The Law of the Sea

Mark Goldberg has some further background and information on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Meanwhile, Cato's Chris Preble points to a debate between Doug Bandow (last seen in a cash-for-comment scandal) and Raj Purohit from Citizens for Global Solutions over at the Partnership for a Secure America.

Frank Gaffney's also against this treaty, so I think you could say this treaty has all the right enemies. Basically, internationalists and establishmenty business types seem to be for it, and really paranoid UN-haters are against it.

Photo by me; available under a Creative Commons license

Comments

If you are interested in this topic it would be worth digging out William Langewiesche's cover story from the September 2003 issue of the Atlantic. Unfortunately it appears to be the only article from that issue not available online. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/index.htm

Posted by Jack | October 11, 2007 11:37 AM

This is one of those issues that nicely illustrates everything that's wrong with the American Right Wing. It's an international convention that clearly benefits the United States military, international trade, the environment, and possibly even makes Mom's apple pie taste better. The US is, as far as I know, already in voluntary compliance with the Law of the Sea.

And yet the letters "U" and "N" are attached to the treaty, and it opens up Americans to international sanctions if they do stupid and dangerous things we expect citizens of other countries not to do. Therefore, the treaty has the Mark of the Beast upon it, and its passage has been blocked for decades by a handful of mouth-breathing lunatics who use the Byzantine rules of the Senate to prevent it from ever coming up for a ratification vote.

Posted by LaFollette Progessive | October 11, 2007 11:45 AM

DOMESTIC POLICY NEWS
Press release distributed
by PR Newswire

EU Hides Behind 'Private' Standards in Effort to Secure Global Regulatory Control

Developing Countries May Have New Grounds to Bring WTO Actions Against Europe

PRINCETON, N.J., Oct. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the current issue of the Global Trade and Customs Journal, international trade and regulatory lawyer Lawrence Kogan details how the European Union and its member states previously enlisted private European environmental standards bodies to promote official government sustainable forest management policies that likely violated the World Trade Organization rights of developing countries
and their industries. In addition, the article describes how these same EU governments are behind the ongoing efforts of other European pressure groups to promote, via United Nations agencies and international standardization organizations, the adoption by global industry supply chains of overly strict corporate social responsibility standards.

According to Mr. Kogan, "It is no secret that the EU aspires to 'usurp America's role as a source of global standards,' and to become 'the world's regulatory capital' and 'standard-bearer.'" Therefore, it is natural that they would endeavor to employ whatever nontransparent means are available to push their regulatory control agenda forward." As EU trade commissioner
Peter Mandelson claimed in a prior speech, 'exporting our rules and standards around the world is one source [and expression] of European power.'"

Two recent articles appearing in the Financial Times and the Economist confirm this assessment. "The Commission, the EU's executive body, states openly that it wants other countries to follow EU rules and its officials are working hard to put that vision into practice... [T]he Union [has]... a body of law running to almost 95,000 pages -- a set of rules and regulations that covers virtually all aspects of economic life and that is constantly expanded and updated. Compared with other jurisdictions, the EU's rules tend to be stricter, especially where product safety, consumer protection and environmental and health [sustainable development]requirements are concerned."

The European regulatory model is worrisome, emphasizes Kogan, paraphrasing from one article, especially "because 'it rests on the [standard-of-proof-diminishing, burden-of-proof-reversing,
guilty-until-proven-innocent, I-fear-therefore-I-shall-ban, hazard-(not risk)-based] Precautionary Principle', which is inconsistent with both WTO
law and US constitutionally-guaranteed private property rights." As another article reaffirms, "In Europe corporate innocence is not assumed. Indeed, a vast slab of EU laws... reverses the burden of proof, asking industry to
demonstrate that substances are harmless...[T]he philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed until it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state
allows and banning everything else."

"Notwithstanding its knowledge of Europe's extraterritorial activities," warns Kogan, "the 110th US Congress may soon ratify the UN Law
of the Sea Convention without all of its committees possessing oversight jurisdiction having first adequately reviewed in public hearings its 45-plus environmental regulatory articles -- which also incorporate Europe's Precautionary Principle! This would essentially open up the floodgates to a tsunami of costly non-science and non-economics-based environmental laws, regulations and standards that would abridge Americans' Fifth Amendment rights, impair U.S. industry's global economic competitiveness and fundamentally reshape the American legal and free enterprise systems.

The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)is a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry
and positive sustainable development around the world. This ITSSD study and related materials are accessible online at:
http://www.itssd.org/GTCJ_03-offprints KOGAN - Discerning the Forest
from the Trees.pdf,
http://www.itssd.org/Programs/ITSSDAssessmentISO26000Standard.pdf and
http://www.itssd.blogspot.com

Posted by Informed Lawyer | October 11, 2007 12:48 PM

It's almost as if my previous comment was taken as an invitation to prove me correct.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | October 11, 2007 12:59 PM

If you drive from Portland to Seattle a lot you'll notice around Centralia a big billboard with Uncle Sam on it and random crazy right wing talking points. Decades ago some farmer who was apparantly of the John Birch, black helicopter wing of the right put it up and periodically changed the message. He died a few years ago and his kids have kept it up, they seem even more whacked than he was.

