03/19/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR2 | |
| HJR22 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 19, 2009
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
to avoid the use of personal pronouns and similar references
that denote masculine or feminine gender in that document.
- MOVED HJR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22
Urging the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Law of the Sea Treaty).
- MOVED HJR 22 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 2
SHORT TITLE: CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) STA, JUD, FIN
03/19/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HJR 22
SHORT TITLE: URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
03/02/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/02/09 (H) STA
03/19/09 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JESSICA SRADER, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to a question during the hearing
on HJR 2.
REAR ADMIRAL ARTHUR E. BROOKS
Seventeenth District
United States Coast Guard
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HJR 22.
WALTER PARKER
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HJR 22.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:42 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:06 a.m. Representatives Seaton, Gatto,
Wilson, Petersen, and Lynn were present at the call to order.
Representatives Johnson and Gruenberg arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HJR 2-CONST AM: GENDER-NEUTRAL REFERENCES
8:06:48 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Proposing amendments to the Constitution
of the State of Alaska to avoid the use of personal pronouns and
similar references that denote masculine or feminine gender in
that document.
8:07:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, as prime sponsor, introduced HJR 2. He
said the resolution would change the Alaska State Constitution,
which would require a two-thirds vote of the body, followed by a
vote of the people. The Alaska State Constitution includes
references to male gender, but not female gender.
Representative Gatto indicated that some people may say the
resolution is unnecessary [because] it is known what is meant by
"he" and "him." However, he noted that seven states have
already made the change, and he opined that Alaska should "take
the lead" and make the change, because it is a state with a
higher percentage of females involved in politics. The
resolution would ask the legal department to replace all the
male gender references with job titles, such as "the
commissioner," "the governor," "the judge," "the person," and
"the auditor."
8:10:30 AM
JESSICA SRADER, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), in response to Chair
Lynn, offered her belief that [the administration] has no
objection [to the resolution].
8:10:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HJR 2 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted there may be a cost related to the
reprinting of the Alaska State Constitution. He remarked that
there is another bill being considered that proposes that the
term "secretary of state" be changed to "governor". Although
both pieces of proposed legislation are separate, both would
require a reprinting of the Alaska State Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that there is a zero fiscal
note in the committee packet.
8:11:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON renewed his motion to report HJR 2 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, HJR 2 was reported out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HJR 22-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
8:12:15 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22, Urging the United States Senate to
ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the
Law of the Sea Treaty).
8:12:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON introduced HJR 22 as prime sponsor. He
offered information from the sponsor statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HJR 22 urges the U.S. Senate to ratify the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("Law of the
Sea treaty"). This resolution will help Alaska's
Senate delegation bring the Law of the Sea treaty to
the Senate floor for a vote on ratification.
Ratification of this treaty is important to protect
U.S. interests concerning the use and development of
the high seas off Alaska.
The Law of the Sea treaty governs many aspects of
oceans, such as mapping, state area control,
environmental control, marine scientific research,
economic and commercial activities, transfer of
technology and the settlement of disputes relating to
ocean matters.
150 countries are signatories to the treaty, including
all of the arctic nations with the exception of the
United States.
According to the office of U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski, a resolution from the Alaska State
Legislature would be helpful as she works this late
spring or early summer to get a ratification vote to
the Senate Floor. U.S. participation in the Law of the
Sea Treaty was approved in 1994 by President Clinton
after work was done on portions of the treaty to
address concerns raised by President Reagan. The Bush
Administration actively supported Senate ratification
of the treaty. Among other entities on the record
supporting ratification are the United States Coast
Guard, the Department of the Navy, Governor Sarah
Palin, The State Department, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, AT&T, The American Petroleum Institute, The
International Association of Drilling Contractors, and
the National Oceans Industries Association.
The U.S. is now the only arctic nation that is not a
signatory to the treaty. Under the treaty, member
nations can claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to
200 miles, with sovereign rights to explore, develop,
and manage the resources within that zone. A claim can
extend beyond the 200 mile limit if a connection can
be proven that the nation's continental shelf extends
beyond 200 miles. It is estimated that the northern
seabed off Alaska and beyond the 200 mile limit could
be as large as the state of California.
