“Negotiated
in the 1970s, the Law of the Sea treaty was influenced by the New International
Economic Order, a set of economic principles advanced at the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the 1970s and 1980s,” calling
for redistribution of wealth to the less developed countries.
President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because it demanded technology and wealth transfer from developed countries to developing nations as well as adopting regulations and laws to control oceanic pollution. Jurisdictional limits on oceans included a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit. The treaty aimed to regulate economic “activity on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface.”
Despite the many pros and cons of LOST, in March 2004, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended by unanimous vote that the U.S. sign the treaty.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) on several grounds, including the loss of National Sovereignty. According to Sen. Mike Lee, treaties must represent U.S. economic and security interests.
To ratify a treaty, the President needs two-thirds majority vote from the Senate. To this date, LOST has not been ratified.
The rejection of LOST has not affected our economy and navigation rights. Sen. Lee found the loss of National sovereignty and mandatory dispute resolution included in the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) quite troubling.
The International Seabed Authority (“the Authority”) has the power to distribute “international royalties” to developing and landlocked nations. “So hypothetically, a U.S. company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing clean and safe deep-sea mining machinery would be forced to give a portion of its profits to countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Cuba – all considered to be developing nations by ‘the Authority.’” (Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah)
Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, supports the ratification of LOST. He believes that this treaty provides rules to oversee future underwater minerals, gas, oil exploration, and shipping on new water routes opened by receding Arctic icepack. Would, however, the Arctic icepack melt be a constant in the future?
According to Sen. Mark Begich, “The United States is the world’s leading maritime power. Only by ratifying the treaty can it protect freedom of navigation to advance our commercial and national security interests, claim extended continental-shelf areas in the Arctic – an area believed to be twice the size of California – as other nations are already doing, and use its provisions to protect the marine environment, manage fisheries and appoint Americans to help resolve disputes.” (The American Legion Magazine)
The January 2026 issue of The American Legion published another article titled, “Lost at Sea, America’s costly absence from the Law of the Sea Treaty.” The writer of the article, John Norton Moore, a former U.S. Ambassador for the Law of the Sea, pointed out the “critical costs of U.S. non-adherence:
1. Loss of
American deep-seabed mining industry and associated jobs, tax revenues, and
scientific and technology knowledge.
2. Loss of ability
for the U.S. to shape environmental and mineral recovery rules.
3. Death by a
Thousand Cuts – he believes China undercuts U.S. navigational freedom for the Navya
and Air Force.
4. Loss of the
strongest legal basis against Chinese ‘gray-zone’ challenges of Chinese illegal
activities
5. Difficulty
cooperating with our allies who are all part of the treaty.
6. Uncertainty
concerning the status of the U.S. ‘extended continental shelf.’
7. Inability of
the U.S. to effectively participate in the most important oceans institutions
8. Ignoring the
U.S. national security community,” including the environmental community.
According to the Heritage Foundation, innocent passage through an area is already protected under “multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law.” Few countries deny passage to the U.S., given its naval superiority. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, “intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.” It is thus not in the national security interest of the United States to ratify this treaty.
The treaty requires policies that regulate deep-sea mining: it requires rules and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution: and requires the control of corporations who cannot bring lawsuits independently. They must depend on the country of origin to plead their case in front of the United Nations’ agency.
“Some proponents of the treaty believe that it will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep seabed, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.”
President Reagan objected to the principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that marine resources belong to all humanity and cannot be exploited by one nation.
To redistribute the wealth, the UN “Authority” must regulate and exploit mineral resources by asking companies to pay an application fee and to reserve an extra site for the Authority to “utilize its own mining efforts.”
A corporation must also pay an annual fee and up to 7% of its annual profits and share its mining and navigational technology. Mining permits are granted or withheld by the “Authority” which is composed of mostly developing countries. (Heritage Foundation)
“Article 82 of the Convention: “Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.” If the U.S. accedes to UNCLOS, it will be required pursuant to Article 82 to transfer royalties generated on the U.S. continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm)—an area known as the “extended continental shelf” (ECS)—to the International Seabed Authority. These royalties will likely total tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over time. Instead of benefiting the American people, the royalties will be distributed by the Authority to developing and landlocked nations, including some that are corrupt, undemocratic, or even state sponsors of terrorism such as Cuba and Sudan.” https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Groves%20prepared%20testimony%20for%20UNCLOS%20hearing%20(final).pdf
Any kind of maritime dispute, fisheries, environmental protection, navigation, and research, must be resolved under this treaty through mandatory dispute resolution by the UN court or tribunal which limits autonomy. Disputes should be resolved by U.S. courts. (Heritage Foundation)
The GOP has passed a resolution on January 14, 2012, exposing United Nations Agenda 21 as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).”
“According to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice.” United Nations treaties and programs want to force “social justice” through wealth redistribution from developed nations to third world countries.
The United States’ provisional participation in LOST expired in 1998. Would the ratification of another treaty that has the potential to further chip away at our national sovereignty be a clever idea?
No comments:
Post a Comment