Agenda Politics

8/14/2019 Agenda Politics

1/76

ENDI 08

Agenda Politics Scenarios Index

Agenda Politics Scenarios Index ............................................................................................................................................................1Law of the Sea DAUniquenessWill Pass .......................................................................................................................................3Law of the Sea DAUniquenessBush Pushing ................................................................................................................................4Law of the Sea DAInternalsPolitical Capital Key ........................................................................................................................ .5Law of the Sea GoodPotential 1NC Impact .................................................................................................................................... ...6Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Resource Wars Module ...........................................................................................................7Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC PSI Module .............................................................................................................................8Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC War on Terrorism Module ............................................................................................... ...... .9Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC US Leadership Module .........................................................................................................10Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Judicial Review Module ....................................................................................... ...... ...... ....11Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Rule of Law Impact Module .................................................................................................12Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Natural Gas Impact Module ..................................................................................................13Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Natural Gas Impact Module ..................................................................................................14Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Iran Miscalculation Module ..................................................................................................15Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Oceans Module ................................................................................................................. ....16Law of the Sea GoodImpactsKey to US Economy ......................................................................................................................17Law of the Sea DAA2 LOST Bad Impact Turns .............................................................................................................................18Law of the Sea DAA2 LOST Bad Impact Turns .............................................................................................................................19Law of the Sea DAA2 LOST Bad Impact Turns .............................................................................................................................20Law of the Sea DAA2 LOST Bad Impact Turns .............................................................................................................................21Law of the Sea DA AnswersWont Pass This Year .........................................................................................................................22Law of the Sea DA AnswersWont Pass ..........................................................................................................................................23Law of the Sea DA AnswersA2 Arctic Claims ................................................................................................................................24Law of the Sea DA AnswersLOST Terrorism ............................................................................................................................25Law of the Sea DA AnswersLOST Destroys US Sovereignty Turns ..............................................................................................26Law of the Sea DA AnswersKills US Economy/Hegemony ...........................................................................................................27Law of the Sea DA AnswersKills US Hegemony/Military Superiority .................................................................................. ...... ..28Law of the Sea DA AnswersLOST Proliferation Turn ...............................................................................................................29PSI GoodSolves Proliferation ................................................................................................................................................ ...... ....30Law of the Sea DA AnswersMilitary Power/Counterterrorism Turn ...................................................................................... ...... ..31Law of the Sea DA AnswersSpace Privatization Turn ....................................................................................................................32

US-Colombia FTA DA1NC Shell ...................................................................................................................................................33US-Colombia FTA DA1NC Shell ...................................................................................................................................................34US-Colombia FTA DA2NC Must ReadWill Pass + Capital Key ...............................................................................................35US-Colombia FTA DAInternalsCapital Key ............................................................................................................................. ..36US-Colombia FTA DAInternalsRepublican Support Key ...........................................................................................................37US-Colombia FTA DAInternals2NC Bipartisanship Scenario ....................................................................................................38US-Colombia FTA DAImpacts2NC Democratization Scenario .................................................................................................39US-Colombia FTA DAImpacts2NC Food Security Module .......................................................................................................40US-Colombia FTA DAImpacts2NC Drug Trafficking Module ..................................................................................................41US-Colombia FTA DAImpacts2NC Manufacturing Industry Module ............................................................................. ...... ....42US-Colombia FTA DAImpacts2NC Civil War Module ..............................................................................................................43US-Colombia FTA DAImpacts2NC War on Terrorism Module ............................................................................................... ..44US-Colombia FTA DAImpactsLaundry List/Moral Obligation ..................................................................................................45

US-Colombia FTA DAImpactsKey to US + Colombia Econ/Deters Chavez .............................................................................46US-Colombia FTA DAImpactsKey to US Economy/War on Terror ..........................................................................................47US-Colombia FTA DAImpactsKey to Soft Power ......................................................................................................................48US-Colombia FTA DAImpactsMead 92 ....................................................................................................................................49US-Colombia FTA DAA2 Democracy/Rule of Law Impact Turn ..................................................................................................50US-Colombia FTA DAUniquenessWill Pass ..............................................................................................................................51US-Colombia FTA DAUniquenessWill Pass ..............................................................................................................................52US-Colombia FTA DAUniquenessBush Pushing .......................................................................................................................53US-Colombia FTA AnswersWont Pass ..........................................................................................................................................54Bush GoodLinksEnergy Policy ....................................................................................................................................................55Bush GoodLinksEnergy Policy ....................................................................................................................................................56Bush GoodLinksEnergy Policy ....................................................................................................................................................57

1


2/76

ENDI 08Bush GoodLinksElection-Year Politics Democrats Oppose Bush Energy Policies ............................................................. ..58Bush GoodLinksReducing Fossil Fuel Consumption .......................................................................................................... ...... ..59Bush GoodLinksReducing Fossil Fuel Consumption .......................................................................................................... ...... ..60Bush GoodLinksClimate Policies .............................................................................................................................................. ..61Bush GoodLinksAlternative Energy/Renewables ........................................................................................................................62Bush GoodLinksStrong Public Support for Renewables .............................................................................................................63Bush GoodLinksRPS ..................................................................................................................................................................64Bush GoodLinksEnergy Lobbies Oppose Fossil Fuel Consumption ........................................................................................65

Bush GoodLinksOrganized Labor Supports Fossil Fuels ........................................................................................................ ....66Bush GoodLinksReducing Oil Dependence ................................................................................................................................67Bush GoodLinksEnergy Regulations ...........................................................................................................................................68Bush GoodLinksOil Industry Hates Ethanol ...............................................................................................................................69Bush GoodLinksNuclear Power ...................................................................................................................................................70Bush GoodLinksPublic Opposes Nuclear Power .........................................................................................................................71Bush GoodLinksPublic Opposes Nuclear Power .........................................................................................................................72Bush GoodA2 No Spillover .............................................................................................................................................................73Bush GoodA2 Pro-Environment Republicans Support Plan .................................................................................... .......................74Bush BadLinksEnvironmental Lobby = Powerful .......................................................................................................................75Asian Economy ImpactKey to Global Economy .............................................................................................................................76

2


3/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea DAUniquenessWill Pass

LOST is likely to pass thanks to Bushs push, but it will be tough

BarentsObserver.com 5/29/08 ("USA positive to ratification of UNCLOS," http://www.barentsobserver.com/usa-positive-to-ratification-of-unclos.4486935-16174.html)

According to Norwegian NewspaperStavanger Aftenblad, USA is about to change their views on this issue. The Americandelegation, lead by the US vice foreign minister, John D. Negroponte, has given clear indications that they want to start negotiationswhich can end up with a ratification of the agreement. According to Norwegian foreign minister Jonas Gahr Strethe initiative comesfromPresident George W. Bush himself.The other nations were uncertain of how USA would handle this issue, but it now seems that the Americans have the same opinion as the othercostal states of the arctic. But an approval of UNCLOS would have to be decided in Congress, which is a time consuming andfar from easy process. The American presidential election is this autumn and the negotiations will probably continue with the next administration in theWhite House.

Senate support for LOST is "surging" due to rising energy concerns

Lockwood 6/7/08 (Robert, retired council of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, "Putting Whitehouse into Hard Reality,"

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1421688/putting_whitehouse_into_hard_reality/)Let it be said that you read it first in The Journal: Whoever occupies the White House will be looking very seriously at the only short-term remedy: the reservesconfirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the Arctic (including the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve) thatis driving the Senate's surginginterest in ratifying the long-languishing Law of the Sea Treaty, which legitimizes the U.S. claims to the Arctic's seabedreserves.

3


4/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea DAUniquenessBush Pushing

Bush pushing for LOST ratification

Canadian Press 5/28/08 ("Control of North Pole will be decided in orderly way: Arctic countries,"http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2pX9lRsD73kpE8t_Iff1LCl-wwQ)

Under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arctic countries have 10 years after ratification to prove their claims underthe largely uncharted polar ice pack. All countries with claims to the Arctic have ratified the treaty, with the exception of theUnited States.President George W. Bush has been pushing the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty.

Bush continues to push for LOST ratification

Groves 6/16/08 (Stephen, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of theKathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, "LOST in the Arctic: The U.S.

Need Not Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty to Get a Seat at the Table,"http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalLaw/wm1957.cfm)

The AOC was conceived in response to controversial actions undertaken by the Russian Federation. In August 2007, one of Russia's deep-water submersiblesplanted a flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole.[2] Several U.S. politicians and media outlets seized on the Russian stunt as anopportunity to push for Senate ratification ofthe contentious United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOST). They adopted the mantra thatthe United States, if it fails to ratify LOST, "will not have a seat at the table" to resolve territorial claims such as those in dispute in the Arctic. For example:

* Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), at a September 27, 2007, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing regarding LOST, lamented that "Russia is alreadymaking excessive claims in the Arctic. Until we become a party to the Convention, we will be in a weakened position to protect our national interests in thesediscussions."[3]

* Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, at that same hearing, echoed Senator Lugar's sentiment: "Setting aside its recent flag planting...Russia's continuingdata collection in the Arctic reflects its commitment to maximizing its sovereign rights under the Convention over energy resources in that region. Currently, as anon-party, the United States is not in a position to maximize its sovereign rights in the Arctic or elsewhere. We do not have access to the [U.N.] Commission [onthe Limits of the Continental Shelf]'s procedures for according international recognition and legal certainty to our extended shelf."[4]

* In October 2007, The New York Times, after dismissing opponents of LOST as "cranky right-wingers," editorialized that "[t]he steady retreat of the sea ice inthe Arctic Ocean...has touched off a scramble among nations to determine who owns what on the ocean floor. Unless the United States ratifies the treaty, it will nothave a seat at the table when it comes time to sort out competing claims."[5]

* A March 2008 New York Times editorial repeated the "seat at the table" theme: "[President Bush] must keep the pressure on Congress to approve, finally, theLaw of the Sea. Without that approval, the United States will have no voice when decisions are made about rights of passage, exploring the ocean floor and

fishing."[6]* An August 2007 editorial in The Christian Science Monitor opined that the United States "may not have a good seat at the table to decide [the Arctic's] future"because it is not a party to LOST.[7]Senator Lugar, Ambassador Negroponte, and The New York Times are merely repeating an argument previously asserted by the White House. For example, inMay 2007, President Bush issued a statement on "advancing U.S. interests in the world's oceans" that declared: "I urge the Senate toact favorably on U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress.... [I]t will give theUnited States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."[8]

Bush is pushing hard for LOST ratification

3news, 5/28/08 (Denmark, Norway hope Arctic claimants obey UN rules,http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/57492/cat/41/Default.aspx

Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark are all party to the Law of the Sea treaty, but the United States isn't, for the time being

at least.John Bellinger, legal adviser to the US Secretary of State, says the other nations are taking full advantage of this."That's what we see the other countries doing, essentially trying to stake out their rights to the oil and gas on their continentalshelf," he commented."President Bush has been pushing very hard to have the Senate approve the Law of the Sea treaty, in part because it wouldopen up vast oil and gas resources for the US at a time that oil prices are at record high levels."

4


5/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea DAInternalsPolitical Capital Key

Political capital key to LOST passage

New York Times 3/9/08 ("Oceans at Risk," http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09sun2.html)

Last year, President Bush, who is weak on many environmental issues, created one of the largest protected marine reserves in theworld 138,000 square miles of largely unspoiled reefs and shoals near Hawaii. He should replicate that achievement elsewherein American waters and persuade other leaders to do the same.And he must keep the pressure on Congress to approve, finally, the Law of the Sea. Without that approval, the United Stateswill have no voice when decisions are made about rights of passage, exploring the ocean floor and fishing. The United Statesshould have that voice, and the rest of the world needs to hear it.

Capital key to securing Law of the Sea ratification

CQ Politics 1/4/08 ("Return of Dodd, Biden Could Provide Push to Legislation," http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002651763)

In November, the panel approved the Law of the Sea Treaty, a 1982 agreement that the Bush administration and the military, alongwith most Democrats, supports. Strong opposition from some GOP conservatives, however, means that taking it to the floor wouldrequire a significant effort.

Bush supports LOSTpolitical capital is key to passage

Kraus, 07 Vice President for government relations of Citizens for Global Solutions, Foreign Policy in Focus: a Think Tankwithout Walls, Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea, 6/6/07Although the current Bush administration supports the convention, only in 2004 under Richard Lugars (R-IN) chairmanship did the Senate Foreign RelationsCommittee unanimously approve the Law of the Sea Convention. However, the White House was only willing to spend minimal political capital, and Senateleadership bowed to the pressure of a small group of far-right senators and never brought the treaty to the floor for a full vote.

Finally, on May 15, 2007, President Bush publicly urged the Senate to to act favorably on U.S. accession tothe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during this session of Congress. He said that joining will servethe national security interests of the United States, including the maritime mobility of our armed forces worldwide. It will secure U.S. sovereign rights overextensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. Accession will promote U.S. interests in the environmental health of the oceans. And

it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."His support, along with that of thePentagon and State Department, as well as the Navy and Coast Guard,has created the political space to secure the support of 75to 85 senators.

5


6/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodPotential 1NC Impact

LOST ratification is key to US naval mobility, readiness, and effectiveness and resolving international

maritime disputessolves global armed conflict

Sandalow 04 (David, scholar in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, "Law of the Sea Convention:

Should the U.S. Join?," http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb137.htm)

U.S. military operations depend on naval mobility. By codifying navigational and overflight freedoms long asserted by the UnitedStates, the Convention improves access rights in the oceans for our armed forces, reducing operational burdens and helpingavert conflict.

