Innocent Passage ACT [Draft][Abandoned]

[Tinfect]

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.)

"No, Ambassador, I don't care to be patronized to, I am asking you justify your position. Why do you believe it is necessary for the World Assembly to strip Member-States of the right to determine the permeability of their borders at all? Why must the Imperium allow foreigners access to our jurisdiction simply because they desire to pass through it?"

[Araraukar]

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

OOC: Does this mean that this is not in fact your own proposal and that you are in fact stealing someone else's work and presenting it as your own? That's called plagiarism and can get you expelled from the WA if submitted.

[The New Nordic Union]

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the "sea border" for archipelagic member nations,
[...]
4. Archipelagic member nation’s sea borders will be defined as a ring touching the outer edge of the outer islands of the archipelago, however, innocent passage is allowed in the seaways between islands.

OOC: There is a definition, in Law of the Seas, that applies to every piece of land. Hence, it applies to archipelagic nations as well, with each individual piece of land creating its own sea border around itself.

Why another definiton should apply to these nations is not clear and you still fail to explain it. Especially since when the islands form some sort of closed ring that includes water further away than 24 miles from each piece of land, this is still considered territorial by virtue of Law of the Seas 2A; and why archipelagic nations should enjoy territoriality over waters even though the corresponding pieces of land are more than 48 miles apart, and other nations should not, is still unclear.

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

Lacking Category and Strength or Area of Effect (some categories have strengths, some have AoEs, look them up in the rules).

Innocent Passage and Open Ocean Jurisdiction

More like "peaceful passage". WA has no jurisdiction over international areas, only WA nations' activities in those areas, so the latter part of the title makes no sense.

NOTING that member nations currently have no right to open and free passage through other member nation’s waters, nor to freely traverse the open oceans,

Of course they do, where have you picked up the notion that they wouldn't?

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the "sea border" for archipelagic member nations,

Just because you refuse to believe that, doesn't mean it was actually true.

UNDERSTANDING that this may lead to civil unrest and international disputes,

How?

Open Ocean: the ocean area outside of nations jurisdiction (outside the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and EEZ).

Don't shorten EEZ since you don't shorten the others. Or just leave the list out completely. Also, the other bits of the list are not 100% clear either, so either leave out the list or define them.

Archipelagic Nation: any nation comprised of one or more archipelagoes. Nations with mainlands still may be defined as archipelagic.

Without a definition of an archipelago, this makes every single nation existing on a planet with oceans and more than one continent, an archipelagic nation. Bad definition. And unnecessary concept.

2. In the Territorial Sea, and EEZ other member nations have the right to innocent passage and overflight, except in times of war, quarantine, or other national crisis.

What the hell is overflight and what does it have to do with the oceans? And what about in time of international crisis, such as, say, a pandemic?

Passage is innocent so long as it does not include:

Given the long list, I have to ask if you actually understand the concept yourself.

any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political

Or political what? Also, you realize that "letting a foreign ship pass through our territorial waters" can be counted as a threat to territorial integrity, so if a nation wanted to, this alone would allow them to ban all foreign passage through their waters.

independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the WA,

Randomly capitalized Noun. Also, in what manner could the independence of a state be threatened that wasn't included in the previous subclause?

any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind,

"Weapon of any kind" means that if a ship has a kitchen where a cook does anything with a knife (even chopping up vegetables), then that counts for this.

any act aimed at collecting information regarding the defense or security of the coastal member nation,

...so not allowed to ask for a map to show the locations of the reefs or sandbars that would be a hazard to maritime transport? Contradicts a previous resolution. Illegal.

any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal member nation,

Give me an example of what you mean by this.

the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device,

"Of" doesn't work when the last bit before it is "taking on board". And also, what counts as a military device?

the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the laws and regulations of the coastal member nation,

So if the coastal nation has a "don't pick up Bigtopians, even if you found them floating around in the middle of an ocean" regulation, then you're not allowed to pick up people in obvious distress after an accident?

any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this resolution;

This is the only mention of pollution, so no pollution would be contrary to the proposal, as it doesn't touch the subject of pollution at all.

any fishing activities,

Are you sure? Check the fishing-related resolutions. Fairly sure there's something about international cooperation there.

the carrying out of research or survey activities,

Why the fuck do you think this would NOT be an innocent purpose? I mean, sure, you can say they must have the permission of the nation whose waters they're poking around at, but to label it as bad as military actions or willful pollution? That's just nuts.

any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal member nation,

Inentional act? And what does "interfering any other facilities or installations" even mean?

the construction of military bases or artificial islands,

But they're fine to do so on natural islands? And what even are artificial islands? Is a ship an artificial island if it sticks a palmtree in a plantpot on its deck?

any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

So, like, communicating with the nation they're passing to ask who won in World Cup because their satellite dish broke and they missed the ending of the game?

