10 Reasons for Rejecting the Law of the Sea Treaty

1.

Ronald Reagan rejected this treaty – not just because of certain details associated with seabed mining, but because of the threat he rightly saw LOST represented to our sovereignty and national interests in its empowerment of supranational government. Representations that his concerns have been “fixed” by a 1994 agreement Bill Clinton’s administration negotiated are false. Key Reagan lieutenants like former National Security Advisor Bill Clark, former Counselor to the President and Attorney General Ed Meese and the late former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick have agreed that LOST remains unacceptably defective.

To learn more, click here.

2.

LOST empowers the United Nations. LOST is also known as the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.” All LOST agencies are U.N. organizations, and the U.N. Secretary General plays an important role in administering the treaty. The U.N. has a track record of corruption and hostility to American and its allies, most recently evident in its entrusting to Libya and Iran decisions about an anti-Israel conference on “racism.” The UN’s multilateral agencies and bureaucrats cannot be trusted to oversee or administer 70% of the world’s surface covered by its oceans.

To learn more, click here.

3.

LOST threatens American sovereignty by subjecting our governmental, military and business operations to mandatory dispute resolution – to be decided by international bodies that are stacked against us. LOST’s broad jurisdiction – involving virtually anything affecting the world’s oceans – is an invitation to UN interference in our affairs on an unprecedented scale. Worse yet, decisions by LOST’s dispute resolution mechanisms are final and without appeal, obliging us to submit to the dictates of others perhaps motivated by anti-American agendas.

To learn more, click here.

4.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is inconsistent with American security. As a party, the United States would be obliged to uphold myriad commitments at odds with our military practices and national interests, including one reserving the oceans exclusively for “peaceful purposes.” Proponents claim that military activities are exempt, but obligations such as those barring the use of territorial waters for intelligence collection or their transit by submerged submarines clearly set the stage for disputes that may well be decided against us. The treaty also requires the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies to other nations and international organizations hostile to American interests. So-called “fixes” in the 1994 agreement do not alter this reality.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by restraining our military, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by forcing the transfer of sensitive, militarily useful technologies, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by emboldening China’s aggressive claims on the oceans, click here.

To learn more about how LOST threatens American security by providing a forum for ludicrous territorial claims such as Russia’s claim to the floor of the North Pole, click here.

5.

President Clinton called LOST “the greatest environmental treaty in history.” It will be used by America’s economic competitors and strategic adversaries to interfere with our sovereign decisions concerning actions they deem to have unacceptable environmental impacts – probably with little regard to the costs to Americans and their businesses. LOST is a back-door way to impose U.S. compliance with the Kyoto accord.

To learn more, click here.

6.

LOST would establish a precedent for international taxation. LOST empowers a multilateral International Seabed Authority (ISA) to administer deep seabed mining operations. This supranational ISA would impose fees, royalty requirements and other payments on American companies in order that they may exercise exploration and production rights they already enjoy. These forced arrangements would take money out of the American business revenue stream for an international government’s use – and would amount to a tax on Americans without representation.

To learn more about how LOST imposes international taxation on Americans, click here.

To learn more about the potential for LOST to set alarming precedents for the international control of other “international commons” such as Outer Space or the Internet, click here.

7.

LOST imposes requirements of other treaties and international standards that the U.S. has not accepted. LOST international bodies to hear disputes related to the purposes of LOST. This means that if the U.S. joins LOST, it could be brought before a LOST tribunal for violating a totally different treaty – including a treaty that it has not even joined – as long as it relates, for example, to protecting the marine environment.

To learn more, click here.

8.

If the U.S. is a party to LOST, it could be subjected to decisions enforced by activist American judges, importing foreign or perhaps even “international” law into the courtroom, or perhaps even a UN Navy.

To learn more about how LOST opens the door to the imposition of “international” law in American courtrooms, click here.

To learn more about how the United States is fully capable of protecting its interests on the oceans without subjecting itself to LOST litigation mechanisms, click here.

9.

LOST creates precedents for replacing accountable, representative government under our Constitution with supranational bureaucratic arrangements that are non-transparent and wholly unaccountable.

To learn more, click here.

10.

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department cannot be counted on to truly represent American interests on LOST. It reflexively embraces treaties and other international agreements at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, seemingly favoring harmonious relations with other countries over U.S. national interests.

To learn more, click here.


In summary, America does not need to join LOST to protect its interests in the world’s oceans. A “seat at the table” in LOST agencies where we can be simply outvoted will not safeguard those interests. It will, however, oblige us to abide by the majority’s dictates. The U.S. already belongs to several multi-country organizations (for example, the Arctic Council) designed to solve regional oceans disputes, and can always exercise diplomacy with another country directly. In the final analysis, a navy second-to-none – the large and potent U.S. fleet we need today and for the foreseeable future – is a more certain basis for assuring freedom of the seas and our interests than a defective international treaty like LOST.


Contact Your Senators!!!


Get involved and educate your Senators about the harmful effects of the Law of the Sea Treaty. We encourage you to write a brief e-mail to your Senators highlighting several of the points in this document. While original letters are most effective, click here for language and formatting suggestions.


CONTACT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HERE