Key features of the Law of the Sea treaty include the
following:
· Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their
territorial sea which may not exceed 12 nautical
miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage"
through those waters;
· Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed
"transit passage" through straits used for
international navigation; States bordering the straits
can regulate navigational and other aspects of
passage;
· Coastal States have sovereign rights in the 200-
nautical mile EEZ with respect to natural resources
and certain economic activities, and exercise
jurisdiction over marine science research and
environmental protection;
· All other States have freedom of navigation and over
flight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine
cables and pipelines;
· All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of
navigation, overflight, scientific research and
fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt,
or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures
to manage and conserve living resources;
· States are bound to prevent and control marine
pollution and are liable for damage caused by
violation of their international obligations to combat
such pollution;
· All marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the
continental shelf is subject to the consent of the
coastal State, but in most cases they are obliged to
grant consent to other States when the research is to
be conducted for peaceful purposes and fulfils
specified criteria;
· States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means
their disputes concerning the interpretation or
application of the Convention;
· Disputes can be submitted to the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the
Convention, to the International Court of Justice, or
to arbitration. Arbitration is also available and, in
certain circumstances, submission to it would be
compulsory. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction
over deep seabed mining disputes.
The State of Alaska has much to gain from controlling
development in the waters adjacent to our 200 mile EEZ
and much to lose if we are the only arctic nation not
to extend our ocean boundaries.
8:15:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said [the U.S.] has been using a 200-mile
limit for quite awhile, but unless it signs the treaty, other
nations do not have to recognize that 200-mile limit. He noted
that concern has been expressed that signing the treaty may
subvert the nation's sovereignty, but he pointed out that "we
have 16 other treaties that recognize this same dispute
resolution that is included in the Law of the Sea Treaty."
8:17:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a map included in
the committee packet, produced by the International Boundaries
Research Unit (IBRU) of Durham University, which shows maritime
jurisdiction and boundaries in the Arctic region - "about a
doubling of the area in which we could exert claim." He
directed attention to another map included in the committee
packet, from the U.S. Department of State, which shows [as
stated beneath the map] the "eight regions (in red) adjacent to
the U.S. and its dependences where there likely exists extended
continental shelf (ECS) beyond 200 nautical miles (in blue)."
Representative Seaton clarified, "These lines on the map - these
blocked out portions - are portions that theoretically could be
claimed; it doesn't mean that the continental shelf in every
case goes out to exactly those [lines]." He highlighted areas
of continental shelf in the Gulf of Alaska, the East Coast, the
Gulf of Mexico, the Johnston Atoll, and the Mariana Islands -
areas which the U.S. would not be able to claim without signing
the treaty.
8:20:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a handout in the
committee packet entitled, "Stakeholder Endorsements of U.S.
Accession to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the
1994 Agreement on Implementation." Included in the handout, he
noted, is a list of categorized endorsements, which includes,
among others: the Obama Administration, the Bush
Administration, nine current service chiefs and legal advisers,
eight former secretaries of state, and twelve other former
cabinet and sub-cabinet officers.
8:21:05 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked which administrations did not support the
treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the secretaries of state of
numerous administrations supported the treaty. He explained
that there was a period of time before a certain number had
signed the treaty when the decision was whether or not to be
proactive and endorse the treaty. Once the treaty was in
international effect, the choice was whether or not to
participate in it.
CHAIR LYNN asked about the ability to dispute the claim made by
the Russians, who placed their flag under the sea at the North
Pole.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the U.S. cannot dispute that claim
without having signed the treaty. In response to a follow-up
question, he described the process of dispute resolution among
countries who have signed the treaty. He confirmed that all
nations that are permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council have veto authority of council resolutions,
which are necessary before considering enforcement action. Most
of the other countries are not permanent members of the council.
There are several mechanisms set up by which to achieve peaceful
resolution, he said.
8:27:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked why the U.S. has not wanted to sign
the treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that some people think signing
the treaty would mean giving up sovereignty; that agreeing to
solve disputes peacefully may inhibit the nation from being able
to "resolve the disputes in other ways." In response to
Representative Wilson, he confirmed that the other option would
be going to war. He pointed out that also on the aforementioned
list are current military chiefs and legal advisors. He offered
his understanding that present at the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting were representatives of the U.S. Navy
and U.S. Coast Guard, and he expressed interest in hearing what
they have to say.
