Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone
1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:
(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;
(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:
(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;
(ii) marine scientific research;
(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;
(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.
2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.
3. The rights set out in this article with respect to the seabed and subsoil shall be exercised in accordance with Part VI.
What does Part VI say about this? I bet that is the part you want to avoid.
While people are bickering back and forth at each other playing the political Left-Right Hegelian Dialectic, these people are actively selling this country out from underneath it.
Ever wonder why the Trevon (sp?) Martin case gets weeks of coverage from the mass media while something as important as America's sovereignty isn't even being discussed?
It is forming not informing opinion.
ps.. I think the Trevon Martin murder is awful. That's not the point though.
Mircea, I see that you don't know that Lugar lost in his primary yesterday and don't know why. What he attempted to do in your story about his committee in 2004 happened to be a large part of why the Tea Party in his state was against him and got their man nominated. Maybe you need to look into that little election to see what you obviously don't know.
Who controlled the US Senate between January 2003 and January 2009?
Why, um, that would be the Republicans.
What did the Republican-controlled Senate do in 2004?
Looky here!
The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI on the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Annex (Treaty Doc. 103–39), having considered the same reports favorably thereon with declarations and understandings as indicated in the resolution
of advice and consent, andrecommends that the Senate give its advice and consent to accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent to ratification.
Sorry, but UNCLOS provides for a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.
I hope you are not suggesting that the continental shelf extends 200 miles from the US, because you would be very, very wrong indeed.
If you want to appear intellectual and simultaneously make an argument that has at least some points to be taken, you can whine about the fact that that it bars submerged vessels within the 12-mile territorial limit.
That means submarines would have to surface in order to transit any point within the 12-mile territorial limit.
It also means that the US could not illegally mine the harbors of another country using submersible unmanned vessels (like it did in Nicaragua) and then of course if the US cannot do that, then the US would not be sued in court and lose to a country (like Nicaragua) who sued the US because the US illegally mined their harbors, and then the US wouldn't have to overthrow the government that sued it (like it did in Nicaragua).
I suppose to support your claim, you could always cite the Sermon on the Oil Rig from the New Testicle:
Conoco-Phillips 5:7 Blessed is he who illegally mines the harbors of another country in retaliation for taxing US corporations; for he shall have bananas and fruits and sugar and breakfast cereals to eat (tax free).
I really hate paid spammers.
Delivering...
Mircea
Senator Lugar may have wanted it but the republican congress did not. BTW did you notice that Lugar has been thrown out on his butt?
When do I get my pay?
"Were seabed mining ever to thrive, a transparent system for recognizing mine sites and resolving disputes would be helpful. But the Authority's purpose isn't to be helpful. It is to redistribute resources to irresponsible Third World governments with a sorry history of squandering abundant foreign aid. This redistributionist bent is reflected in the treaty's call for financial transfers to developing states and even "peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status"-code for groups such as the PLO. Whatever changes the treaty has undergone, a constant has been Third World pressure for financial transfers. Three voluntary trust funds were established to aid developing countries. Alas, few donors have come forward to subsidize the participation of, say, sub-Saharan African states in the development of ocean mining. Thus, the Authority has had to dip into its own budget to pay into the funds." Sink the Law of the Sea Treaty | Doug Bandow | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
I know you like redistribution of wealth since you are an Obama supporter but most Americans don't, especially when the funds will go to terrorist nations.
Republican Senators including John McCain are buying into the United Nations Global Taxation Scheme. This is intentionally designed to hand over Our Sovereignty to the third world.
More than 130 congressmen (including 12 (D) Senators) led by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., signed a letter sent to President Barack Obama Monday expressing their opposition to a U.N. arms trade treaty if it violates U.S. gun owner rights and sovereignty. -
And Obama supplied the extremely vile Mexican cartels with all kinds of weapons, so it's not that he's against killing. This is all about control over the American people and the destruction of this nation.
I guess what you are saying is that the republicans are too inept to prevent yet another crisis. Does that about sum it up?
Treaties are ratified in the US Senate. The US Senate is under Democrat/Progressive majority control. Once signed, treaties are forever; they cannot be done away with by the next administration. "Republicans" have little control over this as a minority.
Harry Reid will try to sneak this in under the radar. Who still believes Obama is a patriot and cares about the US?
Reid will let anything in that subverts the US citizenry.
Who still believes Obama is a patriot?
Never have in the first place, always noted his contempt for the core principles that are the foundation of this Nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama Intends to Sign Our Sovereignty Away
