Obama Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to UN

[Dick Tuck]

How about the UN Take control of Irans nuclear program instead?

The UN was certainly smarter and more correct about Iraq's nuclear program than Bush/Chaney.

 

[Intense]

The United States has accepted all parts of Conventions on the Law of the Sea many years ago with the exception of Part XI. Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones).

Since it's outside US waters, how can you claim US waters are being ceded to the UN?

The 1994 amendment to Part VI addressed US concerns that were first brought up by Reagan, which concerns deep-sea mining. Reagan was in favor of the treaty. Both Clinton and Bush pushed for approval by the Senate, however no action was taken. Now it seems, the Obama administration will have a try.

The fact is this treaty has little or nothing to do with global warming and primarily effects waters outside of the US territorial limits. It's important in protecting US fishing interest. The U.S. oil and gas industry benefits from the Convention’s rules concerning offshore resources. The navigational freedoms recognized under the Convention provide a stable environment for global commerce. However, once again right wingers who are oppose to just about any treaty involving the UN, are trying to block a treaty that would benefit the US for political reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

http://archive1.globalsolutions.org/...licy-paper.pdf

So, what of it. The UN has it's own problems and dirty laundry enough. What are the key aspects here? Who is best in place to accomplish those ends? Key Word.... Treaty. So we comprise, ourselves, that which is our best foot forward, without corrupting value, principle, and ideal, and we encourage other Nations to sign on. We have Constitutional Authority to do just that. It sure beats, surrendering Sovereignty to the UN losing all sense of due process to a corrupted Kangaroo Court. True enough, we contribute to that corruption, bribery needs to end. It is a poor tool in effecting what is in truth Just Resolution. You would think we would know that by now. Instead, we take loans and pay interest on those loans, to bribe foreign nations. Lovely. Why do we keep refusing to take the high road, and continue to make excuses for our poor choices?

 

[Intense]

How about the UN Take control of Irans nuclear program instead?

The UN was certainly smarter and more correct about Iraq's nuclear program than Bush/Chaney.

Were they Tuck? How many UN Nations were undermining the Sanctions? You are confusing corruption, and complicity, with insight and good judgement. I can understand why, though.

 

[BlindBoo]

Part of our destiny is control of our territorial waters dimwit.

Despite what WND tells you, by ratifying this treaty we will not lose control of our territorial waters(12 miles). Nor will we lose our control of our exclusive economic zone (200 miles).

Oh, yes we will. Activities in the EEZs will be subject to approval by the UN.

Never gonna happen.

In 1945, President Truman issued a proclamation asserting rights to explore and exploit the oil and gas resources of the continental shelf outside of the 3 nm territorial sea. The concept of a fishery conservation zone was born in another Truman Proclamation but Congress did not enact laws regarding a 200 nm fishery conservation zone until 1976. This evolved into a zone whereby a coastal nation had exclusive control over all economic exploration and exploitation of the natural resources off its coast. By 1982, the custom of asserting a 12 nm territorial sea, 24 nm contiguous zone, and 200 nm EEZ was codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The U.S. proclaimed a 12 nm territorial sea in 1988, a 24 nm contiguous zone in 1999, and a 200 nm EEZ in 1983, consistent with customary international law as codified in UNCLOS.

Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]

 

[BlindBoo]

How about the UN Take control of Irans nuclear program instead?

The UN was certainly smarter and more correct about Iraq's nuclear program than Bush/Chaney.

Were they Tuck? How many UN Nations were undermining the Sanctions? You are confusing corruption, and complicity, with insight and good judgement. I can understand why, though.

Yes they were right Saddam had no active WMD programs. The sanctions keep Saddam's regime contained. And from rebuilding his conventional army as well as keep him from further WMD programs. They also caused widespread suffering and death of Iraqi citizens.

 

[Si modo]

Despite what WND tells you, by ratifying this treaty we will not lose control of our territorial waters(12 miles). Nor will we lose our control of our exclusive economic zone (200 miles).

Oh, yes we will. Activities in the EEZs will be subject to approval by the UN.

Never gonna happen.

