Innocent Passage ACT [Draft][Abandoned]

[Abbeyverne]

This thread is for helping to draft the following proposal: All comments are accepted.

Innocent Passage Act

The World Assembly,

NOTING that member nations currently have no protected right to open and free passage through other member nation’s waters,

SEEING that no WA legislation provides a basis for jurisdiction of the legality of such transit,

DISCERNING that legislation on this topic will help small nations reliant on naval transit,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
   
   1. Innocent Passage: A right given to vessels registered in a member nation.
2. In the waters extending up to 200 NM from a nation's low tide mark other member nations have the right to innocent passage, except in times of war, quarantine, or other national or international crisis. Passage is innocent so long as it does not include acts of aggression, espionage, or actions not having a direct bearing on passage.
   
3. Member Nations have the right to refuse innocent passage to military vessels of other nations for any reason.
   
4. In shared waterways less than 400 NM wide, through which naval transport passes, any of the nations with a claim on the waterway may deny innocent passage, unless the ship(s) being denied cannot reach their destination by another route.
   
5. Vessels travelling under innocent passage provisions must conform to legislation in extant WA law and the customs regulations of the member nation through which they pass, subject to World Assembly Nautical Commission oversight, ensuring there is not abuse of the system.

[Grays Harbor]

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the baseline for archipelagic member nations,

Why would the standard be different for islands than it is for coastlines? Why would it require a separate definition?

[Greater Abbeyverne]

Because the group of islands is one nations but has many coastlines, not just one.

[Kenmoria]

Because the group of islands is one nations but has many coastlines, not just one.

(OOC: They still have a coastline, just not a contiguous one. Also, the current draft in the opening post should be unspoilered.)

[Grays Harbor]

Because the group of islands is one nations but has many coastlines, not just one.

A coastline is a coastline. That it’s an island makes no difference.

[The New Nordic Union]

'Clause 3 seems to be legislating for non-member nations, especially in that it forbids those nations carrying out attacks on vessels, be they military operations or not. Also, prevention of piracy should not be the only reason to attack vessels at sea; war can and should be waged at sea, as well.'

[Comfed]

You don’t need to spoiler the proposal.

[Attempted Socialism]

"This draft would not allow us to restrict passage based on environmental issues, either with the vessel in question or the area it passes through. That is simply unacceptable and must be rectified."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperial Borders are absolute; we see absolutely no reason to allow foreigners to violate our borders on the basis of 'innocence'. Disregarding the difficulty a foreigner would have in accessing our waters, any violation of the Imperial Border is considered an act of war, or terrorism, as appropriate; and before you start, Ambassador, the Imperial border is well-marked, and foreigners are warned away. They will have had every opportunity to not violate Imperial law prior to doing so.

Moreover, what exactly are 'open seas'? The term is entirely undefined."

[Graintfjall]

OOC: Doesn't International Transport Safety already cover innocent passage?

7) PROHIBITS nations from barring WA member state commercial transports in compliance with ITSC regulations from operating in their airspace, territory or territorial waters, or preventing such from docking, landing, or otherwise embarking/disembarking passengers & loading/unloading freight,
a) Nations are permitted to introduce reasonable requirements of prior notification and authorisation, but such are not to be refused on the grounds of the nation of the transport’s origin
b) Nations may refuse entry &c., if there are necessary practical reasons for doing so, such as limited capacity or quarantine, or in times of war or economic sanctions.

[Abbeyverne]

Because the group of islands is one nations but has many coastlines, not just one.

A coastline is a coastline. That it’s an island makes no difference.

It's not one island. Also, please don't use the word "coastline," we aren't talking about coast. In this legislation, the baseline is clearly defined as pretty much a connect the dots of the outermost islands, so all the waterways inside are internal waters. I hope that clarifies.

"The Imperial Borders are absolute; we see absolutely no reason to allow foreigners to violate our borders on the basis of 'innocence'. Disregarding the difficulty a foreigner would have in accessing our waters, any violation of the Imperial Border is considered an act of war, or terrorism, as appropriate; and before you start, Ambassador, the Imperial border is well-marked, and foreigners are warned away. They will have had every opportunity to not violate Imperial law prior to doing so.

Moreover, what exactly are 'open seas'? The term is entirely undefined."

I'll fix that.

"This draft would not allow us to restrict passage based on environmental issues, either with the vessel in question or the area it passes through. That is simply unacceptable and must be rectified."

That is already in "Law of the Seas." (Resolution 168)

'Clause 3 seems to be legislating for non-member nations, especially in that it forbids those nations carrying out attacks on vessels, be they military operations or not. Also, prevention of piracy should not be the only reason to attack vessels at sea; war can and should be waged at sea, as well.'

I'm going to fix that.

[Madison and Wisconsin]

"You may want to state what EEZ stands for. (OOC: I didn't know what it stood for until I looked it up.) In addition, the word 'jurisdiction' seems a bit vague. How clear should that line be set. Could a nation claim that all of the water in the world was under their jurisdiction?"

[Ardiveds]

"You may want to state what EEZ stands for. (OOC: I didn't know what it stood for until I looked it up.) In addition, the word 'jurisdiction' seems a bit vague. How clear should that line be set. Could a nation claim that all of the water in the world was under their jurisdiction?"

"GAR#168 does define what parts of the sea does and doesn't fall within a nation's jurisdiction. Though I guess if a nation controls an entire planet, all the oceans of the planet will be under their jurisdiction."

[The New Nordic Union]

It's not one island. Also, please don't use the word "coastline," we aren't talking about coast. In this legislation, the baseline is clearly defined as pretty much a connect the dots of the outermost islands, so all the waterways inside are internal waters. I hope that clarifies.

'But why? What necessitates this special treatment of archipelagic nations over other nations that might also have islands? Why should'nt those be included in the baseline, but form their own?'

[Ardiveds]

"Ambassador, coule you please define what exactly constitutes an archipelago nation? Does a nations have to have territories solely on island? Does it have own all the islands completely on which it has territories? Do the the islands have to be a certain distance from nearby continent?"

OOC: Basically, I'm asking if island nations like UK or Japan would be considered archipelago nations under this resoluitons.

[Tinfect]

"The matter of 'innocent passage' is still a concern; you've yet to explain why foreigners must be allowed access to the Imperial Territories, regardless of centuries of Imperial law."

[Araraukar]

"Ambassador, coule you please define what exactly constitutes an archipelago nation? Does a nations have to have territories solely on island? Does it have own all the islands completely on which it has territories? Do the the islands have to be a certain distance from nearby continent?"

OOC: Basically, I'm asking if island nations like UK or Japan would be considered archipelago nations under this resoluitons.

IC: "Araraukar certainly considers the islands off our coast to be part of our jurisdiction, and as they belong to the same continental plate as our mainland, the sea area in between is also within our jurisdiction. This is accepted by the nations we share our planet with."

OOC: What about Australia? Is it an island? If yes, the Great Barrier Reef islands would create an archipelago with it. If not, then the Great Barrier Reef islands would be an archipelago of their own while still belonging to the same nation somehow? Same with my RL home nation, Finland, and the Åland archipelago that is considered to be part of it, despite being semi-autonomous area and separate from the Turku archipelago.

[Abbeyverne]

It's not one island. Also, please don't use the word "coastline," we aren't talking about coast. In this legislation, the baseline is clearly defined as pretty much a connect the dots of the outermost islands, so all the waterways inside are internal waters. I hope that clarifies.

'But why? What necessitates this special treatment of archipelagic nations over other nations that might also have islands? Why should'nt those be included in the baseline, but form their own?'

To do that means I need to repeal Law Of The Seas, which I have tried to do, albeit unsuccessfully.

[Abbeyverne]

"Ambassador, coule you please define what exactly constitutes an archipelago nation? Does a nations have to have territories solely on island? Does it have own all the islands completely on which it has territories? Do the the islands have to be a certain distance from nearby continent?"

OOC: Basically, I'm asking if island nations like UK or Japan would be considered archipelago nations under this resoluitons.

Ok. I will do this.

[Abbeyverne]

"The matter of 'innocent passage' is still a concern; you've yet to explain why foreigners must be allowed access to the Imperial Territories, regardless of centuries of Imperial law."

Would you like a "historical law" clause that determines that ancient nations with longstanding traditions or laws may be excempt from this unless overridden by the WANC (World Assembly Nautical Commission)(Read #168 L.o.t.S.)

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

"Out interests are jeopardized by this resolution, as the ban on artificial islands is nonsensical, especially considering there are good reasons to construct them aside from the reason given in this resolution. Hereafter, we ask for you, ambassador, to amend this resolution unless there is good reason to ban artificial islands for anything other than research."

[Abbeyverne]

"Out interests are jeopardized by this resolution, as the ban on artificial islands is nonsensical, especially considering there are good reasons to construct them aside from the reason given in this resolution. Hereafter, we ask for you, ambassador, to amend this resolution unless there is good reason to ban artificial islands for anything other than research."

Would an allowance of artificial islands except as military installations be acceptable? (This is of course only for the open ocean, do as you want in your waters)

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC:

Isn't this illegal for House of Cards violation? Territorial Sea, and EEZ are obviously used in the sense in which they have been defined by 'Law of the Seas'. EEZ especially falls under this, since when one does not take into consideration Law of the Seas and its definitions, it's just a random string of letters.

Contiguous Zone is probably to be understood in the sense it has in RL UNCLOS, and is likewise not defined in the proposal; not to mention that an UNCLOS-like Contiguous Zone would not make sense in the WA, anyway, since there is a 24 mile limit on territorial waters in all circumstances.

Why the proposal defines 'Baseline' is still not clear to me; it is only used in this proposal (the presumedly intended, corresponding term in Law of the Seas would be 'sea border') and then only to define an archipelago's baseline, without any hint at why a baseline is needed or what it does.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC:

Isn't this illegal for House of Cards violation? Territorial Sea, and EEZ are obviously used in the sense in which they have been defined by 'Law of the Seas'. EEZ especially falls under this, since when one does not take into consideration Law of the Seas and its definitions, it's just a random string of letters.

Contiguous Zone is probably to be understood in the sense it has in RL UNCLOS, and is likewise not defined in the proposal; not to mention that an UNCLOS-like Contiguous Zone would not make sense in the WA, anyway, since there is a 24 mile limit on territorial waters in all circumstances.

Why the proposal defines 'Baseline' is still not clear to me; it is only used in this proposal (the presumedly intended, corresponding term in Law of the Seas would be 'sea border') and then only to define an archipelago's baseline, without any hint at why a baseline is needed or what it does.

Oh yeah, forgot whoever made that proposal used weird words. I'll fix it.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

"Out interests are jeopardized by this resolution, as the ban on artificial islands is nonsensical, especially considering there are good reasons to construct them aside from the reason given in this resolution. Hereafter, we ask for you, ambassador, to amend this resolution unless there is good reason to ban artificial islands for anything other than research."

Would an allowance of artificial islands except as military installations be acceptable? (This is of course only for the open ocean, do as you want in your waters)

"Indeed. That would be acceptable."