The Discerning Texan

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote in favor of ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty is disappointing, but grassroots opposition is still building against the treaty. The strong statements against LOST in recent days by the Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee campaigns are an indication that their campaigns have already felt this movement against the treaty. The opposition of the Senate’s Republican leadership is another good indication. If Majority Leader Harry Reid brings LOST to the floor for a vote, it is going to be a real fight.

For those not up-to-speed on the issue, here are the main points to remember about LOST:

1. LOST threatens U. S. sovereignty. Not just a little or around the edges, but fundamentally. Once the U. S. became a party to the treaty, any number of issues could be adjudicated by a LOST tribunal. It is not clear what the limits are on the issues that could be taken up by LOST. Jurisdiction over anything that affects the oceans directly or indirectly could be asserted. The majority of members of the tribunal adjudicating any particular issue are almost certainly going to be hostile to U. S. interests. Tribunal decisions cannot be appealed. Unlike every other country in the world, those decisions could be enforced in U. S. federal courts against the federal government.

2. LOST would be a big step toward United Nations global governance. The treaty’s reach extends far beyond international issues and disagreements into nations’ internal policies on a wide array of issues. The treaty’s structure is designed to replace national decision making with UN decision making on these issues.

3. For the first time, the United Nations would have international taxing authority through LOST. Enough said.

4. LOST would accomplish backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and far beyond. A claim before a LOST tribunal that industrial CO2 emissions are leading to increasing acidification of the oceans and thereby threatening the world’s marine ecological resources would almost certainly be decided in the affirmative. Other nations could decide how to respond to such a decision. In the U. S., a private party, such as an environmental pressure group, could file suit in federal court to force the federal government to implement the tribunal’s decision. This is because in the U. S., ratified treaties have the same status as the Constitution. This is not true of any other country.

More on LOST here.