Talk:United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

message: One of the anti-ratification arguments was that it gives a "blank check" to the UN.  This doesn't make any sense.  The term literally means the recipient can withdraw any amount of money he likes from the account, as with a check whose value is not specified by the giver.  Perhaps it's slang and meant to be taken figuratively rather than literally, but slang should be avoided in an encyclopedia.  The argument also said the US has "no control" over funding, which also doesn't make sense given that the US would have a seat on the Seabed Authority, which spends the funding.
Accordingly, I have changed the argument to remove any mention of "blank check" and change the phrase to "limited control". Xiphoris (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Blank Check

message: Wasn't there something people referred to as the "Law of the Sea" before the United Nations set up their rules, a set of traditions perhaps? Maby the history of that should be under "Law of the Sea" instead of the redirection? --Anders Törlind
Definitely, if you find something. Just keep a link to the agreement as well and I'll be happy. --Pinkunicorn
Certainly was - article is simply incorrect where it states that UNCLOS replaced older and weaker freedom of the seas conceptSuastiastu (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Whew. Added the arguments pro and con from a variety of articles. Citations given outside the Criticism section. Bear in mind that I wrote a mostly pro-treaty viewpoint. Would it help to reorganize the section more by theme, or as paragraphs rather than bullet points, or in a point-counterpoint style? --Kris Schnee 08:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would point out that the added info seems almost entirely from a U.S. perspective. Perhaps the section should be renamed "Criticism in the U.S."? Rwendland 10:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. My point was to discuss why the US hasn't ratified it. --Kris Schnee 14:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk 1 

message: Look, I know that both are "correct".  For what it's worth, I like "U.S." better and use it and feel it is still the most common usage here, but let's at least shoot for consistency within the same article, people.  Come on!  I have changed every "U.S." I saw in the article to "US", if I missed any I invite and encourage you to do the same, or, for all I care, you can change every single one back to U.S., but please, no mixing of the two in the same article.  It makes Wikipedia look stupid, which it (mostly) really is not.  Rlquall 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US v. U.S. (again) 

message: "Dispute settlement: The International Seabed Authority's jurisdiction applies only to seabed mining, and the Law of the Sea Tribunal offers several alternative forms of arbitration. The treaty offers a peaceful way to resolve disputes with Canada, India, and other republics."
Is the use of 'republics' just a lapse here? Canada is a constitutional monarchy and I assume the treaty offers a peaceful way to resolve disputes with other non-republics too? JoelUK 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and I occasionally rail against other governments of that form, like Japan's. It's common though to call them republics, I think, because the monarchy part is mostly ceremonial these days. The point of the article's wording is, "Without this treaty we Americans have one less way to resolve disputes peacefully with countries we have no desire to shoot at." (See the Moore quote that says this explicitly.) I'm not sure what a better wording would be. If I say "free countries," somebody's going to call NPOV on the theory that Iran and North Korea are "free," right? What about, say, "with Canada, India, and other friendly nations?" Or we could just replace Canada. --Kris Schnee 10:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'republic'? 

message: There's an annual process (reviewed every 3 years, I think) where the UN General Assembly asks the Department of Ocean Affairs and Law Of the Sea (DOALOS) to discuss and give recommendations on various LOS-related issues.
Each year, typically in June, States meet at UN headquarters in New York for the week-long UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law Of the Sea (aka UNICPOLOS, ICP, or "the Consultative Process.")
This has been going on since... around 2000.  I'm actually typing this from the front table at UNICPOLOS-8. :)
I think it might be helpful to mention UNICPOLOS, because without it, it sounds like UNCLOS happened in 1982 and nothing much has happened since other than the occasional ratification.
Dan 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should UNICPOLOS be discussed here? 

message: On September 13, 2007, 75.176.87.154 tagged the section "United States non-ratification" with a POV dispute tag. This was a hit and run tagging. From WP:NPOVD:Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Given that 75.176.87.154 is quiet on the reasons or suggestions for improvement, I recommend that we remove this tag. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent points. The article obviously requires some work; perhaps a tag stating just that would suffice. Texasfirebrand 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As suggested, the U.S.-centric content of the "United States non-ratification" section has now been moved to its own article: United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS. AtticusX (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete neutrality tag? 