The first I heard of this issue was noticing that they were railing against the treaty a few weeks ago. They are generally a pretty good harbinger of what that wing of the right will be on about at any given time. And basically assuming that whatever they are against is probably a pretty good idea generally works:-)

Posted by Eric K | October 11, 2007 1:12 PM

Meh. As long as our navy rules the sea we set the real rules anyway.

Posted by Senescent | October 11, 2007 2:12 PM

The Law of the Sea Treaty is great - up to having a "UN Committee appointed from representatives the 181 member nations" as the final decider.

It puts the usual pack of no loads and dysfunctional countries that have "voting majority" at the UN in a position where they will order about the Naval Powers that actually enforce freedom of the seas and work to resolve territorial disputes....and make the old UN bribery system apply in dispute resolution.

The actual burden on maintaining freedom of the seas falls on about a dozen countries - the USA, Singapore, Japan SDF, Australia, UK, India, Malaysia, China, Panama...etc.

After the bribery of so many UN entities in the Oil For Food scandal, what otherwise is a great treaty risks transfer of seabed rights to whatever nation can pay off the Angolans, Gaboonians, Uzbeckistanis, Libyans, Hondurans, or whoever happens to sit on the committee the best...unless the UN dredges up functionaries of higher moral character than sit on other international UN bodies.

For example - China has a dispute on who gets awarded seabed rights around the Spratly Islands with the Philippines, Vietnam. Who gets it might just depend on who can bribe the Moldavans with a billion-dollar airport to get their vote on the UN Treaty Dispute Resolution Committee. Who "locked up the Gaboonians" with appointment of the ruler's brother-in-law to a lucrative export-import license of all manufactured goods coming in from a certain nation at most, most favorable prices...

Guess who that might be.....???

There are already motions that 3rd Worlders in majority at the UN have put forward in the UN that obligate nations with productive seabed resources to "share that equitably" with landlocked nations or those with small seafrontage or those with no real resources off their costs..

The text of the treaty reads well. In some ways it makes the US Navy's job of keeping sealanes open easier by wrapping it in the supposed "higher moral authority" of the UN. But if the Resolution Committee can be corrupted like so many other UN agencies have been, there is potential for real trouble. I would like it if they added language that appointed only reps not beholden to a corrupt shithole country's leadership, and that Committee members could be removed for suspected corruption or bribery by a majority vote in the Security Council.

Above all, the Treaty must be enforced by credible, honest people to avoid a repeat of other UN fiascos.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 11, 2007 2:44 PM

It's good to hear that MattY reflexively sides with "internationalists and establishmenty business types", and automatically assumes that something must be good if "paranoid UN-haters" are against it, rather than, for instance, examining the claims from those who oppose it.

Those of a more liberal, open-minded bent should take a look through these:

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/LOST/

Posted by TLB | October 11, 2007 2:49 PM

I must not be of a liberal, open-minded bent, because I automatically assume that any link planning to take me to the Eagle Forum is about to feed me a giant load of crap.

Posted by Antid Oto | October 11, 2007 3:05 PM

The right favors armed confrontations to establish the "law of the sea."

Posted by bob | October 11, 2007 3:09 PM

Hah! I clicked on the link and I totally underestimated it! It's a giant, hilariously crazy and paranoid load of crap! I like it.

Posted by Antid Oto | October 11, 2007 3:10 PM

man, so far LaFollette Progressive is batting a thousand on this thread.

Posted by live | October 11, 2007 7:49 PM

actually the best reason to support this is that senator james "global warming is a hoax" inhofe has fanatically opposed it for years.

Posted by snuh | October 12, 2007 12:42 AM

This might be the moment to honor the patient and dogged efforts of Sam and Miriam Levering, a Quaker couple who worked all through the 1970s to create occasions for negotiations and dialogue that helped the third UN conference on the law of the sea come to a successful conclusion.

Posted by Nell | October 12, 2007 11:27 AM

http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/10/myths-realities-4-concerning-un-law-of_5097.html

ITSSD Journal entry 10-17-07

Myths & Realities #4 Concerning UN Law of the Sea Treaty -

LOST, Land-Based Activities & Sources of Marine Pollution, And the Precautionary Principle

Posted by Informed Lawyer | October 18, 2007 8:30 AM

You and your readers may find enjoyable the following new entry at the ITSSD Journal:

Tuesday, October 23, 2007
European Collectivism at the Expense of U.S. Individual Rights – Resistance is Futile?
http://www.coin.dk/blogs/index.php?title=resistance_is_futile&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 ****

If the url doesn't work, just paste it into your browser.

Posted by Informed Lawyer | October 25, 2007 1:11 PM

Bush's 'Toilet Bowl' Treaty

Posted by Sound Science | October 29, 2007 6:58 PM

From NationalLedger.com

DC Journal
President Bush's Toilet Bowl Treaty
By Cliff Kincaid
Oct 29, 2007

When State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III gave a controversial June 6 speech on the subject of "The United States and International Law," he mentioned that the Bush Administration had "put forward a priority list of over 35 treaty packages that we have urged the Senate to approve soon, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

President Bush's Toilet Bowl Treaty (Image: Wenn)

The latter is now up for Senate ratification, with a vote scheduled on Wednesday, and one of its many controversial provisions is the regulation of land-based sources of pollution. This treaty covers the water and the land. But now we have discovered that the Bush Administration has asked the Senate to ratify a treaty that defines one of those land-based sources of pollution as toilet flushing. No kidding.

It is amazing but true. The Bush Administration wants the Senate to ratify a treaty that will invite international inspections of what you flush down your toilet.

We are talking about Annex III of the “Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, with Annexes.” You can read it for yourself here.

Annex III is titled, “Domestic Wastewater,” which is defined as including “all discharges from households, commercial facilities, hotels, septage and any other entity…” These discharges are defined as encompassing (1) toilet flushing, (2) discharges from showers, wash basins, kitchens and laundries, or discharges from small industries, provided their composition and quantity are compatible with treatment in a domestic wastewater system.

Lawrence A. Kogan of the Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development uncovered the dangerous details of this agreement and has termed it the “Toilet bowl treaty,” noting that it constitutes a sort of mini-Law of the Sea Treaty. The protocol, he says, is one of 11 “regional seas” agreements. It is on an October 1 State Department list of “Treaties Pending in the Senate.” (Not all of these treaties are currently being pushed by the Bush Administration).

Our major media were, as usual, asleep at the switch. It turns out that the White House issued a press release about submitting this treaty to the Senate for ratification. President Bush's statement was quite specific. He noted that “It is estimated that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities,” and that parties to the treaty “are required to ensure that domestic wastewater discharges meet specific effluent limitations, and to develop plans for the prevention and reduction of agricultural nonpoint source pollution.”

Bush claimed that “The United States would be able to implement its obligations under the Protocol under existing statutory and regulatory authority.” In other words, he thinks this is supposed to affect others, not us. But this may not be the way some activist judges and international lawyers see it.

Bush's admission that 70 to 90 percent of pollution entering the marine environment emanates from land-based sources and activities is directly relevant to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has provisions relating to prohibiting pollution from such sources. That is why many observers have concluded that the Law of the Sea Treaty can serve as a back-door way to implement the (unratified) global warming treaty. Foreign judges and lawyers could easily interpret greenhouse gas emissions as contributing to pollution of the oceans. As a result, under UNCLOS they could order cuts in energy use.

Since the State Department submitted the protocol for ratification, along with the Law of the Sea Treaty, it's a certainty that Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III knew all about the potential for regulating land-based pollution sources and activities, including toilet bowls, when he testified before the Senate about UNCLOS on September 27. But not only did he deny that UNCLOS had any such potential, he said it had no such provisions. When pressed, he claimed the provisions were “hortatory” and had no practical legal impact. This is why Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch and I have asked for a formal review (PDF) of his testimony. He clearly misled the Senate.

But now we find out that it's worse than we thought. The State Department had previously submitted another treaty that specifically and explicitly defined a land-based source of pollution as being a toilet bowl. Ratification of this treaty, in conjunction with ratification of UNCLOS, would literally invite U.N. inspectors to review and manage discharge from your toilet bowl. Why didn't Bellinger tell the Senate about that during his UNCLOS testimony?

Bellinger seems to be far more open and honest with international audiences that he is trying to appease and impress. In his June 6 speech to a group at The Hague, for example, Bellinger boasted about using his own staff of 171 lawyers to “integrate” international law “into the decision-making process” of the U.S. Government. He defended the President's order to Texas to comply with a ruling by the U.N.'s International Court of Justice on giving convicted Mexican killers another hearing. Bellinger called this compliance with “an international obligation.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on UNCLOS on Wednesday. UNCLOS is the first order of business and if it passes, as seems likely, Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid could call it up for a quick Senate floor vote.

Before the committee votes, it should recall Bellinger as a witness and determine why he has been less than open and honest about the “obligations” of the U.S. under UNCLOS. Then he should be asked to explain why we need a treaty targeting toilet bowls and showers. If he claims the need to adhere to “international obligations,” he should be laughed out of the hearing room, along with his treaties.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media.

© Copyright National Ledger, www.NationalLedger.com

Posted by Informed Lawyer | October 30, 2007 4:32 PM