to Gen. James Jones, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs by former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth, former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, former Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Frank Loy.
Foot notes: View the letter in PDF format here.
Posted by Admin on Feb 26, 2009 - 12:58 PM
Appearing in the Wednesday, June 24th, editions of the Washington Post and Politico:
Click on the image to view the source article at the Pew Trusts website.
Posted by Admin on Feb 01, 2009 - 01:22 PM
<div align=center>“In a very real sense, the world no longer has a choice between force and law.
If civilization is to survive it must choose the rule of law.”
<div align=center>Dwight D. Eisenhower on his 1958 proclamation
of May 1st as "Law Day"
On the 51st anniversary of President Eisenhower's proclamation, his statement couldn't be more appropriate to the United States and the Law of the Convention.
Posted by Admin on Feb 01, 2009 - 01:14 PM
The report's title is "National Security and the Law of the Sea." It is an excellent primer for people new to the issue who want a quick introduction as well as a review for people who have been long involved in the subject. This is not a superficial review - the meat of the report takes 45 pages .
Authored by Scott Borgerson, CFR Fellow in Ocean Governance, the work draws on the users of the ocean who depend upon the rule of law to carry out their activities at sea: representatives of the groups that are actually affected by US non-participation in the Convention; negotiators who gained their experience at the LOS Conference and in the bureaucracy crafting US positions; and as scholars in ocean law and policy. The antithesis of the ideology-driven unilateralist and neo-know-nothing opposition, Borgerson and his advisory committee represent the people with knowledge of ocean law and policy and an organizational interest in the reinforcement of the law of the sea with US adherence to the LOS Convention.
If you can give only one publication to a person who is interested in the current debate over the LOS Convention, I recommend this one. In the near future we can complement it with talking points and summaries for which this report will be an excellent source.
The report not only addresses the "why" of joining the Convention but the "when" as well, calling for action early by the Administration.
Particularly helpful are two and a half pages that itemize 11 ways in which non-party status hurts US interests.
The report's conclusions do not end with a recommendation to join the convention as soon as possible. They go on to outline a foreign policy initiative including both symbol and substance. The symbol, of course, is renewed US commitment to the rule of law. The substance is to build upon accession to the Convention to increase our role as world leader in building security partnerships at sea, to implement programs and activities within the Convention that halt 'creeping jurisdiction' and excessive resource claims, to use our heightened stature as a champion of the rule of law at sea to help allies resolve their ocean-related disputes, to take an active role in the work of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental shelf and the International seabed authority, and to gain credibility for US leadership in environment and resource conservation issues,
The report also has valuable supporting documentation in its appendices:
- A critique of critical concerns related to National Security and National Sovereignty;
- President Clinton's submittal letter requesting that the Senate give its advice and consent to accession to the Convention and 1994 agreement on Implementation;
President Bush's 2007 statement of support requesting favorable action by the Senate on US accession to the Convention; and,
- The 2007 Draft Resolution of Advice and Consent forwarded with approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the full senate in December, 2007.
The chapter list is:
- Introduction
- Background and Context
- Brief History of the Law of the Sea from Hugo Grotius to Today
- Brief History of the Law of the Sea in the Senate
- Oceans and National Interests
- Arguments For and Against the Convention
- Strategic Imperatives
- National Security
- Economic
- Environmental
- Conclusions and Recommendations
- Appendices
- Review of Critical Concerns
- Presidential Documents
- Text of Draft Resolution of Advice and Consent
Source: <a href="http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/LawoftheSea_CSR46.pdf"target=_blank>Report in PDF format (4.7MB)
Posted by Admin on Feb 28, 2009 - 11:00 AM
The Washington Times
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Ratify UNCLOS
Don Kraus and Robert A. Enholm
Some challenges are global in dimension and cannot be resolved by any single country, no matter how powerful - not even the United States. The use, protection, maintenance and sharing of the oceans and their resources present such a global problem. Doug Bandow argues that the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is futile or worse ("Paper promises vs. real costs," April 22).
In fact, UNCLOS has been developed over many years, with input from many countries, drawing on practical experience from across the globe. The treaty involves 157 countries. Some provisions of the treaty that gave the U.S. pause in the 1980s have been rewritten.
The current version of UNCLOS enjoys the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and such surprising allies as the American Petroleum Institute and the World Wildlife Fund. The Senate should ratify UNCLOS in the current session of Congress.
Asserting that we do not need the Law of the Sea because the United States has a large Navy and can protect its interests is like saying that we do not need traffic rules because we drive a really, really large automobile.
DON KRAUS,
Chief Executive Officer
ROBERT A. ENHOLM,
Executive Vice President
Citizens for Global Solutions
Washington
Posted by Admin on Feb 24, 2009 - 04:47 PM
SPEAK OUT: In defense of UN’s Law of the Sea
The Patriot Ledger
Posted Apr 24, 2009 @ 10:38 AM
COHASSET —
I was disturbed to read this week the column written by Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation opposing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which he derogatorily described as “LOST.”
I would like to make a few corrections. First, the U.S has signed the LOS Convention, but has not ratified it. Second, the last five Republican and four Democratic presidents have all sought a comprehensive treaty on the Law of the Sea. Third, since the convention was amended, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have sought its ratification.
President Reagan said “Our review has concluded that while most provisions of the draft convention are acceptable and consistent with U.S. interests, some major elements of the deep sea mining regime are not acceptable.” He spelled out those six unacceptable elements and they were fixed in the above mentioned amendment.
The military is, and has been, supportive of the convention and our ratification of it.
The successful operation of the “Bainbridge” against the Somali pirates was in line with the convention and UN Resolutions 1816 and 1838. The Chinese backed off of harassing the U.S. scientific work off of China because it was exactly the type of freedom of navigation ensured by the convention. Contrary to Mr. Feulner’s statement, submarines can operate under water on the high seas and in international straits under the convention. This and the operation of carrier groups in international straits are some of the reasons why the U.S. Navy has always supported the convention.
The convention codifies freedom of the seas, extends our sovereign territorial waters to 12 miles and our fishing waters to 200 miles. The U.S. is the largest beneficiary of the convention, but the drafters deferred determining the end of a country’s deep continental shelf to a commission of countries party to the convention. Until we ratify the convention we cannot be on this commission, which is in the process of determining the extent of Russia’s arctic shelf. This is one of the reasons why our last three presidents have sought ratification, having also concluded, as did President Reagan, that the other provisions were in our national interest.
Charles Higginson lives in Cohasset. He is a retired foreign service officer and executive director of the Council on Ocean Law.
Foot notes: Original Source: <a href="http://www.patriotledger.com/opinions/x1899319788/SPEAK-OUT-In-defense-of-UN-s-Law-of-the-Sea?view=print" target=_blank>LOS in the Patriot Ledger
Posted by Admin on Feb 29, 2009 - 02:46 PM
The fiercely anti-UN John Birch Society is leading the opposition to the Law of the Sea Convention in 2009 with <a href="http://www.jbs.org/index.php/freedom-campaign/4437-obama-clinton-senate-poised-to-give-the-un-control-of-everything-about-the-oceans" target=_blank>a post and call for action on their web site. Their call for action has three points, all wrong but satisfying for them to promote:
- Ratification of LOST would constitute a major step toward a United Nations world government and would give the UN control over everything happening over, on, and under the world's oceans and seas.
The LOS Convention recognizes the control of coastal states over the Territorial sea and over the resources of the 200 mile exclusive economic zone as well at the continental shelf when it extends beyond 200 miles. Resources and use of the high seas are governed by rules adopted by states, not by the UN in some form of top-down control. The minerals of the deep seabed are governed by an international organization intentionally created outside the UN in which the US (once a member) would have the power to block adoption of rules, amendments, budgets and distribution of funds. That just doesn't measure up to any kind of threat to the US.
The three points from the recommended letter to senators (printed in italics with response in plain text) are:
- Furthermore, the UN has not demonstrated that it deserves to be given control of over 70% of the earth's surface.
The UN gets no control at all. Near shore the oceans are managed by the coastal states and on the high seas, the rules of Freedom of the Seas continue to guide national use of the oceans.
