1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6666/bush-and-the-socialist-law-of-the-sea-treaty/

Bush and the Socialist “Law of the Sea Treaty”

May 22, 2007 by

Just great. For years we’ve resisted signing on to the socialistic Law of the Sea Treaty. Well, Bush is now urging “the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.”

The LOST was enacted as part of the socialistic New International Economic Order and “permanent sovereignty over natural resources,” movement of the 1970s, which resulted in the Middle Eastern oil expropriations and nationalizations of that decade, the international law implications and background of which are discussed in detail in my 2005 Oxford University Press book International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide.

For criticism of the LOST and reasons why we should not accede to it, see: Watchdog Group Opposes U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty; CEI’s The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Bad Deal for America; Doug Bandow‘s Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty; and for the more hysterical, conspiracy-minded: Socialist was behind U.N. sea treaty; Bush to pressure Senate to revive U.N. sea treaty: Critics say it would put 70% of Earth under control of global bureaucracy; Law of the Sea Treaty Is Stealth Back-Door Effort to Implement the Global Warming Treaty; Anti-War Pacifist Group Had Behind-the-Scenes Role in Drafting the Pact; Secret Agenda: Law of the Sea Treaty Provides Elements of World Government; U.N. “Mother of the Oceans” Exposed as Radical Socialist and Loony Leftist Who “Taught” Dogs to Type and Play Piano.

{ 6 comments }

Bruce May 22, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Given that the socialists constitute a majority in the Senate, I can’t imagine that august body would do anything but ratify it.

Nat May 23, 2007 at 8:48 am

Bruce,

Are there any senators who are NOT soocialists? I’d seriously like to know.

aip May 23, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Anthony Gregory May 24, 2007 at 12:22 am

Is “I hate Bush” an intelligent and civil comment?

TokyoTom May 24, 2007 at 1:04 am

Stephan, any insight into the motivations of the Buh Administration in resubmitting the treaty?

I largely agree with Bandow’s criticisms of it.

Berin Szoka June 4, 2007 at 1:48 pm

The Administration is pushing the treaty for two reasons. Most immediately, they likely view this as an opportunity to placate the internationalists. But the Administration has consistently supported ratification because they have accepted the Navy’s arguments that ratification is necessary. The Navy supports ratification because of some combination of two factors: (i) they believe, incorrectly, that the U.S. will gain some substantive advantage in navigation rights by signing the Treaty over the rights the U.S. currently enjoys, having followed all of the Treaty except the communist/socialist resource appropriation provisions since the 1980s and (ii) they believe that ratification will give them some tactical advantage over the State Department inside the U.S. government in jockeying over naval exercises.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: