Who owns these global energy corporations based in US? GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----same as in CANADA. So, the US is not driving these mining, energy, fresh water privatization goals---CANADA'S CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY for one drives what these global energy corporations in US have been doing these few decades to BOTH sides of the border.
OPEN BORDERS say SOROS----means global corporations have rights to infrastructure with no thoughts of a national sovereignty.
'Development Projects in Ecuador Boost Sustainability | The ...borgenproject.org/development-projects-in-ecuador Nov 26, 2017 · Development Projects in Ecuador Boost Sustainability Ecuador is a South American country bordering the Pacific Ocean. Its rich history, vibrant culture and diverse landscape make it a hotbed for tourism, agriculture and natural resources'.
The same ARIZONA STATE LAW SCHOOL players pretending to be SOCIAL BENEFIT wrote those public policy several decades ago for these LATIN AMERICAN nations to be taken by global energy corporations via WORLD BANK IMF------as is behind these US CANADA BORDER DEALS. No one knows that more then these people below pretending to be about GREEN SUSTAINABILITY ----to be about containing CLIMATE CHANGE ---when they are the source of the worst of all this.
Richard Morrison Professor of Water Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Arizona State University
PO Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
Senior Sustainability Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability
Richard Morrison Professor of Water Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law'
The degradation in ALBERTA----MANITOBA to vital fresh aquifers which overlap LAKE WINNIPEG has been these few decades in the making. It has not only now happened. In other words-----TRUMP did not do this. This area of ALBERTA is right were the transcontinental passenger train passes.
'Alberta’s Toxic Tailings
For every barrel of tar sands oil extracted from the boreal, 1.5 barrels of liquid waste containing lead, mercury, arsenic, and other chemicals are added to northern Alberta’s open tailings ponds. Today these unlined ponds--roughly 20 of them—hold more than 300 billion gallons of toxic waste in an area the size of Manhattan and Boston combined. And they’re growing: mining companies store 6.6 million gallons of new tailings every day. The ponds are massive—according to the U.S. Department of the Interior, one of them, the Mildred Lake Settling Basin, contains the world’s largest dam by volume of construction material, creating a 30-square-mile industrial hellscape in one of Canada’s most pristine regions'.
Here are the representatives of UK MONARCHY controlling these global energy corporations on both sides of the borders US CANADA
'2019 Alberta general election
The 2019 Alberta general election (formally the 30th general election) was held on April 16, 2019, to elect 87 members to the 30th Alberta Legislature. In its first general election contest, the Jason Kenney -led United Conservative Party (UCP) won 54.88% of the popular vote and 63 seats, reducing Premier Rachel Notley 's governing Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP) to Official Opposition with 24 seats'.
Oil Drilling in Yasuni National Park, Ecuador
Written at SFSU in 2017
Yasuni national park is a portion of the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador. The national park is known for its diverse ecosystem, which is home to countless species of plants, insects, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Yasuni is being exploited for a valuable resource, in the hopes of economic development for Ecuador. The drilling in the Yasuni National Park is a site of energy injustice as a result of environmental colonialism and sacrifice zones.
Toxic oil spill in Ecuador from Chevron (flickr, 2010)Background
The Yasuni National Park oil drilling has been one of the most controversial energy projects in recent years due to the environmental degradation and social justice implications it has on the indigenous communities in the Amazon. Originally, the President of Ecuador created an initiative, called the ITT (Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini), areas in the Yasuni National Park, which asked international countries that have contributed the most to the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to provide financial reparations . However, this initiative was unsuccessful due to the lack of financial support from developed countries, who donated a total of 13 million dollars of the proposed 3.6 billon dollars that would be generated by the drilling of oil . As a result, President Correra was forced to abandon the ITT initiative and granted the drilling of oil to a state based oil company know as PetroAmazonas .
A key reason in allowing the drilling for oil in the national park is the profit that it will provide for the impoverished country and the potential of providing economic advancement for the local communities. The money earned from this drilling would provide over 7 billion dollars to the local communities, which would help to improve the existing social services in Ecuador .