8:29:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he thinks the treaty holds significant
weight.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that the treaty extends to the
continental shelf. In response to Chair Lynn, he clarified that
the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) - a factor of the Law
of the Sea - is measured from shore, whether or not the
continental shelf is there. If there is a continental shelf
which extends beyond that 200 mile limit, the country from whose
land it extends can extend its jurisdiction to that area
extending beyond that 200-mile limit. He reiterated that the
200-mile EEZ has been beneficial to Alaska's fisheries, but
without signing the treaty, the state does not have legitimate
claim.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to a question about state
versus federal off-shore boundaries, said a 3-mile limit applies
to state land extending into the sea; the territorial sea
extends to 12 miles; and the purpose of the 200-mile EEZ is to
allow for management of economic activities in those waters. He
reiterated that Alaska is familiar with the 200-mile EEZ,
because it dealt with the issue while the treaty was being
developed. In response to Chair Lynn, he said [in the case
where two countries own land separated by water but closer than
200 miles], international boundary lines have been negotiated.
In response to Representative Wilson, he specified that the 12-
mile and 200-mile areas are federal jurisdictions. The EEZ is
overseen between the federal government and "whatever management
team they've set up."
8:38:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN opined that the treaty makes sense for
Alaska and the U.S. and should be expedited. He noted that 155
countries have signed the treaty, and he asked if there are
countries, for example, in the Middle East, that have not signed
the treaty. He questioned what effect the treaty might have on
shipping routes in places like the Mediterranean or Black Seas.
8:39:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON relayed that peaceful transit is
guaranteed under the treaty. For countries that have signed it,
the treaty applies to their coastal lands that are adjacent to
water. Furthermore, it protects vessels, including aircraft,
owned by landlocked countries. He reiterated the meaning of the
red and blue lines on the aforementioned map.
8:42:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered information related to what
happened under the Reagan administration regarding the treaty.
He paraphrased from the Senate Foreign Relations Commission's
report, dated November 19, 2007, on the Convention of the Law of
the Sea Treaty, as follows:
President Nixon, as early as 1970, first proposed the
concept of a treaty that would set forth a legal
framework on the ocean, and about three years later,
negotiations were commenced on that, and they occupied
a nine-year span between December '73 and December
1982, when the final text was adopted. And ... this
grew out of concern among a number of coastal nations
and naval nations that the rapidly proliferating
number of expansive claims regarding ocean space would
restrict fundamental freedom of the seas and
navigation rights. And a number of developing
countries wanted to guarantee access to resources in
the area beyond national jurisdiction. And also,
national and multi-national corporations wanted an
international Convention that would provide legal
certainty to companies interested in deep seabed
mining.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related an anecdote about a time in the
early '70s, when he was then Senator Ted Stevens' assistant and
a bill was proposed related to deep seabed mining of copper
nodules on the ocean floor. He said the bill did not pass, but
the issue is important for the development of American commerce
under sea. Representative Gruenberg refocused on the treaty as
follows:
Now, in 1982, the treaty was forthcoming, and there
were only problems with provisions relating to mining
of resources from the seabed, ocean floor, and subsoil
thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
And therefore, in '83, President Ronald Reagan,
entered a statement on oceans policy that explained
[that] because of those particular provisions, the
U.S. wouldn't sign the Convention. But otherwise, the
treaty "contains provisions with respect to
traditional uses of the ocean, which generally confirm
existing maritime law and practice, and fairly balance
the interests of all states." So, therefore, he
stated at that time that the U.S. would act in
accordance with the balance of interest.
Now, since that time, they amended the treaty, and
therefore, the administration of George H. W. Bush -
the first Bush - laid the groundwork for ... a new
agreement that would modify the deep seabed mining
regime on the Convention, to address the ... various
concerns raised. And the result was that in 1994, a
new agreement, which dealt with each of the problems
identified with the U.S., was adopted. And we signed
the agreement ..., and, at that time, President
Clinton, who was in office, presented both new
agreements to the Senate for ratification, and that is
the current situation. The agreements have been sent
twice to the Senate floor, and they remain under
Senate Rules on the Senate floor to this day awaiting
ratification by two-thirds vote.
8:47:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG continued:
And the key thing ..., as Representative Seaton says,
is this will peacefully, without result to war, result
in an adjudication of our claims. They've set up an
international court. The first country to take
advantage of that was Australia, which dramatically
increased its boundaries as a result, and claimed the
continental shelf as a result of a decree under that
court. And the only way you can do it peacefully, as
I understand it, is to get a decree from the
international court recognizing title to those
particular deep seabed and the water column above it.
And it is extremely important for that reason, because
that will ..., in fact, resolve these disputes without
us going to war.
8:48:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON directed attention to a memorandum from
Senator Lisa Murkowski, dated December 10, 2007, which he said
addresses myths regarding the treaty. He cited the final
paragraph, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Bottom line is that if an arbitration panel returns a
decision that the United States strongly opposes,
there is no true enforcement mechanism and the U.S.
can veto and [sic] U.N. Security Council measure.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON concluded that "this is a treaty that we
don't have to live up to."
8:49:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON surmised that Alaska would not really
stand to benefit from the treaty in terms of oil and gas issues.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that Alaska would benefit from
extended jurisdiction, because it would control the gas and oil
production, development, and drilling. He spoke of overlapping
areas on the map, and warned, "If we don't extend our
jurisdiction, there is nothing to prevent others from extending
their jurisdiction."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON questioned whether those in the oil
industry would perhaps try to drill outside Alaska's territory
to avoid paying royalties.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that he does not know what the
oil and gas provisions are outside of any international waters,
but he noted that the oil industry supports the "extension of
this treaty."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON speculated that the oil industry would
rather deal with the U.S. than another country.
8:53:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to a handout in the
committee packet entitled, "Summary of the Responses to the Six
Reagan Criteria Contained in the 1994 Agreement on
Implementation." He listed the following areas, other than the
U.S., which have not endorsed the treaty: Andorra, Azerbaijan,
Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San
[Marino], Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Venezuela, and [Western] Sahara.
8:55:12 AM
REAR ADMIRAL ARTHUR E. BROOKS, Seventeenth District, United
States Coast Guard, stated that in his current position, he is
responsible for directing Coast Guard operations - including
search and rescue, maritime safety, environmental protection,
fisheries law enforcement, and military readiness - in Alaska
and the North Pacific. He commenced paraphrasing his written
testimony, the first portion of which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Although the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
entered into force in 1994, the U.S. has continued to
rely upon customary international law as reflected in
the Convention to advance our oceans policy goals.
While reliance upon customary international law has
served us well for many years, it will not adequately
protect our key ocean interests in the future.
Customary international law is based on the evolving
practice of States; therefore, it can and does erode
over time. The Law of the Sea Convention provides the
legal certainty and stability that the Coast Guard
needs to exercise its navigational rights and
freedoms, to protect fisheries, to control marine
pollution, and to maintain a legal order of the oceans
against criminals and terrorists.
The first UN effort at codifying the Law of the Sea
took place in 1958, when the first UN Conference on
the Law of the Sea concluded four separate Conventions
dealing with the Law of the Sea. These four
Conventions, for the most part, represented
codifications of customary international law at the
time and the United States became party to them.
While these Conventions addressed issues of the day,
it must be remembered that, at the time, pollution of
the world's oceans was not considered an important
issue, fish stocks were thought to be inexhaustible,
and the need for maritime domain awareness was not
present. In the 1960's, the oceans began experiencing
significant change in such areas as pollution
standards and fisheries management. Moreover, these
Conventions failed to provide a maximum breadth for
the territorial sea or other specific limitations on
claims to sovereignty over resources.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS paraphrased another portion of his written
testimony, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
All of these factors led the United States and other
major maritime powers to call for the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which met
between 1973 and 1982 to develop the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea. With 156 States and
the European Union now party to the 1982 UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea, the Convention already is
playing a central role in resolving these issues. It
will also serve as a foundation upon which future
oceans agreements will be based. In order to carry
out its natural leadership role in promoting the most
appropriate legal order of the oceans, the United
States must become party to the Convention.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS reminded the committee that the United
States had been one of the principal nations pushing for this
Convention, and he indicated the United States' influence,
noting that most of the provisions for territorial claims,
transit, and passage were things desired by the U.S. and
achieved by the U.S. in building this Convention.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS returned to paraphrasing his written
testimony; the next section read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
On November 16, 1994, the Law of the Sea Convention
entered into force. That event represented a
milestone in the United States' efforts to achieve a
widely ratified, comprehensive law of the sea treaty
that protects and promotes a wide range of U.S. ocean
interests, many of which affect the U.S. Coast Guard.
Because of our law enforcement and national security
missions, the Coast Guard has long been a proponent of
achieving a comprehensive and stable regime with
respect to traditional uses of the oceans. The
Convention aids our interests by stabilizing the trend
towards expansion of national jurisdiction over
coastal waters, while furthering our efforts to
protect and manage fishery resources and to protect
the marine environment. From the Coast Guard
perspective, public order of the oceans is best
established and maintained by a stable, universally
accepted law of the sea treaty reflective of U.S.
national interest.
8:59:45 AM
One of the core foundations of the Convention was
codification of rights and responsibilities of states
as port States, flag States, and coastal States.
During the negotiations leading to the Law of the Sea
Convention, the U.S. aggressively sought both
clarification and delimitation of seaward territorial
claims by coastal States to ensure navigational
freedoms while at the same time recognizing the U.S.'s
interest as a coastal State with sovereignty to
protect its living and non-living marine resources.
The result was an appropriate balance between the
exclusive interests of coastal States and the
inclusive interests of maritime States. It limits the
maximum breadth of the territorial sea that a coastal
State could claim to 12 nautical miles. Our fishery
conservation management interests, as reflected in the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act
of 1977, were instrumental in the international
development of the concept of the 200-nautical mile
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In the EEZ, all
nations enjoy freedoms of navigation and overflight as
on the high seas, while the coastal State possesses
sovereign rights to protect and exploit the living and
non-living marine resources. The United States, with
its extraordinarily large and resource-rich EEZ, is
perhaps the greatest beneficiary of this concept.
The Convention also provides for a balanced and
effective approach to protecting the marine
environment. The Amoco Cadiz and subsequent vessel oil
spill incidents prompted the participating States to
address marine pollution in the 1982 UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea. The Convention contains
provisions that have been described as perhaps the
most far-reaching and effective environmental accord
yet devised. The Convention struck the appropriate
balance of competing claims so that all nations could
engage in high seas freedoms, including non-resource
related law enforcement in the waters of another
nation's EEZ, and the coastal State could enjoy the
right to protect its marine environment, including
damage from oil spills by vessels, fisheries
conservation, and enforcement of domestic laws
designed to conserve and protect the living marine
resources in its EEZ. The Convention also recognized
a port state regime adequate to ensure their interests
were protected when vessels voluntarily entered their
ports or places subject to their jurisdiction.
9:02:13 AM
The Coast Guard and other U.S. military forces already
rely heavily on the navigational freedoms and
overflight rights codified in the Law of the Sea
Convention. These protections allow the use of the
world's oceans to meet changing national security
requirements. In this regard, worldwide mobility
requires undisputed access through international
straits and archipelagic waters. The Convention
ensures that our warships, including our Coast Guard
cutters, will have their sovereign immunity protected
wherever in the world they may be operating. In
addition, the Convention limits a nation's territorial
sea to no more than 12 nautical miles, beyond which
all nations enjoy a high seas navigation regime that
includes the freedom to engage in law enforcement
activities. The Convention codifies the right to
operate freely beyond a nation's territorial sea and
protects this right by limiting excessive maritime
claims that often have the effect of creating maritime
safe havens for drug traffickers and other criminals.
Each year, Coast Guard maritime interdiction
operations occurring on international waters result in
the seizure of tens of thousands of pounds of cocaine,
dozens of vessels, and hundreds of arrests. Most of
these seizures take place on distant maritime transit
routes far from our shores. However, during bi-
lateral negotiations, several nations have, in the
past, questioned our authority to contest some of
their excessive maritime claims simply because we have
yet to become party to the Convention.