Historically, the U.S. Navy was required to contend with widely varying and excessive claims by coastal nations concerning access to the oceans. Inthe 1940s, for example, Chile asserted the right to control access by all vessels within two hundred miles of its coast. Later, Indonesia asserted a similar right withregard to all waters between its many islands.These claims and many others are effectively resolved by the Convention, which recognizes navigational and overflight freedoms within 200-mile exclusive economic zones and through key international straits and archipelagoes. The Convention also recognizes rights of passage through territorial seas,without notice and regardless of means of propulsion, as well as navigational and overflight freedoms on the high seas.The results include less need for military assets to maintain maritime access rights and reduced risk of conflict.However, the failure of the United States to join the Law of the Sea Convention puts these gains at risk.First, there is a risk that important provisions could be weakened by amendment, beginning in November 2004, when the treaty is open for amendment for the first

time. Currently, for example, the Convention prohibits coastal states from denying transit rights to a vessel based upon its means of propulsion. Some states,however, may propose to amend this provision to allow exclusion of nuclear-powered vessels. Under the Convention, no amendment may be adopted unless theparties agree by consensus (or, if every effort to reach consensus failed, more than two-thirds of the parties present agree both on certain procedural matters and onthe proposed amendment). As a party, the United States would have a much greater ability to defeat amendments that are not in the U.S. interest, by blockingconsensus or voting against such amendments.Second, by staying outside the Convention, the United States increases the risk of backsliding by nations that have put asideexcessive maritime claims from years past. Pressures from coastal states to expand their maritime jurisdiction will not disappear in the years aheadindeed such pressures will likely grow. Incremental unraveling of many gains under the Convention is more likely if the world's leading maritime power remains anon-party.For these reasons and others, General Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently called ratification of the treaty bythe United States "a top national security priority.'' Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, reiterated the Navy's longstanding support for U.S.ratification, explaining that "by joining the Convention, we further ensure the freedom to get to the fight, twenty-four hours a day andseven days a week, without a permission slip.''

6


7/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Resource Wars Module

Failure to ratify UNCLOS locks the US out of negotiations regarding resource developmentthis

ensures global conflict over resources in the Arctic

Eachus 9/10/07 (Ron, former legislator and a former chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission, Statesman Journal,

lexis)

The hypothetical Northwest Passage via the Arctic Ocean is becoming a reality as a result of global warming. But the U.S. is at adisadvantage because of its reluctance to join other countries in the one international agreement that can help sort out the ensuingstampede for resources and concurrent need for environmental and cultural protection.It is ironic. Burning fossil fuels triggers accelerated melting of the Arctic ice. The receding ice makes new oil and gas deposits more accessible.The cycle of excessive consumption perpetuates itself and fosters a new "cold war" as Russia, the U.S, Canada and othercountries lay claim to the fuel- and mineral-rich sea bed.And here's another irony: Even President Bush, who has utter disregard for treaties to reduce carbon emissions, recognizes that ratification of the Law of the SeaTreaty is necessary.In 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea adopted rules under which each country is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile economic zone with rights overnatural resources. Countries can claim jurisdiction beyond that if they can show that their continental shelf extends further.All Arctic border countries except the U.S. have signed the treaty, putting us on the sidelines when boundaries are negotiated anddisputes resolved. We're powerful enough to bully our way around, but we don't have much standing without the treaty.

Since 1982, the Arctic sea ice has decreased by nearly 20 percent. And some geologists estimate that nearly 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil lies underthe now-more-accessible Arctic Ocean.

Canada asserts the passages through its Arctic archipelago are part of its internal waters. Russia claims that the undersea ridgefrom the North Pole to Eurasia is a geological extension of its continental shelf. Denmark replies that the end of the same ridgewas once part of Greenland, which belongs to them.Russia even sent a mini-sub to the bottom of the ocean floor to stake a symbolic claim with a flag encased in titanium. The vision may be laughable. But Russiatakes this seriously. Oil revenues sustained Cold War Russia. The resurgent Russia of today uses oil and gas as a tool for influence over its former Soviet Blockstates."The Arctic is ours and we should manifest our presence," the leader of the expedition declared.Forgive the obvious analogy, butthe recent spurt of activity is merely the tip of a larger iceberg to be revealed in the future wheninternational tensions can escalate into incidents and accidents. Posturing can easily lead to confrontation. Arctic climate changecan lead to greater storms. Oil spills there are harder to clean up.Lost in the territorial fray is the basic question of whether exploitation and extraction of natural resources ultimately will be how we define the Arctic. As harsh asit is, this is a fragile and sensitive part of the Earth. Is the Arctic to become another example of trampling on the environment, disrespect for native cultures, andextinction of native species?

Environmental organizations have been supportive of the Law of the Sea Treaty as a way to control access and development. Sowhether one thinks we should protect the Arctic environment from exploitation or whether one thinks we can't afford to let other countries control the resources,ratifying the treaty gives the U.S. a justifiable seat at the negotiating table.When the Senate considers the treaty this fall, members should ratify it. Leaving the fate of the Arctic up to a colonialism-

like free-for-all of territorial claims will only feed an unfettered appetite for consumption and conflict.

This global grapple for oil risks global extinction

Lopez 06 (Bernardo, BusinessWorld, 6/27, lexis)

In other words, it is all the fault of the Americans that the Middle East is the emerging nuclear powder keg. Israel practices brinkmanship because it knows the USis behind it. It can invade Lebanon and bomb Beirut at will, confident that the superpower is supportive. If we, as a world community, are headed forArmageddon, we have only the lone superpower to blame, which is obsessed with controlling the rapidly dwindling supply

of oil. The grapple for oil can easily catalyze World War III.

7


8/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC PSI Module

Failure to ratify UNCLOS undermines international support for the Proliferation Security Initiative

King 8/22/07 (Neil, Staff, Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Resistance to Sea Treaty Thaws,"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118772758771704410.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Administration officials also argue that Washington's failure to sign on to the treaty has, in fact, undercut the Proliferation

Security Initiative, a U.S. effort to enlist international help to cut off shipments of nuclear and missile technology to countries such asIran or North Korea.Two countries that have declined to join PSI, Malaysia and Indonesia, recently cited Washington's spurning of the Law of

the Sea Treaty as their main reason.

The impact is nuclear war

Ash 02 (Timothy Garten, historian, political writer + columnist, The Guardian, 9/19, lexis)

And then there are these weapons inspections. Again, this is a really good idea for the world. Take this thought and chew on it: you willprobably see a nuclear war in your lifetime. As nuclear weapons proliferate, and become easier to make and carry, the

chances increase that some terrorist or dictator will use them. It is difficult to prevent. It will probably happen. But one way to reducethe chances is to have an international norm ofrigorous, intrusive inspections. The Carnegie Endowment in Washington has proposed that such"coercive inspections" should be backed by a multinational UN military force trained specially for the purpose. Of course they will never be let loose on weaponssites in America, Britain, Russia or China, but these stable states are, in fact, less likely to use their nuclear weapons.

8


9/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC War on Terrorism Module

Ratification of UNCLOS is vital in prosecuting and winning the war on terrorism

Mullen 07 (Adm. Mike, Chairman @ Joint Chiefs of Staff, "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea," 7/31,http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News)

Since 1983, the United States Navy has conducted its activities in accordance with President Reagan's Statement on United StatesOceans Policy, operating consistent with the Convention's provisions on navigational freedoms. If the United States becomes a

party to the Law of the Sea Convention, we would continue to operate as we have since 1983, and would be recognized for ourleadership role in law of the sea matters. Joining the Law of the Sea Convention will have no adverse effect on the President'sProliferation Security Initiative (PSI) or on United States intelligence gathering activities. Rather, joining the Convention isanother important step in prosecuting and ultimately prevailing in the Global War on Terrorism.

