NATION

PASSWORD

Passed: 'Law of the Seas'

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18379
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Passed: 'Law of the Seas'

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:36 am

Law of the Seas

Category:
Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Bears Armed Mission

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that nations have the right to claim jurisdiction, for legal and economic purposes, over those parts of the seas that are adjacent to their lands,

CONCERNED that if such claims are taken to excess they have the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account nations’ legitimate interests;


1. DEFINES the term ‘sea border’ as the point where waters meet the land at mean low tide, or where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations;

2. ACKNOWLEDGES that, subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights and unless these terms would create conflicting claims,
A) Waters within 24 nautical miles (‘NM’) of a member nation's sea border, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be considered that nation’s 'Territorial Waters' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws;
B) All of the waters within 200 nautical miles of a member nation's sea border, whether these are within its own Territorial Waters or are International Waters, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be counted as its 'Exclusive Economic Zone' (‘EEZ’) within which it has sole authority over the exploration and use of natural resources;
C) Each of these zones also includes the relevant sections of sea-floor;
D) A nation’s territorial jurisdiction also extends over offshore installations located within its EEZ, and over ships registered in that nation while those are in International Waters;

3. STATES that in the case of conflicting claims between member nations any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall be divided along lines mid-way between those nations’ sea borders, unless those nations freely agree on an alternative partition instead;

4. URGES any member nations whose claims conflict with those of any non-members to seek peaceful agreement on basis of these same rules with those other nations;

5. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission (or ‘WANC’), gives this agency the right and duty of binding arbitration in any disputes about this resolution’s interpretation that might arise between WA member nations, and also allows it to provide arbitration in relevant disputes involving any non-member nations who actually volunteer to accept this service;


Co-author: Cobdenia.



OOC
This proposal is intended as a replacement for the recently-repealed GA Resolution # 47 ‘Law of the Sea’, and was drafted with permission from that previous law’s author Cobdenia to re-use any of his material that seemed suitable. It was drafted in these forums (here), but I’m starting this new thread for it now —now that it’s actually reached the submission stage — because as I wasn’t the person who actually started that earlier discussion I can’t adjust its opening post as necessary…
I sent the proposal for a test run during this last week, without a TG campaign, and it managed to get at least 56 of the 73 approvals that would have taken it to quorum: I’m re-submitting it today, and this time around I will be campaigning actively to get it approved.

Approval link: Law of the Seas.


Firstly, I would like to credit Quadratic Form for their extensive input during the drafting process: If the rules had allowed me to credit two co-authors within the submitted draft, rather than just one, then I’d have named them there alongside Cobdenia… but, as the rules do set that limit, they agreed
(TG discussion) that naming Cobdenia instead of them would be the less worse approach.
(Yes, if it had come to a case of Quadratic Form submitting one of their drafts instead of me submitting one of mine, then I’d have made the same decision and agreed that they should name Cobdenia rather than me as co-author…)


Secondly, here’s how this proposal addresses the various points that were used in the repeal:

1. The former resolution [accidentally] referred to “The United Nations” rather than to “The World Assembly”: This reference has been fixed.

2. The former resolution’s rules for setting the limit of territorial waters, using the ‘sea border’ at low tide, allow nations to use claims to ownership of “islands, sandbars or atolls” as the basis for extending territorial claims outwards and outwards: This proposal takes the same approach as the former resolution, regardless of that complaint, because those are [basically] the same rules that apply in RL and that detail of their application doesn’t seem to be a significant problem here. The repeal’s authors were a bit vague about the details of how they themselves would prefer to replace those rules, but if they care to discuss the matter here (which they didn’t bother to do during the drafting stage…) then I’ll explain any problems that I see with their approach… although currently, unfortunately, I am unable to access these forums Monday-Friday so my response would have to wait until next Saturday instead…

3. The repeal asserted that having limits to territorial waters set by WA law was somehow more likely to lead to conflict _ But seriously, isn’t it leaving those limits undefined by international law, so nations that nations are free to argue with each other about the matter and to take whatever limits they can enforce, that’s much more likely to do that?!?
4. The former resolution didn’t address the problem of preventing maritime pollution: And neither does this one, either, because in my opinion that subject is complex enough by itself for any ‘proper’ treatment of it to require a complete resolution of its own… and trying to cram legislation on the topic into this proposal would probably have got this proposal deleted by the Mods (when it was submitted), on the grounds that it was trying to cover too much material that belonged in another ‘Category’ rather than the specified one, anyway…
However the passage of this proposal wouldn’t block the subsequent passage of further WA legislation to cover the pollution problem. (Actually, the existence of the former resolution ‘Law of the Sea’ wasn’t a barrier to such legislation either, so anybody who voted for the repeal because of that argument needn’t have done so…)


