超级军网7月16日美参院否决要求批准联合国海洋法的动议。 南海无 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 07:47:29
7月16日美参院否决要求批准联合国1982年海洋法（ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ）的动议。 已经有34票反对，故不能以2/3的多数即67票通过。一般的理由是该条约过于宽泛，且损害美国主权(主要是北极一带的主权，尽管北极圈内的其他国家都已经加入该公约)。
来源： 华尔街日报 7/16/20127月16日美参院否决要求批准联合国1982年海洋法（ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ）的动议。 已经有34票反对，故不能以2/3的多数即67票通过。一般的理由是该条约过于宽泛，且损害美国主权(主要是北极一带的主权，尽管北极圈内的其他国家都已经加入该公约)。
来源： 华尔街日报 7/16/2012
来源： 华尔街日报 7/16/20127月16日美参院否决要求批准联合国1982年海洋法（ United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) ）的动议。 已经有34票反对，故不能以2/3的多数即67票通过。一般的理由是该条约过于宽泛，且损害美国主权(主要是北极一带的主权，尽管北极圈内的其他国家都已经加入该公约)。
来源： 华尔街日报 7/16/2012
无所谓。那个法不适用于南海！TG签约的时候就申明了！
这就是流氓，自己都没加入国际海洋法，还厚着脸面到处说要遵守国际法，兔子要当老大暂时还得跟着MD多多学啊
hiyouken 发表于 2012-7-17 13:02 ![]()
无所谓。那个法不适用于南海！TG签约的时候就申明了！
没错！对于领土主权争议，不以《国际海洋法公约》为准！除此以外，TG还保留了军用船只的无害通过条款！
无所谓。那个法不适用于南海！TG签约的时候就申明了！
没错！对于领土主权争议，不以《国际海洋法公约》为准！除此以外，TG还保留了军用船只的无害通过条款！
短期内，少了一个恶心人的法理借口，我们还可以继续嘲讽MD用自己没批准的法律要求别人
上元老院不是由奥黑和希妈的帮派掌控吗，这玩意儿为什么要2/3多数？
《国际海洋法公约》在流氓眼里，就是一张卫生纸！
呵呵，流氓就是流氓，不过，菲越恐怕要失望了，美帝到底是美帝，在自己的利益面前，其他都是浮云
什么法不法，拳头大就是法！
《国际海洋法公约》在流氓眼里，就是一张卫生纸！
擦过的……
擦过的……
什么法不法，拳头大就是法！
老子就是王法！！！
老子就是王法！！！
laidaocd 发表于 2012-7-17 13:06 ![]()
短期内，少了一个恶心人的法理借口，我们还可以继续嘲讽MD用自己没批准的法律要求别人
正是。在人口红利在手的日子里，要猛烈地做些事情
短期内，少了一个恶心人的法理借口，我们还可以继续嘲讽MD用自己没批准的法律要求别人
正是。在人口红利在手的日子里，要猛烈地做些事情
详细在此，我不翻译了，时间紧。 我的新浪博客， 快噱时情， 里经常有点类似的更新。
Senate Democrats’ hopes of passing the Law of the Sea Treaty sank Monday, when a pair of Republican senators announced their opposition to ratification.
Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire penned a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) saying, “we have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States.”
The treaty, completed in 1982, seeks to codify big chunks of customary international maritime law, including freedom of navigation and access to deep-sea energy resources. It is supported by a wide swath of business interests, environmentalists, and military officials in the U.S.; most countries have ratified it.
The announcement Monday that Sens. Portman and Ayotte — both considered possible running mates for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney – would vote “no,” puts the final nail in the treaty’s coffin, for this Congress at least. Previously, 32 other senators had expressed their opposition to the treaty, which needed 67 votes for ratification. The Senate took up the issue again this spring, five years after its last failed effort.
Like the other lawmakers opposed to the bill, Sens. Portman and Ayotte zeroed in on what they see as the treaty’s erosion of U.S. sovereignty, both in terms of international arbitration of disputes and the possibility that a supranational body could impose binding rulings on the U.S.
“In short, we are deeply concerned about the treaty’s breadth and ambiguity, the inadequate U.S. input in the treaty’s adjudicative bodies, and the automatic enforcement of tribunal judgments in the United States,” they wrote. “On balance, we believe the treaty’s litigation exposure and impositions on U.S. sovereignty outweigh its potential benefits. For that reason, we cannot support the Law of the Sea treaty and would oppose its ratification.”
The office of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, dismissed the public statements as election-season politicking, and vowed to keep fighting for the treaty.
“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican Secretary of State say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea,” said Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth.
Republicans are trumpeting their opposition to the treaty even though it would boost U.S. access to undersea resources and domestic energy production is important to GOP campaigns this year.
