| Chapter Nineteen of Pax Americana: The Military Industrial Complex and the War On Terror by Danny Quintana |
| The United States and the Law and the Seas “The law approximates a body of rules that are approximately enforced” Dr. Francis D. Wormuth |
Although the public has been losing confidence in the American legal system, it works the majority of the time. There are anomalies and
difficult cases will on occasion make bad law. But on the whole, our legal system does work. It was not equipped to carry out social policy, like
the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated over two million Americans. But law is all we have for without law there is only the abyss of terror
and poverty of the Dark Ages with the fall of Rome. Where law fails is when terroristskillers like the Mongols burned Baghdad for no reason
other then a hatred of civilized people. Law is what protects the weak from the violent, the elderly from vicious young predators and children
from the killers who would destroy the future. Law makes civilized life happen. International law makes global peace and trade possible.
Given the disparities between the very rich and powerful nations and the poor and powerless, our global society uses law in an attempt to
protect the weak from the strong. The nations of the world have come together and worked out a comprehensive international agreement on
the laws of the oceans. The legal framework developed important international rules of conduct on fisheries, mammals and the environment.
With proper enforcement there is a chance at success.With an exploding population of over six billion and no world government to protect
them, the sea creatures are in harms way. As Jonette N. Braathen has observed:
difficult cases will on occasion make bad law. But on the whole, our legal system does work. It was not equipped to carry out social policy, like
the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated over two million Americans. But law is all we have for without law there is only the abyss of terror
and poverty of the Dark Ages with the fall of Rome. Where law fails is when terroristskillers like the Mongols burned Baghdad for no reason
other then a hatred of civilized people. Law is what protects the weak from the violent, the elderly from vicious young predators and children
from the killers who would destroy the future. Law makes civilized life happen. International law makes global peace and trade possible.
Given the disparities between the very rich and powerful nations and the poor and powerless, our global society uses law in an attempt to
protect the weak from the strong. The nations of the world have come together and worked out a comprehensive international agreement on
the laws of the oceans. The legal framework developed important international rules of conduct on fisheries, mammals and the environment.
With proper enforcement there is a chance at success.With an exploding population of over six billion and no world government to protect
them, the sea creatures are in harms way. As Jonette N. Braathen has observed:
Years of negotiation and compromise resulted in numerous agreements to protect the water and wildlife
resources of the planet. The end result is the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This historic agreement
was the result of years of work and negotiations between the numerous and diverse nations of our global
community. The history of this important legal agreement that seeks to stop the damage to the oceans
originated with the efforts numerous people. Among the most important was Arvid Pardo.
On 1 November 1967, Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the
world to look around them and open their eyes to a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans, the
lifeline of man's very survival. In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he spoke of the
super-Power rivalry that was spreading to the oceans, of the pollution that was poisoning the seas, of the
conflicting legal claims and their implications for a stable order and of the rich potential that lay on the
seabed.
Pardo ended with a call for "an effective international regime over the seabed and the ocean floor beyond
a clearly defined national jurisdiction". "It is the only alternative by which we can hope to avoid the
escalating tension that will be inevitable if the present situation is allowed to continue", he said.
resources of the planet. The end result is the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This historic agreement
was the result of years of work and negotiations between the numerous and diverse nations of our global
community. The history of this important legal agreement that seeks to stop the damage to the oceans
originated with the efforts numerous people. Among the most important was Arvid Pardo.
On 1 November 1967, Malta's Ambassador to the United Nations, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the
world to look around them and open their eyes to a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans, the
lifeline of man's very survival. In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he spoke of the
super-Power rivalry that was spreading to the oceans, of the pollution that was poisoning the seas, of the
conflicting legal claims and their implications for a stable order and of the rich potential that lay on the
seabed.
Pardo ended with a call for "an effective international regime over the seabed and the ocean floor beyond
a clearly defined national jurisdiction". "It is the only alternative by which we can hope to avoid the
escalating tension that will be inevitable if the present situation is allowed to continue", he said.