The Convention contains effective provisions for
dealing with illegal activities at sea. Article 108
of the Convention requires international cooperation
in the suppression of the transport of illegal drugs.
The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, also
known as the 1988 Vienna Convention, is a fine example
of this. The United States has been at the forefront
of international cooperation in the war against
illegal drugs, and the use of ocean space to transport
them. We have aggressively pursued bilateral
agreements with many nations that border drug transit
zones as well as States with large registries to
facilitate the effective interdiction of vessels
suspected of transporting illegal drugs and the
eventual prosecution of the drug traffickers.
The Convention also contains provisions that enhance
our ability to interdict foreign-flagged vessels off
our own coasts. The Convention codifies a coastal
nation's right to establish a 12-nautical mile
contiguous zone just beyond the territorial sea, where
it may exercise control to prevent and punish
infringements of its customs, immigration, fiscal, and
sanitary laws. Adoption by the U.S. of an expanded
contiguous zone has doubled the area where we can
exercise these increased authorities.
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS stated that the construct of maritime
boundaries follows a baseline, which is "points to points of
land," and there is argument about where that baseline is.
Anything inside the baseline is "internal waters," and a country
has full sovereignty on those waters. The territorial sea goes
out 12 nautical miles from the baseline, and that is where
states exercise "almost complete jurisdiction," but it is
subject to innocent and other transit passage by other nations.
He related that there is a contiguous zone that goes from 12-24
nautical miles where it is allowable for certain things to be
done, "like marine pollution, immigration, [and] sanitation" -
the typical customs functions of the nation. There is less
control in that zone than there is in the 0- to 12-mile range.
Beyond 24 miles, out to 200 miles, the Convention recognizes an
EEZ for specific economic purposes, such as fisheries, mining,
and oil. Beyond 200 miles, "we have the ability to claim sea
floor and access to resources on the sea floor, depending on the
nature of the continental shelf itself."
9:06:26 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS relayed that the Convention contains
numerous provisions that advance the economic interests of the
U.S. He concluded paraphrasing his written testimony, the final
portion of which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Convention calls for international cooperation
among the States in preserving the world's high-seas
fisheries. This provision on cooperation supports the
UN ban on high seas drift net fishing and other
illegal fishing practices. Each year, the Coast Guard
patrols the North Pacific to conduct boardings and
inspections under the Convention on the Conservation
and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Over two dozen
nations participate in this effort, which is a direct
outcome of the Law of the Sea Convention.
9:07:14 AM
The Convention makes specific provision for asserting
jurisdiction over the resources of an extended
continental shelf. All coastal States may exercise
their sovereign rights to the natural resources of the
seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf out to 200
nautical miles. The Convention sets forth the
requirements and procedures for parties to the
Convention to claim an extended continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles. For example, the U.S.'s
extended continental shelf, which may extend as far
out as 600 nautical miles in the Arctic, has enormous
potential oil and gas reserves. In contrast to
Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway, all of which are
party to the Convention, the U.S. is presently unable
to file a claim for an extended continental shelf in
order to obtain secure title to our potentially vast
resources in the Arctic. The U.S. also has potential
continental shelf resources off the Gulf Coast and
other coastal areas. Moreover, the United States
currently has no role to play on the Continental Shelf
Commission, whose members evaluate all claims to
extended continental shelves to ensure compliance with
objective legal standards.
The Convention is also an environmental accord that
provides a comprehensive framework for the prevention,
reduction, and control of maritime pollution. The
Coast Guard conducts a wide-ranging port-state-control
program to purge our waters of substandard ships and
is assisting other nations in doing the same. This
initiative will be enhanced through the consistent
application of the Convention's broad enforcement
mechanisms. Additionally, the Convention carefully
balances the rights of coastal States to adopt certain
measures to protect the marine environment adjacent to
their shores with the primary right of a flag State to
set and enforce standards and requirements concerning
the operation of its vessels. Moreover, it does all
this without unduly burdening international maritime
navigation and sea-borne trade.
