My Fish Paper

The Central Arctic Ocean Fishing Agreement: A Challenge for U.S. Diplomacy, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #3606, April 16, 2021. "The Agreement to Prevent Unregulated Commercial Fishing on the High Seas of the Central Arctic Ocean, signed by the U.S. in October 2018 and ratified in August 2019, seeks to apply precautionary conservation and management measures to ensure the sustainable use of fish stocks in Arctic waters outside the jurisdictions of the signatory nations. The agreement has a laudable goal and is largely sensible, but it suffers from defects of both substance and process: It is vulnerable to free-riding and, by the rules of the State Department, should have been a treaty. The agreement is acceptable only as an interim measure. The U.S. should seek to replace it with a multilateral treaty that binds all major fishing nations."

The 2021 NDAA - Land Mines, Cluster Munitions, and Defense Cooperation

How the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act and the Defense Appropriations Act Can Prepare the U.S. for Great Power Competition, with colleagues at the Heritage Foundation, Heritage Foundation Special Report #222, March 23, 2020. "The 2021 National Defense Authorization Act and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act are key tools for helping the Department of Defense (DOD) adapt to great power competition. The process of preparing for great power competition will not be a fast one, nor is it a matter of simply giving the DOD more resources. It will require prioritizing the long-term challenge posed by China and Russia, while divesting from previous efforts that do not contribute to meeting those challenges. Even if the United States dedicated all federal taxpayer dollars to the defense of the nation, the DOD would still have to make hard decisions about which capabilities are necessary now and in the future, as well as about the level of readiness of each unit. The 2021 authorization and appropriations acts are excellent opportunities for Congress to help the DOD make those decisions."

Making the Case for U.S. Land Mines

Landmines Should Be an Option for the U.S., Washington Times, February 26, 2020. "On March 6, 2014, America’s highest-ranking military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, called anti-personnel landmines “an important tool in the arsenal of the armed forces of the United States.” Barely six months later, the Obama administration all but removed that tool from the U.S. arsenal by declaring the U.S. would not use landmines outside the Korean Peninsula. The Trump administration has now rightly overturned that policy."

Rejecting Obama's Unilateral Disarmament

The Trump Administration Is Right to Correct U.S. Landmine Policy, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #5037, February 13, 2020. "On January 31, 2020, the Trump Administration canceled the Obama Administration’s policy that prohibited U.S. military forces from employing anti-personnel landmines outside the Korean Peninsula. The Obama Administration’s policy denied U.S. troops the use of weapons that could help to reduce U.S. casualties and help the U.S. military to prevail in future conflict. The Obama policy was adopted against the advice of the U.S. military, in order to please the progressive activists who have led the campaign against anti-personnel landmines, a campaign that has led only to the disarmament of democracies. The new U.S. policy issued by the Department of Defense responsibly authorizes Combatant Commanders, in exceptional circumstances, to employ advanced, non-persistent landmines specifically designed to reduce unintended harm to civilians and partner forces."

Yet Again, No Definitions . . . .

Alleged Russian Violations Of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Make New Case For U.S. Withdrawal, Forbes, May 30, 2019. "It is impossible to say for certain whether or not Russia is violating the CTBT because while the CTBT bans explosive nuclear testing, it does not define that term. The U.S. interpretation is that the CTBT bans testing to a “zero yield” standard – because the CTBT bans “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” -- but that is only the U.S. interpretation."

The Dull Side of International Relations

Treaties in the Age of Donald Trump, Newsday, May 28, 2019. "When President Donald Trump said last month that the United States was dropping out of the arms trade treaty, The Washington Post sighed that it was “the latest illustration of his aversion to international agreements and world governance.” Obviously, Trump doesn’t like some treaties. But would it surprise you to learn that he’s approved only one fewer treaty in his first two years than President Barack Obama did in his last two?"

An Academic Question

Why the U.S. Sometimes Supports International Treaty Enforcement, Forbes, October 31, 2018. "Thanks both to President Barack Obama’s willingness to evade the treaty-making process entirely in order to do his deals with Tehran and in Paris, and to President Donald Trump’s justified skepticism that it’s in the U.S.’s interests to stay in the INF Treaty while the Russians serially violate it, treaties are suddenly interesting again. But activists tend to ignore one of the more important questions regarding treaties: How will they be enforced? A second question follows logically: What will the U.S. support by way of enforcement?"

LOST at Sea

7 Reasons U.S. Should Not Ratify UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, with Brett Schaeffer and James Carafano, Heritage Foundation Commentary, June 4, 2018. "U.S. accession would provide no benefits not already available to the U.S., while creating unnecessary burdens and risks. Heritage Foundation research linked below addresses these points clearly and unequivocally."