Thirdly, to answer a few more questions that I suspect might get raised _
1. “What’s with the ‘Global Disarmament’ label? I object to the WA telling me that I have to cut my nation’s armed forces!”![i] _ Relax, you don’t have to do anything of the kind. That label is there simply because each GA proposal has to be assigned to one or another of the pre-set categories when it’s submitted, and as having territorial limits defined by international law in this way seems as though it could reasonably reduce the scope for conflict [i]slightly this looked to me like the most justifiable Category to use here.

2. “Why has the limit for Territorial Waters been moved out from 12NM to 24NM?” _ When I researched this subject during the drafting process I found that RL international law actually allows nations to extend their jurisdiction out that far for some purposes (such as tackling smuggling, medical quarantines, and — yes — preventing maritime pollution…) by declaring the existence of a ‘Contiguous Zone’ just outside of their actual Territorial Waters, and suggested including that rule in this proposal: However the consensus amongst people commenting was that would be an unnecessary complication, and that it would be easier just to extend the limit for actual Territorial Waters instead.

3. “Why have you dropped the clause about passages through straits?” _ That’s going to be part of a [separate] wider proposal on rights of peaceful (or “innocent”) passage through territorial waters, instead.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Sat Oct 15, 2011 1:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Scandavian States
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Scandavian States » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:57 am

If, as has been suggested, there is to be a resolution that will cover innocent passage of vessels, then why the mere 24nm exclusion zone? I will remind the delegate from Bears Armed that the original 3nm maritime border back at the dawn of modern civilization was enacted because that distance was considered the maximum range of ship-born cannon. Even if one ignores missile-armed ships, it is entirely possible to arm ships with very accurate guns and shells with a range of 50nm and with more exotic charges, shell shaping, and propulsion methods one can achieve the same CEP at 135nm. The original purpose of nautical borders and knowledge of new gun technology being imparted, we believe that a 150nm nautical border and a 200nm EEZ at stands in this resolution are an acceptable compromise.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18379
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:08 am

"exclusion zone"?


(Campaigning temporarily postponed due to more internet problems... "Urrgah!")
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Scandavian States
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Scandavian States » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:49 am

Exclusion Zone is just another name for a maritime border. Its most common usage is the Economic Exclusion Zone.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:43 am

Not a problem, we approved it since it is value-added.

User avatar
Osoaribbean
Envoy
 
Posts: 348
Founded: Mar 23, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Osoaribbean » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:54 pm

Scandavian States wrote:If, as has been suggested, there is to be a resolution that will cover innocent passage of vessels, then why the mere 24nm exclusion zone? I will remind the delegate from Bears Armed that the original 3nm maritime border back at the dawn of modern civilization was enacted because that distance was considered the maximum range of ship-born cannon. Even if one ignores missile-armed ships, it is entirely possible to arm ships with very accurate guns and shells with a range of 50nm and with more exotic charges, shell shaping, and propulsion methods one can achieve the same CEP at 135nm. The original purpose of nautical borders and knowledge of new gun technology being imparted, we believe that a 150nm nautical border and a 200nm EEZ at stands in this resolution are an acceptable compromise.


Osoaribbean submits that with advent of modern weaponry, any definition of territorial waters that relies on range of weapons is no longer valid since delivery systems of weapons can conceivably put a destructive charge anywhere on the planet. The range of "cannon shot" is no longer applicable as a standard, in our opinion.

Being based on a reasonable distance, for NatSov purposes and Law Enforcement, plus a further distance for economic exploitation reasons seems a much better metric to be used than an outdated tradition.

We will be voting "Yes" on this proposal as written when it comes to the World Assembly for a vote.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.

There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:42 pm

We continue to support this proposal, and agree if we are going to start using the territorial zone for defence purposes we'll need to extend it half way around the globe.

Osoaribbean wrote:Being based on a reasonable distance, for NatSov purposes and Law Enforcement, plus a further distance for economic exploitation reasons seems a much better metric to be used than an outdated tradition.


Hear hear!
Last edited by Libraria and Ausitoria on Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Opaloka
Envoy
 
Posts: 341
Founded: May 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Opaloka » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:56 pm

Concerning fitting the maritime territory to weapom capabilities, this was covered in previous discussion. In a universe with ICBM orbital platforms & the like not to mention 100% effective defence systems ( you can't be nuked in NS unless you agree to it) this is a non issue. :)
'Truth is the greatest of all national possessions. A state, a people, a system which suppresses the truth or fears to publish it, deserves to collapse!' Kurt Eisner

Judge for yourself international socialists democratic practice, socialist values & a comprehensive Start! Guide. Join IS!

A Captain of The Red Fleet.

Political compass: Econ' L/R -9.25 Social Lib/Auth' -7.18

User avatar
The Eternal Kawaii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1749
Founded: Apr 21, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Eternal Kawaii » Sun Oct 09, 2011 7:50 am

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We opposed the repeal of the original "Law of the Sea" resolution, and welcome its replacement here.
Learn More about The Eternal Kawaii from our Factbook!

"Aside from being illegal, it's not like Max Barry Day was that bad of a resolution." -- Glen Rhodes
"as a member of the GA elite, I don't have to take this" -- Vancouvia

User avatar
Diplocaulus
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Jun 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Diplocaulus » Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:23 am

We approved the previous proposal, and we approve this as well.
This post comes to you from either Dr. Derek D. Diplocaulus, or Grand Duke Dave D. Diplocaulus.

Just so you know, Diplocaulus is a nation inhabited by Diplocauli (obviously). We don't have anything resembling armed forces, so any involvement in a military RP will likely involve senior government ministers sitting around a television drinking and giving support from the sidelines.

User avatar
Destructor Bunnies
Envoy
 
Posts: 242
Founded: Nov 21, 2007
Father Knows Best State

Postby Destructor Bunnies » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:05 pm

Voted FOR.

Could this thread be stickied now, since it is at vote?

User avatar
Painvox
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Sep 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Mhux aċċettabbli

Postby Painvox » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:07 am

As this will interfere with our defensive submarine patrols operating along the entire Pacific on the behest of the other member nations of the Domed Supercontinent of Eternal Winter, the Painvoxian government has decided to vote against this resolution. Our ability to deter other naval powers in the Pacific from conducting naval espionage or, even more alarming, damaging the integrity of the great dome itself in an act of terrorism is very important to the residents of the frozen paradise.

Our operations, both above and below the waters of Painvox as well as all around the Pacific will continue to search for:

Explosives
Illegal Drugs
Unauthorized immigrants
Biological agents (possibly for use on our critical fish supply)
Subversive political or Religious movements foreign to our region
Wanted criminals
French people

If any of the above objects/persons are detected and are judged to within the 500 NM security perimeter of the dome; they will be ordered to turn back. Non-compliance results in a boarding procedure, with the contraband/criminal elements to be brought on board a Painvoxian vessel where they will be destroyed taken care of. Any hostile moves on the part of the foreign ship will be replied to with fire.

It is the government of Painvox's opinion that by limiting the range of these searches increases the chances of a successful foreign strike against our commerce/infrastructure/food supply. Decreasing our Zone of Denial is unacceptable.

Signed,

Lord Duke Norman Anders

Naval Lord and Head of International Border Wrangling.

***DECLARED UNCLASSIFIED BY THE PSF***

I'm being facetious, I like the French.
Last edited by Painvox on Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Penguton
Envoy
 
Posts: 223
Founded: May 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Penguton » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:04 am

We must vote affirmative for this resolution. We find it's provisions to be more the adequate to protect our borders and interests. We feel this strengthens our ability to secure our waters from hostile nations, and better defend our maritime resources.

From: Jax,
Ambassador to the WA
- Bak A. Penguin
Ambassador to the World Assembly, The Protectorate of Penguton

User avatar
Doctor Insano
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Doctor Insano » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:27 am

"i am glad to see that this has gone to vote, for a time the national sovereignty of our waters were contended by some nations near our borders. with this resolution we hope to see these disputes end. my dominion shall evermore, patrol and make safe our waters for any and all innocent people being transported through them. My dominion will still however, detain any vessel, person, aircraft, or any other sort of craft that moves near enough to our borders and does not respond to a hail, thereby making itself unknown and potentially hostile."