- Giving the UN with all its terrorists, dictatorships and human rights violators control over all oceans and seas would be like inviting the fox into the chicken coop.
Now this point is just downright fear-mongering at its worst, but this seems to be the best that the JBS can muster.
Posted by Admin on Feb 10, 2008 - 04:56 AM
It is important to note that when Barack Obama undertakes to fulfill his promise to work to ensure US ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention that he will be holding true to a consistent US policy that reaches back not just to the George W. Bush Administration, but all the way back through the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon Administrations to the initial planning under LBJ. Indeed, it is hard to think of more than a handful of US policy positions that have been as consistent and durable as US support of a codified, comprehensive and universal law of the sea convention.
In light of the consistency from one administration to the next, the statement by the Legal Adviser of the Department of State earlier this week is and will remain an important assessment of US interests and policy regarding the LOS Convention and a starting point for the incoming administration:
John B. Bellinger III, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State)
Remarks at the University of California, Berekeley School of Law's Law of the Sea Institute
Monday, November 3rd:
Let me begin by thanking David Caron and the other organizers of this conference. I am very pleased to speak to you today about the law of the sea. Now, the first thing to know about this topic is that it is the occasion of endless wordplay. The mere mention of the Law of the Sea Convention, and the puns set sail. I didn’t know the topic well when I joined the Administration in 2001, but it’s one in which I have since been immersed – at times, submerged. And after plumbing the depths of the issue – and diving into the details – I have concluded (now that I’ve come up for air) that joining the Convention is the right thing to do.
Posted by Admin on Feb 01, 2008 - 01:53 PM
Lifelong Republicans Make The Switch
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS and RUSSELL E. TRAIN
The Tampa Tribune
Published: November 1, 2008
As former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, we have served three presidents as their principal advisers responsible for the implementation and enforcement of our nation's environmental laws. We are lifelong Republicans. Yet after much thoughtful deliberation we have decided to support Barack Obama in his bid for the White House.
It has never been more clear that we occupy a global commons. And the need has never been greater for U.S. leadership to address complex and potentially catastrophic issues such as climate change, energy security, and the degradation of our ocean and coastal waters. Senator Obama has compellingly stated his intent to re-engage the community of nations in support of policies that will begin the arduous task of realizing a clean and secure future for the planet.
We cannot lead other nations with credibility, however, unless we put our own house in order and lead by example. This is difficult to do when the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population, but consumes nearly 25 percent of its energy resources. The balanced approach put forward by the Obama campaign recognizes the central role of energy conservation by requiring increased fuel economy, energy efficiency standards, and green building design which can drastically reduce the amount of energy needed to maintain and operate our buildings and manufacturing facilities. This, coupled with an emphasis on renewable sources of energy and sensible, comprehensive policies to promote increased domestic production of oil and natural gas, offers the best hope of reestablishing U.S. leadership in these areas.
Oil and gas on the U.S. outer Continental Shelf are resources that have enormous benefit for the nation. But as the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy underscored, this resource must be approached as part of a comprehensive management plan that considers fishing, marine transport, recreation and tourism, and wind power as well as uses we haven't even thought about yet. The challenge for the new administration will be to minimize conflicts among users, safeguard human and marine health, and fulfill the federal government's obligation to manage public resources, including oil, for the maximum long term benefit of the entire nation. The plan being put forward by the Obama campaign is, in our view, best equipped to accomplish this goal.
Sen. Obama has clearly stated that he would actively promote early U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea. This treaty is essential to protect national security interests, secure sovereign rights over extensive marine areas and promote U.S. interests in the health of the oceans. While as a senator John McCain has supported U.S. ratification of this critically important treaty, as a candidate he has indicated he is reconsidering his support.
By virtue of having the largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world, the United States must be a strong leader in international ocean dialogue to ensure protection of our national economic and security interests as well as our valuable marine resources. There are enormous benefits to U.S. participation in the Law of the Sea, most importantly a seat at the table and a leadership role in international negotiations. However, as virtually the sole industrialized nation not party to the treaty - to which 155 nations and the European Union belong - the United States remains sidelined.
