1994 agreement leaves anti competitive production control regulations in place in UNCLOS
Indeed, production controls, one of the most perverse provisions of the original text, could recur under the revised agreement. The revision does excise most of article 151 and related provisions, which set a convoluted ceiling on seabed production to protect land-based miners. However, it leaves intact article 150, which, among other things, states that the ISA is to ensure "the protection of developing countries from adverse effects on their economies or on their export earnings resulting from a reduction in the price of an affected mineral, or in the volume of exports of that mineral, to the extent that such reduction is caused by activities in the area."22 That wording would seem to authorize the ISA to impose production limits. The United States might have to rely on its ability to round up allied votes to block such a proposal in the Council in perpetuity.
Related argument(s) where this quote is used.
Many of the most onerous provisions of UNCLOS were left in place even after the 1994 amendment, including provisions on technology transfer and wealth distribution.Related Quotes:
- 1994 Agreement has not changed intent of International Seabed Authority
- Pernicious effect of technology transfer provision still in effect even after 1994 agreement
- 1994 Agreement does not give U.S. a true veto in the International Seabed Authority
- US should unsign 1994 agreement to resolve legal ambiguity over its actions
- ... and 5 more quote(s)