[Proposal Draft] Standardization of Maritime Borders

[Nova Acadia]

Hello all!

I'm currently writing a draft for a WA proposal, please let me know about any illegalities or suggestions you may have!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognizing that the sovereignty of nations extends beyond the land masses it inhabits

Seeking to establish clear boundaries and authority with respect to other nations

This proposal seeks to standardize borders with respect to the waters that surround nations.

The WA will enact the following:
Definitions

a. "Body of Water" refers to any permanent source of water that is naturally formed. This includes, but is not limited to: oceans, seas, rivers, swamps, and marshes. This definition excludes any artificial infrastructure that extends, creates, or otherwise exists within a body of water. This includes, but is not limited to: canals, reservoirs, oil rigs, and water batteries.
b. "Coastline" is defined as the exterior boundary of a landmass that reaches soil which is normally submerged by any body of water during normal weather conditions.
c. "Ship" as any maritime vessel that weighs more than five-hundred(500) kilograms, this weight is to be defined as the combined mass of the vessel's chassis, engines, and any other permanent fixtures attached to the vessel.
d. "Host Nation" refers to the nation in which a ship is occupying.
e. "Naval Ship" refers to any maritime vessel equipped for combat or otherwise weaponized, the vessel must have functional equipment and must not belong to a private citizen
f. "International Waters" refers to any maritime territory which does not belong to or is claimed by any nation.

A nation's international border will extend one thousand(1000) kilometers beyond that nation's coastline. In the event that the borders of two nations intersect, the midpoint between the intersecting borders will divide the territory between the two nations.

Nations have exclusive economic and environmental rights which extend five thousand(5000) kilometers beyond that nation's coastline, this is not to be considered sovereign territory. The described zone will be referred to as a nation's "Economic and Environmental Zone" or "EEZ" for the rest of this document . In the event that two nation's EEZs overlap, the territory will be divided among the midpoint of the intersecting zones.

In order to clearly demarcate where a nation's border lies, it must comply with the following regulation.

a. It must have bright orange buoys with LED lights and reflective strips, spaced no more than two(2) kilometers apart along the border. Buoys must also be clearly marked with the respective nation's flag.
b. Any naval ship belonging to a foreign nation is not allowed to enter within a nation's border unless granted express permission to enter.

In order to clearly demarcate a nation's EEZ, it must comply with the following regulation

a. it must have orange-green striped buoys with LED lights and reflective strips, spaced no more than two(2) kilometers apart along the edge of the zone. Buoys must also be clearly marked with the respective nation's flag

Enforcement of Law

All ships are required to

a. Fly the flag of the nation in which it is registered.
b. Comply with the laws of the nation in which it is registered.
c. When entering a foreign nation's borders, required to comply with local law.
d.All ships are required to comply with both local law as well as the law of the nation in which it is registered.

EEZs

a. Nations may only enforce regulation relating to protecting the local environment, and removal/capture of wildlife.
b. Nations may only remove or bar entry to ships if they break any regulation relating to point a.
c. Ships may not be removed and barred entry from an EEZ for a period lasting more than one year
National Borders and Enforcement of Law

a. Nations may freely bar entry to and regulate which ships are allowed within that nation's borders.
b. When a ship breaks a law of the host nation it is currently traveling within, the captain of that ship is to be tried in the legal system of the host nation, as well as any crew members involved with the crime.
c. When a ship breaks a law of the nation in which it is registered, the captain of that ship is to be tried in the legal system of the nation in which it is registered, as well as any crew members involved with the crime
d. A ship may not enter international waters without being registered with a nation nor flying the flag of the nation in which it is registered.
e. Ships registered under non-WA nations are not required to comply with any regulations outlined within this document. Recognizing this, all WA nations have the right to prevent entry from ships registered in non-WA nations for any reason.

[The Overmind]

Welcome to the WA. I'm going to make some general recommendations and then see how much time I have to give feedback.

First, I suggest dropping by the rules sticky to become more familiar with what's legal and to get some general pointers. I also suggest reading past resolutions to get an idea for how a successful proposal is written -- I recommend focusing on more recently passed resolutions and resolutions on related topics. You can more easily search for related past resolutions here using the search function. Finally, I recommend perusing this forum to see how the drafting process works, and get a feel for the conventions for formatting and keeping account of older drafts of your proposal.

Proposals are written from the perspective of the World Assembly, which might look something like:

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that...
Concerned that...
Desiring to...

