All issues with Deep Seabed Mining identified by President Reagan in 1983 have been remedied in subsequent 1994 agreement
MYTH: The problems identified by President Reagan in 1983 were not remedied by the 1994 Agreement relating to deep seabed mining. Each objection has been addressed. Among other things, the 1994 Agreement:
- provides for access by U.S. industry to deep seabed minerals on the basis
- of non-discriminatory and reasonable terms and conditions;
- overhauls the decision-making rules to accord the United States critical influence, including veto power over the most important future decisions that would affect U.S. interests and, in other cases, requires supermajorities that will enable us to protect our interests by putting together small blocking minorities;
- restructures the regime to comport with free-market principles, including the elimination of the earlier mandatory technology transfer provisions and all production controls.
Keywords:
Statement of William H. Taft IV (April 8, 2004): Accession to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and Ratification of the 1994 Agreement Amending Part XI of the Law of the Sea Convention ." Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 8, 2004. [ More (10 quotes) ]
"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: