Comments about ‘Law of the Sea Treaty once again rears its ugly head in U.S. Senate’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

leave it to BO and the dems to sign away our sovereignty, and our money.

Bountiful, UT

I agree, there is no reason to send those oil royalties out of the country.

How much money would that be?

Draper, UT

The UN is behind it, the CFR and the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously voted for accession to it. That's enough to make LOST anathema. Anything created and supported by these groups is filled with doublespeak and carries huge agenda.

Historically, LOST was heavily influenced by the UN's "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations. Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

In addition to all of this, as well as the drawbacks stated in the article, I'm very suspicious that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive. Isn't it always about oil?

LOST stinks to high heaven. Hopefully it will never be ratified.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

The treaty isn't even worth the paper its written on as far as U.S. interests go.

The ONLY possible reason I can see to have a "hearing" on it is for the Senate Dems.(and RINO's) to try to see if they could "trade" their interest in this for something worthwhile and meaningful.

Waste of time, but then all the persons asked to speak about it do that quite a bit anyway.

Salt Lake City, Utah

So, the treaty would specify that if a company based in the US drills for oil in international waters, the money goes to international causes?

And this is a problem, why? Oh, yes - because entitled Americans think they should get to control international resources...

Voice of Reason
Layton, UT


No, if the US drills for oil in its exclusive economic zone the money goes to "international causes". It's not just "international waters", as if we're drilling in the middle of the Pacific. And those "international causes" would be, forthe most part, just transfer payments from the US to countries that may be our enemies. EEZs are internationally recognized as the sovereign right of countries with ocean shorelines to benefit from the "bounty of the sea" near their shores. The LOST treaty would take that control away from the US, which has the largest EEZ in the world.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Dick Lugar was in favor of this monstrosity. Good thing the good folk of Indiana saw fit to show him the door. Hopefully BO and others acquiescing to the new world order do not sneak this through in the middle of the night or in a lame-duck session after the election.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ VOR: The EEZ stretches 200 nautical miles from the coast - if you read this article, and the treaty in question, you will see that the area being addressed is outside of the EEZ (that 200 miles) - placing it clearly in international waters.

Voice of Reason
Layton, UT


I know the article makes it sound like LOST only would cover the ECS beyond 200 miles, but in reality LOST covers all of the EEZ as a minimum, and beyond that also out to the ECS if it goes beyond the EEZ which sometimes it does but not always. The writer's intent was apparently to highlight the fact that LOST will give up our economic development rights even beyond the 200 mile EEZ in many cases, which is unfortunately true. I actually did know what I was talking about...next time do your homework a bit more.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ VoR: From the treaty, Article 82, "1. The coastal State shall make payments or contributions in kind in
respect of the exploitation of the non-living resources of the continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured.
2. The payments and contributions shall be made annually with respect
to all production at a site after the first five years of production at that site.
For the sixth year, the rate of payment or contribution shall be 1 per cent of
the value or volume of production at the site. The rate shall increase by
1 per cent for each subsequent year until the twelfth year and shall remain at
7 per cent thereafter. Production does not include resources used in
connection with exploitation."

My "homework" consists of reading the treaty - which establishes the 200 n.m. zone and the rules for exploitation of resources outside of that zone.

The treaty clearly states the EEZ is protected. Amazing how much of a non-issue this editorial is if you read and understand the treaty. (The author is opposed - if he could realistically claim the EEZ's effected, he would.)

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

The trillions of dollars we have given for foreign have been down a black hole for the most part. This is the most ridiculous treaty ever. No, No, No a thousand times no. If we are to help these nations we should insist they establish property rights first and free enterprise if they want to get better. And I am sure China, Brazil and other countries will want to share their oil.

Centerville, UT

What I would like to understand is what purpose this treaty is supposed to have for the US? Usually you enter a treaty because you get something for something that you give up. Since this is a lot of money that we would give up, what are we getting for it?

Arlington, VA

LoveTheNews: The US entered into the negotiation of the Convention because by the late 1960s customary international law was ravaged by unilateral claims made by many countries, including by the United States, to the continental shelf and offshore fisheries and setting unilateral restrictions on navigation and on activities within fishery zones and on the seabed. The extension of the territorial sea would have potentially closed the most important straits to transit by warships except under tight restrictions and would have precluded overflight as well. US companies that wanted to mine minerals on the deep ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction needed to be able to exclude others from the seafloor beyond the narrow territorial sea and continental shelf we claimed at that time, and such exclusion was not recognized under international law.

The Law of the Sea Convention, with the 1994 Agreement on its implementation that resolves President Reagan's concerns in 1982, provides a new, stable and explicit international law to replace the outdated and broken customary international law that we had before.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments