Law of the Sea Treaty

[guntherg16]

http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=9848421

Click the link above to learn more about the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and to take action on it.

Fill out the form to email your Senators to let them know you are against this treaty. Then, pass it on to everyone you know.

 

[lucius]

Thank you!

 

[Givemelibertyor.....]

Email sent.

 

[guntherg16]

Thank you!

I thank you for taking action.

 

[guntherg16]

Email sent.

Thanks.

 

[RP4ME]

What are these idiots thinking?????Whats in it for teh US - nothing nothing so why is stuff liek thsi even on teh table! ARggggh

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What are these idiots thinking?????Whats in it for teh US - nothing nothing so why is stuff liek thsi even on teh table! ARggggh

That's what happens when people continue to elect the worst people in the world to represent US

 

[eleganz]

What the hell? So does this mean, we would technically have to get permits to travel the UN waters? silly bush...

 

[guntherg16]

I agree, this treaty makes absolutely no sense from an American perspective. There is nothing for the United States to gain. I hope everyone takes a minute to fire off the email to your Senators that the link in the original post leads to.

Thanks.

 

[guntherg16]

bump

 

[reaver]

Link is no longer active.

 

[RickSp]

Remind me - why are the Burchies so bent out of shape about the treaty?

 

[reaver]

As far as I understand it-correct me if i'm wrong- it would have coastal states paying a tax to an international agency like the UN.

 

[mordechai]

Reaver's right.

The real question to me is how to enforce it? Because, well, even when Paul's President, we'll still have a Navy, and I'd like to see the U.N. try to impose a tax at some port. Can you spell Tomahawk missile?

 

[RickSp]

As far as I understand it-correct me if i'm wrong- it would have coastal states paying a tax to an international agency like the UN.

Do you have any reference for that claim? I don't think it exists in the treaty. In fact the treaty establishes for the first time as a basis of international agreement a 200 mile exclusive economic zone to prevent just that sort of thing. There are provisions for taxes levied on deep sea mining but these have been modified significantly since Reagan first objected to the treaty in 1982.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

 

[reaver]

Do you have any reference for that claim? I don't think it exists in the treaty. In fact the treaty establishes for the first time as a basis of international agreement a 200 mile exclusive economic zone to prevent just that sort of thing. There are provisions for taxes levied on deep sea mining but these have been modified significantly since Reagan first objected to the treaty in 1982.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

One controversial and extremely vague UNCLOS provision, Article 82, is titled, “Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.” It declares that a coastal state, such as the U.S., shall make “payments or contributions” through the ISA, “which shall distribute them to States Parties to this Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.”

No one seems to know how much this will cost the U.S.

http://www.cptexas.org/ck10.18.07.shtml
Like I said I'm not 100% sure if its a tax or just 'contributions' or whatnot.

 

[RickSp]

One controversial and extremely vague UNCLOS provision, Article 82, is titled, “Payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.” It declares that a coastal state, such as the U.S., shall make “payments or contributions” through the ISA, “which shall distribute them to States Parties to this Convention, on the basis of equitable sharing criteria, taking into account the interests and needs of developing States, particularly the least developed and the land-locked among them.”

No one seems to know how much this will cost the U.S.

http://www.cptexas.org/ck10.18.07.shtml
Like I said I'm not 100% sure if its a tax or just 'contributions' or whatnot.

That is only related to deep-sea mining which is not the perceived issue that it was back in 82. Unless the US engages in deep sea mining off our continental shelf it will cost exactly nothing.

Your link is unintentionally funny. The heading "Senator Vitter Nails Oxman" made me laugh. Vitter nails another one.

 

[reaver]

That is only related to deep-sea mining which is not the perceived issue that it was back in 82. Unless the US engages in deep sea mining off our continental shelf it will cost exactly nothing.

Your link is unintentionally funny. The heading "Senator Vitter Nails Oxman" made me laugh. Vitter nails another one.

Yeah I knew the link would be of no use when I scrolled up to the top. I've made half-hearted attempts to understand this treaty... but I just don't understand international law.

Under this type of treaty an area like the north pole/(or for that matter 200 miles off the shelf) would be up for grabs right? Then the party that is mining it pays the contribution/tax to go to developing nations right?

 

[RobertJ]

"International Seabed Authority" i just love saying that silly name "International Seabed Authority"......hahaha

 

[RP4ME]

Reaver's right.

The real question to me is how to enforce it? Because, well, even when Paul's President, we'll still have a Navy, and I'd like to see the U.N. try to impose a tax at some port. Can you spell Tomahawk missile?

That was the Old US we live in a new strange beast now hoping to find our way back!