http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1200350661.shtml
All Quiet on UNCLOS
By Duncan Hollis
Opinio Juris
A weblog dedicated to reports, commentary, and debate on current developments and scholarship in the fields of international law and politics
01.14.2008 at 5:44pm
Notwithstanding its recent efforts to avoid recess appointments with 12 second sessions, the Senate will return in full next Monday. For international lawyers, the big question is whether UNCLOS finally gets a vote for the Senate's advice and consent. As I noted here and here, the SFRC voted UNCLOS out of Committee last fall largely along party lines. But it's been all quiet since. Indeed, I've heard from a couple of sources that the window for Senate A&C to accession is closing, if not closed. What I don't know is why? Is it that the Democracts really don't have the two-thirds majority for A&C? Or, is the opposition less than a third of the Senate, but the Senate leadership doesn't want to have the UNCLOS fight given all the procedural roadblocks and counter-measures even a handful of heavily committed Senators can invoke to oppose the treaty or forestall a vote? I suppose the fact that the election cycle is in full swing may have some explanatory value as well. But, what do readers think (or know)?
If UNCLOS doesn't get a vote this Congress, it has to go back and start all over again at the SFRC, something I suspect UNCLOS supporters would be eager to avoid. In that respect, I wonder if the supporters have one last push in them, or if the best chance for U.S. accession in the last decade has already passed.
[THE ANSWER IS: ALL OF THE ABOVE. PERHAPS, NEXT TIME THE UNCLOS RATIFICATION PROCESS BEGINS THE ADMINISTRATION & CONGRESS WILL HOLD OPEN, PUBLIC & TRANSPARENT HEARINGS UNDER OATH??? HIGHLY DOUBTFUL!]
Peter Prows:
1.15.2008 6:23am
As world commodities prices continue to rise, perhaps there will also be a push (or maybe a pushback?) as well from US mining companies interested in dusting off Part XI and the 1994 Agreement for prospective seabed mining ventures.
[A LIKELY THOUGHT RUNNING ACROSS THE MINDS OF OIL & GAS EXECUTIVES. BUT, THEY'RE REALLY NOT INTERSTED IN DEALING WITH THE INT'L SEABED AUTHORITY. THEY WOULD RATHER PURSUE U.S. TERRITORIAL EXPANSION VIA THE MAKING OF SUBMISSIONS TO THE U.N. CONTINENTAL SHELF COMMISSION FOR PURPOSES OF EXPLOITING U.S. GOV'T -GRANTED DRILLING/EXTRACTION LICENSES. WHY DO YOU THINK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RESUBMITTED UNCLOS TO THE SFRC SHORTLY AFTER AN AMENDMENT TO THE LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION THAT EXEMPTED CARBON SEQUESTRATION IN THE DEEP SEABED FROM THE TREATY'S POLLUTION PROVISIONS WAS SECURED?? OBVIOUSLY, OIL & GAS INTERESTS WERE BEHIND THIS PUSH, & ARE ALSO BEHIND THE CURRENT PUSH AT THE 'ARCTIC'. See e.g.,: UNCLOS Alchemy, http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/unclos-alchemy.html].
Lawrence Kogan:
Dear Duncan,
Perhaps the Senate's silence surrounding UNCLOS has something to do with:
1)New data that has been provided about the universe of MEAs revolving around and relating to the environmental regulations within Part XII of the UNCLOS and the final and proposed environmental regulations of the International Seabed Authority;
2)The plans of some UNCLOS State Parties to 'import' norms from such other treaties to interpret UNCLOS norms in the event ITLOS or arbitral jurisdiction is invoked in a dispute with the US, should it ratify;
3)The plans to reform the UNEP and the now moribund UN Trusteeship, to strengthen the UNEP into an IEO, as suggested by France and Germany, and to improve the relationship between the UNEP secretariats and the UN General Secretariat overseeing the UNCLOS;
4)The plans to vest the International Seabed Authority with broader and more extensive scope to regulate the marine environment of the Res Communis (Global Commons), including below, on and above the seabed, the water columns, and the air above, with ISA jurisdiction in a dispute arguably reaching into US EEZs and coastal waters, inland waterways, and the continental US;
5)The plans to impose environmental taxes and user fees on US and other countries' commercial activities for the use of the Res Communis, as defined above, as explained by France and Germany;
6)The growing number of lawsuits commenced by US environmental extremist groups against the US Navy for operating sonar devices along US coastlines and the US EEZ, such that the Navy JAG has to employ a greater number of attorneys just to keep up with the caseload;
7)The European Union and its coastal EU Member States' growing environmental activism to claim more and more of the EU EEZ as off limits to commercial traffic, as 'Marine Protected Areas' and/or as 'Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas' (PSSA's);
8)Clear and convincing evidence that the UNCLOS, as it is now being practiced by the EU and its Member States, incorporates the wingspread version of the hazard-not-risk-based Precautionary Principle, directly, indirectly, and 'in spirit'.
Perhaps since evidence about all of these factors have been adduced, the US Senate leadership of the 110th Congress believes it doesn't have the requisite number of votes to ratify the treaty. Alternatively, they do not believe it wise to expend the political capital to debate the treaty on the floor of the Senate and risk exposing the documented evidence showing all of the above.
Don't you think this could be why???
Best Regards,
Lawrence
Showing posts with label due process of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label due process of law. Show all posts
Friday, May 9, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Reserve Officers Association Adopts 2008 Resolution Calling for US Senate to Withhold UNCLOS Ratification
http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resolution_0805
Resolution 08-05 Non-ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty
WHEREAS, there are valuable provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty, there are also many provisions that cause concern; it is not enough to highlight the benefits of the treaty without weighing the commitments that would be the price for full American participation in this system;
WHEREAS, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a broad agreement including articles that affect the economy and the environment with the treaty covering seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, economic zones and in turn national security; and
WHEREAS, a fundamental premise of the treaty is that all un-owned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, and the treaty creates levels of paid bureaucracy and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to control these resources; and
WHEREAS, the ISA will regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries through arbitrary, excessive application fees, annual fees and royalties; costs of access to raw materials are likely to inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation; and
WHEREAS, many activists view the treaty as a far reaching environmental accord; setting a global standard and providing enforcement mechanisms so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks and prevent pollution; and
WHEREAS, ratification of the treaty may subject US Naval forces, and will subject U.S. martime and coastal industry to international tribunal or arbitration during disputes predicated on the treaty as geo-politics differs from law; and
WHEREAS, the treaty does not introduce any new protections for safe navigation on the high seas, but can introduce new risks that could impact the sovereignty over and the economy supported by the sea; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article VI that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” ratification may lead to international jurisdiction over U.S. interests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urges the United States Senate, to deny ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Source: ROA Department of Texas Dec. 2007 Adopteded by the ROA National Council Feb. 13, 2008
Resolution 08-05 Non-ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty
WHEREAS, there are valuable provisions in the Law of the Sea Treaty, there are also many provisions that cause concern; it is not enough to highlight the benefits of the treaty without weighing the commitments that would be the price for full American participation in this system;
WHEREAS, the Law of the Sea Treaty is a broad agreement including articles that affect the economy and the environment with the treaty covering seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, economic zones and in turn national security; and
WHEREAS, a fundamental premise of the treaty is that all un-owned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, and the treaty creates levels of paid bureaucracy and an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to control these resources; and
WHEREAS, the ISA will regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries through arbitrary, excessive application fees, annual fees and royalties; costs of access to raw materials are likely to inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation; and
WHEREAS, many activists view the treaty as a far reaching environmental accord; setting a global standard and providing enforcement mechanisms so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks and prevent pollution; and
WHEREAS, ratification of the treaty may subject US Naval forces, and will subject U.S. martime and coastal industry to international tribunal or arbitration during disputes predicated on the treaty as geo-politics differs from law; and
WHEREAS, the treaty does not introduce any new protections for safe navigation on the high seas, but can introduce new risks that could impact the sovereignty over and the economy supported by the sea; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article VI that “All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” ratification may lead to international jurisdiction over U.S. interests;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urges the United States Senate, to deny ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Source: ROA Department of Texas Dec. 2007 Adopteded by the ROA National Council Feb. 13, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
McCain Recognizes The Dangers Posed By The UNCLOS and Calls For Its Renegotiation: Rabid Republicans Unappreciative
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NATION/486460353/1001
McCain courts top conservatives
Washington Times
March 8, 2008
By Ralph Z. Hallow - NEW ORLEANS — Sen. John McCain yesterday got mixed reviews from some of the conservative movement's top donors and leaders after he addressed — and then took questions from — members of the secretive Council for National Policy.
