The Law of the Sea Treaty
Jul-2-07 11:41 pm
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Jack Goldsmith and Jeremy Rabkin have an op ed in Monday's Washington Post arguing that the United States should not ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As noted in several previous posts, the Convention has been endorsed by President Bush , the Department of Defense, the State Department, the private sector, and the entire Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Hardly any other treaty has had such support in U.S. history. How is it possible to oppose such treaty? Goldsmith and Rabkin pose a hypothetical:
Suppose the United States seizes a vessel it suspects of shipping dual-use items that might be utilized to build weapons of mass destruction or other tools of terrorism. It's not a wild supposition. Under the Proliferation Security Initiative, the United States has since 2003 secured proliferation-related high-seas interdiction agreements with countries such as Belize and Panama, which provide registration for much international shipping. If the United States ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the legality of such seizures will, depending on the circumstances, be left to the decision of one of two international tribunals.
This last paragraph hits at the problem. The Convention does exempt "military activities." Here is what Article 298 says:
While Administration witnesses that testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2003 in support of the Convention recognized the "military activities" issue, the concluded that it was manageable. Mark Esper, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy in the Department of Defense noted that
the Administration closely examined the Convention, its negotiating history, and the practices of the tribunals constituted under the Convention. Based on this examination, the Administration believes that it is clear that whether an activity is “military” is for each State Party to determine for itself. Indeed, having the ability to determine what is a “military activity” involves vital national security interests that are critical to our ability to defend the Nation, protect our forces overseas, safeguard our interests abroad, and assist our friends and allies in times of need.And, Esper indicated:
With respect to the particular category of disputes concerning military activities, the Administration further recommends that the U.S. declaration make clear that its consent to accession to the Convention is conditioned upon the understanding that each Party has the exclusive right to determine which of its activities are “military activities” and that such determinations are not subject to review.While Goldsmith and Rabkin suggest that such condition would amount to an impermissible reservation, I am not so sure. Since states are making declarations under Art. 298(1)(d) to exclude certain items from the jurisdiction of the court or tribunal, it would seem reasonable that they could clarify that declaration. (And I guess if in the worst case scenario, a tribunal ruled that the such declaration was a "reservation," and thus impermissible, the U.S. would then simply cease to be a party to the Convention and would thus not be subject to a ruling that would reject our understanding of military activities.)
But even without any clarification, I think the intent of the military activities exemption is clear. It seems highly unlikely that there would be any adjudication of a case where the United States claimed that it was engaged in military activities. Is it possible that such adjudication could take place? Of course, any thing is possible. But it seems remote.
If the United States is looking for a perfect treaty, it will never find it. But if we are looking for an extraordinarily good treaty that will support both American foreign policy goals and global interests, we need look no further than the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Tags: law of the sea
About the editor:
Commentary and analysis at the intersection of international law and politics.
9/11 Commission aggression Alien Tort Statute censorship CIA civil liberties civil rights civil war climate change compensation Congress contractors crimes against humanity customary international law cyber security democracy detainee detainees detainess development diplomatic immunity electronic surveillance enemy combatant enemy combatants enviromental law environmental law expropriation extradition foreign law game theory genocide global economy habeas corpus human right human rights humanitarian assistance intelligence International Court of Justice international courts International Criminal Court international criminal law international environmental law international finance international health international law international legal theory international trade just war doctrine law of the sea law of war laws of war military commission military commissions military law multilateral negotiations nationalization natural law North Korea nuclear nonproliferation nuclear proliferation nuclear weapons outer space peacekeeping piracy poverty preemption prisoner of war prisoners of war rendition rule of law self-executing separation of powers sovereign wealth fund sovereignty Supreme Court SWF terrorism torture treaties United Nations universal jurisdiction use of force war crimes