On behalf of mankind

[allodial]

Recently while reading some legal treatises, I came upon this statement about the "International Seabed Authority". The statement was that the International Seabed Authority was given

competence to act on behalf of mankind.

This is not to say anything negative about the ISA. However its more about this idea of "competence to act on behalf of mankind". Questions:

How does a corporation, state, legal entity, artificial entity acquire "competence to act on behalf of mankind"?
Did you give them competence to act on your behalf?
How did ISA acquire competence to act on behalf of mankind?
Are there other organizations, legal entities or the like that are acting on behalf of mankind?
If not all countries or men on the planet called Earth are parties to treaty or document creating ISA, how can they competence to act on behalf of mankind?

[Treefarmer]

Interesting.
They are located in Jamaica and on their About Us page they have a holiday calendar listed toward the bottom of the page, which their "Secretariat" is planning on observing in 2012.
It looks like a mixture of Catholic and Communist holidays.
Not really surprising, considering it's a UN organization.

[shikamaru]

Recently while reading some legal treatises, I came upon this statement about the "International Seabed Authority". The statement was that the International Seabed Authority was given



This is not to say anything negative about the ISA. However its more about this idea of "competence to act on behalf of mankind". Questions:

How does a corporation, state, legal entity, artificial entity acquire "competence to act on behalf of mankind"?
Did you give them competence to act on your behalf?
How did ISA acquire competence to act on behalf of mankind?
Are there other organizations, legal entities or the like that are acting on behalf of mankind?
If not all countries or men on the planet called Earth are parties to treaty or document creating ISA, how can they competence to act on behalf of mankind?

What is assumption.

[allodial]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the alleged source of the International Seabed Authority's 'authority'. From Article 136:

The Area {i.e. the 'deep seabed outside of 12 nm to 200 nm from a "coastal State"} and its resources are the common heritage of mankind.

From Article 137:

1. No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources, nor shall any State or natural or juridical person appropriate any part thereof. No such claim or exercise of sovereignty or sovereign rights nor such appropriation shall be recognized.

2. All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act. These resources are not subject to alienation. The minerals recovered from the Area, however, may only be alienated in accordance with this Part and the rules, regulations and procedures of the Authority.

3. No State or natural or juridical person shall claim, acquire or exercise rights with respect to the minerals recovered from the Area except in accordance with this Part. Otherwise, no such claim, acquisition or exercise of such rights shall be recognized.

Pay special attention to the "on whose behalf" and the word "shall". Imagine a group of men saying "Dear 7 BN men and women, all of this stuff is yours and is it part of your heritage we shall manage it on your behalf but you only get to enjoy it "as a whole". That is some funny stuff.

[Treefarmer]

The whole thing looks to me like another blatant power and authority grab by the UN, which IMHO is just a front group for ha Satan's one-world government, aka the NWO.

What never fails to amaze me is the sheer number of people I encounter who think that it's a great idea to have a centralized world government power such as the UN, which is accountable to no human being on the planet, to wield dictatorial powers over all nations.

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve Yehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the elohim which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the elohim of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Yehovah."
Joshua 24:15

[allodial]

It wasn't until maybe the 1700s or so when it was 'decided' that such a thing as 'territorial waters' extended to 3nm off of a coast. Odd since they had ships even back around 0 BC. This was raised to 12 nm. Then comes nations extending their claims out to 200 nm. The Government of Ecuador would seize even US ships for fishing (commercially no doubt) within that 'zone'. It seems that the UNCLOS like other contracts are only binding upon the parties--the parties are deferring the right to this or that and acquiescing their right to the freedom of the high seas by signing UNCLOS.