As a senator, John McCain has demonstrated courage and vision on important environmental issues, most notably in his leadership in addressing climate change, a balanced approach to energy policy, and in support for the Law of the Sea. However in his quest for the White House he has often modified his policies to appeal to the Republican base. While this may be fortunate for his candidacy, it is unfortunate for the American people.
What is at stake in this election goes far beyond wise use of our oceans, safeguarding our climate, and even U.S. security. What is at stake is the future. America has often been the symbol to the world of how a free democratic society can solve its problems and project leadership through example.
If America can demonstrate, through active participation in climate change negotiations and the Law of the Sea how to responsibly and sustainably manage critical global resources for the new millennium, then we can help achieve a world which provides economic opportunity for all, including our own citizens. That is what is at stake in this election, and that is why we are endorsing Senator Obama as our best hope of achieving that goal.
William D. Ruckelshaus served as the first and fifth administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Nixon and Reagan, was acting director of the FBI, and served on the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Russell E. Train served as first chairman of the Council for Environmental Quality under President Nixon and the second EPA Administrator under President Ford.
Foot notes: <a href="http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/nov/01/co-lifelong-republicans-make-the-switch/" target=_blank>Original Article at the Tampa Tribune
Posted by Admin on Feb 05, 2008 - 04:41 PM
The Washington Times
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
LETTER TO EDITOR: Law of the Sea protects U.S.
Contrary to Doug Bandow's opinion (LOST crosscurrents," Commentary, July 27), the Law of the Sea Treaty has a diverse and bipartisan group of experienced national backers, including military leaders, environmentalists, ocean industries, think tanks and political figures who recognize and support the pressing need to sign this treaty.
There are enormous benefits to U.S. participation in the Law of the Sea. First and foremost, it would give us a seat at the table and a leadership role in international negotiations that immediately would enhance and protect our national and economic security interests.
The influence of the convention on international activities, such as those surrounding commercial, military and environmental activities in the Arctic, is growing. However, as virtually the sole industrialized nation not party to the treaty - to which 155 nations and the European Union belong - the United States remains sidelined.
The concerns surrounding the seabed mining provisions raised in Mr. Bandow's column are a red herring, as is his point on marine pollution. These provisions have been carefully negotiated and, in the case of seabed mining, renegotiated to protect U.S. interests.
The legal framework provided by the treaty is key to pursuing and protecting our national interests, which is why President Bush, his national security adviser, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and virtually all other influential national leaders support U.S. accession to the convention. This is why it is essential for the Senate to approve U.S. participation in the Law of the Sea Treaty next Congress.
ADM. JAMES D. WATKINS
U.S. Navy, retired
LEON E. PANETTA
Co-chairmen
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
Washington
Posted by Admin on Feb 04, 2008 - 09:49 PM
<div align=center> THE DEPUTY SECRETARY’S REMARKS AT THE
SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES
APRIL 3, 2008
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, members of the Committee, I appreciate your invitation to address the Committee this morning on ways the United States can strengthen the management and enforcement of fisheries around the globe. Today, the State Department witness, Ambassador David Balton, will testify in much greater detail about our efforts to formulate and enforce better management measures for international fisheries. For my part, I would like to focus on how the challenges we face in this endeavor are compelling reasons for the United States to become party to the Law of the Sea Convention as soon as possible.
With 155 parties, including the major fishing nations, the Law of the Sea Convention is widely accepted as the legal framework under which all international fisheries must operate. The United States accepts the fisheries provisions of the Convention. Indeed, those provisions form the basis of a related treaty that the United States has already ratified – the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement – which deals with the management of key stocks within and outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Vice Chairman Stevens will recall that he went to the United Nations when the UN Fish Stocks Agreement was adopted to deliver the U.S. intervention supporting that Agreement. The United States was the third country to ratify the Fish Stocks Agreement, and we also chaired the 7 meetings of the parties in the Agreement, as well as the 2004 Review Conference held to consider its implementation.
Despite our leadership on this issue, some nations still question our intentions and our right to press for improvements in the management and enforcement of international fisheries rules – because we have not yet joined the Law of the Sea Convention. Acceding to the Convention will give us greater leverage in negotiating on these matters— particularly in our efforts to eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
American fishermen already follow these standards and they support our accession to the Law of the Sea Convention. By doing so, we will be in a stronger position to encourage other governments to hold their fishermen accountable to the same standards that ours now uphold.
Other important industries support the Convention as well. Oil and gas companies want international recognition and greater legal clarity regarding the outer limits of our continental shelf beyond 200 miles. This will facilitate access to the vast energy resources residing there, particularly in the Artic. American companies can recover valuable minerals from the deep seabed only if we join the Convention, because a permit issued under domestic legislation would not provide a U.S. entity with certainty of tenure. The telecommunications and shipping industries also want the Convention’s protection of submarine cables and navigational freedoms.
An equally important reason to join is to put our vital navigational rights on the firmest legal footing. The United States military establishment continues to express its urgent need for our accession to the Convention, in order to promote international cooperation on initiatives of national security importance, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative.
Lastly, I want to note that no additional legislation on fisheries or on any other topic is required before acceding to the Convention. Indeed, the drafters of the 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act intended it to be consistent with the Convention’s provisions on fisheries, and
subsequent amendments to what is now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act have preserved that consistency.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, I would be pleased to provide for the record my testimony on the substance of the Convention before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a hearing last fall for any members who might be interested.
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, I know that you are both strong supporters of the Law of the Sea Convention. I thank you for your leadership and for this opportunity to make the case for U.S. accession to the Convention in the context of international fisheries management and enforcement.
Posted by Admin on Feb 12, 2008 - 04:11 PM
Periodically, an opponent of anything related to the United Nations will repeat a claim spread around the web by an unethical writer that the LOS COnvention would give the United Nations control of 70% of the world's surface. This is false to the point of absurdity, but there are those who truly want to believe.
Here is a response I posted on the most recent blog to recycle this lie:
The need for a new law of the sea convention was conceived by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1965 as a way to accommodate the great power interests in freedom of navigation and the coastal state interest in extending national control over fishery and mineral development in the seas and on the continental shelves off their coasts. The Convention is an agreement among states as to how the old law of 'anyone can do anything anywhere in the sea' had to be changed to reflect coastal state interests and their power to protect them. In fact, the US was the first nation to challenge the old law of the sea in 1945 by proclaiming control over the resources of the continental shelf beyond 3 nautical miles.
While the parties to the Convention use it to delineate their rights and duties at sea, it in no way gives anyone control of "70% of the earth's surface." That makes a quotable line, but it is wrong. In fact, the convention recognizes coastal state control over large areas (with the US among the largest - the US Exclusive Economic Zone is larger than the land area of the United States). For the rest of the seas, and for navigation, in, under and over the EEZ, the Convention clarifies the freedoms of navigation that were only partially protected by the 1958 conventions on the law of the sea and were not protected at all by the eroding customary law dating back to the early 17th century that failed to address issues such as factory fishing ships, marine transport of nuclear materials, oil spills from commercial vessels and foreign mineral exploration of a nation's continental shelf.
The Law of the Sea Convention is no plot for UN control - it was designed and negotiated (and renegotiated to meet Pres. Reagan's guidelines) by the United States to protect US interests, and the US was the biggest winner in both ocean control and freedom of navigation. That is why President Bush, all of the joint chiefs and every living chief of naval operations support the Convention, as well as oil and gas developers and commercial fishing firms.
Posted by Admin on Feb 30, 2008 - 10:32 PM
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
Posted by Admin on Feb 05, 2008 - 05:10 PM
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.”
Posted by Admin on Feb 28, 2008 - 02:25 AM
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.
Foot notes: <a href="http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/references/reagan/PresidentalStmt-Jan82.pdf" target=_blank>Full text of President Reagan's statement on returning to the LOS Conference in 1982
Posted by Admin on Feb 28, 2008 - 01:53 AM
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
<div align=center>President Ronald Reagan
<div align=center>Statement on United States Oceans Policy
<div align=center>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.
Posted by Admin on Feb 28, 2008 - 01:17 AM
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.
|