message: The argument presented in this section is oversimplified and stacked in favor of ratification. Probably unconscious bias, but it should still be fixed. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate Section Tag

message: The diagram explaining the boundaries (which is duplicated in the EEZ article) appears to be in error.  The baseline should not be cutting through the island, and the bay to the left appears to be too broad and shallow to have a straight baseline across it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardog (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundary diagram 

message: This is an interesting section and certainly worthy of merit, but I'm not certain it should be on the main UNCLOS page. It should instead have a page of its own, since it deals with a specific case only, and not a matter of general interest to all UNCLOS Participating States and other States. If someone knows how to move that to its own page, please do so. 
-dmhaglund, 2130, 28 May 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.62.98 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, please move the US-centric parts to a proper article. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.  United States non-ratification contents can now be found in their own article at: United States non-ratification of the UNCLOS. AtticusX (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Non-Ratification 

message: Guyana was the 59th state to sign the convention! According to the UN HP it was Bosnia and Herzegovina (12 January 1994) who was the 60th!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.75.141 (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Guyana is listed as 59th here, but we cite another UN document that clearly states Guyana was 60th. In this paper, there is a similar list that shows Guyana as the 60th; the difference is that it includes Yugoslavia as the 29th country to sign (on 5 May 1986). Yugoslavia is missing from the other list. -- Avenue (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guyana 60 th State??? 

message: See [File:Zonmar-en.svg], the Contiguous Zone should state 24 miles, not 12 or should change the arrow like <------>. Please correct or tell me if I am wrong. Thank you for your attention! OboeCrack (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image error

message: Why Turkey has not signet it?
--Nandus (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey

message: Please don't delete Palestine (Palestinian Authority), or any other party to the Freedom Flotilla incident, from the non-signatory list without a cite that they have signed it. Thanks. Spark240 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestine as non-signatory

message: Mali is grey (non-signatory) in the map, but is not in the list. Because having no shore? San Marino neither! Please correct some of them.  Sobreira (parlez) 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mali is no longer in the list because they signed the treaty in 1985. The maps shows it correctly.--88.66.22.166 (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between map and list 

message: *John Birch Society, More LOST Opposition Found Among GOP Senators 13.July.2012 written by Michael Tennant
99.109.124.90 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add ''John Birch Society'' criticism? 

message: There is a sentence that "However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.".
The comment is more or less free-standing and goes nowhere - the answer is of course that the treaty does whatever any treaty does and make arrangements between nation states which inter-se redefine their international law obligations but cannot derogate from jus cogens norms. Unless all nations are party, it cannot codify customary international law, because its terms are simply not agreed by all nations and there can be no opinion juris on the part of non-signatories and non-parties. I suggest that the sentence be simply deleted or a paragraph setting out the general effect of treaties on customary international law be inserted. Suastiastu (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNCLOS and Customary International Law 

message: This section is completely unreferenced and a glib description of the previous law of the sea arrangements and does not actually describe the background to UNCLOS, but rather the history of the law of the sea. Needs referencingSuastiastu (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Background 

message: UNCLOS does not in fact give complete sovereignty over archipelagic waters, but subject to rights including traditional fishing ...I'm just going to include this and if someone objects they can reverse it out. Fairly topical at present as China is now claiming traditional fishing rights entitled its boats to fish in waters claimed by Indonesia.Suastiastu (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archipelagic Waters 

message: There is a conflation of Exclusive economic zone with the continental shelf - they are not the same thing and apply in different ways. For example the Australian continental shelf lies (in part) under the Indonesian exclusive economic zone. In that overlap, Australia has the rights to the minerals and sedentary fisheries, but Indonesia has rights to the water column and pelagic fisheries. Would like to tidy up and reference these definitionsSuastiastu (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  EEZ 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061229231026/http://seaaroundus.org:80/eez/eez.aspx to http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803022821/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2005/ipresscom2005-23_20051107.htm to http://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article seems to do a good overview of the law of the sea based on the UN Convention, but other treaties on Wikipedia go in much further depth.  How about we add brief descriptions of the articles, or at least sections and maybe subsections?  http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
We should include things like how it affects military versus commercial transits.  How does it affect aviation and scientific research vessels?  The article should at least go over the fundamentals of boundaries other than the basic 12, 50, and 200 nm distances.  There are a long list of caveats to these rules like bilateral agreements in place all over the world, straits, archipelagos, islets, and other lesser known features that UNCLOS III addressed.  What do y'all think? Cmprice11 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room for expansion  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019095511/http://web.unimc.it/internazionale/sea.htm to http://web.unimc.it/internazionale/sea.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.sopac.org/tiki-index.php?page=Pacific+Island+Regional+Maritime+Boundaries+Project
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I removed the sentence under Internal Waters that said, "Pursuit of a ship by the Coastal State may only take place in the internal waters and is required to end when reaching the contiguous zone."  This sentence conflicts with article 111 of UNCLOS.
Under UNCLOS article 111, hot pursuit can continue until a pursued vessel enters the territorial waters of that vessel's own state or a third state.
I've quoted the relevant paragraphs of Article 111 below, and here's a link to the UN page where I found it (the rest of 111 covers what constitutes hot pursuit):
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm
Article111
Right of hot pursuit
1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.
2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.
3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CruiserBob (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pursuit under UNCLOS 

message: I think the "external links" list is too long and needs culling. What do others think? EMsmile (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now culled it a little bit but I think it needs further culling. EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links list needs culling