In 1945, President Truman issued a proclamation asserting rights to explore and exploit the oil and gas resources of the continental shelf outside of the 3 nm territorial sea. The concept of a fishery conservation zone was born in another Truman Proclamation but Congress did not enact laws regarding a 200 nm fishery conservation zone until 1976. This evolved into a zone whereby a coastal nation had exclusive control over all economic exploration and exploitation of the natural resources off its coast. By 1982, the custom of asserting a 12 nm territorial sea, 24 nm contiguous zone, and 200 nm EEZ was codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The U.S. proclaimed a 12 nm territorial sea in 1988, a 24 nm contiguous zone in 1999, and a 200 nm EEZ in 1983, consistent with customary international law as codified in UNCLOS.

Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]

If the US signs and ratifies this treaty, absolutely activities in a nation's EEZ are subject to UN approval.

Article XI of the UNCLOS requires that permission from the International Seabed Authority is obtained before any mining of a nation's EEZ is allowed. Furthermore, if permission is granted, the ISA decides the distribution of any royalties and proceeds of that activity.

 

[edthecynic]

....a vote for Obama is a vote to end United States sovereignty.

"Support Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a matter of national security, economic self-interest, and international leadership, the Bush Administration is strongly committed to U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Administration urges Congress to provide advice and consent to this treaty as early as possible in the 109th Congress."

http://www.cmts.gov/downloads/US_ocean_action_plan.pdf

Bird-man, rather than Republican-Democrat issue....this is American sovereignty vs globalist issue.

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

 

[Intense]

"Support Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a matter of national security, economic self-interest, and international leadership, the Bush Administration is strongly committed to U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Administration urges Congress to provide advice and consent to this treaty as early as possible in the 109th Congress."

http://www.cmts.gov/downloads/US_ocean_action_plan.pdf

Bird-man, rather than Republican-Democrat issue....this is American sovereignty vs globalist issue.

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

We are not here to live up to your expectations. Get over it.

 

[Moonglow]

Bird-man, rather than Republican-Democrat issue....this is American sovereignty vs globalist issue.

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

We are not here to live up to your expectations. Get over it.

you do try to live up to WND expectations

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh, yes we will. Activities in the EEZs will be subject to approval by the UN.

Never gonna happen.

In 1945, President Truman issued a proclamation asserting rights to explore and exploit the oil and gas resources of the continental shelf outside of the 3 nm territorial sea. The concept of a fishery conservation zone was born in another Truman Proclamation but Congress did not enact laws regarding a 200 nm fishery conservation zone until 1976. This evolved into a zone whereby a coastal nation had exclusive control over all economic exploration and exploitation of the natural resources off its coast. By 1982, the custom of asserting a 12 nm territorial sea, 24 nm contiguous zone, and 200 nm EEZ was codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The U.S. proclaimed a 12 nm territorial sea in 1988, a 24 nm contiguous zone in 1999, and a 200 nm EEZ in 1983, consistent with customary international law as codified in UNCLOS.

Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]

If the US signs and ratifies this treaty, absolutely activities in a nation's EEZ are subject to UN approval.

Article XI of the UNCLOS requires that permission from the International Seabed Authority is obtained before any mining of a nation's EEZ is allowed. Furthermore, if permission is granted, the ISA decides the distribution of any royalties and proceeds of that activity.

From your link.

...was established to organize and control all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction...

In its preamble, UNCLOS defines the international seabed area—the part under ISA jurisdiction—as “the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”. There are no maps annexed to the Convention to delineate this area. Rather, UNCLOS outlines the areas of national jurisdiction, leaving the rest for the international portion. National jurisdiction over the seabed normally leaves off at 200 nautical miles (370 km) seaward from baselines running along the shore, unless a nation can demonstrate that its continental shelf is naturally prolonged beyond that limit, in which case it may claim up to 350 nautical miles (650 km). ISA has no role in determining this boundary.

UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Support Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a matter of national security, economic self-interest, and international leadership, the Bush Administration is strongly committed to U.S. accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Administration urges Congress to provide advice and consent to this treaty as early as possible in the 109th Congress."

http://www.cmts.gov/downloads/US_ocean_action_plan.pdf

Bird-man, rather than Republican-Democrat issue....this is American sovereignty vs globalist issue.

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

Based on the rage you have managed to gin up, you probably realize that I am correct.


Carry on.

 

[Intense]

The UN was certainly smarter and more correct about Iraq's nuclear program than Bush/Chaney.

Were they Tuck? How many UN Nations were undermining the Sanctions? You are confusing corruption, and complicity, with insight and good judgement. I can understand why, though.

Yes they were right Saddam had no active WMD programs. The sanctions keep Saddam's regime contained. And from rebuilding his conventional army as well as keep him from further WMD programs. They also caused widespread suffering and death of Iraqi citizens.

