Story below the fold ↓
By Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.*
U.S. State Department Legal Adviser John B. Bellinger III’s recent letter to the editor (“LOST will benefit U.S.” – Washington Times 10/31/07) reflects but another example of the true battle in which we are all, in one way or another, now engaged - namely, the battle against ignorance, apathy and bad ideas.
The letter to the editor proclaims that US ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will provide “enormous national security...advantages to the United States, including clear legal rights of navigation for our military through and over the world’s oceans”. Yet it fails to mention the severe economic, legal and security-related costs associated with subjugating the US military’s absolute customary international law right to freedom of navigation to environmental concerns. Much to the contrary, the US military’s right to freedom of navigation has been steadily eroding since the1990’s as the result of the Clinton-Gore administration’s ‘enlightened’ “military operations other than war” policy and the ‘lawfare’ tactics employed by other UNCLOS parties with the help of environmental extremist groups. The European Union and its member states, for example, have continued to convert their economic rights over their exclusive economic zones (EEZs) into legal sovereign claims by establishing environmental ‘Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas’ (PSSAs) all along European coastlines, a bad idea to which the president’s ill-informed advisers, and apparently, some ignorant developing country governments, have increasingly warmed. And, environmental extremist groups have continued to press for the creation of more and more public ocean trusts, consistent with the utopian ‘common heritage of mankind’ doctrine, within other coastal states’ EEZs, known as ‘Marine Protected Areas’ - at the expense of coastal state economic rights and flag states’ legal right to freedom of navigation. Consequently, US military and commercial vessels must now tread lightly when navigating through these environmental sanctuaries and may even be legally compelled to avoid them altogether, costing time, resources and perhaps US national security. Environmentalists have also been working alongside liberal US federal judges to strictly reinterpret US environmental laws, consistent with Europe’s Precautionary Principle and UN Environment Program (UNEP) multilateral treaty law that the US has thus far refused to ratify, including those of UNCLOS, to preclude the US navy’s free deployment of sonar detection technology during essential routine military training exercises within US territorial waters and EEZs, all at the expense of our national security. This has occurred along both US coastlines and in the Hawaiian Islands and Puerto Rico despite the absence of scientific evidence demonstrating that the technologies used actually cause substantial harm to marine life.
In addition, the letter to the editor declares that ratification of the UNCLOS is necessary to provide the US with “economic sovereign rights over enormous oil, gas and other resources” in light of the ‘gold rush’ claims now being staked by Russia and other countries...to Artic resources.” However, it neglects to mention how legal commentators agree that the contest between Russia, Norway, Denmark, Canada and the US over the Artic continental shelf areas essentially amounts to a legal border dispute among contiguous and/or adjacent states that need NOT be resolved through the redistributionist mechanisms of the UNCLOS. Contrary to an August Financial Times article the battle for Artic oil does NOT hinge on a UN panel. UNCLOS jurisdiction is necessary in this case only to preserve the legal authority of the otherwise unsustainable bureaucracies established by the treaty – the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, to ensure the legal existence of a global commons in the Artic – ‘the Area’ - , the living and nonliving resources of which could then be regulated and taxed by the International Seabed Authority and later reallocated and distributed among other UNCLOS parties. In other words, the State Department should be candid with the American people, and not promote the false pretense that the US government needs to ratify the UNCLOS to peaceably resolve in America’s favor this apparent race over Artic resources. The US may pursue diplomatic negotiations with the Russian government or, if necessary, resort to a mutually agreed upon international legal forum to sort out competing claims, without the US ever ratifying the UNCLOS. Indeed, the Government of Peru recently chose to pursue this course of action in an effort to resolve its territorial sea dispute with neighboring Chile, noting along the way, its express lack of desire to sign and ratify the UNCLOS. In other words, Peru was determined NOT to subject its local and regional affairs to the scrutiny and oversight of the world body.
