1994 Agreement has not changed intent of International Seabed Authority
It remains a fair question whether a complex U.N. regulatory bureaucracy—especially one that counts international wealth redistribution as one of its functions—is a reassuring presence for investors. The 1994 Agreement does not actually abolish the Planning Commission, but simply suspends its operations until the regulatory council of the Authority “decides otherwise.”15 The Seabed Authority still proclaims, on its official website, that it will oversee “action to protect land-based mineral producers in the third world from adverse economic effects of seabed production.” The 1994 Agreement seems to give at least tacit support to this notion in empowering the Authority to provide “economic assistance” to “developing countries which suffer serious adverse effects on their export earnings” from deep seabed mining.16 The Authority can still direct proceeds from mining or drilling approved for the continental shelf to compensate “affected developing land-based producer States.” If the world wants to encourage mining in the deep seabed, this is no way to do it.
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)