Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
The defeat of the Law of the Sea Treaty is a victory for those properly concerned with American national sovereignty. There was much to support in the treaty - the U.S. Navy, for example, liked its declaration of customary rules on the right of the free passage of ships, and it was the support of the military, I think, that convinced most of the Republican Secretaries of State to press for its ratification.
But those interested in national sovereignty were a bit more concerned about the rules of navigation, where it is really the power of the U.S. Navy, rather than parchment barriers, that keep the sea lanes open to all. Conservatives also opposed the treaty's creation of a new international bureaucracy that would give out property rights to the seabed, collect taxes, and redistribute income (and technology) to poorer countries. It was a welfare state for the oceans. In my recent book, Taming Globalization, I warn of the ways that the rise of global governance schemes such as the Law of the Sea will conflict with the demands of national sovereignty as expressed in our Constitution.
As the European experiment in global governance is collapsing, the United States was prudent to reserve judgment on the Law of the Sea and not ratify now.
Congratulations should go to Senator Jon Kyl, who is the leading voice in the Senate (and the Republican Party as a whole) in defense of American sovereignty from entangling schemes of global governance. In fact, at a recent AEI event, Senator Kyl offered a compromise to make the Law of the Sea consistent with our sovereignty by enacting a statute to adopt the rules of navigation but keep out the redistributive efforts over seabed property rights. But the forces for the treaty would brook no compromise, and gambled for everything or nothing. They got nothing.
Senator Kyl's retirement at the end of this year is a sore loss for the defense of American sovereignty. But I can think of no better going-away present his colleagues could have given him than yesterday's decision on the Law of the Sea Treaty.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Feb '12
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
Prof. Yoo:
Do you have a response to the arguments made by (Republican) Prof. John Norton Moore in favor of the treaty? (His WSJ article can be viewed here.) I don't recall whether Republican senators adequately addressed those points during the debate.
May '10
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
I have a response to his points:
American citizens should never have to answer to any international body. In fact, we do too much of that already.
There is no argument to give the most corrupt organization in the world, as measured in most graft in history(Oil-For-Food anyone), any more power at all.
The Seas are safe because we make the safe. If anything, the rest of the world should pay the United States to keep the sea lanes clear. Maybe we should sell protection. There can be a sliding scale. If your nation wants us to defend you from piracy, you have to pay into a fund to support it. There is a transfer of wealth I can get behind.
If you want to make a tragedy of the commons argument, then I can solve that too: Let people stake claims and then those claims can be enforcer by the navies of their nations in police actions. It seems to me if an American company is able to exploit something in the middle of the Atlantic, they should be protected by the US Navy from claim jumpers. They can share in the cost of their defense.
Mar '11
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
I'd asked this in the members section, and no one knew for sure: is there a time limit on ratifying this monster, or will we have to defeat it year after year in perpetuity? Because if all the leftists have to do is wait us out, eventually, they will get a large enough vote in the Senate to pass it in this case. It may be decades, but they're patient.
Nov '10
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
My question is the same as Douglas's. I understand that Senator Kerry of Swift boat fame intends to return after the election with a new effort to get it ratified. How do we drive a stake through the heart of this bloodsucker?
Jan '12
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
You'll have to sever his head completely and bury it separately....oh....
Oct '10
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
Vote carefully and get others to do the same.
May '10
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
To kill it, a POTUS needs to unsign it.
Jun '12
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
Nice to see a small, but not insignificant, check on the encroachment on our sovereignty winning today.
Feb '11
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
As an agnostic about this treaty but a proponent of a clear delineation of property rights, what do you propose in the alternative? This treaty would give the 5 arctic nations - including the U.S. - increased territory (past 200 nautical miles and up to 350 nautical miles), and decrease uncertainty about ownership in the arctic. Being that other countries, including China, have a large interest in shipping through the Arctic, what alternative do we have that can increase certainty to ownership in the Arctic?
Dec '10
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
RE above about the US Navy.
Also, when in the past has China give a damn about UN rules or any other treaty obligations?
This would be just one more in a long list of treaties where we would pull our weight and follow the rules to the letter, while everyone else did as they pleased and took advantage of us.
To hell with them.
We will defend the sea lanes that we need, and let the rest of the world do the same.
Jun '10
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
slightly OT - but, as in nuclear physics, could bringing a John Yoo post into such close proximity to a Richard Epstein post lead to critical mass and the generation of a new Law Talk?
On topic - R(est) I(n) P(erdition) LOST!
May '12
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
I remember walking away from the Yoo/Epstein law podcast on LOST shaking my head and wondering if all were lost. I can't place names or thoughts but I kind of thought it was a consensus after listening- LOST okay.
I understand there are a lot of good things in there, at least for ivory tower types, and except for the UN involvement, it could have been okay. Sure, China ignores it as they did their monetary policies, for decades, but at least it was something. New UN boards, etc. run by the UN or similar organizations? Ugh.
Aug '11
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
I just hope this means I can stop reading those mawkish mentions in texts on negotiation theory on the great victory the Law of the Sea convention was for multi-polar negoaition practice.
Feb '12
Re: Law of the Sea Treaty's Defeat a Victory for American National Sovereignty
Bryan G. Stephens: I have a response to his points:
American citizens should never have to answer to any international body. In fact, we do too much of that already.
There is no argument to give the most corrupt organization in the world, as measured in most graft in history(Oil-For-Food anyone), any more power at all.
The Seas are safe because we make the safe. If anything, the rest of the world should pay the United States to keep the sea lanes clear. Maybe we should sell protection. There can be a sliding scale. If your nation wants us to defend you from piracy, you have to pay into a fund to support it. There is a transfer of wealth I can get behind.
If you want to make a tragedy of the commons argument, then I can solve that too: Let people stake claims and then those claims can be enforcer by the navies of their nations in police actions...
Pardon the late thanks, Bryan, but I appreciate the thoughtful response. Good points.