“With the convention of most of the worlds nations at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 the environmental
issues was put high on the political agenda. This was a major event in the process of
integrating environmental concern in all sectors - including the fisheries sector. This implies
that decision-making in the fisheries sector does not only involve the actual fisheries, but also
the consequences and implications for the environment as such. In addition, the fisheries
sector is becoming the focus of environmental organizations with a rising concern for the
management of marine recourses. Consequently there is a increasing need for co-operation
between fisheries and environmental experts and governments to safeguard the interests of
both sectors and their mutual interest in a sound environment and the sustainable
management of marine recourses.” 1
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 the environmental
issues was put high on the political agenda. This was a major event in the process of
integrating environmental concern in all sectors - including the fisheries sector. This implies
that decision-making in the fisheries sector does not only involve the actual fisheries, but also
the consequences and implications for the environment as such. In addition, the fisheries
sector is becoming the focus of environmental organizations with a rising concern for the
management of marine recourses. Consequently there is a increasing need for co-operation
between fisheries and environmental experts and governments to safeguard the interests of
both sectors and their mutual interest in a sound environment and the sustainable
management of marine recourses.” 1
Pardo's urging came at a time when many recognized the need for updating the freedom-of-the-seas doctrine to take into account the
technological changes that had altered man's relationship to the oceans. It set in motion a process that spanned 15 years and saw the
creation of the United Nations Seabed Committee, the signing of a treaty banning nuclear weapons on the seabed, the adoption of the
declaration by the General Assembly that all resources of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are the common heritage of
mankind and the convening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. What started as an exercise to regulate the seabed
turned into a global diplomatic effort to regulate and write rules for all ocean areas, all uses of the seas and all of its resources? These were
some of the factors that led to the convening of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, to write a comprehensive treaty
for the oceans.
The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva,
representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained and traded national rights and obligations
in the course of the marathon negotiations that produced the Convention. 2 In the words of the United Nations, the “Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. The legal order
established by the Convention is balanced, sound and comprehensive. It provides a basis for the settled order of the oceans and seas for the
foreseeable future. The Convention entered into force on 16 November 1994 and over the past years has achieved nearly universal
acceptance. As at 31 August 2001, 136 States Parties, including the European Community were bound by it.”3 The provisions of the
convention are fairly straightforward, see infra. 4
The nations of the world simply recognized a set of laws had to be developed to protect the ocean from the most dangerous predator, people.
The convention, which attempts to govern the behavior of all 185 members of the United Nations has not been ratified by the richest, and
most powerful, the United States of America.
technological changes that had altered man's relationship to the oceans. It set in motion a process that spanned 15 years and saw the
creation of the United Nations Seabed Committee, the signing of a treaty banning nuclear weapons on the seabed, the adoption of the
declaration by the General Assembly that all resources of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are the common heritage of
mankind and the convening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. What started as an exercise to regulate the seabed
turned into a global diplomatic effort to regulate and write rules for all ocean areas, all uses of the seas and all of its resources? These were
some of the factors that led to the convening of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, to write a comprehensive treaty
for the oceans.
The Conference was convened in New York in 1973. It ended nine years later with the adoption in 1982 of a constitution for the seas - the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. During those nine years, shuttling back and forth between New York and Geneva,
representatives of more than 160 sovereign States sat down and discussed the issues, bargained and traded national rights and obligations
in the course of the marathon negotiations that produced the Convention. 2 In the words of the United Nations, the “Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out. The legal order
established by the Convention is balanced, sound and comprehensive. It provides a basis for the settled order of the oceans and seas for the
foreseeable future. The Convention entered into force on 16 November 1994 and over the past years has achieved nearly universal
acceptance. As at 31 August 2001, 136 States Parties, including the European Community were bound by it.”3 The provisions of the
convention are fairly straightforward, see infra. 4
The nations of the world simply recognized a set of laws had to be developed to protect the ocean from the most dangerous predator, people.
The convention, which attempts to govern the behavior of all 185 members of the United Nations has not been ratified by the richest, and
most powerful, the United States of America.
"The LOST, (Law Of Sea Treaty), may purport to promote international justice, fairness,
and cooperation, but in fact it advances none of those principles. Rather, it raises to the
status of international law self-indulgent claims of ownership to be secured through an
oligarchy of international bureaucrats, diplomats, and lawyers. And the treaty's specific
provisions, mandating global redistribution of resources, creating a monopolistic public
mining entity, restricting competition, and requiring the transfer of technology, reflect the
sort of statist panaceas that were discredited by the demise of Soviet-style communism." 5
and cooperation, but in fact it advances none of those principles. Rather, it raises to the
status of international law self-indulgent claims of ownership to be secured through an
oligarchy of international bureaucrats, diplomats, and lawyers. And the treaty's specific
provisions, mandating global redistribution of resources, creating a monopolistic public
mining entity, restricting competition, and requiring the transfer of technology, reflect the
sort of statist panaceas that were discredited by the demise of Soviet-style communism." 5
There are not any really good legal reasons for refusing to be bound by international law. But the refusal of the Bush administration to
adhere to international law is not new. Witness the usurpation of international law with the Iraq crisis. The main criticisms of the law of the sea
conventions come from the limitations on big businesses ability to pursue economic development of the oceans. As the CATO Institute
observed:
adhere to international law is not new. Witness the usurpation of international law with the Iraq crisis. The main criticisms of the law of the sea
conventions come from the limitations on big businesses ability to pursue economic development of the oceans. As the CATO Institute
observed:
 | |  | |  |
The CATO Institute is one of the best in the world at opposing the growth of government. However, the spread of law to a lawless world is far
different then creating a bureaucratic nightmare that will hinder big business. The exploration of the oceans needs to go forward. And the
economic development needs to be accomplished in a far different manner then the mining that took place in the 1800’s and 1900’s in the
Western United States. The colossal environmental damage from mining and dumping mining waste was not something we wish to repeat
going forward into this century. We can harvest the vast resources of the oceans. But we do not need to be reckless and indifferent in our
approach. If any of you have ever seen the streams below the hard rock mines that were killed by mill tailings and industrial wastes you would
be reluctant to repeat this damage on a worldwide scale under the seas. The last two centuries saw mining activity that was dangerous to
humans and destructive of the environment. As the Natural Resources Defense Council observed:
different then creating a bureaucratic nightmare that will hinder big business. The exploration of the oceans needs to go forward. And the
economic development needs to be accomplished in a far different manner then the mining that took place in the 1800’s and 1900’s in the
Western United States. The colossal environmental damage from mining and dumping mining waste was not something we wish to repeat
going forward into this century. We can harvest the vast resources of the oceans. But we do not need to be reckless and indifferent in our
approach. If any of you have ever seen the streams below the hard rock mines that were killed by mill tailings and industrial wastes you would
be reluctant to repeat this damage on a worldwide scale under the seas. The last two centuries saw mining activity that was dangerous to
humans and destructive of the environment. As the Natural Resources Defense Council observed:
But mining technology has changed dramatically in the last 130 years, and the damage
mining has caused is huge. Today, the most common mining practice is cyanide
heap-leaching, which first involves digging pits so deep they could hold multiple Statues of
Liberty stacked one on top of the other. Large piles of ore-bearing rocks are then sprayed
with huge amounts of highly toxic cyanide, which bonds to the desired minerals and leaches
them out of the pile so they can be claimed. According to the EPA, hard-rock mining releases
more toxics than any other U.S. industry. It also produces twice as much solid waste as all
other U.S. industries and cities combined. These wastes poison our rivers, lakes, streams
Liberty stacked one on top of the other. Large piles of ore-bearing rocks are then sprayed
Liberty stacked one on top of the other. Large piles of ore-bearing rocks are then sprayed
with huge amounts of highly toxic cyanide, which bonds to the desired minerals and leaches
with huge amounts of highly toxic cyanide, which bonds to the desired minerals and leaches
them out of the pile so they can be claimed. According to the EPA, hard-rock mining releases
them out of the pile so they can be claimed. According to the EPA, hard-rock mining releases
more toxics than any other U.S. industry. It also produces twice as much solid waste as all
more toxics than any other U.S. industry. It also produces twice as much solid waste as all
other U.S. industries and cities combined. These wastes poison our rivers, lakes, streams
and groundwater -- an estimated 12,000 miles of rivers alone. And it's not only active mines
and groundwater -- an estimated 12,000 miles of rivers alone. And it's not only active mines
that cause these problems. Today, more than 550,000 abandoned hard-rock mines litter our
public lands. Sixty-six of them are so dangerous they are listed on the Superfund National
Priorities List. 6
mining has caused is huge. Today, the most common mining practice is cyanide
heap-leaching, which first involves digging pits so deep they could hold multiple Statues of
Liberty stacked one on top of the other. Large piles of ore-bearing rocks are then sprayed
with huge amounts of highly toxic cyanide, which bonds to the desired minerals and leaches
them out of the pile so they can be claimed. According to the EPA, hard-rock mining releases
more toxics than any other U.S. industry. It also produces twice as much solid waste as all
other U.S. industries and cities combined. These wastes poison our rivers, lakes, streams
Liberty stacked one on top of the other. Large piles of ore-bearing rocks are then sprayed
Liberty stacked one on top of the other. Large piles of ore-bearing rocks are then sprayed
with huge amounts of highly toxic cyanide, which bonds to the desired minerals and leaches
with huge amounts of highly toxic cyanide, which bonds to the desired minerals and leaches
them out of the pile so they can be claimed. According to the EPA, hard-rock mining releases
them out of the pile so they can be claimed. According to the EPA, hard-rock mining releases
more toxics than any other U.S. industry. It also produces twice as much solid waste as all
more toxics than any other U.S. industry. It also produces twice as much solid waste as all
other U.S. industries and cities combined. These wastes poison our rivers, lakes, streams
and groundwater -- an estimated 12,000 miles of rivers alone. And it's not only active mines
and groundwater -- an estimated 12,000 miles of rivers alone. And it's not only active mines
that cause these problems. Today, more than 550,000 abandoned hard-rock mines litter our
public lands. Sixty-six of them are so dangerous they are listed on the Superfund National
Priorities List. 6
Development of the oceans should take place as the extra four billion people we have added since 1900 will need resources to survive and
prosper. However, economic development should not be accomplished on a “winner take all”, the undersea environment be damned attitude
like we had in the wild west. That gold rush attitude was devastating to the environment.
An international framework of laws governing ocean exploration and development ultimately helps the United States. Then retired Senator
Clairborne Pell throughout his career argued strenuously to ratify this important international treaty. In his words:
prosper. However, economic development should not be accomplished on a “winner take all”, the undersea environment be damned attitude
like we had in the wild west. That gold rush attitude was devastating to the environment.
An international framework of laws governing ocean exploration and development ultimately helps the United States. Then retired Senator
Clairborne Pell throughout his career argued strenuously to ratify this important international treaty. In his words:
"Large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing, unauthorized fishing in zones of national jurisdiction
again, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those delegations who offered valuable
suggestions and worked in a spirit of cooperation to draft this text.
Mr. President, the United States wants to express its long-standing support for the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention), which now has been
ratified by 129 states and one entity. With operative paragraph 1 in mind, we are pursuing
ratification with the goal of becoming a party to the Convention and the Part XI amending
Agreement. We believe that the early call in this resolution for states to insure consistent
application of the Convention is extremely important. It is in the interest of all that
declarations and statements that are not in conformity with the Convention be withdrawn.
Concurrent with this idea of consistency is the call in operative paragraph 20 for those
involved in the development of a draft convention relating to underwater cultural heritage to
assure full conformity with the relevant provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention. Mr.
President, the United States listened intently to the voices of the non-governmental
community at the last meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention.
They addressed concerns related to the continuing threats of piracy and armed robbery
against ships, their ship owners, their seafarers, and their economies. This is a real and
substantial problem, demanding proactive responses. The United States urges all states to
become party to the Maritime Terrorism Convention and its related protocol by the year
2000, and to work together to support the efforts of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) to suppress those threats.
On the issue of migration, the United States pledges its strong support for the work of the
IMO and the UN Crime Commission to deter and punish parties engaged in dangerous
migration practices. The United States further pledges its support for the work of the UN
Crime Commission which is engaged in combating the increasing problem of transnational
organized criminal activity in the trafficking of persons, particularly women and children.
Mr. President, in the past year -- the year of the ocean - major emphasis has been placed
upon sustainable fisheries. There has been important progress on new global fisheries
initiatives undertaken by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for the management
of sharks, to reduce the incidental capture of sea birds in commercial fisheries, and on
managing fishing capacity. The United States urges all countries to actively participate in the
next session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries early next year, where work will continue on
these very important initiatives.
We also wish to reiterate the urgent need for entry into force of the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement and the FAO High Seas Fishing Vessel Compliance Agreement. We urge all
governments, if they have not already done so, to become party to these agreements as
soon as possible. Next year, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development will take up as
its theme oceans and fisheries. The United States believes that one of the most effective
ways nations can promote sustainable fisheries is to implement the provisions contained in
the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the Compliance Agreement, and the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries.
Mr. President, in the next few months, we will be reviewing the oceans chapter of Agenda 21
in the Commission on Sustainable Development. As we begin that review we must be mindful
that the Law of the Sea Convention sets out the rights and obligations of states and provides
the international basis upon which to pursue the protection and sustainable development of
the marine and coastal environment and its resources.
