Go to: http://www.getusout.org/un/index.html . Then go lobby at http://www.conservativeusa.org/megalink.htm .
The United Nations is a corrupt disgrace and it is time for the USA to WITHDRAW from and defund the United Nations. Please tell your senators, congressmen and everyone you know to support Representative Ron Pauls bill H.R. 1146 which would WITHDRAW the USA from the United Nations, prohibit US funds going to the UN and prohibit US troops serving under UN command. H.R 1146 is the American Sovereignty Restoration Act.
Law of the Sea Treaty Results 1 - 10 of about 723,000 for law sea treaty
The Bush Administration has expressed support for ratification of the Treaty. However, many of former President Reagan's original objections still hold true today and many of the so-called national security advantages are already enjoyed. ... The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N ... on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to ..
Sounds like global welfare / communism to me.
The Law of the Sea Treaty ("Treaty") was conceived in 1982 by the United Nations (U.N.) as a method for governing activities on, over, and beneath the ocean's surface. It focuses primarily on navigational and transit issues. The Treaty also contains provisions on the regulation of deep-sea mining and the redistribution of wealth to underdeveloped countries--as well as sections regarding marine trade, pollution, research, and dispute resolution. The Bush Administration has expressed interest in joining the International Seabed Authority and has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify the Treaty. However, many of former President Ronald Reagan's original objections to the Treaty--while modified--still hold true today, and many of the possible national security advantages are already in place.
National Security Issues
Under the Treaty, a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are established. This sets a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a country may claim jurisdiction. However, innocent passage--including non-wartime activities of military ships--is protected. Even without the Treaty, these boundaries, and the precedent of safe passage, are protected under multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law. Additionally, given the United States' naval superiority, few countries would attempt to deny safe passage. However, under the Treaty, intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.
Environmental and Economic Issues
Former President Reagan refused to sign the Treaty in 1982 due to its innate conflict with basic free-market principles (e.g., private property, free enterprise, and competition). Twelve years later, the Clinton Administration submitted to the U.S. Senate a revised version of the Treaty. This revised version allegedly corrected many of the original objections to the Treaty, but still failed to receive Senate ratification: Therefore, the United States' provisional participation expired in 1998. The Treaty still requires adherence to policies that regulate deep-sea mining, as well as forcing participants to adopt laws and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution. Additionally, under the Treaty, a corporation cannot bring suit, but must rely upon its country of origin to address the corporation's concerns before the U.N. agency.
Reagan's Objections
2. Secondly, former President Reagan believed that the Treaty would restrict the world's supply of minerals. The Treaty was originally designed to limit the exploitation of heavy minerals in order to protect the mineral sales of land-locked, developing nations. This is no longer a severe limitation, because production limits to preserve land-based mining have been removed.
3. The third--and still valid--objection is that mandatory dispute resolution restricts autonomy. Either a U.N. court or tribunal must mandate maritime issues involving fisheries, marine environmental protection, and preservation, research, and navigation. A country may opt out if the dispute involves maritime boundaries, military, or limited law enforcement activities. Submitting to external jurisdiction creates an uncomfortable precedent. Furthermore, it weakens the U.S. argument of autonomy when it refuses to submit to the International Criminal Court. Additionally, a country must petition to be excluded from mandatory jurisdiction requirements.
Carrie E. Donovan is Production and Operations Coordinator in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
Selected Studies
Marjorie Ann Browne, "The Law of the Sea Convention and U.S. Policy," Congressional Research Service Issue Brief for Congress No. IB95010, updated January 15, 2004.
John Luddy, "The Law of the Sea Treaty: Unwise and Unnecessary," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 386, August 10, 1994.
Roger A Brooks, "The Law of the Sea Treaty: Can the U.S. Afford to Sign?" Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 188, June 7, 1982.
Guy M. Hicks, "The Law of the Sea Treaty: A Review of the Issues," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 138, April 28, 1981.