The People Affected
Although the local communities will benefit from the drilling, the ones most affected are the indigenous people that rely on the land to survive, in this particular case, the Tagaeri and Taromenane tribes . These communities have been living on these lands for generations and have had zero contact with the outside world . Both indigenous groups rely on the forest to sustain themselves. Some of the ways that the Tagaeri and Taromenane clans are affected is by decreasing the areas in which they reside. Each of these clans have remained out of contact with the outside world for thousand of years, but with recent development both have been forced to move deeper in to the forest . These disruptions, combined with the depleting resources then lead to conflicts, even escalating to violence, between both indigenous tribes because now they are having to compete with each other for land and resources
We discuss in detail often the science and geo-political economics behind being COLONIZED and made a TRIBUTE STATE as is MOVING FORWARD CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
We constantly remind that these ROBBER BARON 5% freemason/Greek players are team OLD WORLD KINGS----not ALL-AMERICAN.
While US FAKE NEWS MEDIA pretended South/North Dakota tar sands was ALL-AMERICAN it was actually controlled by CANADA-----The cross-border governance when both nations were sovereign-----disappeared and now those global energy/mining corporations control those governance boards. THE HAGUE is the DECIDER as global corporate tribunal.
'The Lieutenant Governor of Alberta (/lɛfˈtɛnənt/) is the viceregal representative in Alberta of the Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. The Lieutenant Governor of Alberta is appointed in the same manner as the other provincial viceroys in Canada and is similarly tasked with carrying out most of the monarch's constitutional and ceremonial duties'.
Here in US ----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA working for those same OLD WORLD KINGS as in CANADA----the difference is this-----the US has many EUROPEAN OLD WORLD KINGS tied to its colonization----
SO, IS THE US FORCING CANADA TO SAVE US 99% WE THE PEOPLE HAVING LOST ALL SOVEREIGN FRESH WATER? OF COURSE NOT---CANADA HAS THE US BY THE BOOT ON THE NECK.
The US has been made the fresh water BEGGAR by far-right wing global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Journal of Hydrology: Regional StudiesVolume 4, Part B,
September 2015, Pages 623-643
Transboundary aquifers along the Canada–USA border: Science, policy and social issues
Author links open overlay panelAlfonsoRivera
Peer review report 1 On “Transboundary aquifers along the Canada-USA border: Science, policy and social issues”
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, Volume 3, Supplement 1, March 2015, Pages 97
Since 2005, Canada has followed international developments in transboundary groundwater issues in cooperation with its southern neighbor the United States (USA) within the Internationally Shared Aquifer Resources Management Initiative (ISARM) of UNESCO.
As a result, 10 Transboundary Aquifer Systems (TAS) were identified along the border between Canada and the USA. This study is an extensive review of the current state of the 10 TAS. Documentation of scientifically-based knowledge on TAS is an important step in identifying potential issues in policies that might be adopted to address shared water-resource issues.
New hydrological insights for the region
This analysis emphasizes the need for more scientific data, widespread education and training, and a more clearly defined governments’ role to manage groundwater at the international level. The study reviews the current legal framework and summarises the current scientific knowledge for the TAS with respect to the hydrologic and geologic framework as well as some of the major drivers for supply and demand. It also describes the links, approach and relevance of studies on the TAS to the UN Law of Transboundary Aquifers and on how these might fit in the regional strategy for the assessment and management of the TAS. Clear communication, shared knowledge and common objectives in the management of TAS will prepare the countries for future negotiations and cooperative binational programs.
CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY mirrors today's US policies as this CANADIAN SUPREME COURT RULING looking much like ECUADOR'S attempts to hold these global energy corporations at bay-------only make these projects PUBLIC so CANADIAN taxpayers pay for this infrastructure these 99% of WE THE CANADIAN citizens ARE FIGHTING AGAINST.
CANADA simply made this track of pipeline PUBLIC pretending to work in public interest while fracking corporations are killing these same fresh water aquifers the politicians saying WE WANT THIS TO MAKE MONEY.
