Innocent Passage ACT [Draft][Abandoned]

[The New Nordic Union]

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.

OOC: There is no reasonable interpretation of this part that does not include all bodies of land. Otherwise, the definition would be useless in the first place.

[Ardiveds]

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.

Ooc: Well it is only reaonable to assume that 'land' means all bodies, not arbitrarily pick and choose different bodies like contients or islands.

[Abbeyverne]

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.

OOC: There is no reasonable interpretation of this part that does not include all bodies of land. Otherwise, the definition would be useless in the first place.

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.

Ooc: Well it is only reaonable to assume that 'land' means all bodies, not arbitrarily pick and choose different bodies like contients or islands.

OOC: Yes, it makes sense, but I see not absolutely ensuring it would allow archipelagic states to be targeted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about this scenario:

Let's take a nation that includes a mainland and an archipelago a long way off. (My nation and the Rancarin Isles) Any member nation with a "differing definition" of what the resolution means could decide to build research facilities on the archipelago (The Rancarin Isles). The result would be either a war or a long and protracted debate with the WANC.

Another possibility is every island having its own "sea border." Now enemy warships can sail up and down the channels in the Rancarins, (via innocent passage) which are home to most of my nation's navy. That makes it super easy for a member nation to sneak attack my archipelago, crippling my nation's naval infrastructure, and potentially leading to the collapse of my nation.

I also think some distinction needs to be made between archipelagos and man made islands (Gotta prevent stuff like China in the SCS).

[Ardiveds]

OOC: There is no reasonable interpretation of this part that does not include all bodies of land. Otherwise, the definition would be useless in the first place.

Ooc: Well it is only reaonable to assume that 'land' means all bodies, not arbitrarily pick and choose different bodies like contients or islands.

OOC: Yes, it makes sense, but I see not absolutely ensuring it would allow archipelagic states to be targeted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about this scenario:

Let's take a nation that includes a mainland and an archipelago a long way off. (My nation and the Rancarin Isles) Any member nation with a "differing definition" of what the resolution means could decide to build research facilities on the archipelago (The Rancarin Isles). The result would be either a war or a long and protracted debate with the WANC.

OOC: Now I’m no GA veteran but afaik, the GA and its committees (and the gnomes working in them) seem to go for the most reasonable interpretation in cases like these so the different member nation would simply be in violation of WA law and the WANC couldn’t give two wanks about that nation’s ‘different’ interpretation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The resolution of that fact claim is impossible unless the committee actually existed; repeals therefore are not limited by special considerations arising from use of committees.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: There is no reasonable interpretation of this part that does not include all bodies of land. Otherwise, the definition would be useless in the first place.

Ooc: Well it is only reaonable to assume that 'land' means all bodies, not arbitrarily pick and choose different bodies like contients or islands.

OOC: Yes, it makes sense, but I see not absolutely ensuring it would allow archipelagic states to be targeted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about this scenario:

Let's take a nation that includes a mainland and an archipelago a long way off. (My nation and the Rancarin Isles) Any member nation with a "differing definition" of what the resolution means could decide to build research facilities on the archipelago (The Rancarin Isles). The result would be either a war or a long and protracted debate with the WANC.

Another possibility is every island having its own "sea border." Now enemy warships can sail up and down the channels in the Rancarins, (via innocent passage) which are home to most of my nation's navy. That makes it super easy for a member nation to sneak attack my archipelago, crippling my nation's naval infrastructure, and potentially leading to the collapse of my nation.

I also think some distinction needs to be made between archipelagos and man made islands (Gotta prevent stuff like China in the SCS).

OOC: No nation can be having a different opinion of the clause without being in noncompliance. If they are your archipelagic islands, they are your sovereign territory. Sea borders and territorial waters follow territorial lands, not the other way around.

The other possibility: Yes, if your islands are more than 48 miles apart, there should be a strip of non-territorial waters in between. That's the same for archipelagoes and all other islands. Otherwise, I see no reason why one should not propose continous territories for all nations. Which would be ridiculous and not feasible at all.

[Abbeyverne]

The resolution of that fact claim is impossible unless the committee actually existed; repeals therefore are not limited by special considerations arising from use of committees.

OOC: This is not a repeal.

OOC: Yes, it makes sense, but I see not absolutely ensuring it would allow archipelagic states to be targeted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about this scenario:

Let's take a nation that includes a mainland and an archipelago a long way off. (My nation and the Rancarin Isles) Any member nation with a "differing definition" of what the resolution means could decide to build research facilities on the archipelago (The Rancarin Isles). The result would be either a war or a long and protracted debate with the WANC.

Another possibility is every island having its own "sea border." Now enemy warships can sail up and down the channels in the Rancarins, (via innocent passage) which are home to most of my nation's navy. That makes it super easy for a member nation to sneak attack my archipelago, crippling my nation's naval infrastructure, and potentially leading to the collapse of my nation.

I also think some distinction needs to be made between archipelagos and man made islands (Gotta prevent stuff like China in the SCS).

OOC: No nation can be having a different opinion of the clause without being in noncompliance. If they are your archipelagic islands, they are your sovereign territory. Sea borders and territorial waters follow territorial lands, not the other way around.

The other possibility: Yes, if your islands are more than 48 miles apart, there should be a strip of non-territorial waters in between. That's the same for archipelagoes and all other islands. Otherwise, I see no reason why one should not propose continous territories for all nations. Which would be ridiculous and not feasible at all.

OOC: That's not exactly what I was saying. I am just saying that currently each island would have it's own 'sea border,' right? So that means the space between my islands (less than 1 NM) would be territorial waters. One part of my proposal says that territorial waters can have innocent passage, but I don't want that in these straights, (I don't think anyone else would either) so I added a part that makes it so there is no innocent passage there.

Also, if the islands are more that 48 NM away from each other, that's not an archipelago.

[The New Nordic Union]

The resolution of that fact claim is impossible unless the committee actually existed; repeals therefore are not limited by special considerations arising from use of committees.

OOC: This is not a repeal.

OOC: No nation can be having a different opinion of the clause without being in noncompliance. If they are your archipelagic islands, they are your sovereign territory. Sea borders and territorial waters follow territorial lands, not the other way around.

The other possibility: Yes, if your islands are more than 48 miles apart, there should be a strip of non-territorial waters in between. That's the same for archipelagoes and all other islands. Otherwise, I see no reason why one should not propose continous territories for all nations. Which would be ridiculous and not feasible at all.

OOC: That's not exactly what I was saying. I am just saying that currently each island would have it's own 'sea border,' right? So that means the space between my islands (less than 1 NM) would be territorial waters. One part of my proposal says that territorial waters can have innocent passage, but I don't want that in these straights, (I don't think anyone else would either) so I added a part that makes it so there is no innocent passage there.

Also, if the islands are more that 48 NM away from each other, that's not an archipelago.

OOC: Last sentece: Complete agreement.

Other: Again, what makes the straits so special? If your argument is 'Enemy ships can use innocent passage to creep up on me', how is this any different for archipelagoes vs. other parts of the country? Why couldn't enemy ships not 'sneak up' to your naval bases situated on the mainland? Also, shouldn't the definition of innocent passage be worded in a way to prevent this?

[Ardiveds]

OOC: That's not exactly what I was saying. I am just saying that currently each island would have it's own 'sea border,' right? So that means the space between my islands (less than 1 NM) would be territorial waters. One part of my proposal says that territorial waters can have innocent passage, but I don't want that in these straights, (I don't think anyone else would either) so I added a part that makes it so there is no innocent passage there.

Also, if the islands are more that 48 NM away from each other, that's not an archipelago.

OOC: Wait a minute, does your 'innocent passage' involve allowing foreign military vessels into territorial waters?

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: This is not a repeal.

OOC: That's not exactly what I was saying. I am just saying that currently each island would have it's own 'sea border,' right? So that means the space between my islands (less than 1 NM) would be territorial waters. One part of my proposal says that territorial waters can have innocent passage, but I don't want that in these straights, (I don't think anyone else would either) so I added a part that makes it so there is no innocent passage there.

Also, if the islands are more that 48 NM away from each other, that's not an archipelago.

OOC: Last sentece: Complete agreement.

Other: Again, what makes the straits so special? If your argument is 'Enemy ships can use innocent passage to creep up on me', how is this any different for archipelagoes vs. other parts of the country? Why couldn't enemy ships not 'sneak up' to your naval bases situated on the mainland? Also, shouldn't the definition of innocent passage be worded in a way to prevent this?

OOC: If the bases are situated on the coast, you are right, it would be pretty easy to get near to them, but if they are inland, say, on a river, well... Let me put it this way, I would like the straits between islands in an archipelago to be treated as rivers in terms of sovereignty and jurisdiction.

OOC: That's not exactly what I was saying. I am just saying that currently each island would have it's own 'sea border,' right? So that means the space between my islands (less than 1 NM) would be territorial waters. One part of my proposal says that territorial waters can have innocent passage, but I don't want that in these straights, (I don't think anyone else would either) so I added a part that makes it so there is no innocent passage there.

Also, if the islands are more that 48 NM away from each other, that's not an archipelago.

OOC: Wait a minute, does your 'innocent passage' involve allowing foreign military vessels into territorial waters?

If the vessels comply with the provisions for innocent passage, (They must simply be passing through, maybe stopping at a port to take on supplies) then yes. However, I would consider adding provisions so that member nations may refuse to allow foreign military vessels in.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Wait a minute, does your 'innocent passage' involve allowing foreign military vessels into territorial waters?

If the vessels comply with the provisions for innocent passage, (They must simply be passing through, maybe stopping at a port to take on supplies) then yes. However, I would consider adding provisions so that member nations may refuse to allow foreign military vessels in.