As part of our review, we will be looking for ways to effectively implement Agenda 21's call for
the General Assembly to provide regular consideration within the UN system at the
intergovernmental level of general marine and coastal issues. The report of the
Secretary-General, and the valuable work of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of
the Sea, will contribute significantly to this overall review. We very much appreciate the work
that goes into the annual report on Oceans and Law of the Sea.
This resolution also refers to the work of the Independent World Commission on the Oceans
(IWCO). We recognize the work that went into this report, under the leadership of our
esteemed colleagues from Portugal. Many of its ideas should be given consideration by
Member States. On the other hand, we wish to register our concern that some of the
recommendations in this report are inconsistent with the Law of the Sea Convention and our
support for this resolution cannot be seen as an endorsement of the conclusions reached in
the IWCO report. We continue to believe that a more concerted effort must be undertaken by
states, in conjunction with appropriate United Nations bodies, to give full force and effect to
the 1995 Global Program of Action on the protection of the marine environment from
land-based activities. We look forward to continued steady progress on the protection of the
marine environment. 7
again, we would like to extend our gratitude to all those delegations who offered valuable
suggestions and worked in a spirit of cooperation to draft this text.
Mr. President, the United States wants to express its long-standing support for the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention), which now has been
ratified by 129 states and one entity. With operative paragraph 1 in mind, we are pursuing
ratification with the goal of becoming a party to the Convention and the Part XI amending
Agreement. We believe that the early call in this resolution for states to insure consistent
application of the Convention is extremely important. It is in the interest of all that
declarations and statements that are not in conformity with the Convention be withdrawn.
Concurrent with this idea of consistency is the call in operative paragraph 20 for those
involved in the development of a draft convention relating to underwater cultural heritage to
assure full conformity with the relevant provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention. Mr.
President, the United States listened intently to the voices of the non-governmental
community at the last meeting of States Parties to the Law of the Sea Convention.
They addressed concerns related to the continuing threats of piracy and armed robbery
against ships, their ship owners, their seafarers, and their economies. This is a real and
substantial problem, demanding proactive responses. The United States urges all states to
become party to the Maritime Terrorism Convention and its related protocol by the year
2000, and to work together to support the efforts of the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) to suppress those threats.
On the issue of migration, the United States pledges its strong support for the work of the
IMO and the UN Crime Commission to deter and punish parties engaged in dangerous
migration practices. The United States further pledges its support for the work of the UN
Crime Commission which is engaged in combating the increasing problem of transnational
organized criminal activity in the trafficking of persons, particularly women and children.
Mr. President, in the past year -- the year of the ocean - major emphasis has been placed
upon sustainable fisheries. There has been important progress on new global fisheries
initiatives undertaken by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for the management
of sharks, to reduce the incidental capture of sea birds in commercial fisheries, and on
managing fishing capacity. The United States urges all countries to actively participate in the
next session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries early next year, where work will continue on
these very important initiatives.
We also wish to reiterate the urgent need for entry into force of the UN Fish Stocks
Agreement and the FAO High Seas Fishing Vessel Compliance Agreement. We urge all
governments, if they have not already done so, to become party to these agreements as
soon as possible. Next year, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development will take up as
its theme oceans and fisheries. The United States believes that one of the most effective
ways nations can promote sustainable fisheries is to implement the provisions contained in
the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the Compliance Agreement, and the FAO Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries.
Mr. President, in the next few months, we will be reviewing the oceans chapter of Agenda 21
in the Commission on Sustainable Development. As we begin that review we must be mindful
that the Law of the Sea Convention sets out the rights and obligations of states and provides
the international basis upon which to pursue the protection and sustainable development of
the marine and coastal environment and its resources.
As part of our review, we will be looking for ways to effectively implement Agenda 21's call for
the General Assembly to provide regular consideration within the UN system at the
intergovernmental level of general marine and coastal issues. The report of the
Secretary-General, and the valuable work of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of
the Sea, will contribute significantly to this overall review. We very much appreciate the work
that goes into the annual report on Oceans and Law of the Sea.