3. In the open seas, all nations may freely exercise economic activity and commerce, as well as military exercises.

May contradict several existing resolutions that place restrictions on member states' activities in international waters. See especially the sustainable fishing one and the endangered species protection thing. Given military is mentioned, also check the blockade one and all war-related resolutions. Hint: there are lots of them.

Member nations may not build artificial islands in the open seas for any purpose other than as research facilities.

What the hell are artificial islands? And why should nations be allowed to build them anywhere as a default?

4. Archipelagic member nation’s sea borders will be defined as a ring touching the outer edge of the outer islands of the archipelago, however, innocent passage is allowed in the seaways between islands.

This makes no sense. If the outer edge of the archipelago makes the archipelago a single entity and their sea border makes enclosed waters their territorial waters, why should they let anyone pass through their territorial waters when other nations are not required to?

Also, I notice that nowhere does anything say what exactly "innocent passage" MEANS. Just a long list of what isn't counted. But what IS counted?

[Abbeyverne]

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

OOC: Does this mean that this is not in fact your own proposal and that you are in fact stealing someone else's work and presenting it as your own? That's called plagiarism and can get you expelled from the WA if submitted.

No. I am talking about resolution 168.

[Abbeyverne]

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the "sea border" for archipelagic member nations,

Just because you refuse to believe that, doesn't mean it was actually true.

Where do you see it? By definition a regular coastal state and archipelagic nations need different definitions for sea borders, otherwise the islands could be excluded from the nations "coastline" because it's not a line, or just plain administrative trouble.

Alternatively, do you have something that would make it better?

[The New Nordic Union]

Just because you refuse to believe that, doesn't mean it was actually true.

Where do you see it? By definition a regular coastal state and archipelagic nations need different definitions for sea borders, otherwise the islands could be excluded from the nations "coastline" because it's not a line, or just plain administrative trouble.

Alternatively, do you have something that would make it better?

OOC: 'Because it is not a line'?! What problem are you imagining? Describe a situation in which a 24mile zone around all individual islands would be detrimental.

[Abbeyverne]

by current legislation, there would not be a 24 nm line around all islands. 168 says the sea border is the low tide mark, without specifying whether it is on a mainland, or all bodies.

[The New Nordic Union]

by current legislation, there would not be a 24 nm line around all islands. 168 says the sea border is the low tide mark, without specifying whether it is on a mainland, or all bodies.

OOC: Yes. And why is your form preferable? And since Law of the Seas has no specification, it follows that all bodies are included.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC post.

Lacking Category and Strength or Area of Effect (some categories have strengths, some have AoEs, look them up in the rules).

Innocent Passage and Open Ocean Jurisdiction

More like "peaceful passage". WA has no jurisdiction over international areas, only WA nations' activities in those areas, so the latter part of the title makes no sense.

NOTING that member nations currently have no right to open and free passage through other member nation’s waters, nor to freely traverse the open oceans,

Of course they do, where have you picked up the notion that they wouldn't?

TROUBLED that there is no definition of the "sea border" for archipelagic member nations,

Just because you refuse to believe that, doesn't mean it was actually true.

UNDERSTANDING that this may lead to civil unrest and international disputes,

How?

Open Ocean: the ocean area outside of nations jurisdiction (outside the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and EEZ).

Don't shorten EEZ since you don't shorten the others. Or just leave the list out completely. Also, the other bits of the list are not 100% clear either, so either leave out the list or define them.

Archipelagic Nation: any nation comprised of one or more archipelagoes. Nations with mainlands still may be defined as archipelagic.

Without a definition of an archipelago, this makes every single nation existing on a planet with oceans and more than one continent, an archipelagic nation. Bad definition. And unnecessary concept.

