There are plenty of pros and cons. The U.S. Navy, for instance, has supported ratification of LOST since it was negotiated in the late '70s and further negotiated during the Reagan Administration. Their position is that it codifies very favorable "customary practices" as it relates to access to certain territorial waters to keep sea lanes open.
There are sound reasons to oppose this treaty and, on balance, I'm against it as long as we are willing to protect undersea resources (that the treaty grants to us as "ours") whether we are a signatory or not.
This was Palin's concern as governor of Alaska and she had every reason to be concerned about it with 25% of the undeveloped oil & gas reserves on the planet sitting off the coast in interrnational waters in what would have been the "Exclusive Economic Zone" of the U.S. under the treaty, and with Russia and others chomping at the bit to get at these resources while we do nothing to develop or protect them.
My understanding, and it is a very surface understanding, is that it cedes some sovereignty, if that is the case, I am against it.
John Bolton testified before the Senate in confirmation hearings on April 11, 2005. Here's the relevant portion on LOST sovereignty and taxation. It's Bolton's take:
LUGAR: [D]o you see any potential entanglement of the United States with the Law of the Sea Treaty and loss of sovereignty to the U.N. or to any other world body?That's what he said. He has since turned against the treaty and I think his current reasoning is sound. He has said nothing further that I'm aware of to amend his 2005 position on sovereignty and taxation.BOLTON: No, I don't see that the Law of the Sea Treaty implicates the United Nations in any material respect. And those that have gone over the question of the seabed conclude there's no risk of taxation or anything like that.
The U.N doesn't even administer this treaty but the treaty DOES set up international tribunals to arbitrate seabed disputes. As the only major power not to ratify the treaty, we don't participate. Fine by me, but we must assert our rights to seabed resources that are ours. This was Governor Palin's concern. Presidential candidate Sarah Palin might very well "revise and extend" her position.; Maybe she'll station a couple of carrier battle groups in the Aleutians to protect the resources...LOL.
As I said, I'm opposed to the thing on balance, but the Navy and others disagree. There are plenty of pros and cons but it's extremely easy to demagogue this thing and that's exactly what's going on here.
Ronald Reagan was adamantly opposed to the LOST because he recognized it clearly as one more of the seemingly endless series of incremental assaults on our national sovereignty. He held the line against it, but as soon as he left office the globalist elites (including the GHWBush, Clinton, and GWBush administrations) ramped up their efforts to revive it.
The GWBush folks claimed they “fixed” the problems Reagan was concerned about, and I’m not certain of the dates but I believe John Bolton’s early testimony in favor of it was during the time he was being considered as UN Ambassador. Regardless, that testimony was based on the Bush administration’s official policy regarding LOST.
In addition, despite his many excellent qualities, Freepers need to understand that Bolton is one of the establishment/globalist elite. He just happens to be in the faction that doesn’t hate this country and want to see it humbled and/or destroyed. Too many here confuse style with substance when it comes to evaluating public figures.
Reagan was right about LOST. No matter how reasonable it may sound, or whatever safeguards to our sovereignty its proponents may claim, it’s a Trojan horse.
For example, those tribunals which it is claimed we need to have a voice in are just like the WTO (World Trade Organization) tribunals we were assured would treat us fairly in trade disputes. Their record shows, however, we have been almost universally screwed in their rulings, just as almost all United Nations votes go against us. The “international community” hates us, and all of these “multilateral” organizations and agreements are designed to disadvantage us and give advantage to our opponents.