From U.N., Wikipedia and World Net Daily sources:
The U.N. has now taken upon itself to regulate
International Waters--setting in motion, what had been
previously very dangerous precedents, into fact.
From the U.N.
A Constitution of the Oceans, ratified and implemented
back in 1982.
Background via Wikipedia:
Historical background
The LOS replaces the older -- and weaker -- 'freedom
of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century:
national rights were limited to a specified belt of
water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually
three nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot'
rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius
Bynkershoek. All waters beyond national boundaries
were considered international waters - free to all
nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare
liberum principle promulgated by Grotius).
In the early 20th century some nations expressed their
desire to extend national claims: to include mineral
resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the
means to enforce pollution controls. (The League of
Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no
agreements resulted.) Using the customary
international law principle of a nation's right to
protect its natural resources, President Truman in
1945 extended United States control to all the natural
resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were
quick to follow suit. Between 1946 and 1950,
Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their
rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles to cover
their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations
extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles.
By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old 3-mile
limit, while 66 nations had set a 12-mile territorial
limit and eight had set a 200-mile limit. For the
latest table of maritime claims, as compiled by the
United Nations, see [3]. According to that table, as
of July 24, 2007, only a handful of countries still
use the 3-mile limit: Jordan, Palau, and Singapore.
That limit is also used in certain Australian islands,
an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain
areas of Papua New Guinea, and a few UK dependencies,
such as Anguilla.
In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva,
Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties
concluded in 1958:
Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone,
entry into force: 10 September 1964
Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force:
10 June 1964
Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30
September 1962
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living
Resources of the High Seas, entry into force: 20 March
1966
Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left
open the important issue of breadth of territorial
waters.
In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference
on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS II”); however, the
six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new
agreements. Generally speaking, developing nations and
third world countries participated only as clients,
allies, or dependents of United States or the Soviet
Union, with no significant voice of their own.
The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was
raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, of Malta, and
in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea was convened in New York. In an attempt to
reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states
dominating the negotiations, the conference used a
consensus process rather than majority vote. With more
than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted
until 1982. The resulting convention came into force
on November 16, 1994, one year after the sixtieth
state, Guyana, signed the treaty.
The convention introduced a number of provisions. The
most significant issues covered were setting limits,
navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes,
exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf
jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation
regime, protection of the marine environment,
scientific research, and settlement of disputes.
The convention set the limit of various areas,
measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally,
a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when
the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands
or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be
used). The areas are as follows:
Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of
the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws,
regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels
have no right of passage within internal waters.
Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the
coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and
use any resource. Vessels were given the right of
"innocent passage" through any territorial waters,
with strategic straits allowing the passage of
military craft as "transit passage", in that naval
vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be
illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent Passage" is
defined by the convention as passing through waters in
an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not
“prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security”
of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons
practice, and spying are not “innocent". Nations can
also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific
areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is
essential for the protection of its security.
Archipelagic waters
The convention set the definition of Archipelagic
States in Part IV, which also defines how the state
can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn
between the outermost points of the outermost islands,
subject to these points being sufficiently close to
one another. All waters inside this baseline will be
Archipelagic Waters and included as part of the
state's territorial waters.
Contiguous zone
Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit there was a further
12 nautical miles or 24 nautical miles from the
territorial sea baselines limit, the contiguous zone,
in which a state could continue to enforce laws
regarding activities such as smuggling or illegal
immigration.
Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)
Extend 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Within
this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation
rights over all natural resources. The EEZs were
introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes
over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming
important. The success of an offshore oil platform in
the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere
in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible
to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations
have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject
to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign
states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.
Continental Shelf
Continental shelf is defined as natural prolongation
of the land territory to the continental margin’s
outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal
state’s baseline, whichever is greater. State’s
continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until
the natural prolongation ends, but it may never exceed
350 nautical miles, or 100 nautical miles beyond 2,500
meter isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of
2,500 meters. States have the right to harvest mineral
and non-living material in the subsoil of its
continental shelf, to the exclusion of others.
Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries,
the convention establishes general obligations for
safeguarding the marine environment and protecting
freedom of scientific research on the high seas, and
also creates an innovative legal regime for
controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep
seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an
International Seabed Authority.
Landlocked states are given a right of access to and
from the sea, without taxation of traffic through
transit states.
Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime
relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's
territorial waters or EEZ. It establishes an
International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize
seabed exploration and mining and collect and
distribute the seabed mining royalty.