2. In the Territorial Sea, and EEZ other member nations have the right to innocent passage and overflight, except in times of war, quarantine, or other national crisis.

What the hell is overflight and what does it have to do with the oceans? And what about in time of international crisis, such as, say, a pandemic?

Passage is innocent so long as it does not include:

Given the long list, I have to ask if you actually understand the concept yourself.

any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political

Or political what? Also, you realize that "letting a foreign ship pass through our territorial waters" can be counted as a threat to territorial integrity, so if a nation wanted to, this alone would allow them to ban all foreign passage through their waters.

independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the WA,

Randomly capitalized Noun. Also, in what manner could the independence of a state be threatened that wasn't included in the previous subclause?

any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind,

"Weapon of any kind" means that if a ship has a kitchen where a cook does anything with a knife (even chopping up vegetables), then that counts for this.

any act aimed at collecting information regarding the defense or security of the coastal member nation,

...so not allowed to ask for a map to show the locations of the reefs or sandbars that would be a hazard to maritime transport? Contradicts a previous resolution. Illegal.

any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal member nation,

Give me an example of what you mean by this.

the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device,

"Of" doesn't work when the last bit before it is "taking on board". And also, what counts as a military device?

the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the laws and regulations of the coastal member nation,

So if the coastal nation has a "don't pick up Bigtopians, even if you found them floating around in the middle of an ocean" regulation, then you're not allowed to pick up people in obvious distress after an accident?

any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this resolution;

This is the only mention of pollution, so no pollution would be contrary to the proposal, as it doesn't touch the subject of pollution at all.

any fishing activities,

Are you sure? Check the fishing-related resolutions. Fairly sure there's something about international cooperation there.

the carrying out of research or survey activities,

Why the fuck do you think this would NOT be an innocent purpose? I mean, sure, you can say they must have the permission of the nation whose waters they're poking around at, but to label it as bad as military actions or willful pollution? That's just nuts.

any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal member nation,

Inentional act? And what does "interfering any other facilities or installations" even mean?

the construction of military bases or artificial islands,

But they're fine to do so on natural islands? And what even are artificial islands? Is a ship an artificial island if it sticks a palmtree in a plantpot on its deck?

any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

So, like, communicating with the nation they're passing to ask who won in World Cup because their satellite dish broke and they missed the ending of the game?

3. In the open seas, all nations may freely exercise economic activity and commerce, as well as military exercises.

May contradict several existing resolutions that place restrictions on member states' activities in international waters. See especially the sustainable fishing one and the endangered species protection thing. Given military is mentioned, also check the blockade one and all war-related resolutions. Hint: there are lots of them.

Member nations may not build artificial islands in the open seas for any purpose other than as research facilities.

What the hell are artificial islands? And why should nations be allowed to build them anywhere as a default?

4. Archipelagic member nation’s sea borders will be defined as a ring touching the outer edge of the outer islands of the archipelago, however, innocent passage is allowed in the seaways between islands.

This makes no sense. If the outer edge of the archipelago makes the archipelago a single entity and their sea border makes enclosed waters their territorial waters, why should they let anyone pass through their territorial waters when other nations are not required to?

Also, I notice that nowhere does anything say what exactly "innocent passage" MEANS. Just a long list of what isn't counted. But what IS counted?

Here's a new list:

any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political ideals of a coastal Member Nation,
any offensive action with weapons of any kind,
any act aimed at collecting information specifically regarding the defense or security of the coastal member nation,
any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal member nation,
the launching, landing, or taking on board of any military equipment,
any violation of the customs regulations of the coastal member nation,
any act of willful and serious pollution contrary WA law,
any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal member nation,
any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

Working on a definition for IP.

[Abbeyverne]

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.)

"No, Ambassador, I don't care to be patronized to, I am asking you justify your position. Why do you believe it is necessary for the World Assembly to strip Member-States of the right to determine the permeability of their borders at all? Why must the Imperium allow foreigners access to our jurisdiction simply because they desire to pass through it?"

"Well, sir, we are in fact conceding that you have sovereignty over your own lands, but merely requesting the ability to transit them freely. This is in order to keep naval transit working, without it, there would be serious delays on items shipped by sea. We appreciate your concern."

