I knew about the "Law of the Sea" Treaty as it was being developed in the 1970's and early 1980s, and have been dismayed that the U.S. government never ratified it. As a brief introduction, here is some background from the
UN Law of the Sea Treaty site.
The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.
Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.
Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."
The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."
Here are exerts from an article in
E&E (subscription required); an internet search doesn't turn up any real recent articles about the Law of the Sea, but there is plenty not-quite-so-current articles to look at!
As ice melts, Law of the Sea increasingly relevant -- expert
Ariel Wittenberg, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, October 1, 2015
The United States risks missing out on economic opportunities in the Arctic because of Congress' failure to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, a retired Navy official told congressional staffers yesterday.
Speaking at a briefing about melting Arctic ice, retired Rear Adm. David W. Titley noted that in not ratifying the convention, the United States forfeited its right to make claims to its extended continental shelf.
"We have the data, we know what our extended continental shelf claim would be under the convention, but we haven't ratified it," he said at the briefing, which was hosted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "That is essentially money on the table that we are leaving there. There is a lot of undersea land that we are simply not claiming."
Though the United States generally follows the convention and respects decisions made by the United Nations regarding which countries' claims to honor, America cannot give its input to the official decision.
...
Titley was one of four experts speaking at the briefing, which focused on explaining how a melting Arctic could affect the greater United States.
Much of the briefing reviewed scientific data proving that Arctic ice is melting and that man-made climate change is causing it. Researchers Jennifer Kay of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center explained why multiyear ice is more stable than single-year ice and how Arctic ice melts faster as the Earth warms due to positive feedbacks.
At one point, a member of the audience asked, "If Arctic ice has melted in the past, why do we care about stopping it now?"
UCAR President Michael Thompson answered, "It's not that the climate hasn't changed before. But for all of human civilization we have had this Goldilocks period of climate stability relative to what the Earth can do, and that is now changing and we know why. We are essentially embarking on an experiment with 8 billion people and figuring out how we are going to feed them and provide electricity in an environment that we have literally never seen before."