Med COIN-Bloggen kommenteres løbende på dagsaktuelle emner. Vi vil søge at præge debatten, sådan at de skjulte konsekvenser ved nye former for indgreb, afgifter, skatter, forbud bliver gjort mere synlige.
["The Precautionary Principle"] has been cited to justify European regulatory practices for many decades, but was embraced by the U.S. environmental movement beginning in the 1990s. The environmentalists see the concept as particularly useful to them because it requires that all allegations that specific activities harm the environment, even if credible evidence to demonstrate such a cause and effect relationship is not fully established scientifically. Lawrence Kogan, chief executive officer of the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), a non-profit legal research organization, said the Precautionary Principle is being used by environmental extremists, trans-nationalists, and even foreign countries to diminish America’s military prowess and economic standing. Their efforts amount to a “Green Lawfare” campaign against America, he added. Read more in - Environmentalists launch "Green Lawfare" campaign against U.S. defenses
As debate continues over whether the United States will accede to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), recent developments in Congress and the Executive Branch indicate a quiet but concerted effort to inject UNCLOS environmental principles into U.S. law. Some, including this author, have argued that U.S. accession to UNCLOS would explicitly usher into the U.S. legal system an aggressive version of Europe’s precautionary approach to regulating economic conduct. In advance of accession, though, this “Precautionary Principle” is finding its way into U.S. policy statements and proposed legislation in the more politically palatable and innocuous-sounding, but no less unscientific, form of “ecosystem-based management” (EBM). As this LEGAL BACKGROUNDER will illustrate, application of EBM to use and exploration of the sea, and even land could substantially frustrate critical economic activity such as offshore oil exploration and marine genetic prospecting, while also imperiling U.S. sovereignty.
Read more here:
“ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT”: A STEALTH VEHICLE TO INJECT EURO-STYLE PRECAUTION INTO U.S. REGULATION
US UNCLOS Accession NOT Necessary to Secure Vast Majority of U.S. Energy Needs, US Army War College Research Paper Finds; Amendment Preferred
In a new article appearing within the forthcoming issue of the Santa Clara Journal of International Law entitled, What Goes Around, Comes Around: How UNCLOS Ratification Will Herald Europe's Precautionary Principle as US Law, international attorney Lawrence Kogan calls upon all Americans to immediately exercise their constitutionally guaranteed 'right to know'. This article identifies the multiple pathways through which global environmental extremists, US trans-nationalists, and the 111th Congressional supermajority seek to use the highly complex United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as a loading platform from which to import into the American heartland very harmful UN and European-anchored environmental treaty and customary international law rules. "Unless the public demands due process of law from their congressional representatives," emphasized Kogan, "such rules, resembling rogue waves, will collectively override US sovereignty and the supremacy of the US Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights".
Read more in:
Since European precautionary principle proponents advocate that ‘quality of life’ considerations, moral values, and social and environmental group (communal) concerns should serve a predominant role in international policy-making to address future potential public harms, it is incumbent upon all other nations to question the source of these beliefs. They must demand strict transparency and accountability from those who argue in favor of changing the current ‘risk-based’ global paradigm to a new ‘precautionary principle’ hazard-based paradigm, which dictates the extent to which all societies may use and rely upon science in evaluating potential future public dangers. After all, is it not the advocates of precaution who bear the burden of proving to the world that a paradigm shift focusing primarily on the ‘unknowables’ of life is actually necessary? Mustn’t they prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that this utopian vision can not result in greater harms to global society than those they are intended to eliminate? And, isn’t it they who must demonstrate that the assumptions underlying these beliefs reflect a reasoned rather than a desperate, pessimistic view of reality? [...]
As in Plato’s utopian republic, European regional policy is crafted by an exceptionally educated class of ‘guardian philosophers’ namely, EU Commissioners, who love the vision of truth. This vision consists both of that which is known to be real and that which is believed/ perceived to be real. These philosophers are selected and overseen by a legislator (the EU Parliament and the Council of Ministers review laws proposed by the Commission). To the extent the guardians carry out the intent of the legislator, their rule will remain unchecked by the other citizens (e.g., the social and environmental non-governmental organizations) whose interests are represented in the Parliament and the Council. In the end, the European public (i.e., the man and woman on the street whose interests are not so represented) must trust that well-intentioned EU Commissioners, prodded by these ideologues, will adequately protect their interests. Notably, the common people and soldiers of Plato’s Republic were likewise obliged not to question their guardian philosophers, who retained the sole political power to pursue ‘justice’ for the social ‘good’ of the community. [...]