Hereby enacts as follows,

1. Operative clause I here
   
   1. Subclause 1 here
   2. Subclause 2 here
   3. Subclause 3 here
2. Operative clause II here

Code: Select all

The World Assembly,

[b]Recognizing[/b] that...
[b]Concerned[/b] that...
[b]Desiring[/b] to...

Hereby enacts as follows,
[List=I][*]Operative clause I here
[List=1][*]Subclause 1 here
[*]Subclause 2 here
[*]Subclause 3 here[/List]
[*]Operative clause II here[/List]

I will preface the rest of my feedback by saying that it will be very general, since this is not my area of expertise or something I've given much thought to in the past. That being said:

Your definition of "body of water" stipulates that it be a source of water, and that it be permanent and naturally formed. Since we are not talking about water extraction for consumption or use, I do not think you mean "source" in this way. However, if that is the case, it is a little vague what you mean. Is a river a source of water? Or are the streams that constitute it, or the basin from which it emerges? Swamps and marshes are almost certainly not, themselves, "sources" of water. It is also a little difficult to parse what is meant by "permanent" in this context. On what timescale? Marshes and swamps can come and go on the order of years, due to changes in water flow, decreased rainfall, beavers erecting dams, etc. Rivers can completely change course on the order of a lifetime or over centuries. Many rivers are otherwise natural bodies of water that have been heavily modified by rerouting, dams, etc. Are they still naturally formed? Many lakes are the result of the erection of dams -- does your resolution not apply to these? Does it make sense to exclude such bodies of water given the goals of the proposal? I realize that you clarify that "artificial infrastructure that extends, creates, or otherwise exists within a body of water" is included, but that does not include the bodies of water themselves.

These problems extend to your definition of "coastline" too. These boundaries change, and it's not clear what constitutes "normal weather conditions." Many bodies of water experience spring highs and winter lows. In many places, extreme weather is periodic or frequent. Does the coastline change with these events? What would constitute a weather condition so unordinary that it doesn't change the coastline? Also, why submerged? Why soil?

Also why are ships defined as any maritime vessel that weighs more than 500kg? Does that come from somewhere? I'm not familiar enough with this topic to know if that's a normal standard to apply to something called a "ship."

Why are ships only naval if they have functioning equipment? Why are they only naval if they're equipped for combat? Why aren't they simply naval ships if they belong to a navy?

What is the purpose of extending a nation's international border one thousand kilometers beyond its coastline? That is an absolutely massive amount of space. You're not just going to have neighboring nations that intersect, but neighbors of neighbors, and possibly their neighbors too. This actually brings me to a more fundamental question: why are we trying to extend the borders of member nations anyway? And how does this work vis-a-vis non-member nations and their borders? What if this extends member nation borders into non-member nation borders? Will the member nations be conquering these waters? Keep in mind that you cannot legislate anything about the border of non-member nations, so whatever you decide will have to be purely on the member nation side.

I am not sure I understand what "exclusive economic and environmental rights" means. These are not enumerated or defined. It is definitely unclear how that does not extend national sovereignty. And, again, five thousand kilometers is absolutely massive. Now we're talking about member nations on entirely different continents having intersecting borders.

Have you given thought to the installment and maintenance costs and environmental effects of anchoring millions of buoys to the ocean floor? What if it's not an ocean? Your proposal includes things like rivers. If two nations are separated by a river, does the river need to be split down the middle with orange buoys? Also, where are member nations going to find enough workforce to maintain all of these LED lights in the rough seas?

With regards to "Enforcement of Law," subclause d. appears to be a reiteration of subclauses b. and c. More to the point though, what if the two nations are at war? Will they still be required to keep apprised of each other's maritime laws and respect them?

I don't have too much to say in "EEZs" except that this seems maybe a bit overzealous and unclear about what the limits/extent of enforcement is.

For "National Borders and Enforcement of Law," does subclause a. still apply during times of war? You're also forcing member nations to have their seamen tried in a foreign court if the host nation in question decides they've committed a crime? What burden, if any, rests on the host nation to substantiate these claims?

These are some issues I think you will need to clarify and address. However, this is, as mentioned, not really my area, so hopefully you will also get insightful feedback from someone more familiar with maritime law. That said, keep in mind that this forum moves more slowly than other NationStates forums, and feedback is sporadic/may take days to weeks. Often, proposals are not ready for submission for at least a few weeks to months from the creation of the drafting thread. Just bear that in mind while you wait for more engagement.