"Law of the Sea" replacement

[Glomeland]

Wouldn't it be fun to do some collaborative drafting, right here in the GA forum as God...er, Max...intended?

Here's the text of Cobdenia's original Law of the Sea resolution. I'm not suggesting we should just fix it up a bit and re-submit it, it might be a good starting point though. Something to look at and then go from there.

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
a) The boundaries between the territorial waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b) Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-World Assembly member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Ideas?

OOC: I thought it might be a good idea to use one of my more "sensible" nations instead of Destructor Bunnies.

[Glomeland]

Note that we don't, at this time, have Cobdenia's permission to use the original LotS text in any way. We should be prepared to craft an entirely new resolution from scratch if such permission is not forthcoming.

[The Ainocran Embassy]

There are some nations that occupy entire planets, we should make a notation regarding them though I am unsure how to word it.

[Bears Armed]

There are some nations that occupy entire planets, we should make a notation regarding them though I am unsure how to word it.

OOC: That's one of the situations that clause #4 was intended to cover. If a single nation occupies all of the land on a planet then all of that planet's seas are obviously "bordered by a single nation’s shores" and therefore "shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters"...


I've taken a copy of the original resolution to work on, and am also looking through my files for some notes on this subject that I put together several years ago. (The co-author who was credited in Cobdenia's NSUN version of this resolution had been the main author of a rival draft, for which it so happens that I myself -- as St Edmund -- was co-author...)

I'll try to post a potential draft within the next 2-3 days, and will also send a TG to Cobdenia seeking consent to re-use some of their work in the hope that they log in again and see it reasonably soon.)

EDIT: TG sent, asking permission on behalf of myself "or whoever else finally ends up as author instead" to recycle any bits of Cobdenia's resolution that look useful and asking him to post tio that effect -- if he's agreeable -- in this thread.

[Glomeland]

There are some nations that occupy entire planets, we should make a notation regarding them though I am unsure how to word it.

Good point. As pointed out by Bears, Law of the Sea contained a provision to cover that scenario and similar language would need to be included in the replacement.

Another thing to keep in mind though is that if a nation controls the entire surface of a planet, they probably have the military resources to defend the seas of that planet against foreign incursion. They're likely not too concerned about what the WA has to say on the subject.

[Glomeland]

I've taken a copy of the original resolution to work on, and am also looking through my files for some notes on this subject that I put together several years ago. (The co-author who was credited in Cobdenia's NSUN version of this resolution had been the main author of a rival draft, for which it so happens that I myself -- as St Edmund -- was co-author...)

I'll try to post a potential draft within the next 2-3 days, and will also send a TG to Cobdenia seeking consent to re-use some of their work in the hope that they log in again and see it reasonably soon.)

Looking forward to seeing your draft.

EDIT: TG sent, asking permission on behalf of myself "or whoever else finally ends up as author instead" to recycle any bits of Cobdenia's resolution that look useful and asking him to post tio that effect -- if he's agreeable -- in this thread.

I sent him a PM as well. Hopefully he'll respond to one of us.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Some minor changes I think we can all agree on:

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nation's territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
a) The boundaries between the territorial waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b) Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-World Assembly member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

OOC: I thought it might be a good idea to use one of my more "sensible" nations instead of Destructor Bunnies.

New Leicestershire would be the logical choice, if you wanted to preserve this resolution's distinctly British origins (and spelling). Unless BA wants to take the lead on this himself.

[Glomeland]

New Leicestershire would be the logical choice, if you wanted to preserve this resolution's distinctly British origins (and spelling). Unless BA wants to take the lead on this himself.

Well I'm in a bit of a pickle, WA-wise, since my current WA puppet is Destructor Bunnies and I need to keep it in Final Fantasy to prop up the rogue Flibbleites regime.

So I probably wouldn't be submitting it anyway. I'd just planned to help with the drafting and campaigning.

[Bears Armed]

Some minor changes I think we can all agree on:

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The World Assembly hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nation's territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
a) The boundaries between the territorial waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b) Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-World Assembly member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Agreed.

