Matthew Yglesias » Law of the Sea Opponents Are Letting Rival Powers Rewrite International Law in their Interests

Feb 14th, 2009 at 10:14 am

Law of the Sea Opponents Are Letting Rival Powers Rewrite International Law in their Interests

Commander James Kraska from the U.S. Navy writes in Foreign Policy about the damage to American interests being done by conservative opponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty. Specifically, with the United States not involved in the process, other countries are able to write rules that we don’t like but have no ability to stop.

This is, of course, a broader problem with the modern right’s blanket hostility to international law. The train still moves forward without us, but it does so less effectively and in a way that we’re not able to influence. As the world’s dominant power, we can kinda sorta get away with this kind of behavior, but it works less-and-less well with every passing year and only accelerates our relative decline.

Comments
19

Filed under: International Law, Law of the Sea Treaty,

19 Responses to “Law of the Sea Opponents Are Letting Rival Powers Rewrite International Law in their Interests”

gordon gekko Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am
…only accelerates our relative decline.

Do explain. Unless a broader shift to multilateralism is in our absolute best interests (which I don’t think you claim) how can it improve our relative position?
George Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Specifically, with the United States not involved in the process, other countries are able to write rules that we don’t like ,,,

If you check the secret rulebook, I think you’ll find that they can’t do that.
Notorious P.A.T. Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Do explain

Were you in a coma the past 8 years?
Led Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am
gordon: You realize that “improve our relative position” is not the opposite of “accelerate our relative decline,” right?
Jeremy Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 11:25 am
#1: Unilateralism only works as a consistent policy if we’re willing to go to war with everyone else or just become a pariah state. So we become either Imperial Japan or North Korea. Wonderful.
Skeptic Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
The United States has always been a rogue country.

In the past, the United States has been able to get away with it by virtue of splendid isolation, vast territory and resources, and a fractured world.

On the other hand, this new Reagan/Bush America of deindustrialization, monster debt, trade deficits … maybe that’s not going to work out so well.

Go figure.
robbehrman Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
One of the wierd things about this is that admiralty law and the law of the sea is one of the oldest types of international agreements.

I mean, violations of this law were used in the early years of America as a cassus belli to get us into the war of 1812, we’ve been involved in multinational pirate clearing operations since our early years, and the international community routinely uses reflagging ships for political, strategic (take the offer to reflag Kuwaiti tankers as American ships in the Tanker War in the 80s), or economic gain.

Now that you bring it up, I’m really interested in this issue, and it seems like the kind of thing where a liberal internationalist perspective is really important.

Also, it’s a case of one of those policy problems where technological innovation (like the ability to change what country owns a ship while the ship’s enroute, and communicate that to the captain of the ship) can really change the substance of the law; as opposed to those policy problems that remain more-or-less structurally similar regardless of technological change.

I really wish I knew more about this, now! I know it’s not a big public issue, but it seems like a suprisingly important one. Matt, please keep this one up!
robbehrman Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Oops, just realized he posted some of the same points in the article cited.
Caitlyn Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I did check the (not) secret rulebook (article 316, paragraphs 1 & 4). It turns out that other states can agree to change the rules as they affect each other by amending the Convention – but if we join it before amendments are adopted, then every party and every future party has to deal with us according to the rules as we ratified them and not by the amended rules. When people talk about locking in the rules, that’s what they are talking about. Amendments to the provisions relating to deep seabed mining are handled a bit differently – they can be blocked by any member of the Council of the International Seabed Authority – and when the US joins, we will be the only nation with a permanent seat on the Council – but we can only block amendments there after we join the convention.
24AheadDotCom Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
What’s funny about this is that LOST is another sovereignty sapping scheme that both MattY and Bush support. Yes, that’s right: Bush supported the same thing MattY does.

What’s not funny about this is that LOST contains GlobalTax provisions that would allow the UN to obtain funding through a tax, and that would lead to many, many issues including another thing that some Democrats support.

MattY and Bush: two globalist scum peas in a pod.
rapier Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Treaties. Treaties are so old millennium. We are not going to sign any more stinking treaties. Think about it. Are we negotiating with anyone or talking with anyone in the entire world about signing some treaty. It isn’t going to happen. It’s over.

There will be ‘agreements’ about the nature of money and ‘trade’.
nat Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
MY has touched on one the most interesting of the conspiracy theories out there. Google ‘fringe on the American flag’ and you will discover people that think all of our courts are actually operating under British Admiralty law and that the Constitution has been overturned.

Really. And you thought that was just a fancy flag.
Luke Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
international law=1 world government=the debbil
Jeremy Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“What’s not funny about this is that LOST contains GlobalTax provisions that would allow the UN to obtain funding through a tax, and that would lead to many, many issues including another thing that some Democrats support.”

What’s that? Funding for the black helicopters so they can take all our guns away?
no comment Says:
February 14th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
So what if international law moves forward without us? What is the rest of the world going to do about us ignoring it? Pass a strongly worded General Assembly resolution?

I don’t know anything about what LOST says or whether or not it would be a good idea to sign it but this has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen Matt make. And these days that’s saying a lot.
Buy Viagra Online Says:
March 21st, 2009 at 9:50 am
Buy Viagra Online…

http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…
Buy Propecia Says:
March 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Buy Propecia…

http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia…
Get Your Ex Back Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:13 am
I follow your blog for quite a long time and should tell you that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.
How to Get Six Pack Fast Says:
April 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I read your blog for quite a long time and must tell you that your posts are always valuable to readers.