9 Implementation of the Law of the Sea in the United States: Can the US become Exceptional in Affirming the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention?

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Baker Benjamin

At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified 16 years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinise the US government's account of those attacks. Despite the emergence of an impressive and serious body of literature that impugns the official account and even suggests that 9/11 may have been a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have been reluctant to wade into what appears to be a very real controversy. African nations are no strangers to the concept of the false flag tactic, and to its use historically in the pursuit of illegitimate geopolitical aims and interests. This article draws on recent African history in this regard, as well as on deeper twentieth-century European and American history, to lay a foundation for entertaining the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag. This article then argues that the United Nations should seek to fulfil its core and incontrovertible ‘jury’ function of determining the existence of inter-state aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.


Istoriya ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (11 (109)) ◽  
pp. 0
Author(s):  
German Gigolaev

The USA, as well as the USSR, initiated the convocation of the III UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (1973—1982). However, after the Ronald Reagan administration came to the White House, American diplomacy significantly changed its policy toward the Conference, which eventually resulted in US refusal to support the draft Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was worked out during the Conference. This behavior was in line with policy course of the Reagan administration — more aggressive than that of their predecessors. The article considers the American policy regarding Law of the Sea negotiations in the first months of Reagan's presidency, during the Tenth Session of the III UNCLOS.


1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-178 ◽  
Author(s):  

In 1982 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted a treaty, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that succeeded in resolving the most fundamental questions of the law of the sea in accordance with three basic principles: 1.The rules of the law of the sea must fairly balance the respective interests of all states, notably the competing coastal and maritime interests, in a manner that is generally acceptable.2.Multilateral negotiations on the basis of consensus replace unilateral claims of right as the principal means for determining that balance.3.Compulsory dispute settlement mechanisms should be adopted to interpret, apply, and enforce the balance.


Author(s):  
Ted L. McDorman

SummaryFor twenty years, both Canada and the United States were non-parties to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). In 2003, Canada finally ratified the LOS Convention, leaving the United States as the only industrialized state that was not a party to the “constitution of the oceans.” Canada's perspective on the US non-party status involves an equal measure of frustration/disappointment, appreciation/understanding, and ambivalence.


1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 808-816 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Watters

The Convention on the Law of the Sea, the culminating document of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, received favorable votes from 130 States in April 1982. The United States voted against approval. Articles 149 and 303, which address archaeological and historical objects found in various ocean zones, are compromise measures with ambiguous texts that are subject to interpretation. Archaeologists generally, not simply underwater archaeologists, should be concerned with these provisions because they could set an unfortunate precedent for future international negotiations involving cultural resources, and because they may apply to inundated prehistoric sites as well as to shipwrecks.


BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSKwiatkowskaBarbaraDrAssociate Director, Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea051990371111116RosenneS., SohnL.B., eds., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. A Commentary, Vol. V, NordquistM.H., Editor-in-Chief, M. Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht 1989, 497 pp. + Index, Dfl. 295/$165/£95.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19901990T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00002813a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.Vol. I of the series containing the text of the Convention and Introductory Material was published in 1985. The volumes still to be published include: Vol. II – Second Committee: Articles 1 to 132, Annexes I and II, and the Final Act, Annex II; Vol. Ill – First Committee: Articles 133 to 191, Annexes HI and IV, and the Final Act, Annex I, Resolution II; Vol. IV – Third Committee: Articles 192 to 278, and the Final Act, Annex VI; and Vol. VI – Comprehensive Index to Series, consolidated list of treaties, cases and appendices, additional reference material.2.For a general appraisal, see NandanS.N., ‘A Constitution for the Ocean: The 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention’, 1 Marine Policy Reports (1989) pp. 1–12; Council on Ocean Law (COL), The United States and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Synopsis of the Status of the Treaty and its Expanded Role in the World Today (1989). Note that the legislative history of the Convention is also the subject of some publications of the United Nations Office for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (OALOS), in particular, Pollution by Dumping (1985, E. 85.V.12); Rights of Access of Land-Locked States to and from the Sea and Freedom of Transit (1987, E.87.V.5); Regime of Islands (1988, E.87.V.11); and Navigation on the High Seas (1989, E.89.V.2). See also QALOS' Master File Containing References to Official Documents of the UNCLOS III (1985, E.85.V.9).3.See RosenneShabtai, Practice and Methods of International Law (1984) pp. 41–42, also pp. 14–15.4.Note that the important evidence of State positions can also be found in statements at the 1982 closing session of UNCLOS III in Montego Bay. E.g., the coastal State's sovereign rights over archeological objects found on the continental shelf were for the first time suggested by Cape Verde (Volume V, p. 159), and after their rejection by UNCLOS III, Cape Verde reiterated its position at the Montego Bay session and subsequently declared upon ratification of the Convention that the removal of such objects from its maritime areas is subject to its consent (UN Law of the Sea Bulletin (1987) No. 10, p. 8). In some cases, e.g., the designated areas concept introduced by India, State practice (potentially) not conforming with the Convention is only reflected by the Montego Bay statements.5.See the Special Reports on PrepCom by the Council on Ocean Law (COL), Washington DC, especially the recent ones of the Seventh Session, First Meeting, 27 February - 23 March 1989, and the Second Meeting, 14 August - 1 September 1989. For an annual review of PrepCom work, see the Law of the Sea Reports of the United Nations Secretary-General, the recent one being UN Doc A/44/650 (1989) pp. 34–41.6.See, e.g., the Brazilian declarations upon signature and ratification of the Convention, in UN Law of the Sea Bulletin (1985) No. 5, p. 6, and (1988) No. 12, p. 8. Cf., KwiatkowskaB., ‘Military Uses in the EEZ – A Reply to A.V. Lowe

1990 ◽  
Vol 37 (01) ◽  
pp. 111
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document