In the Arctic, where warming temperatures are opening up greater areas for offshore oil and gas exploration, sorting out who owns what energy resources threatens to be a contentious point in future years. All Arctic nations except the U.S. are signatories of the Law of the Sea treaty, which gives ratifying states clear title to the resources on its continental shelf.
“Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such a great opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference earlier this year urging support for ratification.
One of the enduring mysteries of the treaty is how it has failed to even come up for a ratification vote given the breadth of support it enjoys from widely disparate groups. Former secretaries of State, both Republicans and Democrats, top civilian and uniformed Pentagon officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, environmentalists, and former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been vocal supporters.
They argue that the treaty would not erode U.S. sovereignty. On the contrary, they say, it would enhance the country’s ability to defend freedom of navigation, would improve U.S. companies’ access to undersea resources, and would give the U.S. legal tools to parry threats from aggressive countries, such as China.
Tensions in Asia notched up over the weekend after a Chinese incursion into disputed waters, and tensions in the South China Sea have been running high in recent years due to what many nations see as China’s excessive maritime claims in the region.
Senate Democrats’ hopes of passing the Law of the Sea Treaty sank Monday, when a pair of Republican senators announced their opposition to ratification.
Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire penned a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) saying, “we have concluded that on balance this treaty is not in the national interest of the United States.”
The treaty, completed in 1982, seeks to codify big chunks of customary international maritime law, including freedom of navigation and access to deep-sea energy resources. It is supported by a wide swath of business interests, environmentalists, and military officials in the U.S.; most countries have ratified it.
The announcement Monday that Sens. Portman and Ayotte — both considered possible running mates for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney – would vote “no,” puts the final nail in the treaty’s coffin, for this Congress at least. Previously, 32 other senators had expressed their opposition to the treaty, which needed 67 votes for ratification. The Senate took up the issue again this spring, five years after its last failed effort.
Like the other lawmakers opposed to the bill, Sens. Portman and Ayotte zeroed in on what they see as the treaty’s erosion of U.S. sovereignty, both in terms of international arbitration of disputes and the possibility that a supranational body could impose binding rulings on the U.S.
“In short, we are deeply concerned about the treaty’s breadth and ambiguity, the inadequate U.S. input in the treaty’s adjudicative bodies, and the automatic enforcement of tribunal judgments in the United States,” they wrote. “On balance, we believe the treaty’s litigation exposure and impositions on U.S. sovereignty outweigh its potential benefits. For that reason, we cannot support the Law of the Sea treaty and would oppose its ratification.”
The office of Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, dismissed the public statements as election-season politicking, and vowed to keep fighting for the treaty.
“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican Secretary of State say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea,” said Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth.
Republicans are trumpeting their opposition to the treaty even though it would boost U.S. access to undersea resources and domestic energy production is important to GOP campaigns this year.
In the Arctic, where warming temperatures are opening up greater areas for offshore oil and gas exploration, sorting out who owns what energy resources threatens to be a contentious point in future years. All Arctic nations except the U.S. are signatories of the Law of the Sea treaty, which gives ratifying states clear title to the resources on its continental shelf.
“Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such a great opportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference earlier this year urging support for ratification.
One of the enduring mysteries of the treaty is how it has failed to even come up for a ratification vote given the breadth of support it enjoys from widely disparate groups. Former secretaries of State, both Republicans and Democrats, top civilian and uniformed Pentagon officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, environmentalists, and former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have all been vocal supporters.
They argue that the treaty would not erode U.S. sovereignty. On the contrary, they say, it would enhance the country’s ability to defend freedom of navigation, would improve U.S. companies’ access to undersea resources, and would give the U.S. legal tools to parry threats from aggressive countries, such as China.
Tensions in Asia notched up over the weekend after a Chinese incursion into disputed waters, and tensions in the South China Sea have been running high in recent years due to what many nations see as China’s excessive maritime claims in the region.
美帝是当今世界上唯一的全球性海军力量，批准《联合国海洋法公约》是自捆手脚，美帝才没那么傻呢
这让希拉里老妈情何以堪
奥巴马又一次被耍大事都让元老院给弄泡汤了
奥巴马又一次被耍大事都让元老院给弄泡汤了给自己找别扭的事，一般人都不干
那玩意儿对流氓无效
这篇报道还得以让我们窥探一下美国的北极战略，实在不应该一笑置之。
我国因挪威的干扰（刘晓波事件），现在还没有加入北极俱乐部呢。
我国因挪威的干扰（刘晓波事件），现在还没有加入北极俱乐部呢。
美帝会找别的事再来的.
狒狒也许该老实了，md是基于自身利益做事的，狒狒虽想借助md重返亚洲之势和力但其的政治博弈道业明显不够深啊
美国向来双重标准 国际条约就是擦屁股纸