[Tinfect]

"Well, sir, we are in fact conceding that you have sovereignty over your own lands, but merely requesting the ability to transit them freely. This is in order to keep naval transit working, without it, there would be serious delays on items shipped by sea. We appreciate your concern."

"As per Imperial Law, foreigners do not have the ability to transit Imperial territories. The Imperial Territories are for the citizens of the Imperium, not for foreigner tourism or what-have-you. If compliance with Imperial law requires that foreign states delay their shipments, that is not the concern of the Imperium.

The simple fact, Ambassador, is that you are not 'requesting' anything; you are demanding, by force of International Law, that the Imperial borders be shoved open, and our laws ignored, so as to convenience your supply lines. That is entirely unacceptable, and you have provided no reasonable justification for it beyond that it inconveniences you. You cannot possibly expect this garner support."

[Abbeyverne]

"Well, sir, we are in fact conceding that you have sovereignty over your own lands, but merely requesting the ability to transit them freely. This is in order to keep naval transit working, without it, there would be serious delays on items shipped by sea. We appreciate your concern."

"As per Imperial Law, foreigners do not have the ability to transit Imperial territories. The Imperial Territories are for the citizens of the Imperium, not for foreigner tourism or what-have-you. If compliance with Imperial law requires that foreign states delay their shipments, that is not the concern of the Imperium.

The simple fact, Ambassador, is that you are not 'requesting' anything; you are demanding, by force of International Law, that the Imperial borders be shoved open, and our laws ignored, so as to convenience your supply lines. That is entirely unacceptable, and you have provided no reasonable justification for it beyond that it inconveniences you. You cannot possibly expect this garner support."

"Have you an alternative solution? If other nations were to enact the same laws as you, how could naval transport occur? Most shipping lanes pass through areas where there is no open ocean for ships to transit.

Should you feel the need, you can claim that anything and everything passing through your borders is a customs violation, hence passage would be innocent. We can sit here and argue all day, but if there is no compromise, nothing will occur. As a side note, are you saying that no planes may pass over your empire either? That seems extreme."

[Tinfect]

"Have you an alternative solution? If other nations were to enact the same laws as you, how could naval transport occur? Most shipping lanes pass through areas where there is no open ocean for ships to transit.

"What might occur 'if other nations were to enact the same laws', is not the concern of the Imperium. The solution I offer, simply, is to do nothing; Member-States are free to come to whatever arrangements regarding transport through their borders they feel necessary, without having them torn open by force, and those Member-States which do not desire to allow foreigners free reign within their borders, are free to defend their jurisdiction as appropriate. This legislation is patently unnecessary."

Should you feel the need, you can claim that anything and everything passing through your borders is a customs violation, hence passage would be innocent.

"And thus your legislation is rendered irrelevant by a loophole which will be immediately taken advantage of by any Member-State concerned with border security, were it so simple. In other words, if we are to accept this 'solution' your legislation has no practical effect, and is thus, useless."

We can sit here and argue all day, but if there is no compromise, nothing will occur. As a side note, are you saying that no planes may pass over your empire either? That seems extreme."

"Ambassador, you seem to misunderstand, the Imperium doesn't care for compromise on the matter, any compromise would render this legislation toothless. We merely expect you to be able to defend your position; and thus far, Ambassador, 'it inconvenience our shipping', has not been convincing. Failing an acceptable justificaiton, 'nothing occurring', is exactly the desired outcome."

But, to answer your question, yes; disregarding the difficulty any foreign aircraft would have in reaching our territories in the first place, they would not be permitted to violate the Imperial Territories."

[Abbeyverne]

"Have you an alternative solution? If other nations were to enact the same laws as you, how could naval transport occur? Most shipping lanes pass through areas where there is no open ocean for ships to transit.

"What might occur 'if other nations were to enact the same laws', is not the concern of the Imperium. The solution I offer, simply, is to do nothing; Member-States are free to come to whatever arrangements regarding transport through their borders they feel necessary, without having them torn open by force, and those Member-States which do not desire to allow foreigners free reign within their borders, are free to defend their jurisdiction as appropriate. This legislation is patently unnecessary."

Should you feel the need, you can claim that anything and everything passing through your borders is a customs violation, hence passage would be innocent.

"And thus your legislation is rendered irrelevant by a loophole which will be immediately taken advantage of by any Member-State concerned with border security, were it so simple. In other words, if we are to accept this 'solution' your legislation has no practical effect, and is thus, useless."