As the lead Federal agency for maritime safety and
security, the Coast Guard believes that the 1982 UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea would benefit the
Coast Guard in its efforts to improve maritime safety
and ensure the security of our maritime borders, thus
promoting homeland security. The Convention
recognizes that various UN subsidiary bodies may serve
as competent international organizations for the
further Conventional development of the law of the
sea. The International Maritime Organization has
always been the recognized competent international
organization for maritime safety and marine
environmental protection. More recently, it has
assumed a similar role in port facility and vessel
security. The Coast Guards has worked at the
[International Maritime Organization] (IMO) to amend
the [Safety of Life at Sea] (SOLAS) Convention for
vessel and port facility security, to enhance maritime
domain awareness through Long Range Identification and
Tracking (LRIT) of vessels bound for U.S. ports and
waters, and to increase the operational effectiveness
of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA
Convention). The negotiations necessary to support
efforts such as these take place in the context of the
overwhelming number of nations at IMO being parties to
the Law of the Sea Convention. Because of this fact,
the Law of the Sea Convention provides the framework
for the discussions and agreements. Although we have
enjoyed success in the international security
agreements so far, those negotiations have not always
been easy. Frankly, the fact that the United States
is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention, when
the overwhelming number of our international partners
are parties, has repeatedly placed us in a difficult
negotiating position at IMO and other forums. I see
this situation only getting worse in the future as
long as we are not a State Party.
In summation, the provisions of the Law of the Sea
Convention fairly balance the exclusive interests of
coastal States in controlling activities off their
coasts against the inclusive interests of all States
in freedom of navigation and overflight. The
practical effect for the United States is to control
economic activities within the world's largest
Exclusive Economic Zone, while enabling our military
forces and merchant vessels to freely operate in every
part of the globe. The Convention more than doubles
the resource jurisdiction of the United States and,
once we become a party, will extend our sovereign
rights to develop oil and gas resources on the
extended continental shelf that we so desperately
need. The Convention guarantees our military and
transportation industries critical navigation and
overflight rights, U.S. fishermen enjoy exclusive
fishing out to 200 nautical miles, and much, much
more. In the view of the Coast Guard, the Convention
for the Law of the Sea greatly improves our ability to
protect the American public as well as our efforts to
manage our ocean resources and to protect the marine
environment.
9:12:36 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS, in response to Representative Gatto,
related that the most common argument he has heard in opposition
to the United States' signing the treaty is that if the nation
accedes to the Convention, it would abrogate some of its
sovereignty. He stated his opinion that all treaties require
giving up sovereignty to some extent, because "you give up
something in order to get something else." He said [the U.S.]
has lived off the benefits of the treaty since 1982, and
although the international forums are perhaps not as supportive
of [the U.S.] as desired, without being a signatory, the U.S.
will be "outside the door peeking in."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned why the U.S. created the
structure, but did not sign on.
9:14:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that Representative Wilson had
asked the same question, and he referred once more to the report
of the [U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations]. He
recalled that four members of that committee signed against the
treaty, giving six reasons. He indicated that one of the
reasons was that Article 13 imposes direct fees on U.S.
corporations in deep seabed mining, which, in fact, he said is
not correct. He said he has a letter from the Department of
State to that effect. Another reason was that land-based
sources of pollution could continue. The response to that, he
said, was that just because one country is polluting does not
mean every other country should do so; there needs to be
attempts to control pollution. The third reason was that the UN
Secretary General picks the arbitrators, which Representative
Gruenberg said is not correct. The fourth reason was that the
nations would vote against the interests of the U.S.
Representative Gruenberg said, "Obviously when you have a
Convention and you have a mechanism for peacefully solving
disputes, it's a way of resolving those." He indicated that the
fifth and sixth reasons had to do with military and intelligence
gathering activities, and he said Rear Admiral Brooks has ably
addressed those issues. Representative Gruenberg said he thinks
the federal government believes that it is essential to homeland
security that the nation is party to this treaty.
9:17:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that during his testimony, Rear
Admiral Brooks had warned that "if we don't pass this," it will
be more difficult to address the interests of the U.S. in
international disputes. He asked for clarification through
example.