Opened for signature - December 10, 1982.
Entered into force - November 16, 1994.
Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified -
(24) Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central
African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Republic of the
Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia,
Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Liberia,
Libya, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda,
Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab
Emirates, United States.
Countries that have not signed - (17) Andorra,
Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, Syria, Tadjikistan,
Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vatican
City, Venezuela.
The United States strongly objected to the provisions
of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds,
saying that the treaty is unfavorable to America's
economy and security. The US felt that the provisions
of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were
designed to favor the economic systems of the
Communist states. The US also felt that the provisions
might result in the ISA becoming a bloated and
expensive bureaucracy due to a combination of large
revenues and insufficient control over what the
revenues could be used for.
Due to Part XI, the US refused to ratify the UNCLOS,
although it expressed agreement with the remaining
provisions of the Convention. Even though the United
States is not a party to the treaty, it considers many
of the remaining provisions as binding as customary
international law.
Revision of the LOS Convention
From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but
Part XI as customary international law, while
attempting to establish an alternative regime for
exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An
agreement was made with other seabed mining nations
and licenses were granted to four international
consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission
was established to prepare for the eventual coming
into force of the Convention-recognized claims by
applicants, sponsored by signatories of the
Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were
resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals
from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly
less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism
and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had
removed much of the support for some of the more
contentious Part XI provisions.
In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories
and non-signatories (including the United States) over
the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow
the industrialized countries to join the Convention.
The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was
adopted as a binding international Convention. It
mandated that key articles, including those on
limitation of seabed production and mandatory
technology transfer, would not be applied, that the
United States, if it became a member, would be
guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International
Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be
done in groups, with each group able to block
decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement
also established a Finance Committee that would
originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to
which the largest donors would automatically be
members and in which decisions would be made by
consensus.
In the United States there is vigorous debate over the
ratification of the treaty, with criticism coming
mainly from political conservatives who consider
involvement in some international organizations and
treaties as detrimental to US national interests. A
group of Republican senators, led by Jim Inhofe of
Oklahoma, has blocked American ratification of the
Convention, claiming that it would impinge on US
sovereignty. The Bush administration, a majority of
the United States Senate, and the Pentagon favor
ratification, as do representatives of scientific and
international legal scholars, and mining and
environmentalist groups.
Pro-Ratification Arguments
The Environment:
Oceans cover over 70 percent of the
Earth. In the US, there are laws to keep marine
resources available for future generations. UNCLOS
sets a global standard so that all countries are
legally bound to protect the marine environment,
protect fish stocks, and prevent pollution.
National Security: The US military, which relies
heavily on its ability to freely navigate on and fly
over the sea, has been a strong advocate of UNCLOS. In
the absence of treaty law, the US relies on customary
law that can change as states' practices change. Also,
under this customary law, the Pentagon claims that
countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible
claims on marine territory that frustrates US military
action. The US has tried to work around these claims,
but without a legal framework to support them, the
Pentagon believes it risks compromising its
intelligence and military operations at sea.
International diplomacy and peaceful dispute
resolution: The Convention offers a peaceful way to
resolve territorial and natural resource disputes
through the ISA or the Law of the Sea Tribunal, based
on agreements which signatory parties have already
committed to. In contrast, without ratification, the
US has no peaceful recourse if another non-signatory
party decides to close its straits to navigation.
It helps American businesses: Each country has
exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near
its coast. Under the terms of UNCLOS, which maps out
the boundaries of these areas, the American zone is
larger than that of any other country in the world.
The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles -
bigger than the lower 48 states combined. In addition,
under UNCLOS, coastal states can exercise sovereign
rights over natural resources within the extended
continental shelf area beyond this territory. It would
also give US companies an opportunity to apply for
licenses with the ISA, which manages claims to
resources in the deep seabed, an area over which no
country has sovereign rights.
Anti-Ratification Arguments
National sovereignty:
The treaty creates the
International Seabed Authority (ISA) with its own
dispute resolution tribunal. However, should the US
stop its current compliance with the US-negotiated
laws of the Convention, the U.S. could not be taken to
the Law of the Sea Tribunal since the U.S. has
indicated that it would choose binding arbitration
rather than availing itself of the International
Tribunal on the Law of the Sea.
The Environment:
Some of the Convention's conservation
provisions would provide new avenues for non-US
environmental organizations to affect domestic US
environmental policies by pursuing legal action in
both US and international courts. In addition,
requirements that nations either harvest their entire
allowable catch in certain areas or give the surplus
to other nations could result in mandated overfishing.
Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on
economic activities in the deep seabed Area by the ISA
would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without
representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed
through business and governmental activities in the
area.
Economics:
Businesses can already exploit resources
from the international area; ratifying the treaty
would force them to buy licenses for that right and
pay taxes on the proceeds.
Navigation rights not threatened: One of the treaty's
main selling points, legally recognized navigation
rights on, over, and under straits, is unnecessary
because these rights are not currently threatened by
law or by any military capable of opposing the US.
Harm to de-militarizing operations: The treaty would
require all unmanned ocean vessels, including
submarines used for mine detection to protect ships
exercising the right of innocent passage, to navigate
on the surface in territorial waters to be entitled to
the right of innocent passage. The operative language
is identical to that contained in the 1958 Convention
on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone to which
the U.S. is already a party.
No control over funding:
The treaty gives a blank
check to the UN, funded by the US. The US would have
no control over how the money is used.
Eminent domain:
The treaty applies eminent domain to
intellectual intellectual property giving the UN the
power to seize technology and share it with
potentially enemy states.
Lack of need:
The U.S. already honors almost all the
provisions of the treaty. For practical purposes,
there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs
the negatives of the remaining provisions. Any
perceived benefit of an improved U.S. image world-wide
is likely to be illusory.
On May 15, 2007, President Bush announced that he had
urged the Senate to approve the UNCLOS. On October
31st, 2007, the Senate Foreign Relations Committe
nvoted 17-4 to send the treaty to the full U.S. Senate
for a vote.
With this vote--the United States virtually guarantees
that the United Nations has, de facto, become the
trustee of the Internatinal Seas--setting the stage
for confrontation.
LOST has long had the support of environmental groups
such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
It would establish rules governing the uses of the of
the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200
nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new
international U.N. bureaucracy, the International
Seabed Authority
The ISA would have the authority to set production
controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing,
regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle
disputes in its own new "court."
Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to
apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee
Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have
the right to compete directly with private companies
in those profit-making activities.
The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto
power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.
The Bush administration claims the initiative for
reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military,
which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places
on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out
international law already protects non-aggressive
passage, including non-wartime activities of military
ships.
One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl
Marx but was an ardent advocate of the
Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order.
Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World
Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in
crafting and promoting LOST.
Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the
"Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady"of the Oceans."
She died in 2002.
The youngest daughter of the German novelist Thomas
Mann, Borgese openly favored world government , wrote for the left-wing The Nation magazine and was
a member of a "Committee to Frame a World
Constitution." She served as director of the
International Center for Ocean Development and
chairman of the International Oceans Institute at
Dalhousie University in Canada.
The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said that
Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed
for ideas she had developed concerning a common global
constitution."
Borgese received UNEP's "Environment Prize" in 1987
and was credited with organizing the conferences that
"served to lay the foundation" for the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea, according to
Dalhousie University, which houses her archives.
In a 1995 speech, pro-U.N. Democratic Sen. Claiborne
Pell said Borgese's ideas were "embodied in the
negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention."
Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the
"common heritage of mankind" and creating an
International Seabed Authority to charge U.S. and
foreign companies for the right to mine the ocean
floor.
In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world
ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great
laboratory for the making of a new world order."
In an article titled, "The New International Economic
Order and the Law of the Sea," she argued that the
pact could "reinforce" the goals of the NIEO by giving
Third World countries a role in managing access to the
oceans.
In a 1997 interview, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
broadcaster Philip Coulter asked Borgese about the
collapse of Soviet-style communism and the triumph of
the "elites."
Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's
not called socialism, but it's called sustainable
development, which calls ... for the eradication of
poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend
that I am working on."
The concept of "sustainable development," considered a
euphemism for socialism or communism, has been
embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and
even the U.S. government.
In her book, "The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas
as a Global Resource," she approvingly cites Karl
Marx, the father of communism, as someone with
"amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban
and rural societies. The book is available from the
liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
In an article co-authored with an international
lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the
oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and
that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with
the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."
She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear
submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove
freely through the world's oceans.
Tags: continental shelf | deceipt | deception | EEZ | Environment | International Seabed Authority | OCEANS | pfgbest. pfgbestwatch | Politics | Territorial Waters | TREATY | U.N. Constitution of the Oceans | Unclos
No comments:
Post a Comment