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a new, stable and explicit international law to replace the outdated and broken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.
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?
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.
@ VoR: From the treaty, Article 82, "1. The coastal State shall make
payments or contributions in kind inrespect of the exploitation of the
non-living resources of the continental shelfbeyond 200 nautical miles
from the baselines from which the breadth of theterritorial sea is
measured.2. The payments and contributions shall be made annually with
respectto 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 ofthe value or volume of production at
the site. The rate shall increase by1 per cent for each subsequent year
until the twelfth year and shall remain at7 per cent thereafter.
Production does not include resources used inconnection 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.)
Kalindra,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.
@ 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
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.
Kalindra,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.
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...
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.
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
I agree, there is no reason to send those oil royalties out of the country.How much money would that be?
leave it to BO and the dems to sign away our sovereignty, and our money.