Tinfect wrote:Kilimantonian wrote:The noble Ambassador Markhov does make some interesting points, all of which are relevant to us, as we also have sovereignty over our planet. Yet I do believe that by taking your grievance to the committee founded in GAR 168, the World Assembly Nautical Commission, they would resolve that error and give you complete control over your planetary waters.
"This is not the case, the World Assembly Nautical Commission has only the authority to arbitrate the interpretation of the Resolution, between Member States, in the event of conflicting interpretations. They do not have the authority to alter Resolution 168's mandates on International Waters."Araraukar wrote:But if one nation controls the entire planet, doesn't that just mean that every square kilometre of the surface is controlled by that one nation, or, to fit this proposal, "within its jurisdiction" and "within its borders", as the planet would in effect be without a border that would define anything to be outside the nation that controls it?
"No, this is, unfortunately, not the case. Resolution 168 Mandates the creation of 'International Waters' without regard to the status of a Member State that may render such things pointless, at best, and actively damaging, at worst. This Proposal, with Resolution 168 active, would require that the airspace above International Waters, be also considered International Territory, which poses an unacceptable threat to the National Security of Nations that maintain control over the whole of their planet's surface."
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;
"From GAR#168. If you own the entirety of the planet, all coastal territory is, legally speaking, defining your land borders. The waters enclosed by this border, plus twenty four nautical miles, would be all of them. If you want to argue that, in the cases where water covers a larger portion of surface than the sea, and therefore doesn't technically enclose anything, I would point out that it is not an unreasonable statutory interpretation to state that, if all land borders are owned by a single nation, their seas are, if not literally, technically enclosing all open waters.
"Statutory interpretation requires the letter of the law, but World Assembly resolutions are not laws. They are directives to create laws, and we write them tightly to avoid the kind of loophole exploitation that exists when no interpretive body exists. Our national governments have the advantage of judicial bodies to consider precedence and the spirit of the law to address situations for which there exists no clause or addendum to cover. Nothing, then, prevents your judicial from interpreting the laws the Imperium makes, in response to this directive, to consider all the bodies of water on a planet owned by a single nation to be territorial waters. It is practical and reasonable to make that assumption based on your uncontested control of the planet, and would be well within the spirit of the laws your nation would create in response to this directive. To take these international directives as purely literal is short sighted, and will only hurt you."
) 