"We didn't lose the 2006 [congressional] elections because of Iraq, but because of runaway spending," the putative Republican presidential nominee told the annual winter meeting of the CNP, some of whose members are skeptical at best of his claims to represent their views and goals in his bid for the presidency.
He drew cheers and applause when he said he would veto a spending bill that had earmarks and vowed to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to "make famous" the names of lawmakers who author such pork-barrel spending measures.
Speaking without notes and without hesitation, he strode energetically back and forth across the stage at the Ritz Carlton in the city's French Quarter, making his points and calling on people who had raised their hands, according to audience members reached afterward.
Generally, Mr. McCain, a strong supporter of the Iraq war, has no problems with the "war hawks" in the conservative movement and is considered at least acceptable by fiscal and anti-tax conservatives. He addressed these issues in his speech but didn't get around to social and religious subjects until they were raised by audience members in the question and answer session.
"He did a great job of addressing fiscal conservative issues and defense conservative issues," said Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican. "What he needs to do is start talking about social issues."
Asked what would happen if Mr. McCain failed to do that, Mr. Lamborn said only that "he will become more comfortable doing it the more often he addresses social conservative groups."
A CNP member expressed her approval privately because she did not want to involve the nonprofit association she represents.
"I appreciated his candor and consistency," she said. "He reminded us of things he truly is conservative about — prolife and taxes — and even went so far as to raise why he was for issues like global warming that conservatives don't necessarily agree on. Does it mean he persuaded me? No. Is my mind still open? Yes."
A more critical answer came from the president of a Washington-based social-conservative interest group on the condition of anonymity: "If McCain can't address the social issues at meeting like this, how can he do it out there" on the campaign trail?
Other social and religious conservatives in the CNP called his appearance a flop.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America said she asked him about the nearly 40 percent of women in America who bear children out of wedlock and how he would address that problem.
"His response was to say his profile record [in Congress] answered that," Mrs. Crouse said. "Well, I'm proud of his profile record, but this is not a profile issue but [one] of promoting marriage and the idea that children belong within marriage. So I was not happy with his response."
Neither was longtime CNP member Richard A. Viguerie.
"I don't think he came close to saying something to excite conservatives sitting on the sidelines waiting to hear something that would get them on his team," he said. "Everything he said was rehash of what he has said before."
Mr. Viguerie made another point that several other CNP members made confidentially: "He didn't assure us he would bring conservatives into his White House or administration."
Mr. McCain, a onetime prisoner of war in Hanoi, was asked about his personal faith. He responded, Mr. Viguerie said, by telling us about the North Vietnamese guard who signaled his sympathy for McCain by drawing a cross in the dirt with his toes, but McCain didn't tell us anything about his own faith."
The saddest part, Mr. Viguerie said, was that neither Mr. McCain nor his campaign advisers "realized he fumbled the ball or why."
When Mrs. Crouse was asked whether she and her organization would work hard to help elect Mr. McCain in November, she said: "I think most conservatives will support him because he is more conservative than the two choices — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — for the Democratic Party."
But she expressed a proviso that some other CNP members also shared.
"On the other hand," she said, "he will not find an electorate that is inspired, that will plant signs in their yards, that will mobilize their neighbors and do everything they can to get him elected. They will go to the polls and that is about it."
Unless, that is, "he chooses a strong social-conservative vice presidential candidate," she added.
On the proposed Law of the Seas Treaty that President Bush supports and that conservatives generally oppose, Mr. McCain split the difference, saying the treaty as proposed surrenders "way too much" of America's sovereignty, but it needs to be renegotiated because international law needs "coherence" in this area.
Reporters covering the McCain campaign were seated in a nearby room and could listen to his speech and the questions and answers afterward, but they were not permitted to see or mingle with the audience — made up of CNP members only.
Some CNP attendees said they found Mr. McCain more humorous and self-deprecating — and more vigorous and youthful-looking — than they expected and that he earned repeated applause and laughter throughout his appearance.
"John McCain was pleased to be invited to the CNP and felt he received a warm reception and that people were open-minded," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain campaign adviser.
Most CNP members queried after the speech said Mr. McCain would get the conservative vote if for no other reason than the alternatives — Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton — were so unacceptable, especially on Iraq and the war against "Islamic Jihad
McCain courts top conservatives
Washington Times
March 8, 2008
By Ralph Z. Hallow - NEW ORLEANS — Sen. John McCain yesterday got mixed reviews from some of the conservative movement's top donors and leaders after he addressed — and then took questions from — members of the secretive Council for National Policy.
