• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • 30-Year-Old Law of the Sea Treaty Still Not Worth It

    It’s Round 2 in President Obama’s effort to get the U.S. Senate to agree to ratification of a major international treaty. Late last year, the President successfully pressed the Senate to ratify the New START treaty with Russia, which dealt with nuclear weapons. Now, it’s ramping up pressure on another treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

    Back in May, then-Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg said the Obama Administration and Senator John Kerry (D–MA) were working to secure the necessary number of Senate votes needed for UNCLOS’s ratification.

    There’s just one problem. As Heritage vice president Kim Holmes contends in a piece in the Washington Times, ratifying UNCLOS is still a bad deal.

    It’s been nearly 30 years since UNCLOS was first adopted at a 1982 U.N. conference, and there are good reasons why it’s languished for so long in the U.S. Senate awaiting ratification. President Ronald Reagan said that although the treaty contained “many positive and very significant accomplishments” in codifying customary law on freedom of the seas, he would not sign it because of the treaty’s objectionable provisions relating to deep seabed mining.

    President Clinton presided over an amendment process to deal with some of the concerns Reagan had raised and then sent the treaty to the Senate in 1994 for ratification. It went nowhere because its critics felt there were still too many problems.

    One of those problems is its infringement on American sovereignty. UNCLOS created another U.N.-style institution called the International Seabed Authority tasked with divvying up any royalties gained from harvesting resources beyond a certain point on a country’s continental shelf. Decisions are made by consensus, and if the U.S. disagreed, it would have to get Russia and China—part of the group it was placed in for voting purposes—to go along with a veto to stop them. Those making the decisions and the recipients of the royalties could easily be “corrupt and despotic regimes and state sponsors of terrorism.”

    It would be detrimental to U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. economy if the Senate were to vote to accede to the treaty. And then expect round 3 in the Obama treaty plan. All signs point to a renewed effort to get the flawed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratified right behind UNCLOS.

    Scott Nason currently is a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/internships-young-leaders/the-heritage-foundation-internship-program

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to 30-Year-Old Law of the Sea Treaty Still Not Worth It

    1. dandy dale says:

      The UN, for the first time, the ability to tax Americans directly, without congressional approval.

      The Law of the Sea Treaty would jeopardize all of this by subjecting America to the rules and jurisdiction of UN bodies and the incessant harassment of lawsuits by foreign nations and activist non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The LOST proponents snort in derision at these concerns, insisting that the treaty merely codifies customary international maritime law already in effect, and actually strengthens American sovereignty. "One of the most common criticisms of the treaty is that ratification will lead to the largest transfer of sovereignty and wealth in US history," says the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) in its "fact sheet" on LOST. "Instead," asserts the UNA-USA, "the treaty strengthens and extends U.S. sovereignty over vast amounts of ocean territory and resources."
      http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/801

    2. Clearhead says:

      The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is actually advocating this treasonistic idea? Unbelievable !!
      O.K. — Obama and Kerry.
      K.O. — What to do with both of them.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×