Posted on 09/16/2007 11:40:42 AM PDT by processing please hold
Excellent post, thank you for the info.
That is not what page 9 of the PDF says. It says signed, August 21, 1996, with a footnote to take affect December 2001.
The International Tribunal, established by the Convention, is one of the dispute-settlement forums to which parties might submit their disputes. It has exclusive jurisdiction in disputes concerning deep seabed mineral resources,
provides advisory opinions when called upon to do so, and may be called upon to prescribe injunctive relief or provisional measures before a case or dispute was to be decided on the merits. Most often, the Tribunal’s injunctive and provisional measures have been directed at cases involving the detention of vessels and their crew. The Tribunal holds its meetings and hears cases at its seat in Hamburg, Germany. It is composed of 21 members (judges) elected to nine-year terms.
We, the US, will have but one vote in any dispute created by unclos. One vote.
Taking the un's past records in supporting us, how do you think they'll vote when a dispute arises?
I'm sorry for the delay. God I miss my bookmarks. Give me a minute.
I don’t know. And Clinton should be jailed for doing this to us.
If you have trouble opening that PDF, let me know and I’ll take a screen capture and post it.
I’m going to cube some buffalo meat now, be back later.
(tidbit, buffalo makes the best sauces!)
“Is Bush the Anti-Christ or was the left always right about him being dumber than a box of rocks??”
Yes.
No commercial deposits of any mineral can be found. Obviously plenty of minerals of some types, but none economic to mine.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/status.htm
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was open for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. Out of 159 original UNCLOS signatories, 29 have yet to ratify. From among 38 States that did not sign UNCLOS or were not independent States at the time of its opening for signature, 17 have acceded or succeeded to it. Certain coastal States have not yet expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention. These were, as at 30 September 2005: five in the African region (Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Morocco); 10 in Asia (Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Niue, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey and United Arab Emirates), one in North America (United States of America) and six in Latin America and the Caribbean
I'm looking for their list of countries.
We have not ratified it - yet.
There are a couple of treaties that have not been ratified yet to complete the NAU.
I had them at hand at one time; but I lost those (they may be with your bookmarks).
I think I can find them though. Will take a few searches and I can’t do that until later.
But, that post (link) is more proof showing the NAU is not a conspiracy theory!
Makes me wonder why they want to go there. No country spends the money it would require to go there without there being some sort of payoff.
A country would do it because it demonstrates national competency in hi-tech and the capability is parallel to military competence. It’s all for show and national image. They might talk about tech spin-off, but it’s kind of a lame argument.
Can offensive weaponry be set up there? Or is that too far for lasers?
There is a time limit set for unclos - 2009.
I think I can find them though. Will take a few searches and I can’t do that until later.
If you find them, please ping me to them.
I have to start my NAU folder all over again.
Speaking of the NAU. Have you seen the courses offered at Arizona state?
http://www.asu.edu/clas/nacts/bna/
Teaching Modules: Backgrounders and Cases
Building North America Into Your Course
North American Economic Integration: General Overview
Analyzing North American Integration
Managing North America
North American Structures and ¨Sites¨of Integration
Continental Strategies of Selected North American Companies
Complete List of All Modules
So they love to blow tax dollars to show how smart they are? Makes sense, ain’t their money.
I defer to RW on the topic of the Space Treaty.
No one could have said it better than you did. American citizens need to forcibly relocate the United Nations to more appropriate surroundings. A great place would be Darfur, Africa. My next question is who is going to be the enforcing arm of this treaty of the sea?
If they need somebody with experience on the water perhaps they could appoint Ted Kennedy as a rear admiral.
“Face it. We have repeatedly elected a whole lot of traitors to power in this country in both parties and they have sold us out and are on the verge of doing us in for their own benefit.”
Oorah, pen.
Boots.
“Did someone know we were going to be hit the fall 2001 and want to restrict a response?”
GMTA
1st WTC hit 1993.
Operational meetings starting thereafter.
Funding approved by OBL in 1999? 2000?
Who ELSE knew? John Doe #87040-A?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.