We can sit here and argue all day, but if there is no compromise, nothing will occur. As a side note, are you saying that no planes may pass over your empire either? That seems extreme."

"Ambassador, you seem to misunderstand, the Imperium doesn't care for compromise on the matter, any compromise would render this legislation toothless. We merely expect you to be able to defend your position; and thus far, Ambassador, 'it inconvenience our shipping', has not been convincing. Failing an acceptable justificaiton, 'nothing occurring', is exactly the desired outcome."

But, to answer your question, yes; disregarding the difficulty any foreign aircraft would have in reaching our territories in the first place, they would not be permitted to violate the Imperial Territories."

"No. The legislation would still affect open oceans and archipelagic states. We understand your position, however, apprehending any ship or aircraft, or destroying it for that matter, simply because they came to close to your territory? Even for ships which simply mean to pass through to get to a destination, with no violation of your customs regulations, no malicious intentions? The idea of this resolution is to protect nations who depend on imports and exports by sea to be protected from Member Nations, like yours, that would see their economy crippled, their people starving, their livelihoods destroyed, for no real reason. It seems you too have yet to justify your position."

[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.

Bump.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: Ok then. Should I remove the innocent passage part or abandon the draft?

[The New Nordic Union]

Ok then. Should I remove the innocent passage part or abandon the draft?

OOC: Without innocent passage, the proposal has no substance at all. Although I must say ITS only covers 'commercial transports', so there is room for innocent passage for other vessels. The proposal still needs work, though, for it to accomplish that - see previous comments.

[Abbeyverne]

by current legislation, there would not be a 24 nm line around all islands. 168 says the sea border is the low tide mark, without specifying whether it is on a mainland, or all bodies.

OOC: Yes. And why is your form preferable? And since Law of the Seas has no specification, it follows that all bodies are included.

OOC: Because it ensures that all bodies are included.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Yes. And why is your form preferable? And since Law of the Seas has no specification, it follows that all bodies are included.

OOC: Because it ensures that all bodies are included.

OOC: Included in what, exactly?

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: Because it ensures that all bodies are included.

OOC: Included in what, exactly?

OOC: It makes sure all bodies are within the baseline, hence they are all sovereign territory of the nation, and that the waters surrounding the bodies are also sovereign territory. I hope that makes sense, but I am not sure how else to explain it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Included in what, exactly?

OOC: It makes sure all bodies are within the baseline, hence they are all sovereign territory of the nation, and that the waters surrounding the bodies are also sovereign territory. I hope that makes sense, but I am not sure how else to explain it.

OOC: What "baseline"?

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: It makes sure all bodies are within the baseline, hence they are all sovereign territory of the nation, and that the waters surrounding the bodies are also sovereign territory. I hope that makes sense, but I am not sure how else to explain it.

OOC: What "baseline"?

OOC: Dang it! I meant sea border. I always get this confused with the UNCLOS III.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Included in what, exactly?

OOC: It makes sure all bodies are within the baseline, hence they are all sovereign territory of the nation, and that the waters surrounding the bodies are also sovereign territory. I hope that makes sense, but I am not sure how else to explain it.

OOC: Well, no, it does not. Per Law of the Seas, each piece of land creates its own seaborder. 24 miles out from any seaborder is territorial waters.It does not matter where each piece of land is located, since the seaborder follows from the piece of land and the territorial water follow from the seaborder, thus it is not possible for a piece of land not to be surrounded by territorial waters.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: It makes sure all bodies are within the baseline, hence they are all sovereign territory of the nation, and that the waters surrounding the bodies are also sovereign territory. I hope that makes sense, but I am not sure how else to explain it.

OOC: Well, no, it does not. Per Law of the Seas, each piece of land creates its own seaborder. 24 miles out from any seaborder is territorial waters.It does not matter where each piece of land is located, since the seaborder follows from the piece of land and the territorial water follow from the seaborder, thus it is not possible for a piece of land not to be surrounded by territorial waters.

OOC: Where are you getting that from? The resolution simply states: "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;" It does not specify whether this applies to all bodies. Also, I am changing what I wrote a bit. The waterways between islands should be treated as internal waters. While this term is not used in 168 or this bill, it means that innocent passage is not allowed.