Key Reagan opponent of UNCLOS now concedes 1994 amendments have resolved remaining issues
Ken Adelman, an active member of the Reagan Administration’s efforts to persuade allies that they should not support the Convention in 1982, now supports ratification, explaining that the changes made through the Part XI Agreement have responded properly to the concerns they had raised in the early 1980s:
Scraped away are virtually all the barnacles we denounced during our 1982 ‘‘scuttle diplomacy.’’ There’s no bar to private firms mining the minerals. No mandatory technology transfer. No decision-making without U.S. participation. Indeed, the U.S. gets a permanent seat on the decision-making body, and thus has veto power. There’s no bar to future qualified mining firms, and no gigantic LOS institution for wannabe bureaucrats.
The seabed mining regime reflects free-market principles. It offers compa- nies the legal certainty needed for large-scale, long-term investments; protects existing claims of U.S. firms; and reinforces international law on territorial waterways. It locks in U.S. offshore economic rights as it expands our rights over resources in a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, 200-mile continental shelf, and in a shelf beyond 200 miles off Alaska.
Quicktabs: Evidence
Arguments
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
-
In 1994, the U.S. and other developed nations lobbied and won a number of significant concessions and amendments to UNCLOS that addressed the concerns that previous administrations had with the treaty, including provisions over tech transfer and resource sharing.
Keywords:Related Quotes:- Treaty modifications in 1994 addressed national security concerns over technology transfer provisions
- The 1994 agreement explicitly resolved issues that Reagan administration had with UNCLOS
- The 1994 agreement resolved U.S. concerns over deep seabed mining
- All issues with Deep Seabed Mining identified by President Reagan in 1983 have been remedied in subsequent 1994 agreement
- ... and 9 more quote(s)
Parent Arguments:Counter Argument: