03 Nov The Wall Street Journal Defends Customary International Law!
I know next to nothing about UNCLOS, but I will still amused by one the reasons the Wall Street Journal invokes today against ratifying it — customary international law:
The best arguments for the treaty come from the U.S. Navy, which likes how it creates a legal framework for navigational rights. The oil and gas industry approves of provisions that create an “exclusive economic zone” for the U.S. out to 200 miles. There’s also the potential for development (with clear legal title) of resources in the deep seabed, which would be managed by the International Seabed Authority on which the U.S. would be guaranteed a seat. And, in fact, the 1994 amendment did get rid of some of LOST’s most obnoxious provisions, such as mandatory technology transfers and other redistributionist nostrums.
Then again, the Navy has been getting along fine by using the “customary law” that has guaranteed freedom of the seas for three centuries. Treaty proponents have taken to arguing that, unless we ratify, Russia will lay claim to oil rights over the Arctic seabed. But Russia’s expansive Arctic claims, possibly including the sea floor under the North Pole, are themselves a product of the treaty.
Sure, customary law in in quotes. But the argument is still an interesting one — if only because it indicates just how desperate the black-helicopter crowd has become. After all, it is hard to imagine the Bush administration, the military, and big business all cheerfully signing on to a treaty that brings us one step closer to World Government.
UPDATE: I guess I was trying to be too clever for my own good. The Bush administration, the military, and big business have all cheerfully signed on to the treaty — which indicates just how far out of the mainstream the WSJ’s position is.
Um… White House Press Release:
“I urge 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. Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.”
Gavin,
What is the “um” for? As I said, the Bush administration supports the treaty, making the WSJ’s objection even that much more out of the mainstream.
Jack Goldsmith (Harvard) and Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason) are now part of the black helicopter crowd?
But, then, what do they know? Surely they’re not as accomplished as you.
Silly me — I didn’t realize that the value of an idea was determined by the pedigree of its author. My bad. In the future, I will refrain from criticizing my betters.
Kevin, two things: They are clearly your betters, whether you’d admit it or not. (Shall we do a citation count? You name the test and let’s run with it!) Second, you’d didn’t make an argument, you made an insult. “Black helicopter crowd.” Your apparent inability to see the difference says all that needs to be said.