Talk:United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Balanced debate?

Hey, is it just me, or is the "Debate" section a little, um, polarized? I refer specifically to:

"It is arguable whether such a review would have revealed the relationship between US UNCLOS accession efforts, environmental legislation previously proposed by members of the 111th Congress and oceans policies adopted by the Obama administration."

This appears to be an unsubstantiated accusation of collusion, corruption, or other malfeasance, indicting persons in several levels of government. I half expected the reference to be F. Mulder. If that isn't what this means, it ought to be re-written to make more sense. Otherwise, it can be moved to the appropriate conspiracy wiki.

66.68.88.116 (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove: Taxation

Taxation: The license fees and taxes levied on economic activities in the deep seabed area by the ISA would be, in effect, a form of 'taxation without representation'. Citizens would be indirectly taxed through business and governmental activities in the area.

This counts as an argument against ratification of the treaty. Obvious unsourced nonsense. Also overlaps with 'Economics'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.110.178 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Spratly Islands

I have been surprised to learn today that the US has not ratified the treaty when I had the impression that the objections against China in/on the Spratly Islands are based on that treaty. The impression is now that the US pick the bits they like and what they dislike applies to others. I am not sure that you should base actions, or start a war, on being selective in this fashion. It is an interesting and relevant topic that should probably feature somewhere. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought that's what this page was all about (USA attitude towards UNCLOS)? Incidentally, one of the workarounds commonly used by US negotiators is to propose inserting references to "customary international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea" into draft UNGA Resolutions, which may suggest that UNCLOS is considered a precedent to be followed, but not bindingly. Note also that the USA has ratified one of the UNCLOS Implementing Agreements - the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, so there is clearly no problem with UNCLOS fisheries-related components. Timonroad (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130208082359/http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1147 to http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1147

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)