Yes he did. True, he may have no fully assembled WMD, he was awaiting to move on past those pesty inspections, huh. Your gullibility does surprise me though. Nah, just kidding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

We are not here to live up to your expectations. Get over it.

you do try to live up to WND expectations

Seems that you've painted yourself into a corner...

As logic seems to escape you, let me explain:
From the OP-
1. "President Obama’s ambitious plan for stepped up government regulation of the oceans includes an unreported effort to cede U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law, KleinOnline has learned.

2. ...an executive order to be issued for a National Ocean Policy that will determine how the ecosystem is managed while giving the federal government more regulatory authority over any businesses that utilize the ocean....
based on the recommendations of Obama’s Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task-force, created in 2010 also by executive order."

So...as your objection seems to be the source rather than the veracity of the OP....if the above turns out to be true....


...will you, then, pull up your pants and try to behave like an adult?

 

[Intense]

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

We are not here to live up to your expectations. Get over it.

you do try to live up to WND expectations

Do you need us all to chip in to buy you a belt? Get over yourself.

 

[BlindBoo]

Were they Tuck? How many UN Nations were undermining the Sanctions? You are confusing corruption, and complicity, with insight and good judgement. I can understand why, though.

Yes they were right Saddam had no active WMD programs. The sanctions keep Saddam's regime contained. And from rebuilding his conventional army as well as keep him from further WMD programs. They also caused widespread suffering and death of Iraqi citizens.

Yes he did. True, he may have no fully assembled WMD, he was awaiting to move on past those pesty inspections, huh. Your gullibility does surprise me though. Nah, just kidding.

No it's not true. No active programs. Of course he had hopes of one day restarting from some vile hidden in a scientists frig. or remnant buried equipment. Not in any way an immediate threat to the worlds remaining superpower! Certainly not worth the lives we've lost there.

 

[Si modo]

Never gonna happen.

In 1945, President Truman issued a proclamation asserting rights to explore and exploit the oil and gas resources of the continental shelf outside of the 3 nm territorial sea. The concept of a fishery conservation zone was born in another Truman Proclamation but Congress did not enact laws regarding a 200 nm fishery conservation zone until 1976. This evolved into a zone whereby a coastal nation had exclusive control over all economic exploration and exploitation of the natural resources off its coast. By 1982, the custom of asserting a 12 nm territorial sea, 24 nm contiguous zone, and 200 nm EEZ was codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The U.S. proclaimed a 12 nm territorial sea in 1988, a 24 nm contiguous zone in 1999, and a 200 nm EEZ in 1983, consistent with customary international law as codified in UNCLOS.

Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]

If the US signs and ratifies this treaty, absolutely activities in a nation's EEZ are subject to UN approval.

Article XI of the UNCLOS requires that permission from the International Seabed Authority is obtained before any mining of a nation's EEZ is allowed. Furthermore, if permission is granted, the ISA decides the distribution of any royalties and proceeds of that activity.

From your link.

...was established to organize and control all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction...

In its preamble, UNCLOS defines the international seabed area—the part under ISA jurisdiction—as “the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”. There are no maps annexed to the Convention to delineate this area. Rather, UNCLOS outlines the areas of national jurisdiction, leaving the rest for the international portion. National jurisdiction over the seabed normally leaves off at 200 nautical miles (370 km) seaward from baselines running along the shore, unless a nation can demonstrate that its continental shelf is naturally prolonged beyond that limit, in which case it may claim up to 350 nautical miles (650 km). ISA has no role in determining this boundary.

UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

Um, national jurisdiction extends only 12 miles (with a few exceptions in goegraphically more complex areas). A nation's EEZ extends 200 miles or to the continental shelf, whichever is longer but not exceeding 350 miles.

If the USA signs this, all mining (and oil extraction) will have to be approved by the ISA, and if the ISA approves it, they also decide how the royalties and proceeds from that get distributed.

That's per Article XI of the UNCLOS, which is and has been one of the bones of contention keeping the USA from signing it.

 

[edthecynic]

Bird-man, rather than Republican-Democrat issue....this is American sovereignty vs globalist issue.

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

Based on the rage you have managed to gin up, you probably realize that I am correct.


Carry on.

Based on the dodge you have managed to gin up, you definitely realize that I am correct.