Winning the war on terrorism is key to global survival

Jerusalem Post 5/12/04 (lexis)

In the first case, he maintained that submission only serves to encourage terrorists and their leaders and boost their motivation, whilesurvival would depend on nations taking all necessary steps to reduce the risks, including international intelligence cooperation."Dealing with terrorism requires a broad range of responses, starting with clear and coherent policies. It is necessary to have quality intelligence, aswell as law enforcement, the military, and the means to countertechnological and cyber-terrorism," said Alexander. "We also need an educational response

because the children of today will be the terrorists of tomorrow. Unless we can defuse the extremist ideological and theological elements and their propaganda, themeasures won't work. "We have to deal with the root causes and try to improve economic and social conditions - a sort of global Marshall plan - but first it isnecessary to deal with the terror leadership. "To this end some innocent civilians might be harmed but, make no mistake, this is warand to fight it nationshave to pool their resources. No nation can deal with the problem unilaterally."In the past, terrorism was regarded as a tactical rather than astrategic threat but it has become a permanent fixture and a challenge to the strategic interests of nations. "In fact," said Alexander, "itrepresents the most threatening challenge to civilization in the 21st century. The question of survival will depend to a greatextent on how civilized society tackles this threat."--Alexander = director of the Inter-Universities Center for Terrorism Studies

9


10/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC US Leadership Module

Failure to ratify UNCLOS undermines US global leadership by signaling US isolationism

Eagleburger and Moore 07 (Lawrence and John, fmr Secretary of State + director of the Center for Oceans Law & Policyat the University of Virginia, "Opportunity On The Oceans--America Wins With the Law of the Sea Treaty," 7/30, Wash Post,

http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News)

Not surprisingly, the Navy; the Coast Guard; and our fishing, shipping, undersea cable, mining, and oil and gas industries all support ratification, as doenvironmentalists. The congressionally established Ocean Policy Commission voted unanimously for U.S. accession to the convention as its first official act.

There are also important foreign policy reasons to adhere, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Deputy Defense Secretary GordonEngland wrote in an op-ed in June.In sharp contrast to the Kyoto treaty, the United States led the world in negotiating the Law of the Sea Convention and achieved a historicnegotiating success -- a success that probably could not be replicated today. Moreover, when President Ronald Reagan subsequently determined that Part XIof the convention, on seabed mining, required major revision, the world expressly met his conditions before the convention went into effect.Today the convention is in force for 154 nations, including all the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council but the United States. Failure to adherediminishes the voice of the United States in protecting our interests worldwide; it excludes America from the new functionalorganizations created by the convention, such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; and it sends a signal of Americanisolationism.Why then has the convention, which was successfully renegotiated in 1994, not yet received a vote in the Senate? Sadly, ideologically driven opponents have

purveyed a web of distortions. They assert that the convention would give our sovereignty away, but the reality would be enhanced protection of our ships on theseas and the greatest expansion of resource jurisdiction in U.S. history, greater in area than that of the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska combined.They assert that the International Seabed Authority, which after a quarter-century of operation has 35 employees and a budget of less than $12 million, is both aU.N. agency (it's not) and a stalking horse for world government. The agency also has no power to tax Americans.Opponents assert that Ronald Reagan deep-sixed the convention, when instead he set requirements for renegotiation of Part XI, which were successfully achieved,and he directed that we follow the remainder of the convention, which has been U.S. oceans policy now through four presidencies. They assert that the conventionharms President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), when the Joint Chiefs of Staff state flatly that the convention "strengthens thecoalition" and "supports" PSI.Foreign policy issues deserve debate, but not shameful distortions. The Senate must not cede its role to uninformed voices, especially when our

president and national security leaders are on record as to what is in our country's interest and when the rest of the world hasspecifically accommodated America's request for renegotiation. If the Senate misses this opportunity, our allies andadversaries alike will note that U.S. foreign policy has been diminished by an ideological extreme. The Senate should follow the

president's leadership on this important issue.

Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Consultant @ RAND, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for theindefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but becausea world inwhich the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be moreopen and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have abetter chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's majorproblems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regionalhegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise ofanotherhostileglobal rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a globalnuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

10


11/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Judicial Review Module

US ratification of UNCLOS is key to US and foreign judicial review

Maritime Law Association 07 ("The Maritime Law Association's Letter to Sen. Biden," 7/5,http://www.oceanlaw.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=29)

Uniformity of the law of the sea is essential to the recognition of the rights of states, their ships, and their citizens, and crucial to economic prosperity. Accessionto the Law of the Sea Convention will further establish that the world's territorial seas and high seas are not lawless, but are insteadsubject, respectively, to carefully crafted bodies of domestic laws and to a regime of international laws that ensure right of law-abidingindividuals and nations to enjoy the many benefits of the world's waters. The Courts of the United States, as well as courts of foreign statesand the tribunal created under the Law of the Sea Convention, will benefit greatly from the accession of the United States to thisConvention as an emblem of world accord on the principles that govern the peaceful use of the high seas.

This prevents global nuclear war

Kellman 89 (Barry, Professor, DePaul University College of Law, December, 1989 Duke L.J. 1597, lexis)

In this era of thermonuclear weapons, America must uphold its historical commitment to be a nation of law. Our strength

grows from the resolve to subject military force to constitutional authority. Especially in these times when weapons

proliferation can lead to nuclear winter, when weapons production can cause cancer, when soldiers die unnecessarily in the name of readiness:those who control military force must be held accountable under law. As the Supreme Court recognized a generation ago,the Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds. Their fears were rooted inhistory. They knew that ancient republics had been overthrown by their military leaders.. . . .. . . We cannot close our eyes to the fact that today the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military.We should not break faith with this Nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority, a tradition which we believe is firmly embodied inthe Constitution. 1Our fears may be rooted in more recent history. During the decade of history's largest peacetime military expansion (1979-1989), more than 17,000 service

personnel were killed in training accidents. 2 In the same period, virtually every facility in the nuclear bomb complex has been revealed [*1598] to becontaminated with radioactive and poisonous materials; the clean-up costs are projected to exceed $ 100 billion. 3 Headlines of fatal B-1B bomber crashes, 4 thedowning of an Iranian passenger plane, 5 the Navy's frequent accidents 6 including the fatal crash of a fighter plane into a Georgia apartment complex, 7 remindAmericans that a tragic price is paid to support the military establishment. Other commentaries may distinguish between the specific losses that might have been