New Leicestershire would be the logical choice, if you wanted to preserve this resolution's distinctly British origins (and spelling). Unless BA wants to take the lead on this himself.

I'm willing to do so, but as I already have several other projects underway here & there as well -- and am likely to be quite busy in RL as well during the next several months, for that matter -- I'm also potentially willing to defer to anybody else who's going for a draft a lot like the old resolution.


Memo to self: Sort out details of a character from the Bears' "NorthLands" area to promote this IC, bearing in mind that the ambassador and all of his currently-identified staff are from the "Mainland" instead and the latter area is actually landlocked...

[Quadratic Form]

Given the range of modern weaponry, the 12 nautical mile band of territorial waters seems insufficient to protect against invasion. An extension of territorial waters past that range does not seem to be practical, however. We propose that exclusion of any foreign military from extended economic zone may be a suitable compromise. This will further help to protect any resource gathering installations and vessels within the economic zone.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If we are capable of using Cobdenia's language, I suggest the following change the EEZ clause:

b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest the exploration and use of natural resources in accordance with international law, but otherwise considered as international waters;

[Glomeland]

If we are capable of using Cobdenia's language, I suggest the following change the EEZ clause:

b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest the exploration and use of natural resources in accordance with international law, but otherwise considered as international waters;

My government would be agreeable to such language.

Eyðvør Eilifsdóttir
World Assembly Ambassador
Lýðveldið of Glomeland

[Ratateague]

I don't know the history or decision-making behind the 12 nautical mile rule, but I believe there is a solution seeing that many have voiced issues with it. The way I see it, is that the problem is that it's fixed. I had two ideas:

-One was that you could start with a smaller baseline and add to it based on various factors, such as islands.

-The other is a bit more complicated, and involves some geometry. This would be the formula where you take two circles, and subtract the area of the smaller one. Instead of having a set radius, nations could be given a total water (surface) area, which could be variable, and shapeable based on land mass, surrounding boundaries, and resources or delicate marine environments. It would still be subject to rules to avoid boundary conflict and overreaching that would make water travel difficult. You'd start with the total land mass, divide by Pi, and take the square root of that to get the radius of the (nation) first, smaller circle. Then you could add, say, half of that radius, to get the (nation + water) larger circle. Square it, Pi it, subtract the area of the smaller circle, and voila! Less arbitrary nautical miles! I realize it's just a hatched idea, but I feel this is headed in a better direction. You don't have to take it as is, just please consider the concept.

or you could spend time collecting consensus among the coastal and island nations about what they have and what they think is reasonable.. .. but of course that would be time-consuming.

[Firestorm0901]

So things to maybe include in order to make this ironclad this time around

FLAGS and NAMES
"All vessels shall be named. Said name shall include a prefix that is in accordance with their nation's requirements which must meet the requires of the governing body of this treaty. All vessels are required to fly the flag of the nation with which they are registered in while on the surface of any and all waters. Any vessel not flying a bonifide national flag shall be considered a 'stateless vessel'. Should any vessel of an enforcement design i.e., Military, Police, Coast Guard, ETC. come upon a 'stateless' vessel' in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, then the enforcement vessel, regardless of nation, is obligated to use reasonable force to compel the stoppage of the 'stateless vessel' in order to board it and obtain the identity of the nation with which the vessel is registered."

HAZARDS
"The use of 'sea mines' or any other device designed to create a hazard to shipping shall not be used in International Waters. Should a device be found and probable cause is demonstrated that a nation is responsible for said device, then an appropriate punishment in the form of sanctions may be levied against the nation by the governing body of this treaty."

TOLLS AND FEES
"No nation can demand any form of compensation from any vessel or nation for use of International Waters"

COMMANDING
"All vessels must be commanded and navigated by a trained and authorized CAPTAIN or country equivalent rank. This person may only CAPTAIN a vessel after completion of a training program for the specific class of vessel that they will be CAPTAINING. Said country's program must be approved and authorized by the governing body of this treaty, and the CAPTAIN must keep on his/her person at all times a copy of completion of said training program. Should a vessel be boarded and the CAPTAIN does not have a copy or is not trained at all, said vessel will be immediately seized by the governing body of this treaty. The governing body shall appoint the closest nation with coast line to the stopped vessel as its executor of this power and have it take custody of said vessel until such a time as the CAPTAIN can continue operations or another qualified CAPTAIN can take over operations."

INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS
"If a nation's 12 NM territorial waters contains a waterway such as a strait, channel, firth, pass or passage, or a sound that is an essential link for international traffic between two or more areas of High Seas, then a properly flagged vessel of any nation may use said waters under the guidance of Innocent Travel. Said waterway shall be designated by the governing commission of this treaty as an International Passageway.

The governance of the International Passageway will be deemed as a Special Maritime Jurisdiction, where the governing commission will delegate to each nation whose waters occupy the International Passageway CONCURRENT jurisdiction. Additional Rules and Regulations can be imposed at anytime by the governing commission of the treaty and will be enforced by all nations party to the International Passageway

Innocent Travel shall be defined as a peaceful, nonprejudicial use of the waterway to effect safe passage between the two or more areas of High Seas. Under no circumstances shall the safety or security of any nation whose territorial waters occupy this International Passageway be threaten or disregarded. Stimpulations include:
All Submersible Vessels, whether be military or commercial in nature, shall sail on the surface with their respective country's flag flying as traveling under the surface in an International Passageway would create a hazard to shipping and security of the nations
A Submersible Vessel may only be submerged if they have obtained permission from the governing body of this treaty and informed the nations with jurisdiction to the waterway
Barring permission, a vessel may only remain submerged if there is an Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH) of the vessel itself, the crew of the vessel, another vessel, the crew of another vessel, a downed aircraft and its crew, another reasonable submerged object (a car with people trapped), or a submerged person.
At no time shall a vessel capable of launching aircraft launch or recover aircraft within the International Passageway without obtaining consent of the governing body, and if consent is given they must follow the CONCURRENT jurisdictional rules. Exceptions are as follows:
An aircraft of the governing body of this commission may launch and recover from any vessel
A vessel of one of the nations that has jurisdiction within the International Passageway may launch and recover aircraft
An aircraft/vessel that does not fit one of the above descriptions may only be launched or recovered if an Immediate Danger to Life and Health is occurring either: on the vessel which the aircraft is launching from, another vessel has signaled for help, a person in the water has signaled for help, an aircraft that is in flight over the Passageway signals for help, or an aircraft over the Passageway requests an emergency landing
Finally under Innocent Travel, no vessel shall be denied access to said waterway regardless of their intent once the reach the other side of said waterway. Vessels may only be denied if a nation with CONCURRENT jurisdiction is in a state of war with the vessel they are denying access too, and only vessels of a military designation may be denied.

All vessels give implied consent to the following regulation in regard to using this designated International Passageway. The nations that have CONCURRENT jurisdiction are allowed to stop for a reasonable amount of time any and all vessels and subject them to reasonable boarding of control areas, such as the bridge of a vessel, in order to ensure the validity of the statehood of which the ship's flag is flying. A non-military vessel may also have its cargo hold reasonably searched in order to prevent the trafficking of Internationally Declared Contraband as stipulated in World Assembly Record. Should probable cause arise of International Criminal Activity Afoot, then the CONCURRENT jurisdiction nations may go to the governing body of this treaty and request an impoundment and search warrant. This request must be made in a reasonable amount of time

No tolls or fees shall be imparted onto any vessel that uses this designated passageway. No advanced paperwork of a sailing plan need be filed unless a vessel wishes to dock with one of the CONCURRENT jurisdiction nations."

I know its a lot, went on a little bit of a mind dump rant but its all good stuff! Thoughts please!

[Quadratic Form]

You'd start with the total land mass, divide by Pi, and take the square root of that to get the radius of the (nation) first, smaller circle. Then you could add, say, half of that radius, to get the (nation + water) larger circle. Square it, Pi it, subtract the area of the smaller circle, and voila! Less arbitrary nautical miles! I realize it's just a hatched idea, but I feel this is headed in a better direction. You don't have to take it as is, just please consider the concept.

And, of course, in case of a conflict, where the choices of two nations where to apply that area happen to overlap, the nations are going to be reasonable about it, and will reach some sort of a mutually agreeable compromise without further assistance from the WA.

This approach creates far more problems than it aims to resolve. Political figures are not good with compromises, math, and taking responsibility. You are assaulting all three in one go. The 12NM band might be arbitrary, but it's a simple enough boundary that already causes many troubles. Lets keep it as simple as possible.

COMMANDING
"All vessels must be commanded and navigated by a trained and authorized CAPTAIN or country equivalent rank. This person may only CAPTAIN a vessel after completion of a training program for the specific class of vessel that they will be CAPTAINING. Said country's program must be approved and authorized by the governing body of this treaty, and the CAPTAIN must keep on his/her person at all times a copy of completion of said training program. Should a vessel be boarded and the CAPTAIN does not have a copy or is not trained at all, said vessel will be immediately seized by the governing body of this treaty. The governing body shall appoint the closest nation with coast line to the stopped vessel as its executor of this power and have it take custody of said vessel until such a time as the CAPTAIN can continue operations or another qualified CAPTAIN can take over operations."

That sounds like it should belong in a separate legislature concerning safety of marine operations.

The repeal of the Law of the Sea, which is due to take place within 24 hours, is going to leave nations without a proper way to define borders at sea. That is a far more pressing issue than a few ships without properly trained captains. Sure, it might cause a shooting incident when some half-baked sailor wanders into foreign waters, but compare that to a near certainty of series of large international incidents that are going to follow a repeal of GA#47 and continue until a new legislation establishes borders. Your attempt to save a few ships might result in loss of entire fleets while this thing drags on.

It is imperative that this legislation is finished in as timely a manner as possible. Matters of safety can be left for later. The focus should be on boundaries of territorial waters and extended economic zones. That is the first priority. Everything else will wait. Trying to stuff too many things into one legislation is just going to drag out the drafting stage and will probably result in another repeal. Focus, gentlemen. Please.

[Opaloka]

We would like to see territorial waters extended to 25nm being more appropriate to modern arms & allowing for a greater 'warning zone' before direct action is forced upon a state.

[Ratateague]

You'd start with the total land mass, divide by Pi, and take the square root of that to get the radius of the (nation) first, smaller circle. Then you could add, say, half of that radius, to get the (nation + water) larger circle. Square it, Pi it, subtract the area of the smaller circle, and voila! Less arbitrary nautical miles! I realize it's just a hatched idea, but I feel this is headed in a better direction. You don't have to take it as is, just please consider the concept.

[Sarcasm sarcasm sarcasm]
This approach creates far more problems than it aims to resolve. Political figures are not good with compromises, math, and taking responsibility. You are assaulting all-

I expected criticism, but nothing so vitriolic and unconstructive. What I put forth was meant to get gears turning, not turn heads. Don't be so quick to dismiss an idea before it's formed; it has potential. "Simplicity" was never the problem, accuracy was. Rather, simplicity at the bane of accuracy.

12 Nautical Miles was enough of an issue to become a factor in the repeal. Whether it apply to miniscule islands granting them an unsensible boon, or enormous nations where one could wade out to that boundary. As I said before, the solution would be to make it more variable. Not 100% variable, just more. As I envision it, we could start off with a baseline, less than 12, for standard coastal nations. Add or subtract based on factors such as: significant differences in land mass, ranges and classes of islands, coastal "drop-off", high-frequency thru-travel, and fragile marine structures like barrier reefs. It would still allow nations to secure new land^* in the immediate vicinity, while significantly cutting down on cascading effects. And still subject to other limitations, which can be devised.

So, nations that consist of small, distant islands, under the old legistlation would cover most space between, but with unintented overreach outside of that. If instead they were to be given a smaller set radius and an alloted amount which could be shaped, they could better fill in the gaps, while not having a ridiculous outer buffer.

If it would make more sense, you could still start with a rigid radius, yet have any extra buffer granted beyond that to shape in a limited extent.

^{*in the case of volcanic island arcs}

[Quadratic Form]

Your approach requires computations that are cumbersome enough to explain informally, let alone be put into legislation in a succinct and unambiguous manner. Feel free to attempt it. And that's not even the main problem. The approach governs the total area of the territorial waters, not the way it is distributed. It cannot be easily converted into a variable width of the "band" of territorial waters. Consider what happens to your approach near a shoreline that consists of fjords. And if distribution of the surface area allowed for territorial water becomes ambiguous, there will be international disputes over how it should be distributed. Provided that you manage to explain your formula, and establish ways to resolve ambiguities, which will invariably involve integral equations, you will have to establish an entire bureaucratic system just to gather the data required to compute the values in question. In short, it is worse than 12NM proposal in every possible way.

No. Our criticism is not constructive. It is not meant to be. It is a bad idea. There is no way to improve on it. There can be no constructive criticism. The argument for why it is a bad idea was presented in the previous rebuttal, and has been expanded on here. If it is still not clear, we can draw pictures and derive the actual integral equations needed to resolve ambiguities. Will that be necessary?

Edit: Perhaps we are being unnecessarily harsh with the above. Perhaps you simply did not consider what it actually takes to test whether you are in territorial waters when using the 12NM rule. If a captain of a vessel intends to find out whether he is in territorial waters, all he needs is a chart and a compass. He sets his compass to 12NM, draws a circle around current location, and if it touches anyone's shores, he is within someone's territorial waters. That is all the test that is needed. No special charts, except near international borders. What you are suggesting, in contrast, would require an entire committee just to compile the instructions for the people who will be crunching numbers for the new charts, which will also have to be designed, with old charts getting recalled, people being re-taught how to use the charts, and so on. This is an entire mess of things all just to try and replaced a fixed number with a variable number. Why?

[Ratateague]

Simple geometry: more cumbersome than reading and explaining legalese?

Consider what happens to your approach near a shoreline that consists of fjords

The same that occurs with a 12 nm radius? I don't follow.
Edit: So why would that be any more difficult to add to the old method? Unless you're suggesting that nations can't compute the areas and topologies of their own land to make maps..?
Edit: Ah, I see. Now that you mention using a compass on the high seas, I can see why that would be an issue. Wouldn't exactly be able to see where the border is on the fly..

Again, it's meant to inspire whoever is writing it. But please, do share the pictures and equations.

[Quadratic Form]

Fjords or no fjords, with 12NM rule, all you need is a chart and a compass.

For an example, consider a proud people of Atoll of Who-Cares. Their lands are scattered as a chain of islands making a near perfect circle.

Code: Select all

    *
   *   *
 *      *
 *      *
  *  * 

It just so happens that the territorial waters computed according to your formula results in a band that stretches from island to island and closes back on itself. But now, the inner body of water is enclosed, and is added to the total area. Except now, there isn't enough width of the band to close all the way around. A gap opens, and the inner body of water is no longer isolated. So you increase the area... In short, there is no solution to your formula that results in territorial water area be related to the total surface area. It's simply impossible.

Yes, this is something you can come up an exception for, but similar, yet different, scenario will happen if you have a chain of islands next to a larger body of land. Yet another entirely if an island of another nation gets enclosed. And what shall you do with underwater nations?

This creates so many exceptions that it's simply impractical to write them all out. Again, the 12NM rule has only one exception, when territorial waters overlap. It's possible to address that exception in general. Old resolution simply didn't do a good job of it.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I support the general concept of WA legislation on this issue, so I'll add more constructive comments when I get the chance.

[Bears Armed]

(This is entirely an OOC post, because I’m not sure yet whether it would actually be the Bears handling this for me IC…)


‘Least Change’ draft #1

Okay, to start with we have a potential draft that incorporates as much of Cobdenia’s original material as possible — in the hopeful presumption that he’ll consent to this — but that fixes the ‘United Nations’ reference as well as a few other points too.
Deleted bits struck out, new material in blue, notes about bits that maybe still need fixing in red. Unfortunately it’s apparently now a bit above the maximum length allowed, so I’ll have to have a go at condensing it slightly next….

