How can anyone advocate adopting any international treaty with a stupid name like LOST?
Sure it was originally UNCLOS but that is not the point, what matters is the current title. While some authorities have made arguments for supporting or not supporting the treaty because of its content and the possible consequences of ratifying or not ratifying the treaty, their noble effort is pointless. Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST is an idiotic name for a multinational accord, therefore how could anyone champion a document so inanely entitled? Mayhap a discussion of the merits of the treaty would be warranted if it did not have a such stupid acronym for a name. Nevertheless, the reality remains that the treaty does have a dumb name so the point is moot.
Truly – who was the genius who said, “Hey guys look! If we just drop the UN and add the T for treaty the acronym is LOST, how cool is that!” Then genius number two probably said, “OH MY GOSH! I love that show, everyone will definitely support a treaty that has the same name as a hit TV show!”
You can read the whole glorious text here if your guilt about never reading tedious international maritime treaties overwhelms your desire to not be bored into an incoherent stupor.
One can only hope whatever community college issued the international diplomacy degrees to these characters is suitably ashamed.