This resolution also refers to the work of the Independent World Commission on the Oceans
(IWCO). We recognize the work that went into this report, under the leadership of our
esteemed colleagues from Portugal. Many of its ideas should be given consideration by
Member States. On the other hand, we wish to register our concern that some of the
recommendations in this report are inconsistent with the Law of the Sea Convention and our
support for this resolution cannot be seen as an endorsement of the conclusions reached in
the IWCO report. We continue to believe that a more concerted effort must be undertaken by
states, in conjunction with appropriate United Nations bodies, to give full force and effect to
the 1995 Global Program of Action on the protection of the marine environment from
land-based activities. We look forward to continued steady progress on the protection of the
marine environment. 7
President Clinton was not successful in getting the United States Senate to ratify this treaty. The Republican Party was so busy trying to
impeach the leader of the free world, (much to the amusement of our European friends and allies), that the serious business of protection of
the oceans did not receive the priority it deserved. The Bush administration has been pre-occupied with a war on Iraq and have not moved to
make this treaty legally binding on the world’s most powerful nation. The pollution of the oceans and the destruction of the fisheries and sea
mammals continues. The world’s population keeps expanding and the message of consumerism and materialism remains the song of the day
on Wall Street and Madison Ave.
impeach the leader of the free world, (much to the amusement of our European friends and allies), that the serious business of protection of
the oceans did not receive the priority it deserved. The Bush administration has been pre-occupied with a war on Iraq and have not moved to
make this treaty legally binding on the world’s most powerful nation. The pollution of the oceans and the destruction of the fisheries and sea
mammals continues. The world’s population keeps expanding and the message of consumerism and materialism remains the song of the day
on Wall Street and Madison Ave.
1. International co-operation on fisheries and environment by Jonette N. Braathen (version 20.03.98) on line at:
www.norden.org/tn98540/
2. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective) online at:
www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm
3. Oceans and Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office ofLegal Affairs United Nations, New York: at:
www.oceansatlas.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND00MzkmNjU9aW5mbyY2Mj1ib3R0b211cCY2MT0qJjI9b3JnLmZhby53YWljZW5
0LmNkcy5vZi5NYWluUGFnZQ==
4. Table of Contents United Nations Law of the Sea Oceans and Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of
Legal Affairs United Nations, New York online at
www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/issues/governance_crime/unclos/english/closindx.htm
5. DO NOT ENDORSE THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY by Doug Bandow Doug Bandow is asenior fellow of the Cato Institute. While he was
a special assistant to President Reagan, he served as deputy representative to the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea online at:
www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-029.html
6. The Mining Law of 1872: Time for an Overhaul A 130-year-old law still governs mining on U.S. public lands, allowing massive
environmental damage and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. By the Natural Resources Defense Council on line at:
www.nrdc.org/land/use/fmining.asp
7. Statement by Senator Claiborne Pell, United States Alternate Representative to the Fifty-Third Session of the United Nations General
Assembly, on Agenda Item 38: Oceans and the Law ofthe Sea, in the General Assembly, November 24, 1998 USUN PRESS RELEASE #223
(98)November 24, 1998 online at:www.un.int/usa/98_223.htm
www.norden.org/tn98540/
2. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective) online at:
www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm
3. Oceans and Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office ofLegal Affairs United Nations, New York: at:
www.oceansatlas.org/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND00MzkmNjU9aW5mbyY2Mj1ib3R0b211cCY2MT0qJjI9b3JnLmZhby53YWljZW5
0LmNkcy5vZi5NYWluUGFnZQ==
4. Table of Contents United Nations Law of the Sea Oceans and Law of the Sea Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Office of
Legal Affairs United Nations, New York online at
www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/issues/governance_crime/unclos/english/closindx.htm
5. DO NOT ENDORSE THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY by Doug Bandow Doug Bandow is asenior fellow of the Cato Institute. While he was
a special assistant to President Reagan, he served as deputy representative to the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea online at:
www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-029.html
6. The Mining Law of 1872: Time for an Overhaul A 130-year-old law still governs mining on U.S. public lands, allowing massive
environmental damage and costing taxpayers millions of dollars. By the Natural Resources Defense Council on line at:
www.nrdc.org/land/use/fmining.asp
7. Statement by Senator Claiborne Pell, United States Alternate Representative to the Fifty-Third Session of the United Nations General
Assembly, on Agenda Item 38: Oceans and the Law ofthe Sea, in the General Assembly, November 24, 1998 USUN PRESS RELEASE #223
(98)November 24, 1998 online at:www.un.int/usa/98_223.htm