Europeans must realize that the precautionary principle will lessen Europe’s future quality of life by slowing down European economic growth, retarding European innovation and reducing the number and types of opportunities that will exist for future generations of Europeans. They must recognize, therefore, before it is too late, that a precautionary principle-based regulatory model runs counter to the vision underlying the Lisbon Strategy of neoliberal economic reform.[...]
In essence, some sort of blurring or unnatural fusion may have occurred between the multitude of values and phobias long submerged within Europe’s collective psyche and the extreme, almost religious utopian ideologies of post-communist European social and environmental groups. This convolution of European fears, ideals and hypothetical realities has manifested itself in the form of the precautionary principle. If its underpinnings indeed manifest a disease (i.e., "Precautionus Principilitis"), its symptoms and diagnosis would be quite telling: a disorder induced by stress and repressed feelings of inferiority and desperation, marked by extreme luddism, incoherent babbling, disorientation, and a shared form of delusion. But what is worse, instead of suffering this disturbance in private, the European regionalists seek to convert the entire world to their disordered understanding of reality. They are driven to do this, as a means of denying the guilt attendant with the sociopathic manner in which they are manipulating the rest of the world, while injecting their own shortcomings into a world system over which they now claim moral superiority.[...]
Read more in Precautionus Principilitis: A Psychosocial Disorder Causing Luddite Psychobabble by Lawrence A. Kogan and Robert Stein.
According to the World Conservation Union, the environmental community's goal is to utilize the [UN Law of the Sea Treaty] to employ the 'modern' Precautionary Principle globally to preserve the earth's biodiversity for future generations consistent with the United Nations doctrine of sustainable development.[...] And, this requires the development and promotion of:
..."a global framework or approach, building on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, CMS and other relevant agreements, to facilitate the creation of a global representative system of high seas MPA networks consistent with international law, to ensure its effective management and enforcement, and coordinate and harmonize applicable international agreements, mechanisms and authorities in accordance with modern principles of precautionary, ecosystem-based and integrated management and sound governance as defined in the UN principles; including through: Requesting those countries which have yet to sign or ratify UNCLOS, and other relevant international agreements (e.g. Kyoto Protocol, [...] Convention on Biological Diversity,[...] UN Fish Stocks Agreement)[...] to immediately ratify and implement these agreements"...*
Comments on the UN LAW OF THE SEA TREATY (LOST):
Visit also The Institute for Trade, Standards & Sustainable Development at www.itssd.org.
Danish readers see also: Star Trek og værdikampen.
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS SOON LIKELY TO APPROVE, WITHOUT ADEQUATE PUBLIC DEBATE, RATIFICATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION (UNCLOS), THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPREHENSIVE INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY TREATY EVER CONCEIVED BY MANKIND.
THE UNCLOS WILL PROVIDE THE UNITED NATIONS AND FUTURE U.S. GOVERNMENTS WITH LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO INVEST THEMSELVES WITH EXPANSIVE NEW POWERS TO IMPOSE COSTLY AND BURDENSOME NON-SCIENCE AND NON-ECONOMICS-BASED EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS (HIDDEN TAXES) UPON ALL AMERICANS THAT WILL SEVERELY IMPAIR THE USE & VALUE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHAT HAVE YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BEEN DOING TO ENSURE THAT YOUR CONSTITUTIONALLY-GUARANTEED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AMERICA’S NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY AND AMERICA’S MILITARY CAPABILITY TO DEFEND ITSELF WILL BE PROTECTED, AND NOT DELEGATED TO AN INTERNATIONAL UNELECTED INSTITUTION IN WHICH THE U.S. HAS ONLY ONE VOTE?
The prior message was a public service announcement from the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development. The Institute for Trade, Standards, and Sustainable Development is an independent, not-for-profit, non-partisan educational organization, based in Princeton, NJ, USA. Its charitable mission is to promote a positive paradigm of sustainable development consistent with private property, free market and WTO rules. The ITSSD examines evolving international law and policy as it relates to trade, science, technology and sustainable economic freedom and development around the world. ITSSD research is accessible on its website at: http://www.itssd.org and on its blog, the ITSSD Journal, at: http://www.itssd.blogspot.com .
Europe is using international means, such as the Law of Sea Treaty, to impose a "better safe than sorry" regulatory model for the environment that jeopardizes America's free enterprise system, according to international business attorney and pro-U.S. sovereignty activist Lawrence [K]ogan. - An evolving legal standard known as the "precautionary principle" is taking hold in Europe where a rising number of environmental controls have been put in place, said Kogan, CEO and co-director for the Institute for Trade Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD), at a Sept. 26 press conference sponsored by the Coalition to Preserve American Sovereignty. - Read more in Law of Sea Treaty Hurts US Security, Sovereignty Activists Say By Kevin Mooney.