'A massive frack sand mine proposed along the east shore of Lake Winnipeg is digging up environmental concerns from neighbours'.
LAKE WINNIPEG ground water system overlaps HUDSON BAY. The the damage here is already taking HUDSON BAY.
Below we see where all those decisions in REAGAN/CLINTON era has left the HUDSON BAY's JAMES BAY. It is disappearing because it has been drained by global energy/mining corporations for fresh water.
WHERE DID ALL THAT FRESH WATER GO IN JAMES BAY ASKS GLOBAL BANKING 1% FAKE NEWS media in 2018?
'Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 12, Number 36, September 13, 1985© 1985 EIR News Service Inc.
Canada's James Bay fresh-water project gains political support
by Nicholas Benton'
James Bay Canada Where Did The Water Go Disaster
September 21, 2018 Jarwato Disaster
North america canada the world fact central the battle for james bay constructconnect fremont weir the world s most catastrophic floods in photos opinion in canada an environmental disaster looms the
Unearthed worries: Frack sand mine in Manitoba draws ire from neighbours
Exposure to tiny sand particles a cancer risk, says Don Sullivan, worried by adverse health concerns
Ian Froese · CBC News · Posted: Nov 26, 2018 8:20 PM CT | Last Updated: November 26, 2018
The sand deposits would be taken by rail to destinations across North America where it is used in the fracking process for oil and gas. (Matthew Brown/Associated Press)
A massive frack sand mine proposed along the east shore of Lake Winnipeg is digging up environmental concerns from neighbours.
Don Sullivan said adverse health and water quality issues must be evaluated before as much as 26 million tons of sand is unearthed from what may become one of the largest frack sand mines in North America.
"The health risks that come with these fine, particulate silica sand — they're dangerous and they're deadly, and that's both for the workers and the communities who live around it," said Sullivan, who lives near the proposed development around 200 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg, close to Seymourville.
Sullivan, founder of the newly launched What the Frack Manitoba group, is concerned that exposure to dust from sand processing may lead to silicosis, a lung disease.
Sullivan said officials must consider where the vast sums of water needed to wash the sand will come from and how it'll be treated.
Plus, he's worried about clearing some 200 acres of terrain for the open pit and the wear and tear on the province's roads from heavy trucks hauling the sand.
Costs must be considered: Sullivan "There's going to be benefits, there's no doubt, there's going to be jobs," Sullivan said of the project. "But there's also going to be substantial costs and those costs have to be weighed against the benefits."
He's calling on the province to institute a public panel review of the development, relying upon public input and independent expertise for insight.
"Anything less is insufficient," said Sullivan, who helped the province garner UNESCO World Heritage Site designation for the boreal forest straddling the Manitoba-Ontario border.
A 2014 technical review for the project states the company, now named Canadian Premium Sand, can dig for nearly 26 million tons of silica sand deposits.
The aggregate would be shipped by truck to Winnipeg and transported by rail throughout the continent. The resource is necessary for drillers fracking for oil and gas.
An October news release from the company archived on the Alberta Securities Commission's website states that a sample drilling is expected to be completed by the end of November, which will be followed by a report detailing "this sand resource play" before year-end.
"Claim Post is pleased to report that the Company is on track both operationally and corporately with its plan to develop this significant surface tier 1 sand deposit," executive chairman Lowell Jackson said in the Oct. 3 statement.
NDP environment critic Rob Altemeyer is calling on the government to seek public input immediately.
As members of Hollow Water First Nation, which is adjacent to the development, looked on from the gallery, Altemeyer pressed the government during question period Monday to launch a consultation process that he argues should have been underway months ago.
Environment minister Rochelle Squires said the province is waiting on the company to submit its environmental application before the province's review takes place.
Duty to consult Altemeyer said the provincial government had a duty to consult much earlier, as does the Crown, which is obligated to speak with Hollow Water First Nation.
"It's a huge proposal. It could have major detrimental impacts on the environment, on the local First Nation and nearby residents and this government has dropped the ball on doing the proper consultations," he said outside of question period.