APPROVED
VOTE: AYE


Dr. Insano Ph.D.
High Chancellor: The Scientific Dominion of Doctor Insano
Regional Delegate: Humanist Dominion

User avatar
Bureaucracia
Attaché
 
Posts: 97
Founded: Dec 12, 2003
Ex-Nation

Postby Bureaucracia » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:29 am

World Assembly Nautical Commission (or ‘WANC’)


Hate to admit it, but the teenager in me chuckled at that... :roll:
Out-of-character personal Political Compass:
Economic: -8.88
Social: -6.36

In-character:
Economic: 8.88
Social: 7.90

User avatar
Seraveean
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 16
Founded: Mar 05, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Seraveean » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:33 am

NAY!
WA Ambassador of His Majesty Seraphrim,
God Emperor of Seraveean

WA Delegate of Avalon

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:58 am

It's nice to see an actual international issue come up for vote here in the WA, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites gladly casts their vote FOR this resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:21 am

Flibbleites wrote:It's nice to see an actual international issue come up for vote here in the WA, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites gladly casts their vote FOR this resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


:rofl: Priceless.

We vote FOR as we endorsed the proposal.

User avatar
Alqania
Minister
 
Posts: 2548
Founded: Aug 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alqania » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:32 am

"The Queendom whole-heartedly and proudly votes FOR this proposal."
Queendom of Alqania
Amor vincit omnia et nos cedamus amori
Former Speaker of the Gay Regional Parliament
Represented in the WA by Ambassador Lord Raekevikinfo
and Deputy Ambassador Princess Christineinfo
Author of GA#178
Member of UNOG and the Stonewall Alliance

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:33 am

Knootoss must vote against this proposal. First of all, we resent the pigeon-holing of this proposal as "disarmament". Something which is so clearly concerned with the clarity of international law and the commercial rights of nations should have been 'free trade'. We suspect that Bears Armed is pushing a pacifist agenda with this approach.

Second, we are deeply concerned by the single "improvement" that this proposal has made over the old 'Law of the Seas', and that is a binding court of arbitration. We find it completely unacceptable that the World Assembly should get to decide, through binding arbitration, on the very borders of our nation. This is a deliberate and contemptuous attack on national sovereignty. Shame on the Bears for attaching such a World Government agenda to such a vitally important bill.

Image
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Bellumcivile
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Oct 09, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Bellumcivile » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:09 am

Cephalonia votes against this proposal on the basis that a World Assembly committee should not be permitted to determine the national borders of a state. This proposal contradicts the idea of national sovereignty and would actively discourage respect of it in international affairs and undermine the sovereign state in the conduction of both domestic and external policy, a capability that defines a modern, independent nation-state.

The enforcement of a twenty-four nautical mile sovereign zone would require Cephalonia to alter its own maritime border of thirty nautical miles.
Cephalonia
Antiwar? Support America.

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:10 am

It's a good start somewhere on the matter. We have a clearly-defined 25 statutory mile zone and that hasn't pissed anyone off.

User avatar
Nullarni
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1348
Founded: Sep 26, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Nullarni » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:14 am

As we have expressed in the previous thread for this, we offer our full support for this resolution.
Proud founder of the NEW WARSAW PACT. Visitors welcome.

User avatar
Omigodtheykilledkenny
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5614
Founded: Mar 14, 2005
Capitalizt

Postby Omigodtheykilledkenny » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:16 am

Knootoss wrote:Second, we are deeply concerned by the single "improvement" that this proposal has made over the old 'Law of the Seas', and that is a binding court of arbitration. We find it completely unacceptable that the World Assembly should get to decide, through binding arbitration, on the very borders of our nation. This is a deliberate and contemptuous attack on national sovereignty. Shame on the Bears for attaching such a World Government agenda to such a vitally important bill.

The old resolution had an arbitration committee too. It was also called the World Assembly Nautical Commission.
Omigodtheykilledkenny FAQ | "The Biggest Sovereigntist IN THE WORLD" - Chester Pearson

User avatar
Dinkamana
Envoy
 
Posts: 275
Founded: May 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Dinkamana » Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:58 pm

The Imperium of Dinkamana votes FOR this proposal. We're glad to see such a well written replacement
Alpha. Mike. Foxtrot. In other words, Adios Mother FUCKER!!!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads