You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Portman, Ayotte, Isakson Sink Law of the Sea Treaty
2012-07-16
The Law of the Sea Treaty was effectively drowned today when Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) announced that they would vote against ratify the U.N. pact.

"After careful consideration, we have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States," Portman and Ayotte, both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote today to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "As a result, we would oppose the treaty if it were called up for a vote."

Isakson announced on his website, "Johnny will vote 'No' if the Law of the Sea Treaty comes up for a vote in the Committee or before the full Senate. This year, Johnny has attended all the Committee hearings on the Law of the Sea Treaty and he has asked tough questions, but he has heard nothing that would cause him to change his 'No' vote from 2007."

Two-thirds of the Senate is required for treaty ratification. With the 31 senators pledging their "no" votes in a letter to Reid last week, plus the three just announced, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry's (D-Mass.) goal of getting the treaty through this Congress have been dashed.

"The treaty's breadth and ambiguity might be less troubling if there were adequate assurance that it will be enforced impartially and in a manner consistent with U.S. interests. But that is not so. The United States could block some but not all actions of the International Seabed Authority, a legislative body vested with significant power over more than half of the earth's surface," Portman and Ayotte wrote. "...The treaty equates tribunal decisions with decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. This means that private litigants will likely be able to invoke tribunal judgments as enforceable in U.S. courts -- against the government and possibly against U.S. businesses. The United States will have no lawful choice but to acquiesce to tribunal judgments, however burdensome or unfair."
I want to say, "It's dead Jim," but things like this don't stay dead. They get brought back in a couple years.
Nah, Champ will just issue an executive order. Perhaps as early as next week...
Posted by:DarthVader

#7  I liked how an Artic put it last month - US Allies + Politicos reject the UNCLOS, in part, because they want the US Navy's CVNS + Gator Boyz, etal. to go anywhere, anytime ala "Gunboat Diplomacy" widout silly things like Treaties holding them back.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2012-07-16 19:40  

#6  Good!

Sink the bastard in the Mariannas Trench, weighted down with a ton of lead.
Posted by: Barbara   2012-07-16 18:19  

#5  Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry's (D-Mass.) goal of getting the treaty through this Congress have been dashed.

I'm sure buried deep in the fine print is a clause refunding Mass state excise tax to rich guy's with yachts over 70 feet long...
Posted by: tu3031   2012-07-16 18:00  

#4  Hmmm, Armed merchantmen on the high seas?
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2012-07-16 17:12  

#3  Spare me the québécoian reminder. All others will be good to go.
Posted by: Besoeker   2012-07-16 17:01  

#2  So lets see. I quess the USA will then be stuck with the "historical map line" division re Alaska and Canada so as to generate the division of subsurface mineral rights in the Beauford Sea (less oil for the USA) rather than the likely more generous Law of the Sea provisions and also will not follow the asserted Right of Transit Passage for the so called North West passage. When you try to suck and blow at the same time, you usually end just doing one of those. (which is usually not a good thing).

And of course the argument that a non US Supreme Court might impose a legal decision (no matter how right it is) that is "burdensome" - well I can think of a number of Supreme Court decisions that are pretty burdensome.

Just playing with ya, southern cousins. We are in fact linked at the hip and need to look out for each other.
Posted by: Northern Cousin   2012-07-16 16:55  

#1  Why the long face, Jahn?
Posted by: Frank G   2012-07-16 16:44  

00:00