9:18:00 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS responded that the Russians dropped a flag
on the North Pole, reinforcing a preexisting claim they had made
under the Convention to the Lomonosov Ridge as an extension of
the Russian continental shelf. He stated his understanding that
the committee that considered the continental shelf claim has
already reviewed and rejected that claim, but the Russians now
have the opportunity to submit further data to support their
claim. He offered his understanding that that data would be
reviewed in 2011. The U.S. has no say in the matter, was not
involved in any of the meetings, and currently has no role to
play in the matter. The only way to have a say is to accede to
the Convention. He relayed that several Canadian counterparts
have told him that right now the world is missing American
leadership in all these issues.
9:19:53 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS, in response to Chair Lynn and
Representative Gruenberg, explained what that Lomonosov Ridge is
part of the range of land on the sea floor that runs over the
North Pole. He said people map the sea floor as they map above
sea land. The question is whether the bridge is contiguous or
whether there is a break in the mountain chain that would
determine that end of Russian or Canadian land mass. He said
there are ice breaker vessels currently mapping sea floors in
that area to support future potential claims to extended
continental shelf. He related that the complications in mapping
have to do with sloping.
9:21:50 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS noted that there is a large finger of land
that comes out from Alaska into the Arctic, called the Chukchi
Plateau. It is a land mass on the sea floor that follows the
Russia/U.S. boarder out over 350 miles into the Arctic Ocean.
Documenting of the plateau as a continuous and contiguous part
of the Alaskan land mass would enable the state claim to it if
the U.S. were part of the Convention. There are other features
of the sea floor in the Arctic that are being debated in terms
of ownership. Rear Admiral Brooks said China has sent an ice
breaker up to collect data, because it would like to disprove
that any of the continental shelf is attached to a coastal
state; China is interested in keeping as much of that area as
possible international so that it can mine the area.
9:24:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related that during his recent trip to
the Energy Conference in Washington, D.C., a representative of
Shell told him how promising the Chukchi Plateau area is for oil
development. Representative Petersen concluded that the treaty
is extremely important in securing America's oil in the future.
9:24:58 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
confirmed that the U.S. cannot present its own scientific
conclusions without being a signatory. In response to a follow-
up question, he said he does not know the exact size of undersea
land that the United States could gain by signing the treaty,
but he said it would be substantial.
9:26:37 AM
REAR ADMIRAL BROOKS, in response to a request from
Representative Gruenberg, offered a synopsis of his history with
the military, talked about what the legislature might do for the
Coast Guard, related his experience working in Alaska in
particular, and answered questions from the committee regarding
the Coast Guard.
9:45:44 AM
WALTER PARKER told the committee that he has been a U.S.
delegate to the Arctic Council, and was one of the two Alaska
delegates to the third Law of the Sea Conference. Mr. Parker
noted that there are approximately 173 countries in the United
Nations, 32 of which are not members of the Convention, and the
U.S. is the only major power that is not a member. He stated:
And then the pressure's not been on, particularly,
from the fisheries, because we took care of those
pretty much in the [Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act] of 1976, most
elements of which were incorporated in the third Law
of the Sea Convention.
MR. PARKER said he worked with Russians on the Arctic Council.
He indicated that a lot of game playing occurs, and he
emphasized how important it is for the U.S. to "be at the
table." He encouraged the legislature to do what it can to
encourage Congress and the Administration to "get moving with
this."
MR. PARKER emphasized the importance of the Northeast Passage
across the top of Russia, in terms of shipping. Regarding the
first two Law of the Sea Conferences, he said, "I was there for
federal aviation and it pretty well took care of the acreage
part, so I don't worry about that."
9:49:59 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:50:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report HJR 22 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 22 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
9:50:38 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the upcoming calendar.
9:50:52 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:50
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR002A.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02 Sponsor statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 03 Womens Bar Association article.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 04 Vanguard article.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 Women's E news article.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 HJR002-OOG-DOE-3-18-09.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Article HJR 22 The Race to Own the Arctic.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| Fiscal Note HJR 22.xls |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 22 - 06_08_08_arcticboundaries.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 22 - 26-LS0062-R.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 22 - Background.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 22 - Letters of Support.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 22 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 22 Projected U S continental shelf.doc |
HSTA 3/19/2009 8:00:00 AM |