Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Naval and Merchant Marine Interest:


Down loaded from the internet-no source attributed. More details via the "PJ TATLER Blog" via the hyperlink  "Letter to Reid" in text. More to follow.

Update: 8/11/2016: While the United States continues to argue with China, Russia, and others over disputes concerning various Exclusive Economic Zones (EECs) in ocean areas around the world citing the International Law of the Sea treaty as being the definitive law governing such things, the United States as of today still has not ratified the treaty. China, which has ratified the treaty fails to comply with it, and Russia twists provisions to attempt to enforce the Russian claim on virtually the entire Arctic Ocean. One of the problems with the treaty is that even the signatory nations don't see the EEZs as only a subsurface mineral and benthic fisheries right , and a highly restricted surface right to structures need to exploit bottom minerals or benthic fisheries. The intent of the treaty was to provide for orderly exploitation of subsurface resources by adjacent coastal states while preserving freedom of navigation , freedom of oceanographic research, and freedom of pursuit of migratory fisheries, subject to international regulation enforceable by the adjacent coastal state. Increasingly non English speaking states are treating EEZs as an extension of their territorial sea, excluding the international community from the uses of the "commons " that were supposed to be protected by the treaty. 

"DOUGHNUT HOLES" IN THE GULF OF MEXICOfor an idea of what could happen when nations ignore the obligation under the treaty to share "the commons" Check out "NAMAZU ON THE COMMONS" in our ADMIRALTY LAW SECTION  In the same section you can also find our free read on line 72 page Guide to The Enduring Principals Of Maritime International Law.(scroll down to near the bottom of the section)

"Portman, Ayotte, Isakson Sink Law of the Sea Treaty

The Law of the Sea Treaty was effectively drowned today when Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) announced that they would vote against ratify the U.N. pact.
“After careful consideration, we have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States,” Portman and Ayotte, both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote today to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “As a result, we would oppose the treaty if it were called up for a vote.”
Isakson announced on his website, “Johnny will vote ‘No’ if the Law of the Sea Treaty comes up for a vote in the Committee or before the full Senate. This year, Johnny has attended all the Committee hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty and he has asked tough questions, but he has heard nothing that would cause him to change his ‘No’ vote from 2007.”
Two-thirds of the Senate is required for treaty ratification. With the 31 senators pledging their “no” votes in a letter to Reid last week, plus the three just announced, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) goal of getting the treaty through this Congress have been dashed.
“The treaty’s breadth and ambiguity might be less troubling if there were adequate assurance that it will be enforced impartially and in a manner consistent with U.S. interests. But that is not so. The United States could block some but not all actions of the International Seabed Authority, a legislative body vested with significant power over more than half of the earth’s surface,” Portman and Ayotte wrote. “…The treaty equates tribunal decisions with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. This means that private litigants will likely be able to invoke tribunal judgments as enforceable in U.S. courts — against the government and possibly against U.S. businesses. The United States will have no lawful choice but to acquiesce to tribunal judgments, however burdensome or unfair.”"

11:30 CST commentators and reporters are starting to post on this subject. Below is the first article we could find more to follow:

by Phyllis Schalafly in Town Hall.com


Additional articles:

A more detailed account from the Huffington Post:


A decidedly pro ratification view from the Washington Times.


Check our News service section for later developments.


No comments:

Post a Comment