preventable and those which were the random consequence of what is undeniably a dangerous military program. This Article can only repeat the questions of theparents of those who have died: "Is the military accountable to anyone? Why is it allowed to keep making the same mistakes? How many more lives must be lost tosenseless accidents?" 8This Article describes a judicial concession of the law's domain, ironically impelled by concerns for "national security." In threerecent controversies involving weapons testing, the judiciary has disallowed tort accountability for serious and unwarranted injuries. In United States v. Stanley, 9the Supreme Court ruled that an Army sergeant, unknowingly drugged with LSD by the Central Intelligence Agency, could not pursue a claim for deprivation ofhis constitutional rights. In Allen v. United States, 10 civilian victims of atmospheric atomic testing were denied a right of tort recovery against the governmentofficials who managed and performed the tests. Finally, in Boyle v. United Technologies, 11 the Supreme Court ruled that private weapons manufacturers enjoyimmunity from product liability actions alleging design defects. A critical analysis of these decisions reveals that the judiciary, notably the Rehnquist Court, hasabdicated its responsibility to review civil matters involving the military security establishment. 12[*1599] Standing at the vanguard of "national security" law, 13 these three decisions elevate the task of preparing for war to a level beyond legal [*1600]accountability. They suggest that determinations of both the ends and the means of national security are inherently above the law and hence unreviewableregardless of the legal rights transgressed by these determinations. This conclusion signals a dangerous abdication of judicial responsibility. The veryunderpinnings of constitutional governance are threatened by those who contend that the rule of law weakens the execution of military policy. Their argument --that because our adversaries are not restricted by our Constitution, we should become more like our adversaries to secure ourselves -- cannot be sustained if ourtradition of adherence to the rule of law is to be maintained. To the contrary, the judiciary must be willing to demand adherence to legal principles

by assessing responsibility for weapons decisions. This Article posits that judicial abdication in this field is not compelled and certainly is not

desirable. The legal system can provide a useful check against dangerous military action, more so than these three opinions would suggest.The judiciary must rigorously scrutinize military decisions if our 18th century dream of a nation founded in musket smokeis to remain recognizable in a millennium ushered in under the mushroom cloud of thermonuclear holocaust.

11


12/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Rule of Law Impact Module

--Failure to ratify LOST signals US isolationism and undermines the global commitment to the rule of

law

Williams 12/10/07 (Ian, Columnist for MaximsNews Network, "ANARCHY ON THE HIGH SEAS,"

http://www.maximsnews.com/107mnundecember10ianwilliamsallatseainwashington.htm)

The Law of the Sea should be an important cause for internationally minded liberals and Democrats, representingas it doesa globalcommitment to the health of the oceans and the rule of law. But their silence is stunning. A quick internet search shows that most of theclucking comes from loony right-wing Chicken Littles who think the sky is falling down. There is a certain ironic satisfaction that the White House is now underfire from the ideologically hardcore foundations that have so far been barraging its liberal enemies.At this year's hearings on the treaty at the Senate foreign relations committee, the groups that spoke against ratification, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)and the Centre for Security Policy (CSP), depicted the treaty as an undercover version the Kyoto protocol - reminiscent of earlier far-fetched accusations of anundersea land grab by the United Nations.But money talks as the know-nothings cluck. Last year, Exxon - Big Oil's last-ditch opponent of the UN Convention on the International Law of the Sea -droppedits financial support for CEI. The lobby now left in the field against ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty reveals the wacko money tail that has been waggingthe Republican dog, and, more often than not, converting many Democratic politicians into fawning puppies.The process was described in an email that Mike Scanlon, the lobbyist who once worked for Tom DeLay, sent to his Indian tribal clients. It was released by theSenate Indian affairs committee when it was investigating disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff:Our mission is to get specifically selected groups of individuals to the polls to speak out AGAINST something. To that end, your money is best spent finding themand communicating with them on using the modes that they are most likely to respond to. Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something

and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information form [sic] the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, theinternet, and telephone trees.The wackos are now in the spotlight. But the sane wing of American politics does indeed seem to be letting the ratification of the Lawof the Sea slip past them, even though it presents a unique opportunity to break the conservative hold on multilateralism. If the Senate cannotratify this treaty when the White House, the Pentagon and former Republican chair of the Senate foreign relations committee areonside with a Democratic majority, then Americans had best resign themselves to being all at sea in a world of internationalanarchy.

--Global commitment to the rule of law is vital in preventing global nuclear conflict

Rhyne 1958 (Charles, fmr president @ American Bar Association, "Law Day Speech for Voice of America," 5/1,http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/rhyne58.html)The tremendous yearning of all peoples for peace can only be answered by the use of law to replace weapons in resolvinginternational disputes . We in our country sincerely believe thatman kind's best hope for preventing the tragic consequences ofnuclear-satellite-missile warfare is to persuade the nations of the entire world to submitall disputes to tribunals of justice for alladjudicationunder the rule of law. We lawyers of America would like to join lawyers from every nation in the world in fashioning an international code oflaw so appealing that sentiment will compel its general acceptance.Man's relation to man is the most neglected field of study, exploration and development in the world community. It is also the most critical. The most important

basic fact of our generation is that the rapid advance of knowledge in science and technology has forced increased international relationships in a shrunken andindivisible world. Men must either live together in peace or in modern war we will surely die together. History teaches that the rule of law hasenabled man kind to live together peacefully within nations and it is clear that this same rule of law offers our best hope as

a mechanism to achieve and maintain peace between nations.--card has been gender-edited

12


13/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Natural Gas Impact Module

--US non-ratification of UNCLOS ensures higher natural gas prices and less natural gas supply

Inside F.E.R.C. 12/17/07 (lexis)

Capt. Charles Michel, chief of maritime and international law for the Coast Guard, told reporters that if the US were to ratify theLaw of the Sea convention, it would be able to overcome Canadian objections to having LNG tankers move through the Head HarbourPassage en route to Maine facilities."This is a slam dunk," Michel asserted. "We would win. There's absolutely no question about it."However, because the US has not ratified the treaty, "the only thing that we've got working in our tool kit right now is soft diplomacy, which hasn't worked,"Michel said, even though that diplomatic effort has been taking place at the highest levels."My understanding is, President Bush has personally communicated with [Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper], who blew off President Bush and said no,

because he's playing to his local political constituency," Michel said.He also referred to the possibility of "the use of force against Canada" to achieve access to the contested waterway, but he stressed that it is "highly unlikely we'regoing to do that."Michel noted that Canada has already ratified the treaty and urged the Senate to do the same to allow the US access to the treaty'sdispute-resolution provisions."Right now US citizens are likely going to end up paying more for their natural gas and probably have less of it because ofour inability to become a party to the Law of the Sea convention," Michel said. "I don't know how much closer to home that can hit."

--High natural gas prices devastate the chemical industry taking down the whole economy

Raj Gupta, Chair and CEO, Rohm and Haas Company, 3/19/2003 (Federal News Service) p. lexisBecause the business of chemistry produces the building block materials that the rest of our modem economy relies upon , we aresomewhat of a "canary in the coalmine." As we go, so goes the rest of the nation. In particular, the US chemical industry'seconomic survival depends on having access to an abundant and affordable supply of natural gas.