"We didn't lose the 2006 [congressional] elections because of Iraq, but because of runaway spending," the putative Republican presidential nominee told the annual winter meeting of the CNP, some of whose members are skeptical at best of his claims to represent their views and goals in his bid for the presidency.
He drew cheers and applause when he said he would veto a spending bill that had earmarks and vowed to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to "make famous" the names of lawmakers who author such pork-barrel spending measures.
Speaking without notes and without hesitation, he strode energetically back and forth across the stage at the Ritz Carlton in the city's French Quarter, making his points and calling on people who had raised their hands, according to audience members reached afterward.
Generally, Mr. McCain, a strong supporter of the Iraq war, has no problems with the "war hawks" in the conservative movement and is considered at least acceptable by fiscal and anti-tax conservatives. He addressed these issues in his speech but didn't get around to social and religious subjects until they were raised by audience members in the question and answer session.
"He did a great job of addressing fiscal conservative issues and defense conservative issues," said Rep. Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republican. "What he needs to do is start talking about social issues."
Asked what would happen if Mr. McCain failed to do that, Mr. Lamborn said only that "he will become more comfortable doing it the more often he addresses social conservative groups."
A CNP member expressed her approval privately because she did not want to involve the nonprofit association she represents.
"I appreciated his candor and consistency," she said. "He reminded us of things he truly is conservative about — prolife and taxes — and even went so far as to raise why he was for issues like global warming that conservatives don't necessarily agree on. Does it mean he persuaded me? No. Is my mind still open? Yes."
A more critical answer came from the president of a Washington-based social-conservative interest group on the condition of anonymity: "If McCain can't address the social issues at meeting like this, how can he do it out there" on the campaign trail?
Other social and religious conservatives in the CNP called his appearance a flop.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America said she asked him about the nearly 40 percent of women in America who bear children out of wedlock and how he would address that problem.
"His response was to say his profile record [in Congress] answered that," Mrs. Crouse said. "Well, I'm proud of his profile record, but this is not a profile issue but [one] of promoting marriage and the idea that children belong within marriage. So I was not happy with his response."
Neither was longtime CNP member Richard A. Viguerie.
"I don't think he came close to saying something to excite conservatives sitting on the sidelines waiting to hear something that would get them on his team," he said. "Everything he said was rehash of what he has said before."
Mr. Viguerie made another point that several other CNP members made confidentially: "He didn't assure us he would bring conservatives into his White House or administration."
Mr. McCain, a onetime prisoner of war in Hanoi, was asked about his personal faith. He responded, Mr. Viguerie said, by telling us about the North Vietnamese guard who signaled his sympathy for McCain by drawing a cross in the dirt with his toes, but McCain didn't tell us anything about his own faith."
The saddest part, Mr. Viguerie said, was that neither Mr. McCain nor his campaign advisers "realized he fumbled the ball or why."
When Mrs. Crouse was asked whether she and her organization would work hard to help elect Mr. McCain in November, she said: "I think most conservatives will support him because he is more conservative than the two choices — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — for the Democratic Party."
But she expressed a proviso that some other CNP members also shared.
"On the other hand," she said, "he will not find an electorate that is inspired, that will plant signs in their yards, that will mobilize their neighbors and do everything they can to get him elected. They will go to the polls and that is about it."
Unless, that is, "he chooses a strong social-conservative vice presidential candidate," she added.
On the proposed Law of the Seas Treaty that President Bush supports and that conservatives generally oppose, Mr. McCain split the difference, saying the treaty as proposed surrenders "way too much" of America's sovereignty, but it needs to be renegotiated because international law needs "coherence" in this area.
Reporters covering the McCain campaign were seated in a nearby room and could listen to his speech and the questions and answers afterward, but they were not permitted to see or mingle with the audience — made up of CNP members only.
Some CNP attendees said they found Mr. McCain more humorous and self-deprecating — and more vigorous and youthful-looking — than they expected and that he earned repeated applause and laughter throughout his appearance.
"John McCain was pleased to be invited to the CNP and felt he received a warm reception and that people were open-minded," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain campaign adviser.
Most CNP members queried after the speech said Mr. McCain would get the conservative vote if for no other reason than the alternatives — Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton — were so unacceptable, especially on Iraq and the war against "Islamic Jihad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