I’ve added a definition of ‘nautical mile’ because as Cobdenia didn’t do so in his resolution he effectively left the rather serious loophole that those nations in which the NM wasn’t already a customary unit could actually define it however they might choose: The defintion that I've given here is is actually one of the RL definitions for the unit (1 NM = 1 minute of longitude at the equator; 360 degrees x 60 minutes => 21’600 minutes = 21’600 nautical miles), and I’m fairly sure there’s been a ruling that ‘Earth’ doesn’t constitute a ‘RL Reference’ so I think that this should be okay… but checking before submission would probably still be a good idea anyway. Resolution #88, the ‘WA Numeration and Units Act’, definitely leaves us free to define units for use in proposals.


Clause 1.b has provisionally been changed as Glen-Rhodes suggested.

The extra passage in clause 5.d is to address a reasonable point that was raised — amongst all of the less reasonable ones — by the repeal’s supporters. (However the two sections that this clause would now have are an obvious early target for bits to be condensed into fewer characters.)

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United NationsWorld Assembly hereby,

0. DEFINES a unit for measuring distance that is called the Nautical Mile (or ‘NM’) and that equals 1/21’600th of the Earth’s equatorial circumference in length;

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resourcesto the exploration and use of natural resources in accordance with international law, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered aswithin that nation’s territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
a) The boundaries between the territorial waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b) Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater thenthan 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations. A median channel of 1 NM width that counts as international waters shall also exist through any strait that is between 2 NM and 25NM in width, whose sides are both controlled by a single nation, and that links two bodies of water upon each of which more than one nation has a coastline.
(Need to clarify the situation about ‘archipelagic’ nations?)

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-World Assembly member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.
(Needs to clarify that it can’t arbitrate disputes involving non-members unless they freely agree…)


Original author: Cobdenia.

I’m also working on an alternative draft that will be different enough from the previous resolution not to count as plagiarism if for some reason (such as CTE-ing) Cobdenia doesn’t give his consent to our using his words, and simply to see whether I can produce a significantly clearer version anyway, but getting that into presentable shape will take a while longer.


‘Law of the Sea’ was submitted as ‘Political Stability (Mild)’. Personally I think that as it’s aimed at reducing potential causes for international disputes we should go with ‘Global Disarmament (Mild)’ instead. What do the rest of you think?

Given the range of modern weaponry, the 12 nautical mile band of territorial waters seems insufficient to protect against invasion. An extension of territorial waters past that range does not seem to be practical, however. We propose that exclusion of any foreign military from extended economic zone may be a suitable compromise. This will further help to protect any resource gathering installations and vessels within the economic zone.

That’s an interesting point, and I see what you mean. Unfortunately some WA nations have ‘post-modern’ or even ‘futuristic’ weaponry, and so could invade at relatively short notice even with your proposed change… and yet I suspect that a lot of nations might consider that change “excessive”, too.
How would people here feel about allowing nations to regulate the passage of foreign vessels through their EEZs but only, specifically, when the nation that owns the waters and/or the nation that owns the ship is in a [declared] war? Or would this point be better left to become part of a separate resolution on rights of passage, if that hasn’t already been covered anyway? (I’ll check existing legislation when I have time, maybe Saturday, if nobody else gets there first…)

I don't know the history or decision-making behind the 12 nautical mile rule,

It’s the current RL rule, which is actually based on the effective range of naval gunfire (or coastal batteries?) at some point during the 20th century and that replaced an earlier 3-mile limit that was based [similarly] on cannon-range.

but I believe there is a solution seeing that many have voiced issues with it. The way I see it, is that the problem is that it's fixed. I had two ideas:

-One was that you could start with a smaller baseline and add to it based on various factors, such as islands.

-The other is a bit more complicated, and involves some geometry. This would be the formula where you take two circles, and subtract the area of the smaller one. Instead of having a set radius, nations could be given a total water (surface) area, which could be variable, and shapeable based on land mass, surrounding boundaries, and resources or delicate marine environments. It would still be subject to rules to avoid boundary conflict and overreaching that would make water travel difficult. You'd start with the total land mass, divide by Pi, and take the square root of that to get the radius of the (nation) first, smaller circle. Then you could add, say, half of that radius, to get the (nation + water) larger circle. Square it, Pi it, subtract the area of the smaller circle, and voila! Less arbitrary nautical miles! I realize it's just a hatched idea, but I feel this is headed in a better direction. You don't have to take it as is, just please consider the concept.

Ouch, complex! On the whole I agree with Quadratic Forms’ criticism of this idea. Also, (1) that would be rather difficult to fit into the proposal because the system simply won’t accept drafts that are above a certain length and we’re already pushing close to that limit, and (2) there’s the additional problem that nowhere within the game as a whole (although some regions may have rules about their own members) are the geographical shapes and sizes of the nations actually laid down.

or you could spend time collecting consensus among the coastal and island nations about what they have and what they think is reasonable.. .. but of course that would be time-consuming.

Just a bit time-consuming, yes, and I’m not sure how much of a consensus would actually exist. Does anybody else here support this idea?

So things to maybe include in order to make this ironclad this time around

FLAGS and NAMES
"All vessels shall be named. Said name shall include a prefix that is in accordance with their nation's requirements which must meet the requires of the governing body of this treaty. All vessels are required to fly the flag of the nation with which they are registered in while on the surface of any and all waters. Any vessel not flying a bonifide national flag shall be considered a 'stateless vessel'. Should any vessel of an enforcement design i.e., Military, Police, Coast Guard, ETC. come upon a 'stateless' vessel' in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, then the enforcement vessel, regardless of nation, is obligated to use reasonable force to compel the stoppage of the 'stateless vessel' in order to board it and obtain the identity of the nation with which the vessel is registered."

HAZARDS
"The use of 'sea mines' or any other device designed to create a hazard to shipping shall not be used in International Waters. Should a device be found and probable cause is demonstrated that a nation is responsible for said device, then an appropriate punishment in the form of sanctions may be levied against the nation by the governing body of this treaty."

TOLLS AND FEES
"No nation can demand any form of compensation from any vessel or nation for use of International Waters"

COMMANDING
"All vessels must be commanded and navigated by a trained and authorized CAPTAIN or country equivalent rank. This person may only CAPTAIN a vessel after completion of a training program for the specific class of vessel that they will be CAPTAINING. Said country's program must be approved and authorized by the governing body of this treaty, and the CAPTAIN must keep on his/her person at all times a copy of completion of said training program. Should a vessel be boarded and the CAPTAIN does not have a copy or is not trained at all, said vessel will be immediately seized by the governing body of this treaty. The governing body shall appoint the closest nation with coast line to the stopped vessel as its executor of this power and have it take custody of said vessel until such a time as the CAPTAIN can continue operations or another qualified CAPTAIN can take over operations."

INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS
"If a nation's 12 NM territorial waters contains a waterway such as a strait, channel, firth, pass or passage, or a sound that is an essential link for international traffic between two or more areas of High Seas, then a properly flagged vessel of any nation may use said waters under the guidance of Innocent Travel. Said waterway shall be designated by the governing commission of this treaty as an International Passageway.

The governance of the International Passageway will be deemed as a Special Maritime Jurisdiction, where the governing commission will delegate to each nation whose waters occupy the International Passageway CONCURRENT jurisdiction. Additional Rules and Regulations can be imposed at anytime by the governing commission of the treaty and will be enforced by all nations party to the International Passageway

