From: utzoo!decvax!cca!hplabs!soreff
Newsgroups: net.misc
Title: Re: Reagan,Libya,G.Sidra,insanity - (nf)
Article-I.D.: hplabs.601
Posted: Tue Aug  3 10:29:40 1982
Received: Thu Aug  5 00:51:04 1982
References: uiucdcs.307

"There are laws, customs, treaties, etc. governing the oceans recognized by
most nations in the U.N. ... They [the Gulf of Sidra] are international
waters."  - A. Ray Miller
If most of the nations in the U.N. were to sign the current version of the
law of the sea treaty would Reagan consider it binding on the U.S. ?
By Miller's argument it would seem that Reagan should. The incident in the
the Gulf of Sidra was NOT settled in a court of law, it was settled by force
of arms. I do not regard the military capabilities of the U.S. navy to 
constitute a legal argument. If Libya's claim of the Gulf of Sidra was an
offense against the international community then the appropriate response
would seem to me to be an international one. If the point of the Gulf of
Sidra incident (from Reagan's point of view) was to illustrate the force
of U.S. arms then international law seems quite beside the point. Has
Kaddaffi ever signed anything which declares the Gulf of Sidra to be
international waters? If not, then why should a preponderance of force make
that gulf international waters?