zephyreks@lemmy.mlM to World News@lemmy.ml · 9 months agoUS Claims Huge Chunk of Seabed Amid Strategic Push for Resourceswww.bnnbloomberg.caexternal-linkmessage-square34fedilinkarrow-up1127arrow-down14cross-posted to: world@lemmy.world
arrow-up1123arrow-down1external-linkUS Claims Huge Chunk of Seabed Amid Strategic Push for Resourceswww.bnnbloomberg.cazephyreks@lemmy.mlM to World News@lemmy.ml · 9 months agomessage-square34fedilinkcross-posted to: world@lemmy.world
minus-squareSkua@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up21arrow-down7·edit-29 months agoOne of these claims is compatible with UNCLOS, the other absolutely is not. The US pulls plenty of international dickery, including not ratifying UNCLOS, but this claim fits within that existing international law just fine
minus-squarenekandro@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up9arrow-down10·9 months agoExcept it’s not really compatible with UNCLOS. The US interpretation of UNCLOS would allow them to claim like half the Pacific
minus-squareSkua@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up7arrow-down3·edit-29 months agoWhat do you think isn’t in line with it? This isn’t an exclusive economic zone claim.
minus-squareSharpiemarker@startrek.websitelinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down4·9 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squareSkua@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up7arrow-down2·9 months agoThere are 58 articles in part XI. Which ones are you talking about?
One of these claims is compatible with UNCLOS, the other absolutely is not. The US pulls plenty of international dickery, including not ratifying UNCLOS, but this claim fits within that existing international law just fine
Except it’s not really compatible with UNCLOS.
The US interpretation of UNCLOS would allow them to claim like half the Pacific
What do you think isn’t in line with it? This isn’t an exclusive economic zone claim.
Removed by mod
Part XI
There are 58 articles in part XI. Which ones are you talking about?