Obama Seeking to Cede U.S. Oceans to UN

[Flopper]

I agree, we won't give up those exclusive rights to mine and drill in our EEZ. We will be the only nation permitted to seek such permission. However, our rights are thinned out by requiring us to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ. And, if we do manage to get that permit, the ISA also decides how the royalties an proceeds from that activity are distributed. They likely won't be unfair, though, but they will still have that authority.

BlindBoo is correct. We will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Furthermore, we would not be required to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ.

"Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection"
Overview - Convention & Related Agreements

What seems to be neglected in this discussion is that the treaty establishes the 12 mile limit on territorial waters, something the US did years ago. Other nations have claimed territoriality limits at 200 miles. The treaty clarifies the territorial limits of archipelagic states, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters. The definition of these limits has been a source of a number disputes particular as it relates to fishing and oil drilling.

This is a good treaty which benefits the US and should be approved.

This simply is untrue.

The activities of nations in their EEZ's will need approval from the UN and restrictions are placed on those activities.

Read it. It was linked to before.

This is spelled out quite clearly in Part XI, Section 3, Article 151. Crystal clear.

Please read it rather than believe me or anyone else.

I read it and you're wrong.

Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed areas outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). In other worlds this section applies to areas outside of the US EEZ or territoriality waters.

Further, article I defines the meaning of area.
"Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Also Article 55 defines the EEZ as being under the jurisdiction of the nation.

The title of section 3 is DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES OF THE AREA. Article 151 defines production policies of that area which means they do not apply to the EEZ.

The thrust of this part of the treaty is to define mineral production policies in areas beneath the high which are beyond both the territorial waters and the EEZ of any nation. In no way does this restrict development within those areas.

 

[Flopper]

Which oceans are ours?

The wet ones.

 

[rightwinger]

Which oceans are ours?

The wet ones.

Other than the American Ocean what other oceans do we own?

 

[uscitizen]

Which oceans are ours?

The ocean of debt?
China pretty much owns that one.


The sea of failed politics?

 

[Si modo]

BlindBoo is correct. We will not be giving up our exclusive rights in our EEZ. Furthermore, we would not be required to seek approval from the UN for our mining activities in our EEZ.

"Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection"
Overview - Convention & Related Agreements

What seems to be neglected in this discussion is that the treaty establishes the 12 mile limit on territorial waters, something the US did years ago. Other nations have claimed territoriality limits at 200 miles. The treaty clarifies the territorial limits of archipelagic states, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters. The definition of these limits has been a source of a number disputes particular as it relates to fishing and oil drilling.

This is a good treaty which benefits the US and should be approved.

This simply is untrue.

The activities of nations in their EEZ's will need approval from the UN and restrictions are placed on those activities.

Read it. It was linked to before.

This is spelled out quite clearly in Part XI, Section 3, Article 151. Crystal clear.

Please read it rather than believe me or anyone else.

I read it and you're wrong.

Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed areas outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). In other worlds this section applies to areas outside of the US EEZ or territoriality waters.

Further, article I defines the meaning of area.
"Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Also Article 55 defines the EEZ as being under the jurisdiction of the nation.

The title of section 3 is DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES OF THE AREA. Article 151 defines production policies of that area which means they do not apply to the EEZ.

The thrust of this part of the treaty is to define mineral production policies in areas beneath the high which are beyond both the territorial waters and the EEZ of any nation. In no way does this restrict development within those areas.

Then you clearly do not understand what you are reading.

If signed, we will need permission to mine in our EEZ from the UN, the ISA to be specific.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

3. The Task-force’s final recommendations, based in part on the supposed effects of “global warming, were released in a 78-page paper reviewed by KleinOnline.

4. The entire third section of the report recommends that the U.S. join the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention.

5. States the report: “The Task Force strongly and unanimously supports United States accession to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and ratification of its 1994 Implementing Agreement. The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans.

6. Until his CIA appointment in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

7. Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

8. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

9. Panetta’s oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

10. CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch....the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

11. The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. That doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification last year to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya."
Obama quietly seeking to cede U.S. oceans to UN law: Shock recommendation buried in White house report. « Klein Online



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

The President has no Authority to do any such thing with out the Consent of Congress. So good luck with that.

 

[OpenJumper1]

you'd think this would be impossible due to the laws of maritime. Isn't that international? I read that a long time ago.
Or is he just trying for the waters from shoreline to 50 miles out? Well he is doing that so no one thinks about digging for the oil out there. (
To the person who said Obama is punishing us at all costs...I agree totally. He hates us so much, he is a Communist and the things he is doing I know in my heart is so illegal, it's blinding!

 

[Flopper]

This simply is untrue.

The activities of nations in their EEZ's will need approval from the UN and restrictions are placed on those activities.

Read it. It was linked to before.

This is spelled out quite clearly in Part XI, Section 3, Article 151. Crystal clear.

Please read it rather than believe me or anyone else.

I read it and you're wrong.

Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed areas outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). In other worlds this section applies to areas outside of the US EEZ or territoriality waters.

Further, article I defines the meaning of area.
"Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Also Article 55 defines the EEZ as being under the jurisdiction of the nation.

The title of section 3 is DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES OF THE AREA. Article 151 defines production policies of that area which means they do not apply to the EEZ.

The thrust of this part of the treaty is to define mineral production policies in areas beneath the high which are beyond both the territorial waters and the EEZ of any nation. In no way does this restrict development within those areas.

Then you clearly do not understand what you are reading.

If signed, we will need permission to mine in our EEZ from the UN, the ISA to be specific.

Understand? You just need read the damn thing which you apparently have not done. The production policies in Part XI, Section 3, Article 151. apply to areas as defined in Article 1 which is outside of the territorial limits and the EEZ. In fact, none of section 3 applies to territorial waters or EEZ.

 

[Flopper]

you'd think this would be impossible due to the laws of maritime. Isn't that international? I read that a long time ago.
Or is he just trying for the waters from shoreline to 50 miles out? Well he is doing that so no one thinks about digging for the oil out there. (
To the person who said Obama is punishing us at all costs...I agree totally. He hates us so much, he is a Communist and the things he is doing I know in my heart is so illegal, it's blinding!

Not 50 miles. Territorial waters extend only 12 miles. Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ extends to 200 miles from shore. For the US, the concept of the 200 mile EEZ dates back to the Truman proclamations on the continental shelf and coastal fisheries of 1945. Chile and Peru issued similar proclamations. Arab, African, and Asian states issued proclamations in the 1970's. For anyone familiar with maritime law, the EEZ is not a new concept.

The real driving force behind this is the fisheries and oil and gas industry. Clinton, Bush, and now Obama have urged the Senate to approve the treaty. To my knowledge, it has never come before the Senate for a vote.