The ‘LOST 45’ UN Environmental Restrictions on US Sovereignty by J. William Middendorf II & Lawrence A. Kogan.
‘LOST’ reality by Lawrence Kogan,
LOST and found by Lawrence Kogan, plus
Vetting LOST by Lawrence Kogan.
The lack of truth and public transparency surrounding the LOST [UN Law of the Sea Treaty] are hard to ignore. By ratifying the LOST, the US would unleash Europe’s PP [Precautionary Principle ] and subject US military and economic sovereignty to eventual UN dominance and control. Therefore, the US Senate must publicly review the LOST’s largely hidden environmental regulatory agenda BEFORE it renders its advice and consent. Only by exposing the LOST’s deep dark caverns to the light of day in public hearings convened by the various congressional committees possessing oversight jurisdiction, as had recently occurred in connection with the illegal immigration bill, would the US be able to avoid such a disastrous outcome. Anything less would shortchange Americans and violate their cherished US constitutional right to due process.
- Lawrence A. Kogan and J. William Middendorf in The ‘LOST 45’ UN Environmental Restrictions on US Sovereignty.
På den engelske del af Copenhagen Institutes hjemmeside kan man læse et bidrag fra Lawrence Kogan fra tænketanken ITSSD, der handler om, at man i FN i stigende grad søger at påtage sig rollen som "verdensregering" blandt andet i kraft af "the Law of the Sea Treaty". Ifølge Kogan vil man i FN først og fremmest bruge loven i naturkonservatismens tjeneste.
I sin kommentar rejser Kogan således følgende spørgsmål: - Is the White House merely ill-informed, or has it intentionally chosen to ignore the lessons of history? Does it not recall the past decade of highly contentious trade disputes between the United States and an environmentally-obsessed and protectionist European Union, which operates on what is known as the "precautionary principle" — "I fear, therefore I shall ban." Læs LOST and found.
ITSSD's mission er modsat FN's: to promote and implement a positive global paradigm of sustainable development that affords future generations from all Nations greater opportunities for a higher quality of life. To achieve this paradigm, we emphasize the importance of economic growth, free markets, the rule of law, strong intellectual property rights, scientific discovery, technological innovation, and the establishment of balanced, science-based and cost-effective national regulatory and standards systems. Læs mere her.
Hos IDSSD's hjemmeside finder man også kritik af EU's nye regulations-påfund REACH, der benytter sig af omvendt bevisbyrde. Læs mere om REACH her.
Flere engelske artikler på www.coin.dk/eng
Besøg også www.coin.dk/kyoto
FORCES står for Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking. Det er en amerikansk forening, der oprindeligt fra 1995 kun beskæftigede sig med friheden til at ryge, men som nu er vokset til at omfatte mange andre aspekter forbundet med forbrugerfrihed.
Under About us kan man som principerklæring blandt andet læse følgende:
[S]moking prohibition and the campaigns for behaviour modification are a front to hide the self-righteousness of those who feel entitled to impose advice on health, choice, behaviour and social values. Furthermore, “health” campaigns disguise the prevarication of those who want to impose their ways with laws and taxes, programming the lives of individuals without sufficient knowledge of the values that many people hold dear, and of those liberties and pleasures which are as essential to the political and psychological well-being of people in a free society as health is to the well-being of the body.
FORCES is based on the fundamental principle that people have a right to individual self-determination, and that the opportunity for individual self-determination is essential to human dignity. We believe that individual liberty of action, thought and behaviour is the paramount shared value of civil society, and that other values, when in conflict with such individual liberties, must normally submit to them. All individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
[W]e deny that the state has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and of the fruits of their labour, and to impose or forbid behaviours other than aggressions against another person or his property.
We actively support the freedom to advertise, free expression and the promotion of industries, individuals, groups of individuals or ideas whether or not they are considered “incorrect”, “unhealthy”, or even “dangerous” by the state or even by the majority or people, as these are a rights, thus not subject to democratic rules.
Accordingly, we actively oppose all attempts by government or third parties to regulate or forbid advertisement and promotion of legal products and legal behaviours considered “unhealthy” or “dangerous” or “immoral” by the state.
[W]e specifically reject the Precautionary Principle as an immoral and unlawful abuse of state power, as it justifies prohibition, regulation, taxation and propaganda on the basis of suspicion and opinion rather than science and justice, and furthermore it reverses the burden of proof on the accused...