OOC: I think you should absolutely add such a provision otherwise pulling off a Pearl Harbor would be as easy as pretending to 'pass through'. Commercial and private vessels are one thing but we can't exactly do much if a bunch of destroyers and carriers 'passing through' suddenly start bombarding a naval base.

[Abbeyverne]

If the vessels comply with the provisions for innocent passage, (They must simply be passing through, maybe stopping at a port to take on supplies) then yes. However, I would consider adding provisions so that member nations may refuse to allow foreign military vessels in.

OOC: I think you should absolutely add such a provision otherwise pulling off a Pearl Harbor would be as easy as pretending to 'pass through'. Commercial and private vessels are one thing but we can't exactly do much if a bunch of destroyers and carriers 'passing through' suddenly start bombarding a naval base.

Very well. I will add this.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: I think you should absolutely add such a provision otherwise pulling off a Pearl Harbor would be as easy as pretending to 'pass through'. Commercial and private vessels are one thing but we can't exactly do much if a bunch of destroyers and carriers 'passing through' suddenly start bombarding a naval base.

Very well. I will add this.

OOC: Now that we have established that you can't make up random interpretations of 'land' in 168 and with that provision for military vessels in this proposal, don't you think clause 5 stands redundant?

[Abbeyverne]

Very well. I will add this.

OOC: Now that we have established that you can't make up random interpretations of 'land' in 168 and with that provision for military vessels in this proposal, don't you think clause 5 stands redundant?

OOC: Is there a place outside of clause 5 that states "that you can't make up random interpretations of 'land' in 168"? I didn't see it.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Now that we have established that you can't make up random interpretations of 'land' in 168 and with that provision for military vessels in this proposal, don't you think clause 5 stands redundant?

OOC: Is there a place outside of clause 5 that states "that you can't make up random interpretations of 'land' in 168"? I didn't see it.

(OOC: GA #002 requires a good-faith interpretation and following of all General Assembly resolutions, which applies to the definition of ‘land’ in 168’.)

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: Is there a place outside of clause 5 that states "that you can't make up random interpretations of 'land' in 168"? I didn't see it.

(OOC: GA #002 requires a good-faith interpretation and following of all General Assembly resolutions, which applies to the definition of ‘land’ in 168’.j

OOC: Ok, then I will remove clause 5

[Abbeyverne]

So, should I submit?

[The New Nordic Union]

So, should I submit?

OOC: No. You now have a useless definition of 'Archipelagic nation', and you do not use the defined term 'Open Ocean', instead, you use 'open seas'. For starters.

[Abbeyverne]

So, should I submit?

OOC: No. You now have a useless definition of 'Archipelagic nation', and you do not use the defined term 'Open Ocean', instead, you use 'open seas'. For starters.

Ok, I thought I deleted that, and I'll fix the other one.

[Tinhampton]

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,

• Open Ocean: (SNIP DEFINITION)

[...]

4. In the Open Oceans, all nations may freely exercise economic activity and commerce, as well as military exercises. Member nations may build artificial islands in the open seas for any purpose other than as military installations.

Again, you define "Open Ocean" but never use it, instead preferring "Open Oceans" (PLURAL) and "the open seas" in Article 4.

[Abbeyverne]

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution,

• Open Ocean: (SNIP DEFINITION)

[...]

4. In the Open Oceans, all nations may freely exercise economic activity and commerce, as well as military exercises. Member nations may build artificial islands in the open seas for any purpose other than as military installations.

Again, you define "Open Ocean" but never use it, instead preferring "Open Oceans" (PLURAL) and "the open seas" in Article 4.

OOC: Sorry. Fixed it.

Anything else?

[Araraukar]

Anything else?

OOC: Now you've gone too far the other way and made it contradict several resolutions that talk about what member nations' ships can and can't do in what you term as "open ocean".

And your "troubled" clause in preamble is still a lie.

[Abbeyverne]

Anything else?

OOC: Now you've gone too far the other way and made it contradict several resolutions that talk about what member nations' ships can and can't do in what you term as "open ocean".

"Ambassador, I am afraid I am unaware of these resolutions. Would you please provide resolution numbers so we can find what must be changed? Thank you."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Now you've gone too far the other way and made it contradict several resolutions that talk about what member nations' ships can and can't do in what you term as "open ocean".

"Ambassador, I am afraid I am unaware of these resolutions. Would you please provide resolution numbers so we can find what must be changed? Thank you."

OOC: You realize you were responding in IC to an OOC comment that your IC ambassador cannot see/hear? You right now have your ambassador talking to thin air.

And right now I can't go trawling for those resolutions for you (lumbar disc thing causing massive backache again, which means my computer time is very limited), but if you go to the passed resolutions thread and search with "ocean" and then separately with "sea", you're going to be finding at least some of them. I'd suggest doing a separate search with "fishing" as well.

[Abbeyverne]

OOC: Ok, thanks!