13


14/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Natural Gas Impact Module

--The chemical industry is critical to manage threats that risk extinction

Rudy M. Baum, Editor-in-Chief, Chemical & Engineering News, 12/6/1999 ("Putting the New Millennium in Perspective" Millennium Special Report, Volume 77, Number 49) http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html

The pace of change in today's world is truly incomprehensible. Science is advancing on all fronts , particularly chemistry and biology working together as theynever have before to understand life in general and human beings in particular at a breathtaking pace. Technology ranging from computers and the Internet tomedical devices to genetic engineering to nanotechnology is transforming our world and our existence in it. It is, in fact, a fool's mission to predictwhere science and technology will take us in the coming decade, let alone the coming century. We can say with finality only this: We don't know. We do know,however, that we face enormous challenges, we 6 billion humans who now inhabit Earth. In its 1998 revision ofworld population estimates and

projections, the United Nations anticipates a world population in 2050 of 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion, with a "medium-fertility projection," considered the most likely,indicating a world population of 8.9 billion people in 2050. According to the UN, fertility now stands at 2.7 births per woman, down from 5 births per woman inthe early 1950s. And fertility rates are declining in all regions of the world. That's good news. But people are living a lot longer. That is certainly good news for theindividuals who are living longer, but it also poses challenges for health care and social services the world over. The 1998 UN report estimates forthe first time the number of octogenarians, nonagenarians, and centenarians living today and projected for 2050. The numbers are startling. In 1998, 66 million

people were aged 80 or older, about one of every 100 persons. That number is expected to increase sixfold by 2050 to reach 370 million people, or one in every 24persons. By 2050, more than 2.2 million people will be 100 years old or older! Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and agingpopulation must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastationwrought by the first waves of industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of

energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us, we must learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. Thereare optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limitsof nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying capacity" for Eartha limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support is a fiction becausetechnological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about theexhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not countmyself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among thetechnological optimists either. There are environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fearmay overcome us and our Earth

before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss ofspecies across the plant and animal kingdomsthese are problems that are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too:Science and technology have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economicthinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industrywhat we atC&EN call the chemical enterprisewill play central roles in addressing these challenges . The first section of this Special Report is a seriescalled "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise share their thoughts about the future of our science andindustry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challengesof the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our

science and our industry to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait ofscientists, engineers, and businessmanagers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry'songoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general public, the chemical industry is at the forefront ofcorporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero.

14


15/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Iran Miscalculation Module

--US failure to ratify the Law of the Sea encourages aggressive Iranian actions that spark

miscalculation

Richardson 1/24/08 (Michael, energy and security specialist at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, The Straits Times,

lexis)

But Asian governments should also urge the US Congress to vote as soon as possible in support of the Bush administration's proposal to ratify the 1982 UNConvention on the Law of the Sea. America's failure to join most of the rest of the world in this treaty governing activities in theworld's oceans and shipping lanes gives countries like Iran a pretext to challenge US warships as they pass into and out of theGulf through a chokepoint that is critical to Asia.

--US-Iran miscalculation escalates to World War 3

Steinberg 07 (Jeffrey, The Peoples Voice, http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/10/04/cheney_s_ouster_may_be_last_chance_to_st)

On Sept. 25, retired CIA officer Philip Giraldi penned a frightening piece for antiwar.com, which took up the potential

consequences of a U.S. military confrontation with Iran. Under the provocative title "What World War III May Look Like,"Giraldi spelled out an unfortunately realistic scenario for an escalation of military conflict between the United States and

Iran, triggered by a low-level skirmish between U.S. and Iranian soldiers along the Iraq border. Under Giraldi's scenario, a full-scale war erupts between the United States and Iran, which soon spreads to Iraq, where Shi'ite insurgents engage in large-scaleasymmetric combat with American soldiers, who finally have to shoot their way out of the country, at tremendous loss of life.Ultimately, the conflict spreads to the Eastern Mediterranean, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent; it sparks a war betweenIndia and Pakistan, a violent coup in Afghanistan, a war between Israel and Syria/Lebanon, rioting throughout the Muslim nationsof the Asia Pacific region, and, ultimately, U.S. use of nuclear weapons, which draws both Russia and China to the brink ofintervention. As Giraldi concludes, "World War III has begun."

15


16/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpacts2NC Oceans Module

Senate ratification is key to the protection of the oceans

KRAUS 6 6 07 VP for government relations of Citizens for Global Solutions[Don, Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286]

During the Nixon administration negotiations began to create a common set of rules for how nations use our oceans. Now, almost 40 years later, the United States is on theverge of joining the 155 nations that have ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (LOS). This treaty defines maritime zones, protects theenvironment, preserves freedom of navigation, and establishes clear guidelines for businesses that depend on the sea for resources. Until the United States ratifies the treaty its rights at sea

will lack international recognition. An incredibly diverse group of organizations and trade associationsincluding environmental, oil industry, peace, andveterans groupshave come together to put this important piece of old business back on the agenda. The reasons these odd bedfellows

back the treaty are as varied as their missions. But together they elicited support from the White House and Senate leadership andhave opened a small window of opportunity for LOS ratification. The timing is critical. According to the bipartisan JointOcean Commission Initiative, oceans and coasts are severely threatened. In its 2006 report card on U.S. ocean policy, the commission gave the U.S. a

D- in International Leadership (up from an F in 2005). The commission cited accession to the LOS convention as the key step the United Statesmust take to improve its score. A February letter from major environmental organizations to Senate leaders urged quick ratification and cited the conventions basicobligation for all states to protect and preserve the marine environment and conserve marine living species as a reason for their support. Ratification is not a sure thingeven though the Bush administration has urged support. If the Senate doesnt act on ratificationbefore the summer recess, it may miss thisgolden opportunity to address the increasing fragility of the oceans.

Ocean destruction will ensure planetary extinction

Craig 03 (Robin Kundis- Associate Professor at Indiana University School of Law, Taking Steps Toward Marine WildernessProtection, McGeorge Law Review, Winter, lexis)

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments havethus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs

provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food

production. 856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. 857 More generally, "oceanecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks

of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary

elements." 858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability

to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, anecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are morestable." 859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree ofinterrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that producesthe most highly valued components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. 860Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use

biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. 861 Similar calculationscould derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary

justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." 862 At the forefront of such arguments should be arecognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to

protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we arenot completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and

policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever wecan - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world.We may not knowmuch about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere

with us. 5

16


17/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea GoodImpactsKey to US Economy

LOST promotes US commercial interests that are vital to the US economy

Sandalow 04 (David, scholar in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, "Law of the Sea Convention:Should the U.S. Join?," http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb137.htm)

The U.S. economy depends on the oceans. Goods worth more than $700 billion are shipped through U.S. ports each year. Morethan a third of oil and gas produced around the world each year comes from offshore wells. (For U.S. oil and gas production, thefigure is roughly 25 percent.) U.S. fisheries had landings in excess of $3 billion in 2002. Submarine cables are essential to globalcommunications and therefore much of global commerce.The Law of the Sea Convention helps promote U.S. commercial interests in several important respects.First, the navigational freedoms recognized under the Convention provide a stable environment for global commerce. Clear ruleswith widespread acceptance facilitate international trade and reduce risks to the many industries that depend upon marinetransport.Second, the U.S. oil and gas industry benefits from the Convention's rules concerning offshore resources. Under the Convention,coastal nations have exclusive authority over all resources within two hundred miles of shore. In addition, coastal nations haveauthority over the ocean floor beyond this 200-mile zone, to the edge of the continental shelf.This latter provision is especially beneficial for the United States, which has the largest continental shelf in the world. Vast areas

of the ocean floor off Alaska, Maine, and other states are brought under U.S. jurisdiction as a result of this provision. Withexpected advances in deep water drilling technologies, these areas hold vast potential for oil and gas production.

