Original collectivist and redistributionist framework UNCLOS was built on remains in place
Some advocates of the LOST have argued that a universal accord would promote seabed mining. A truly market-oriented accord might do so; not, however, a system that includes the ISA, the Enterprise, the Council, revenue sharing, international royalties, Western subsidies for the Enterprise, a Council veto for land-based minerals producers, and the like. Yet all of those anti-development provisions remain in the revised text.
That the treaty would favor political over productive activity should come as no surprise. The LOST was created in a different era. It was intended to inaugurate large and sustained wealth transfers from the industrialized states. The structure was therefore crafted to advance ideological, not economic, goals. Since then, however, most developing states have moved away from collectivism, and the promise of undersea mining has largely evaporated. Yet the original collectivist framework remains. Even the State Department acknowledges that the new "agreement retains the institutional outlines of Part XI," which contains the seabed mining provisions.10 The treaty has become a solution in search of a problem.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
- Principle of the common heritage of mankind enshrined in UNCLOS makes no moral or practical sense
- US ratification of UNCLOS would amount to endorsement of flawed common heritage of mankind principles
- UNCLOS treaty based on collectivist agenda to create global socialist entity
- Libertarians should be concerned by the collectivist and redistributionist origins of UNCLOS
- UNCLOS based on outdated and discredited redistributionist ideas from the 1970s
- Original collectivist and redistributionist framework UNCLOS was built on remains in place