Lastly, the letter to the editor states that the US would not be committed to implement Kyoto standards, presumably within US sovereign territory (land, air, internal and territorial waters), if it were to ratify the UNCLOS, even though practically ALL other UNCLOS parties are also parties to the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which the Kyoto Protocol is designed to implement. The letter makes this bold assertion, furthermore, although it is more likely than not that the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol will be construed by other UNCLOS parties as extending to the global commons, namely to the ‘Area’, consistent with UN Agenda 21, in order to protect the marine environment from the potential environmental hazards associated with oil, gas and mining exploitation. If the US government does not intend, in the future, either to ratify the Kyoto Protocol or to adopt federal Kyoto-style (-lite) greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade regulatory measures within the territorial US, and does not plan for US government and/or commercial vessels, platforms and/or other man-made structures (e.g., rigs) operating on the high seas to submit to international greenhouse gas emissions standards developed, administered and enforced by the International Maritime Organization, expressly referred to as an ‘expert’ UNCLOS international standards body, for purposes of implementing the UNCLOS obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment consistent with international law and standards, including the Kyoto Protocol, why then would the US oil and gas industries work so diligently, silently and unobtrusively to secure a special amendment to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (London Protocol 1996) (IMO - LC-LP.1/Circ.11)? Shouldn’t the U.S. Congress be afforded the opportunity to investigate whether the US oil and gas industry trade associations especially sought this amendment because it would allow their members to sequester (pump back into the seabed floor) the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted during the process of oil and gas drilling and extraction, which would entitle them not only to escape liability for ‘pollution dumping’ under the prior terms of the convention’s protocol, but also to economically profit under forthcoming US greenhouse gas regulations from the resulting offset credits that such sequestration would generate? Isn’t public transparency and accountability, consistent with US constitutional due process, called for in this situation?
Here is a timeline / table which readers may find helpful in visualizing the following sequence of events from which they may then draw their own conclusions:
| Date | Initiative | Subject Matter |
| February 10, 2007 | London Protocol Amendment enters into force | Deep Sea Drilling/Mining CO2 Sequestration no longer deemed a ‘pollutant’ |
| April 2007 | Atlantic Council Issues ReportLaw & the Lone Superpower: Rebuilding a Transatlantic Consensus on International Law | Recommends that the US ratify the UNCLOS to improve America’s image with Europeans |
| April 30, 2007 | White House Press Release: EU-US Summit a Political Success | Greater Transatlantic Economic and Regulatory Cooperation Pursued |
| May 14, 2007 | Washington Note blog entry | US-EU officials meet to discuss UNCLOS |
| May 15, 2007 | White House Press Release: President Submitting UNCLOS to US Senate for Ratification | Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on UNCLOS |
As noted, the London Protocol amendment went into force on February 10, 2007. On April 30, 2007, the White House issued a press release proclaiming the 2007 EU-US transatlantic summit a political ‘success’. On May 15, 2007, approximately two weeks later and 90 days following the entering into force of the London Protocol amendment, the White House announced President Bush’s desire to seek U.S. Senate ratification of the UNCLOS. On May 14th, 2007, one day before the issuance of the White House press release, an unsubstantiated but thought-provoking entry entitled, “Bush Will Push the Law of the Sea”, appeared on the internet-based Washington Note blog. It corroborated a recommendation contained within a recent April 2007 report issued by the Atlantic Council of the United States and co-authored by a former State Department legal adviser.
Reasonable persons may find, in light of all of the above information, that the US State Department had unwisely pursued greater short-term transatlantic economic and regulatory integration in the mistaken belief that it would restore America’s positive image abroad and improve US national security. State Department and other government officials have effectively testified in support of this objective. Unfortunately, the facts also reveal that the price to be paid to secure Europe’s cooperation on promoting and expanding the President’s Proliferation Security Initiative will likely be far too high, especially if it entails the long-term surrender to Europe of America’s unique constitutional sovereignty over its own economic, legal and political affairs upon the ratification of the UNCLOS.
The fundamental question then that all Americans should now ask themselves and their elected representatives is why have the various congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction thus far refused to hold open public hearings to consider whether the benefits are commensurate with the costs that US ratification of the UNCLOS is likely to generate. Arguably, if such hearings had already been commenced, the congress might now be, in the words of former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, engaged in the throes of an “extensive debate [of the kind] written into the very structure of our congressional system.” I believe that Mr. Hamilton is not only correct, but that he would also agree that, no matter the shape a serious and constructive debate over UNCLOS ratification ultimately assumes, the American people, in the end, will have greatly benefited from it - by both avoiding the onset of political apathy and by witnessing the conversion of truly bad or misconceived ideas into good and useful ones.
Mr. Kogan is President/CEO of The Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-partisan non-profit international legal research and educational organization that examines international law relating to trade, industry and positive sustainable development around the world. He is also an Adjunct Professor of International Trade Law and Policy at the John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ.
Recent comments