Carry on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bullshit!
If it really was an American issue to you you would have titled your screed "BOTH PARTIES seeking to cede oceans to UN." And you would have ended your rant with "a vote for EITHER PARTY is a vote to end US sovereignty."

But you didn't, so you are simply a lying political hack.

Based on the rage you have managed to gin up, you probably realize that I am correct.


Carry on.

Based on the dodge you have managed to gin up, you definitely realize that I am correct.


Carry on.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

 

[BlindBoo]

If the US signs and ratifies this treaty, absolutely activities in a nation's EEZ are subject to UN approval.

Article XI of the UNCLOS requires that permission from the International Seabed Authority is obtained before any mining of a nation's EEZ is allowed. Furthermore, if permission is granted, the ISA decides the distribution of any royalties and proceeds of that activity.

From your link.

...was established to organize and control all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction...

In its preamble, UNCLOS defines the international seabed area—the part under ISA jurisdiction—as “the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”. There are no maps annexed to the Convention to delineate this area. Rather, UNCLOS outlines the areas of national jurisdiction, leaving the rest for the international portion. National jurisdiction over the seabed normally leaves off at 200 nautical miles (370 km) seaward from baselines running along the shore, unless a nation can demonstrate that its continental shelf is naturally prolonged beyond that limit, in which case it may claim up to 350 nautical miles (650 km). ISA has no role in determining this boundary.

UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

Um, national jurisdiction extends only 12 miles (with a few exceptions in goegraphically more complex areas). A nation's EEZ extends 200 miles or to the continental shelf, whichever is longer but not exceeding 350 miles.

If the USA signs this, all mining (and oil extraction) will have to be approved by the ISA, and if the ISA approves it, they also decide how the royalties and proceeds from that get distributed.

That's per Article XI of the UNCLOS, which is and has been one of the bones of contention keeping the USA from signing it.

Your link disputes what you post. I posted a link to the entire treaty. Read it if you dare.

Each coastal State may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea that extends seaward up to 200 nm from its baselines (or out to a maritime boundary with another coastal State). Within its EEZ, a coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in international law with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and (c) other rights and duties provided for under international law.

The U.S. claimed a 200 nm EEZ in 1983 (Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983). The U.S. EEZ overlaps its 12 nm - 24 nm contiguous zone.

Maritime Zones and Boundaries, International Section, NOAA Office of General Counsel

 

[Si modo]

From your link.

...was established to organize and control all mineral-related activities in the international seabed area beyond the limits of national jurisdiction...

In its preamble, UNCLOS defines the international seabed area—the part under ISA jurisdiction—as “the seabed and ocean floor and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”. There are no maps annexed to the Convention to delineate this area. Rather, UNCLOS outlines the areas of national jurisdiction, leaving the rest for the international portion. National jurisdiction over the seabed normally leaves off at 200 nautical miles (370 km) seaward from baselines running along the shore, unless a nation can demonstrate that its continental shelf is naturally prolonged beyond that limit, in which case it may claim up to 350 nautical miles (650 km). ISA has no role in determining this boundary.

UNCLOS and Agreement on Part XI - Preamble and frame index

Um, national jurisdiction extends only 12 miles (with a few exceptions in goegraphically more complex areas). A nation's EEZ extends 200 miles or to the continental shelf, whichever is longer but not exceeding 350 miles.

If the USA signs this, all mining (and oil extraction) will have to be approved by the ISA, and if the ISA approves it, they also decide how the royalties and proceeds from that get distributed.

That's per Article XI of the UNCLOS, which is and has been one of the bones of contention keeping the USA from signing it.

Your link disputes what you post. I posted a link to the entire treaty. Read it if you dare.

Each coastal State may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea that extends seaward up to 200 nm from its baselines (or out to a maritime boundary with another coastal State). Within its EEZ, a coastal State has: (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, whether living or nonliving, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; (b) jurisdiction as provided for in international law with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures, marine scientific research, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and (c) other rights and duties provided for under international law.

The U.S. claimed a 200 nm EEZ in 1983 (Presidential Proclamation No. 5030 of March 10, 1983). The U.S. EEZ overlaps its 12 nm - 24 nm contiguous zone.

Maritime Zones and Boundaries, International Section, NOAA Office of General Counsel

Nothing in what you've posted contradicts what the ISA can do. We have not signed the UNCLOS. That is not what the UNCLOS says. That is what we currently do, but signing and ratifying the UNCLOS would change that.

It seems we are talking past each other and I don't know why.