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?