L.O.S.T. needs to get lost!

[Whitesky12480]

Article

If there is anyone here on Smogon who can read that and break it down into english for us...please do so. I just know it means nothing good for the US and its own sovereignty.

 

[EconBiscuit]

The jist of it all is that they're going to change the policies on international sea laws while trying to keep the existing states in mind, as to not offend them, in order to improve co-operation and peace. And try to bring the sea under international law

 

[Whitesky12480]

The jist of it all is that they're going to change the policies on international sea laws while trying to keep the existing states in mind, as to not offend them, in order to improve co-operation and peace. And try to bring the sea under international law

But anything that gives United Nations control of 2/3 of the Earth's Surface is not a good idea in my mind...considering their track record. Also, Iran ratified it...and they seem to think they can pick and choose when they follow International Law or not.

 

[Misty]

I assume this came as a response to the issue of who would "own" the Arctic Ocean - basically, this would say "the UN does". Of course, I'm not going to read all this, so I'm just going off what's been said here.

 

[EconBiscuit]

Well depends on which country you dislike in power more really, From the assumption of the media and public response in britian, most people would see the sea to be in UN's hands rather than American or EU

 

[Whitesky12480]

I assume this came as a response to the issue of who would "own" the Arctic Ocean - basically, this would say "the UN does". Of course, I'm not going to read all this, so I'm just going off what's been said here.

Actually, not so Misty. It was up for ratification several times since the 80's. Reagan opposed it on the grounds that it can't serve any national interest.

 

[flashfox]

This is interesting, what the heck do you need it for..?

Anyway, from just browsing this, it seems that any ocean water within 200 miles of the land mass of the country is considered that country's water economically, and 12 miles out would be national waters which the country has an absolute right to it..

Roughly, this means that if this was to be passed in the US, we would be able to use the waters 200miles and inward as our own for fishing and sea mining and such, but international waters are uh... fair game?

Anyway, this also allows for you know, rulings on fair exploration and stuff, akin to the WTO. At least, thats how I'm reading it.

 

[EconBiscuit]

Bring the waters back to Britian, We owned it once, then we lost it, We shall own it again!

 

[QuickDraw]

haha with that state of mind the US should just have supreme control of the oceans. i am of the opinion that if this is ratified it will cause many more problems and tensions between countries than if we just let things be as they are now.

 

[Misty]

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN31335584 This is a news article on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea And here's the wikipedia article.