The province said in a statement the project must undergo a complete environmental assessment and licensing process, where any and all concerns will be evaluated.
"The province is working to ensure the licensing requirements and approvals process consider the impacts to local communities and respect the Crown's duty to consult," it said.
On Monday, Sullivan wrote to the federal environment minister demanding a panel review for the development. His online petition has been signed more than 1,000 times.
Actually, this BC SUPREME COURT RULING is opening the door to making this project PUBLIC filled with EMINENT DOMAIN and taxpayer funding for what will reverse to a global banking 1% private infrastructure deal.
What is important here is this: ECUADOR governance fought the toxic attack of its global energy/mining in HAGUE GLOBAL TRIBUNAL and lost having to pay court costs-----these policy rulings in BC is leading to same goals. The difference between ECUADOR and BC CANADA? North America has strong legal protections for sovereignty and rights of citizens. This is MOVING FORWARD CANADA to third world status.
All these public policies having already made this area TOXIC these few decades with these PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE in motion-------all while the UNITED NATIONS claims that US CANADA BORDERLAND.
TRIBAL LEADERS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR THIS PROTECTION FOR DECADES-----BEING INVOLVED IN THIS UN DEAL IS A CORRUPTION OF EARLY TRIBAL GOALS.
'Boreal forest on Manitoba-Ontario border wins UNESCO world ...
An expanse of boreal shield straddling the Ontario-Manitoba border will be Canada's first mixed cultural and natural World Heritage Site, according to an announcement Sunday. The decision was announced by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's World Heritage Committee at its meeting in Manama, Bahrain'.
Who controls this border between US and CANADA? UNITED NATIONS and global energy corporations. This opens the door to UN military/security structures this done in third world nations.
Supreme Court to hear B.C. case attempting to halt Trans Mountain expansion
The Canadian Press
Published January 15, 2020
Pipe for the Trans Mountain pipeline is unloaded in Edson, Alta., on June 18, 2019.
JASON FRANSON/The Canadian Press
The B.C. government will ask Canada’s high court Thursday to give it authority over what can flow through the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline from Alberta.
The case is a make-it-or-break-it affair for the multibillion-dollar project: If British Columbia is allowed to prevent heavy oil from flowing through the pipeline, it would crush the expansion’s entire reason for being. It is also a significant case for the federal government, which bought the pipeline in 2018, when B.C.’s court challenge convinced Kinder Morgan Canada that the political opposition created too much risk that the project would never be completed.
The federal government will argue that letting B.C. regulate what can flow through the pipeline would give the province a veto over interprovincial projects it doesn’t like, counter to the constitutional authority given to Ottawa over any transportation project that crosses provincial boundaries.
B.C.’s NDP government, which was elected in 2017 in part on a promise to oppose the expansion, acknowledges the Constitution, but says B.C. has authority to protect its environment. There, the province argues it should be able to restrict heavy oil flows in the pipeline because it is B.C. that will bear the environmental brunt of any spill if the pipeline ruptures.
B.C. specifically wants to be able to require companies to get permits before shipping heavy oil through pipelines in B.C. A permit could be withheld if a company can’t show efforts to prevent a spill and policies to clean up and compensate if one does occur.
In a factum filed with the Supreme Court of Canada, the B.C. Attorney-General says “the heart of the Constitutional questions before this court” is whether B.C.’s authority to protect its own environment can include interfering in a federal project.
Last May, the B.C. Court of Appeal said it cannot.
B.C. is appealing that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and the hearing is set for Thursday morning in Ottawa. Four provinces, the cities of Burnaby and Vancouver, several Indigenous communities, the environmental-law charity Ecojustice, and more than half a dozen oil companies and advocacy groups have been granted intervenor status in the case.
In their written arguments filed with the Supreme Court, Ottawa’s lawyers say the B.C. Court of Appeal was correct when it said B.C.’s proposed permitting process is not a general environment law, but rather one specifically intended to restrict or even bar heavy oil from flowing through the Trans Mountain expansion.
