08-25-2005, 04:33 PM
I actually believe my government abstained on the original resolution, but in principal, we believe that just claiming a resolution violates national sovereignty can be said by any opponent of any resolution. In this particular case, my government strongly disagrees with the argument presented by the repeal, namely the idea that the UN does not have legal jurisdiction of international waters.
International waters are beyond "sovereign" borders, and to throw out the sovereignty card in the first clause of a repeal and claim that a true international resource is beyond the scope of the UN seems irresponsible to my government.
Had the repeal been worded differently, we would have been receptive to the repeal, but we don't want a statement being established that international resources are beyond the scope of the UN. That in fact SHOULD be the basis of all UN resolutions, and agree or disagree with the structure of the original resolution, this issue strikes at the heart of the international organization itself and my government would urge those leaning towards supporting the repeal to consider abstaining on it for these grounds.
With that in my, we've voted against.
International waters are beyond "sovereign" borders, and to throw out the sovereignty card in the first clause of a repeal and claim that a true international resource is beyond the scope of the UN seems irresponsible to my government.
Had the repeal been worded differently, we would have been receptive to the repeal, but we don't want a statement being established that international resources are beyond the scope of the UN. That in fact SHOULD be the basis of all UN resolutions, and agree or disagree with the structure of the original resolution, this issue strikes at the heart of the international organization itself and my government would urge those leaning towards supporting the repeal to consider abstaining on it for these grounds.
With that in my, we've voted against.