UNCLOS strengthens international commerce and trade that form the basis of the US economy

Wagner and Lofrumento 99 (Brett and Philip, Research Assistants @ Maritime Studies Program @ CSIS, Wash Quarterly,Summer, lexis)

First, the treaty, known formally as the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), promotes free access tothe high seas by codifying broad navigational rights into international law. This has been a major objective in American foreign

policy since the United States declared its independence. The first generation of Americans knew then, as successive generationshave known since, that the nation's economy depends on commerce, which in turn depends on navigational freedom. Today,more than 95 percent of U.S. trade by tonnage moves by sea, and nearly a quarter of the nation's gross national product results

from exports. The treaty guarantees the right of navigation, overflight, and ocean-bound shipping in perpetuity.The treaty further promotes free trade and access to markets by granting all nations the right to lay telecommunications cables

both on the high seas and in the two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of any coastal nation. These rights areconsidered essential to the information- and technology-based U.S. economy, especially because American companies currentlycontrol 70 percent of the world's rapidly expanding telecommunication capacity.

17


18/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea DAA2 LOST Bad Impact Turns

LOST is key to protecting the global economy, the environment, and national security

Kraus, 07 - Don Kraus, vice president for government relations of Citizens for Global Solutions, Foreign Policy in Focus,Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea, 6/6/07, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286The Law of the Sea has been described as the most comprehensive and progressive protection for the oceans of any modern

international accord. It essentially protects the economic, environmental, and national security concerns of coastal states, as well asestablishing international cooperative mechanisms for resolving disputes on these issues. The convention also safeguards imperiledmarine habitats by strengthening state sovereignty over the enforcement of environmental regulations up to 200 miles offshore(called the Exclusive Economic ZoneEEZ). These internationally accepted regulations empower states to stop harmful pollution and ocean dumping caused by

previously unregulated ships. The convention also contains special measures to save endangered whales, salmon, and other marine mammals. It helps the fisheriesof coastal states by allowing them to set limits within their EEZ. It also protects valuable migratory fish stocks such as tuna and billfish on the high seas, beyond the200-mile limit. In addition to protection of the marine environment, the LOS promotes the maintenance of international peace andsecurity by replacing a plethora of conflicting claims among coastal states with a 12-mile territorial limit and the aforementioned200-mile EEZ. These regulations set a definitive limit on the oceanic area over which a nation may claim jurisdiction. However,the convention also protects the freedom of navigation on the high seas as well as the right of innocent passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.

LOST does not threaten US sovereignty, security, intelligence gathering, military operations, or the

Proliferation Security Initiative

Lugar, 04 Richard G. Lugar, US senator, The Law of the Sea Convention: the Case for Senate Action, in an address at theBrookings Institution,http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspx, 5/4/04For example, critics have contended that the Law of the Sea will give the United Nations control over oceans when the Convention

provides no decision-making role for the U.N. They have said that the Convention contains production limits on seabed minerals, and mandatorytechnology transfers, both of which were eliminated in the 1994 renegotiation of the treaty. They have suggested that U.S. intelligence gathering will

be hindered even though the Bush Administration and the U.S. military (which conducts all the intelligence operations in question) say that theConvention will have no effect on intelligence activities. They assert that the President's Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)which aims to impede shipments of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, will be hindered by the Convention, eventhough the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations say unequivocally that U.S. ratification of Lawof the Sea would help the PSI. In fact, most of the articles and statements opposing the Convention have avoided mentioning themilitary's longstanding and vocal support for Law of the Sea. This is because to oppose the Convention on national securitygrounds requires one to say that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Chief of Naval Operations, the Office of the Secretary ofDefense, and, indeed, the President of the United States are wrong about the security benefits of the Treaty.

18
http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspx


19/76

ENDI 08


Their impacts are empirically denied: the US has already been significantly affected by LOST, and

loss of sovereignty has not yet occurred

Lugar, 04 Richard G. Lugar, US senator, The Law of the Sea Convention: the Case for Senate Action, in an address at theBrookings Institution,http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspx, 5/4/04

Consequently, the United States cannot insulate itself from the Convention merely by declining to ratify. There are 145 parties tothe Convention, including every major industrialized country. The Convention is the accepted standard in international maritimelaw. Americans who use the ocean and interact with other nations on the ocean, including the Navy, shipping interests, and fisherman, have told me that theyalready have to contend with provisions of the Law of the Sea on a daily basis. They want the United States to participate in the structures of Law of the Sea todefend their interests and to make sure that other nations respect our rights and claims. We also should remember that the United States already has

been abiding by the Law of the Sea Convention since President Reagan's 1983 Statement of Oceans Policy. In addition, the UnitedStates is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, a predecessor to the Law of the Sea Convention. Many of the provisions of the1958 Convention are less advantageous to the United States than comparable provisions in the Law of the Sea Convention. Given that the United States has

been abiding by all but one provision of the Treaty for the last 21 years and that we are already a party to a less advantageousinternational agreement on ocean law, dire predictions about the hazards to our sovereignty of joining the Law of the SeaConvention ring particularly hollow.

LOST protects our national security, commercial interests, and the ocean environment

Sandalow, 04 David B. Sandalow, Senior Fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, Ocean Treaty Good for US,The Washington Times, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2004/0516energy_sandalow.aspx, 5/16/04The case for U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty is straightforward: (1) the treaty protects our national security. Byimproving access and transit rights for our ships, aircraft and submarines, the Law of the Sea treaty facilitates timely movement ofU.S. forces throughout the world. Adm. Clark and all living former chiefs of naval operations have endorsed the treaty. Gen. Richard B. Myers,chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote last month the treaty "remains a top national security priority." (2) The treaty protectsour commercial interests. Provisions on coastal state control of the continental shelf, for example, help provide the certainty crucialto capital-intensive deepwater projects. The American Petroleum Institute, the International Association of Drilling Contractors and the National OceanIndustries Association have all called for treaty approval. (3) The treaty protects the ocean environment. Provisions addressing marine

pollution and fisheries help promote conservation of scarce marine resources. The World Wildlife Fund, National Environmental Trust andOceans Conservancy, among others, support the agreement.

19
http://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspxhttp://www.brookings.edu/speeches/2004/0504energy_lugar.aspx


20/76

ENDI 08


LOST benefits our military, businesses, and environment by setting international legal standards and

protecting US claims to vital resources

Paul and Kraus, 07 Scott Paul, Deputy Director of Government Relations, and Don Kraus, Executive Vice President,Citizens for Global Solutions, The United States and the Law of the Sea: Time to Join, 10/29/07,

http://www.globalsolutions.org/in_the_beltway/united_states_and_law_sea_time_joinThe U.S. military, which relies heavily on its ability to navigate on and fly freely over the sea, has been a strong advocate of LOS.In the absence of treaty law, the U.S. is forced to rely on customary law that can change as States practices change. Also underthis customary law, countries often make unreasonable and irresponsible claims on marine territory to stop the U.S. military fromdefending U.S. interests. The U.S. has tried to talk around these claims, but without a legal framework to support us we riskcompromising our intelligence and military operations at sea. Joining LOS will help us protect our militarys ability to freelynavigate the oceans. Oceans cover over 70 percent of the Earth. In the U.S., we have laws to keep marine resources available for future generations. LOSsets a global standard so that all countries are legally bound to protect the marine environment, protect fish stocks, and prevent

pollution with as much care as the U.S. does. Joining LOS would send a message to the world that we care about the global environment. Each countryhas exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near its coast. Under the terms of LOS, which maps out the boundaries of these areas, the American zone islarger than that of any country in the world. The size of this zone is 3.36 million square miles bigger than the lower 48 states combined. In addition, under LOS,coastal states can exercise sovereign rights over natural resources within the extended continental shelf area beyond this territory. In addition, joining LOSwould give U.S. companies an opportunity to apply for licenses with the International Seabed Authority, which manages claims toresources in the deep seabed, an area over which no one country has sovereign rights. Under LOS, the five Arctic states Norway, Denmark,Russia, Canada and the U.S. can claim mineral and oil extraction rights in the Arctic seabed in areas that extend beyond their respective continental shelves.Joining LOS would protect the claims of U.S. firms to mineral resources and give us an opportunity to provide better managementfor the sensitive Arctic environment adjacent to U.S. boundaries.

LOST is good for US national security, economic interests, and hegemony it increases US credibility

as a leader in international ocean policy

Baker and Shultz, 07 Former Secretaries of State James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz, Why the Law of the Sea is aGood Deal, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119076821159739452.html, 9/26/07The Convention of the Law of the Sea is back. It will be the subject of Senate hearings this week. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, itwill be a boon for our national security and our economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us newtools to advance national interests. Our participation would increase our ability to wage the war on terror. The convention assuresmaximum maritime naval and air mobility, which is essential for our military forces to operate effectively. It provides the stability

and framework for our forces, weapons and materials to be deployed without hindrance -- ensuring our ability to navigate pastcritical choke points throughout the world. Some say it's good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary law. If that approach fails,then we can employ the threat of force or the use of it. However, because customary law is vague, it does not provide a strong foundation for critical nationalsecurity rights. Meanwhile, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis,gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone. This is why the U.S. military has

been a strong advocate of joining the Law of the Sea Convention. This point was reinforced in a recent lettersent by the Joint Chiefs ofStaff to Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, calling on the Senate to support U.S. accession because "[i]tfurthers our National Security Strategy, strengthens the coalition, and supports the President's Proliferation Security Initiative."The convention also provides substantial economic benefits to the United States. It accords coastal states the right to declare anExclusive Economic Zone -- an area where they have exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserveand manage, living and non-living resources extending 200 nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation's EEZ is largerthan that of any country in the world -- covering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. This zone can be extended

beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met. This has potentially significant economic benefits to the U.S. where its continental shelves may beas broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, an area containing vast natural resources. Further, as the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest

coastlines, the U.S. has more to gain and to lose than any other country in terms of how the convention's terms are interpreted andapplied. Accession would increase our influence by allowing us to nominate experts for the technical bodies that apply theconvention's terms, address proposals to amend the convention from within (rather than from the sidelines), and increase ourcredibility as a leader in international ocean policy. The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises ournation's authority to exercise its sovereign interests, jeopardizes its national and economic security, and limits its leadership role

in international ocean policy.

20


21/76

ENDI 08


LOST is key to hegemony, the economy, national security, and the environment

Negroponte and England, 07 John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, and Gordon England, Deputy Secretary ofDefense, US Officials Cite Benefits of Joining Law of the Sea Convention, 6/13/07 http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/20070613113224eaifas0.4741785.html

From the earliest days of its history, the United States has relied on the bounty and opportunity of the seas for sustenance, for economic development, for defenseand for communication and interaction with the rest of the world. Today, as the world's strongest maritime power and a leader of global maritime commerce, theUnited States has a compelling national interest in a stable international legal regime for the oceans. The time has come to take action to protect andadvance the nation's national security, economic and environmental interests in the maritime domain -- through accession to theConvention on the Law of the Sea. The convention entered into force in 1994 and now has more than 150 parties. It supports and strengthensnavigational rights essential to global mobility and it clarifies and confirms important oceans freedoms. U.S. accession to theconvention would put the maritime security and economic rights the nation enjoys on the firmest legal footing. Accession makessense from a national security perspective. This is a critical time for America and our friends and allies -- faced with a wider andmore complex array of global and transnational security challenges than ever before. Effectively meeting those challenges requiresunimpeded maritime mobility -- the ability of our forces to respond anytime, anywhere, if so required. The convention recognizesand supports the rights of transit and innocent passage -- it confirms that there is no need to ask each country along the way for a permission slip. Thatfreedom is already widely accepted in practice, but the convention provides a welcome legal certainty -- a certainty and confidence that the nation owes to our

brave men and women in uniform, as they deploy around the world to protect and defend freedom and liberty. Accession also has great value from aneconomic perspective. In the first place, the freedom of navigation the convention helps ensure is as critical to global economic

development as it is to security considerations. The United States would also receive direct economic benefit from the rights theconvention provides to coastal nations to regulate and protect their offshore marine areas. Specifically, the convention recognizes thesovereign rights of coastal nations over natural resources like oil, gas and minerals, in "exclusive economic zones" out to 200 nautical miles, and in rigorouslydefined continental shelf regions. The United States stands to gain considerably, since its Arctic shelf could potentially extend out to 600nautical miles. As a corollary, the convention recognizes coastal states' rights to extend over their respective maritime zones specific environmental protections-- like regulating fishing stocks and ocean pollution. Assigning and supporting responsibility in this way could markedly improve prospects for the protection of theglobal environment.Accession makes sense from the perspective of U.S. leadership on the world stage. Joining the convention would

give the nation a seat at the table, a voice in the debates, to help shape the future development of oceans law, policy and practice.

Accession would also give the United States better opportunities to keep a close watch on other nations' efforts to exercise theirrights under the law of the sea and to counter excessive claims if necessary. Finally, accession would powerfully and publiclyreiterate the nation's commitment to the rule of law as the basis for policy and action. It would make U.S. leadership more credibleand compelling, in important multi-national efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative -- designed to counter proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction and other dangerous materials. And it would strengthen the general argument in favor of more robustinternational partnership in all domains -- partnerships essential to meeting today's global and transnational security challenges. Forall of these reasons, President Bush has urged the Senate to act favorably on U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention, during this session of Congress. It issimply the right thing to do, to support America's national interests, and to lay an effective foundation for the use and protection of the world's oceans forgenerations to come.

21
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/20070613113224eaifas0.4741785.htmlhttp://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/20070613113224eaifas0.4741785.htmlhttp://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/20070613113224eaifas0.4741785.htmlhttp://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/20070613113224eaifas0.4741785.html


22/76

ENDI 08

Law of the Sea DA AnswersWont Pass This Year

Election-year politics means LOST wont pass this year

Kommersant 6/18/08 ("In the Close Arctic Circle,"http://www.kommersant.com/p897645/r_527/Ilulissat_conference_on_carving_up_the_Arctic_Ocean/)

Its also relevant that the USA hasnt ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, so the existing rules dont work in the U.S.case. Actually Congress can pass any sort of a home bill that would claim the entire Arctic the U.S. territory. No internationalagreements bind the government, Mikhail Kazantsev stressed. American officials have pledged to ratify the conve

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	affnegcom
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Agenda Politics

Documents