The Trans Mountain expansion involves building a new pipeline roughly parallel to the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline that runs between Edmonton and a marine terminal in Burnaby, B.C. The existing pipeline would continue to carry mostly refined products, such as gasoline, and light crude oil. The expansion, with almost twice the capacity, would ship diluted bitumen, a heavy crude oil produced in Alberta’s oil sands, to be loaded onto tankers for export.
If B.C. can prevent heavy oil from flowing through the new pipeline, there is no reason to build it.
The expansion has been in the works for almost a decade and has become a political lightning rod for Canadians advocating for the phasing-out of fossil-fuel production to curb climate change and those fighting to support an industry that is a critical part of the economy. First proposed in 2012 during the former Conservative government’s tenure, the pipeline was approved by the federal Liberals in 2016, a year after they came to power.
Almost two years later, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that approval, saying Ottawa had failed in its duty to consult affected Indigenous communities, and hadn’t fully considered the impact on marine life from having more oil tankers in B.C. waters carrying heavy crude from the pipeline’s terminal.
Ottawa undertook another round of Indigenous consultation and reconsidered the marine effects before approving the project a second time in June.
In 2018, after B.C. announced its proposed plan to restrict heavy oil from flowing in the expanded pipeline, Kinder Morgan Canada halted work on the project and told Ottawa that unless it could provide some certainty the expansion could be built, it was going to walk away. When Ottawa couldn’t convince B.C. to back down, Kinder Morgan sold the pipeline to the federal government for $4.5-billion.
Ottawa intends to sell both the existing pipeline and the expansion to a private sector or Indigenous partner once the expansion is completed.
Work on the expansion, which was halted after the 2018 Federal Court decision, restarted in August.
Just about all of the national parks especially in US WEST have already been attached to global mining and fracking---no pristine environment to be found as is true along US CANADA in BC ALBERTA -----what this does is attack our US sovereignty as is being done in CANADA today.
Who attached these US natural treasures to UNITED NATIONS/WORLD BANK-----which are now being allowed to be taken for natural resources by the same global energy/global mining corporations along that US CANADA border.
Often, as with today's CANADIAN designation global banking 1% become tied to NATIVE AMERICAN land. This is how GLOBAL BANKING 1% become NATIVE AMERICANS.
'UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the USA
United States Cultural and Natural Heritage Sites as Designated by UNESCO
By Melanie Renzulli
UNESCO, UN infringement on sovereign American territoryUN’s World Heritage Sites Infringe on US National Sovereignty
By Tom Deweese —-- Bio and Archives--February 21, 2008
Many Americans have been disturbed to find that there are 22 areas in this nation that have been designated as United Nations’ World Heritage Sites. These sights are natural places such as parks or cultural monuments like Tom Jefferson’s home, Monticello.
As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory.
However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter. Because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has just announced his selections of 14 more sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites.
Today, of the original 22 UN Heritage Sites that are located on American soil, fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves and monuments are included in the UN designations.
The new sites will include Dayton, Ohio Wright Brothers-related aviation sites; Civil Rights Movement sites in Alabama; George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon in Virginia; Hopewell Indian Ceremonial Sites in my home town of Newark Ohio; and the Virginia State Capitol building in Richmond, to name just a few of the selected sites. These will be added to the existing list that includes Independence Hall, Yellowstone Park and the Statue of Liberty.
Proponents of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government.
If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary?
The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation.
REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?
WHO OWNS WORLD HERITAGE SITES?It is true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. It is also true that you will not find blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites.
To fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in our government see such programs as another tool to build massive federal land-control programs.
There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.
The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation.
Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of these lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site.
That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine - located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site and called for a protective buffer zone of 150-MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE PARK. The buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres of private property. Such is the purpose of the World Heritage Sites.
Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United States is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Biodiversity Treaty - a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United States Senate.
Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the “Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.” Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.”
A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention” states:
“In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.”
In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t suppose to worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their property.
This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Administration is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power.
By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS.
In a nutshell, here is the real game being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands.
That is why it is charged that World Heritage Sites are an infringement on United States sovereignty. You won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the policies.