Tuesday, December 11, 2012

13 of the world's 20 most corrupt nations are party to UN Law of the Sea Treaty

.
12/11/12, "The return of gunboat diplomacy," Human Events, by Murray, Walters

"The United States has not ratified LOST (UN Law of the Sea Treaty). It should not do so. Not only has the treaty proven ineffectual at settling disputes, it would expose America to a storm international litigation. LOST not only redistributes maritime boundaries, potentially taking away from existing U.S. territory, but also sets new regulations on pollution for not only the sea, but also potential contaminants from U.S. land- and air-based sources.

For example, emissions from manufacturing plants can pass into the ocean when it rains. Rivers near plants can also wash chemicals down into the ocean. This opens all manufacturing sites, or any facility that emits waste, to international litigation aimed at stopping the corresponding economic activity. For America, LOST represents a new source of global regulation aimed at stifling development of natural resources and affordable energy sources. 

It is the failed Kyoto Treaty redux, this time with its own court.

American consumers will see the result in higher prices for energy. Higher energy prices will drive up transportation costs—and all products need to be transported. The increased cost of adhering to new international regulation would cause business owners to pay for these costs through an increase in the price of their products, which then fewer people will be able to afford.

So what does LOST achieve? It incentivizes countries to seek litigation to gain sovereign rights over territory they believe is theirs, in disputes they believe they can win. In some cases, countries that can’t, or won’t, resolve disputes among themselves will turn to ITLOS, which may or may not issue a ruling, more often simply letting countries to continue talks among themselves. This incentivizes countries to ignore the possibility of an adverse ruling when they believe they will lose.

LOST has failed miserably to reduce international tensions. It creates bad incentives and offers no solutions for those problems, while imposing extra costs on the citizens of countries that sign up for it. The treaty deserves to be lost at sea."

'Iain Murray is a Vice President and Riley Walters a Research Associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (www.cei.org).' via Joe Miller email list

============================

"Thirteen of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations according to Transparency International are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive these “international royalties.”

7/6/11, "Law of Sea Treaty Could Cost U.S. Trillions," Steven Gross, Heritage

"So who would benefit from this American largesse? The final say regarding distribution of Article 82 royalties is the “assembly,” a body made up of more than 160 countries. The United States would be powerless in the assembly, where it has only a single vote, to prevent the transfer of royalties to repugnant regimes. The assembly may vote to distribute royalties to undemocratic, despotic or brutal governments in Belarus, Burma, China or Zimbabweall members of LOST.

Perhaps the funds will go to regimes that are merely corrupt. Thirteen of the world’s 20 most corrupt nations according to Transparency International are parties to LOST. Even Cuba and Sudan, both considered state sponsors of terrorism, could receive these “international royalties.”

Those who favor U.S. accession to LOST must ask themselves why the United States should siphon off wealth from its own continental shelf for the benefit of foreign countries that cannot or will not spend the necessary resources to develop their own continental shelves. Instead of diverting U.S. revenues to such dubious purposes, the Treasury should retain any wealth derived from the U.S. ECS for the benefit of the American people."

========================================

Innocent Americans are sold to unelected and unaccountable thugs that define the UN:

7/23/2009, "“ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT”: A STEALTH VEHICLE TO INJECT EURO-STYLE PRECAUTION INTO U.S. REGULATION," Lawrence A. Kogan, Washington Legal Foundation

"As debate continues over whether the United States will accede to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), recent developments in Congress and the Executive Branch indicate a quiet but concerted effort to inject UNCLOS environmental principles into U.S. law. Some, including this author, have argued that U.S. accession to UNCLOS would explicitly usher into the U.S. legal system an aggressive version of Europe’s precautionary approach to regulating economic conduct.1 In advance of accession, though, this “Precautionary Principle” is finding its way into U.S. policy statements and proposed legislation in the more politically palatable and innocuous-sounding, but no less unscientific, form of “ecosystem-based management” (EBM)."...

.

No comments: