Jew World Order

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
June 11, 2012

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) was rejected decades ago by former President Ronald Regan. Because of that rejection, negotiators revised some parts of LOST. However, the core of LOST, which hands the power of the US to the United Nations (UN) was not altered.

LOST binds the US to UN tribunals and international mandates, and these international mandates do not have the best interests of the US in mind.
Within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) there have been numerous debates about the ratification of LOST.

One of the most telling provisions of LOST has to do with the inception of The International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) which has binding authority over all treaty participants under Annex 8. Although there are many tribunals created within the treaty, one of particular interest is the Special Arbitral Tribunal (SAT).

SAT will preside over:

• Fisheries
• Marine Environment
• Marine Scientific Research
• Navigation

SAT is defined as a 5 person body with majority rule. Each party to a dispute within SAT chooses 2 representative panelists. The fifth panelist, if both parties cannot agree to who it should be, is decided by the UN Secretary General.

Senator David Vitter feels very uncomfortable with this part of LOST because of “we have been opposed so often by the UN. When countries gang up on us, quite frankly, so often in forums like the UN; I don’t feel comfortable with the Secretary General of the UN picking the tie-breaker and essentially determining our fate.”

The General Arbitral Tribunal (GAT), under Annex 7 of LOST, if the US were to ratify the treaty, the UN would have binding authority over all legal disputes.

GAT would be another 5 person panel with majority rule deciding the outcome. Under GAT, just one panelist is chosen be each disputing party. The other 3 panelists must be agreed upon by the disputing parties. If they cannot come to an agreement, the Law of the Sea Lead Bureaucrat (LSLB) will choose those panelists (who would have majority decision-making power). The LSLB would be an internationally “elected” person similar to the Secretary general of the UN.

The types of disputes that could (and most likely would) be heard by either SAT or GAT have numerous implications that reduce and eliminate America’s right to independent sovereignty.

With regard to pollution in the oceans Article 213 of LOST is entitled Enforcement With Respect to Land-Based Sources states that the treaty shall enforce their rules and regulations with regard to Article 207 (enforcing our own anti-pollution laws) but also “adopt international rules and standards to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources.”

As of now, the Congress decides how pollution is dealt with within the US. Under LOST, an international standard and the UN would have power over the Congress to decide how the US resolves pollution issues.

Article 207, Section 1 specifies that the US “shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources” taking into account “internationally agreed rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures.”

Currently Congress and state legislatures decide environmental policy within the US. LOST contains mandates provided by the UN to control acts of our Congress and state legislatures with regard to pollution.

Under both the SAT and GAT, the UN has the ability to decide the resolution of the dispute, and therefore the fate of the countries within the dispute.

International lawyering and litigation would undoubtedly follow the ratification of LOST to seize control over our autonomous status. LOST effectively transfers decision-making authority from our elected Congressional officials to international bureaucrats.

This phenomenon is referred to as Lawfare . Lawfare uses international law to oppose sovereign nation’s domestic political environment to circumvent their independent power to adherence to international power through use of tribunals.

Environmental lawyers and radical activists could use LOST to enforce their agendas. Environmental forums could emerge as an alternative means by which to hold states and private industry accountable for “climate change damages” as defined by international bodies. LOST allows this form of eco-terrorism because of its broad definition of pollution against the marine environment and the tribunals governing over disputes as noted within the treaty’s provisions.

Another way other countries could take the US to tribunal court is over military activities. Although Article 298 states that military activities are excluded from LOST’s binding arbitration, the basic determination of what is and is not military activity is not clearly stated. It is also not clear as to who defines what is and is not considered military activity.

LOST is silent on this definition, leaving it wide open to broad interpretation.

The tribunal court itself would have power over who defines what military activity is and who defines it as such. Also jurisdiction over a supposed military action is given to the tribunal court by the tribunal court.

Intelligence activities, important to US national security, could be subject to LOST. Although the treaty is silent on this issue, it is assumed that intelligence activities would fall under the provisional exclusion of military activities. Yet, it is an international tribunal court that defines what is and what is not an intelligence activity.

In Congress, US intelligence is considered separate from military actions. The US Intelligence Committee handles acquisition and deciphering of intelligence, where the Armed Services Committee deals with military matters. Those two committees do not converge nor are they subservient to each other.

The US government considers intelligence operations crucial to defense of our national security. Under LOST those avenues of acquisition would be subject to broad definition by a tribunal court and forced to adhere to international mandate as decided by that governing body.

Essentially, the autonomous status the US now enjoys would be circumvented by the binding mandates of international bureaucrats and the UN.

LOST eradicates the sovereignty of every country that has ratified it thus far and if the US adopts LOST, we will fall into the same disaster.