Posted by Jonathan Adler:
Should L.O.S.T. Sink or Swim?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_15-2007_07_21.shtml#1184541704
The United States has debated whether to ratify the Convention on the
Law of the Sea, otherwise known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or
"LOST," for over twenty years. It was opposed by the Reagan
Administration, but some Republicans are giving it a second look, adn
the Bush Administration is now pushing for Senate Ratification.
Vern Clark and Thomas Pickering [1]argue in today's NYT that LOST
makes sense for the United States, particularly on national security
grounds.
The treaty provides our military the rights of navigation, by water
and by air, to take our forces wherever they must go, whenever it
is necessary to do so. Our ships � including vessels that carry
more than 90 percent of the logistic and other support for our
troops overseas � are given the right of innocent passage through
the territorial seas of other states. In addition, the treaty
permits American warships to board stateless vessels on the high
seas.
The treaty also provides an absolute right of passage through, over
and under international straits and through archipelagoes like
Indonesia. These rights � the crown jewels of the treaty � did not
exist before 1982, when the Convention was concluded. Our security
and economic interests are tied directly to these rights. . . .
Our national security interests alone should be sufficient to
persuade the Senate to act now. But the Convention also advances
the economic interests of our country. It gives us an exclusive
economic zone out to 200 miles, with sovereign rights for
exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the living and
non-living natural resources of the zone. Coastal states are given
sovereign rights over the continental shelf beyond 200 miles if the
shelf meets specific geological and other scientific criteria.
Under the Convention, our Arctic continental shelf could extend out
to 600 miles.
Law professors Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin take a decidedly
different view, [2]arguing here that the treaty could hamper U.S.
counterterrorism efforts. Specifically, they worry that under LOST
U.S. efforts to interdict arms shipments could be second-guessed by
international tribunals dominated by foreign judges who might be
hostile to U.S. interests and opposed to American "unilaterlaism."
Daniel Drezner has more thoughts [3]here, as do the folks at Opinio
Juris [4]here.
References
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/opinion/14pickering.html?ex=1342152000&en=edd60cabf1c662aa&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
2.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070100934.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
3. http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003392.html
4. http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/chain_1183407202.shtml
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