Innocent Travel shall be defined as a peaceful, nonprejudicial use of the waterway to effect safe passage between the two or more areas of High Seas. Under no circumstances shall the safety or security of any nation whose territorial waters occupy this International Passageway be threaten or disregarded. Stimpulations include:
All Submersible Vessels, whether be military or commercial in nature, shall sail on the surface with their respective country's flag flying as traveling under the surface in an International Passageway would create a hazard to shipping and security of the nations
A Submersible Vessel may only be submerged if they have obtained permission from the governing body of this treaty and informed the nations with jurisdiction to the waterway
Barring permission, a vessel may only remain submerged if there is an Immediate Danger to Life and Health (IDLH) of the vessel itself, the crew of the vessel, another vessel, the crew of another vessel, a downed aircraft and its crew, another reasonable submerged object (a car with people trapped), or a submerged person.
At no time shall a vessel capable of launching aircraft launch or recover aircraft within the International Passageway without obtaining consent of the governing body, and if consent is given they must follow the CONCURRENT jurisdictional rules. Exceptions are as follows:
An aircraft of the governing body of this commission may launch and recover from any vessel
A vessel of one of the nations that has jurisdiction within the International Passageway may launch and recover aircraft
An aircraft/vessel that does not fit one of the above descriptions may only be launched or recovered if an Immediate Danger to Life and Health is occurring either: on the vessel which the aircraft is launching from, another vessel has signaled for help, a person in the water has signaled for help, an aircraft that is in flight over the Passageway signals for help, or an aircraft over the Passageway requests an emergency landing
Finally under Innocent Travel, no vessel shall be denied access to said waterway regardless of their intent once the reach the other side of said waterway. Vessels may only be denied if a nation with CONCURRENT jurisdiction is in a state of war with the vessel they are denying access too, and only vessels of a military designation may be denied.

All vessels give implied consent to the following regulation in regard to using this designated International Passageway. The nations that have CONCURRENT jurisdiction are allowed to stop for a reasonable amount of time any and all vessels and subject them to reasonable boarding of control areas, such as the bridge of a vessel, in order to ensure the validity of the statehood of which the ship's flag is flying. A non-military vessel may also have its cargo hold reasonably searched in order to prevent the trafficking of Internationally Declared Contraband as stipulated in World Assembly Record. Should probable cause arise of International Criminal Activity Afoot, then the CONCURRENT jurisdiction nations may go to the governing body of this treaty and request an impoundment and search warrant. This request must be made in a reasonable amount of time

No tolls or fees shall be imparted onto any vessel that uses this designated passageway. No advanced paperwork of a sailing plan need be filed unless a vessel wishes to dock with one of the CONCURRENT jurisdiction nations."

I know its a lot, went on a little bit of a mind dump rant but its all good stuff! Thoughts please

It is rather a lot, yes, and as already mentioned we’re going to have trouble staying within the maximum length that the system will accept as things are without any of those additional details…

However I think that most of points could fit reasonably well into a separate proposal on ‘rights of passage’ such as I also mentioned earlier (although a few of them would seem to fall under maritime safety instead), and would be willing to work with you on such a project at some point in the future — although not going into so much fine (or “micro-managing”) detail, and probably not starting until several weeks from now — if you are interested… although I can foresee a LOT of nations objecting to idea that they might be required to allow ‘International Passageways’ through their own waters…

We would like to see territorial waters extended to 25nm being more appropriate to modern arms & allowing for a greater 'warning zone' before direct action is forced upon a state.

I am open to persuasion on this point, and might conduct a poll later on, but 12 NM does at least have the virtue of being the figure used not only by the previous resolution but also in RL as well and thus of demonstrably being acceptable to quite a few national governments…

[Ratateague]

Okay, I didn't realize 12NM had a warfare context. Still, when two or more nations have to divide the waters, it defeats that purpose. _{Unless the jurisdiction of such maritime law extended in full?}

How would people here feel about allowing nations to regulate the passage of foreign vessels through their EEZs but only, specifically, when the nation that owns the waters and/or the nation that owns the ship is in a [declared] war?

Sounds reasonable.

It should be pointed out that "where fresh water meets salt water" is Brackish Water and may be shortened.

This was all I meant:

Should have posted the graphic first to avoid all that long-winded explanation.

[Bears Armed]

What title for the replacement?

'New Law of the Sea'?
'Territorial Waters'?
'Sailing Ships and Sealing Wax'?
'Mare Nostrum'?

Are there any other suggestions?


EDIT: Added _
'Oceanic Accord'
'New Maritime Convention'

[The Ainocran Embassy]

howabout the international maritime convention?