The Top Five Treaties to Kill

On Treaties, It’s Time to Clear the Inbox, Washington Times, February 7, 2017. "The Trump administration is reportedly reviewing all current and pending multilateral treaties, with a view to exiting those that are not in the national interest. This is a long-overdue step. More than 40 treaties are pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, many of them gathering dust there for decades."

Yet Another Brilliant Idea from the Bureaucrats

Let’s Send Your Tax Forms To China!, Forbes, May 26, 2016, "There are bad ideas – such as making our tax code so complicated and intrusive that compliance costs billions, yet we can’t be sure what we owe, or that we’re not paying too much. Then there are really bad ideas – such as taking the tax forms of any American who does any international business and sending them to the People’s Republic of China or Russia."

And There Are A Lot More Than Three

3 Ways Paris Climate Agreement Just Won’t Work, Newsday, April 29, 2016. "The Paris agreement on climate change that Secretary of State John Kerry signed in Paris on Friday may be the worst accord the United States has ever entered into as a nation."

Unhappy Families and Bad Agreements

Obama Deals are Heavy on Hopes, Light on Enforcement, Yorkshire Post, August 31, 2015. "Like unhappy families, bad agreements are each bad in their own way. And of course there are degrees of badness: no trade deal, no matter how implausibly dreadful, could be worse than a nuclear deal gone wrong. But bad agreements do have a few features in common."

Replying to Foolish Claims on Treaties

, National Review Online, January 14, 2015. "The U.S. has been, and continues to be, a prolific negotiator, signer, and ratifier of treaties. The fact that 36 of them are pending in the Senate leads Jett to conclude that something is dangerously amiss. It leads me to an entirely different conclusion: There are a few treaties that are genuinely controversial, and many hundreds that are not. Most of these controversial treaties date from the 1990s, when it became fashionable to spin them from fairy dust."

What Bad Deals Have In Common

President Obama Flunks ‘Make A Deal 101’, Newsday, December 6, 2013. "The administration has made four big international deals since 2009: the New START Treaty with Russia, the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the Syrian chemical weapons arrangement and, now, the enrichment deal with Iran. They share a disturbing set of characteristics."

Options Remain for ATT Opposition

U.N. Arms Treaty Will Be Menace to U.S. For Years to Come, FoxNews.com, September 25, 2013. "Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty today was a serious error, one that will have far-reaching consequences for American foreign policy and American sovereignty. Those consequences will be even worse because the Senate, which has signaled many times that it is opposed to the treaty, will likely have no real opportunity to reject it."

The ATT: Bad Treaty, Worse Precedent

Arms Trade Treaty: Problems with Substance and Process, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3892, April 4, 2013. "The concept of the ATT is inherently flawed, and the treaty as adopted contains significant defects. Because of these flaws, the U.S. should neither sign nor ratify the ATT. But the process by which it was adopted is even more damaging. The U.S. should in the future uphold consensus as a negotiating red line, stop supporting the transfer of failed consensus-based negotiations to the majority-rule GA, and recognize that the GA vote on the ATT is only the beginning of the process of treaty interpretation and amendment."

John Stuart Mill, the ATT, and Syria

Multilateralism and the Arms Trade Treaty, Contentions, March 18, 2013. "The negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which I am observing at the U.N., offers a wonderful environment in which to observe the various species of hypocrisy. But like any zoo, you pretty well know what’s in the cage. Iran will be smoothly menacing, Syria will spit venom, and every developing nation will demand “implementation assistance,” i.e. more foreign aid. In the U.N., the dangers and the silliness are somewhat mitigated by their predictability."

The Problem of the A/B Treaty

The Meme of the ‘Weak’ Arms Trade Treaty, The Commentator, July 27, 2012. "WhatI find even more difficult to understand is the idea that the current treaty draft is somehow particularly weak. Of course the current draft would do nothing to stop Russia from arming Syria. But even if the NGOs got everything they want, that treaty would not stop Russia either. The error of the treaty’s supporters is this – they believe that better-drafted laws stop crime. Wrong. Cops on the beat stop crime. You can have the best-written laws in the world, but without enforcement, the law is merely words."

The ATT Will Become A Zombie Treaty

, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 25, 2012. "The outcome of the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is still uncertain, but one thing’s for sure: The ATT is not going to go away."

Treaty 401

Arms Trade Treaty: Media Need an Advanced Class on Treaties, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 24, 2012. "In answering media questions on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), I have found that hosts frequently state, as a matter of fact, that treaties require a two-thirds Senate majority, and if they don’t get it, they have no legal effect. Like all things, it’s not that simple. Here’s a short primer on when and how treaties can have legal effect."