Comments on: The Law of the Sea Convention and Intelligence http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/01/the_law_of_the_sea_convention_.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:23:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Caitlyn L Antrim http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/01/the_law_of_the_sea_convention_.html/comment-page-1#comment-933 Caitlyn L Antrim Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:17:38 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2008/01/the_law_of_the_sea_convention_.html#comment-933 The position sought by Vitter and DeMint would seriously compromise US sovereignty because claiming a legal right for US submarines to conduct submerged intelligence activities in foreign territorial seas would result in other states (e.g. Russia, China, Cuba) having the same right in American territorial seas. Any US intelligence activities by submarines in foreign territorial seas would be _covert_ activities (just as were the U2 flights over the USSR) - and they would be covert for a very good reason - they are counter to the rights of the coastal state as recognized by customary international law, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea that the US is party to and the 1982 Convention ratified by 154 nations and signed by the United States. Vitter and DeMint are echoing the arguments given them by a tiny group who believe that the US should not be bound by the rules that, in this case at least, we would apply to others. I am very disappointed that you presented the Vitter/DeMint view without explaining why it is so foolish. Territorial seas are the sovereign territory of the coastal states, subject to only the right of innocent passage that is now defined in the 1982 LOS Convention and was defined in the preceding 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. From our own security perspective, we want our sovereign rights in our own territorial sea to be as they are provided in the 1982 Convention. The position sought by Vitter and DeMint would seriously compromise US sovereignty because claiming a legal right for US submarines to conduct submerged intelligence activities in foreign territorial seas would result in other states (e.g. Russia, China, Cuba) having the same right in American territorial seas.

Any US intelligence activities by submarines in foreign territorial seas would be _covert_ activities (just as were the U2 flights over the USSR) – and they would be covert for a very good reason – they are counter to the rights of the coastal state as recognized by customary international law, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea that the US is party to and the 1982 Convention ratified by 154 nations and signed by the United States.

Vitter and DeMint are echoing the arguments given them by a tiny group who believe that the US should not be bound by the rules that, in this case at least, we would apply to others. I am very disappointed that you presented the Vitter/DeMint view without explaining why it is so foolish.

Territorial seas are the sovereign territory of the coastal states, subject to only the right of innocent passage that is now defined in the 1982 LOS Convention and was defined in the preceding 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. From our own security perspective, we want our sovereign rights in our own territorial sea to be as they are provided in the 1982 Convention.

]]>