[PASSED] Repeal "Law of the Sea"

[Goddess Relief Office]

Repeal “Law of the Sea”

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intentions of GA#47: Law of the Sea, in attempting to set standards by which nations may claim oceanic territory bordering their shores,

REALIZING that the resolution was erroneously addressed to "The United Nations," the predecessor to the World Assembly which no longer existed at the time of the resolution's passage,

NOTING that, according the text of the legislation, "waters within 12 nautical miles of [a] nation's sea border" will be under a nation's "sovereign control" and that a nation has "the sole right to harvest natural resources" in "waters within 200NM of [its] sea border,"

FURTHER NOTING that, should any nations with adjacent or opposing shorelines find their "12 nautical miles" of oceanic territory overlapping in any fashion, this legislation arbitrarily divides these waters between the nations regardless of a nation's history, economy, or its relations with its neighbor,

UNDERSTANDING that the legislation permits nations with overlapping oceanic territory "to voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines," yet noting that nations with border disputes are unlikely come to an agreement if they are led to believe that arbitrary division of territory would occur,

CONCERNED that the arbitrary division of oceanic territory has the potential to damage certain nations by reducing their spheres of influence and/or inciting conflicts between previously ambivalent neighbors,

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to establish limits to oceanic territorial claims, without which a nation may use islands, sand bars, or atolls occurring within the first 12 nautical miles of its oceanic territory as a basis for further claims,

APPALLED that GA#47 includes no provision requiring nations to control pollution within their 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) arising from activities such as deep sea mining and oil exploration that may pollute the EEZs of neighboring nations and damage international fishing grounds,

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to include exceptions to sovereign control of territorial waters, giving nations bordering narrow straits or sea channels an undue influence over international shipping that must pass through these water bodies,

CONVINCED that errors and omissions described herein renders the resolution inoperable and detrimental to World trade and the environment,

HEREBY repeals "Law of the Sea".


_____________________________
Co-authored by A mean old man

Reference:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=46
Description: REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
a) The boundaries between the territorial waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b) Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-World Assembly member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

[Dizyntk]

"Well, I would say that the first error is a rather egregious one, not to mention that we agree that the further loopholes are quite glaring. All that being said, the Dizyntk will support this repeal."

[Anitgrum]

I find the fact that a nation can use a sandbar to extend it oceanic territory and pollute as much as they like ridiculous. The Republic of Anitgrum fully supports the call to repeal resolution 47.

Gustavo Rivera

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Aye.

[Bears Armed]

Repeal “Law of the Sea”

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intentions of GA#47: Law of the Sea, in attempting to set standards by which nations may claim oceanic territory bordering their shores,

REALIZING that the resolution was erroneously addressed to "The United Nations," the predecessor to the World Assembly which no longer existed at the time of the resolution's passage,

OOC: Oops! But, however messy, probably not legal grounds for a repeal (because there have been definite rulings that a resolution being passed "grandafthers in" its contents as legal...).

NOTING that, according the text of the legislation, "waters within 12 nautical miles of [a] nation's sea border" will be under a nation's "sovereign control" and that a nation has "the sole right to harvest natural resources" in "waters within 200NM of [its] sea border,"

FURTHER NOTING that, should any nations with adjacent or opposing shorelines find their "12 nautical miles" of oceanic territory overlapping in any fashion, this legislation arbitrarily divides these waters between the nations regardless of a nation's history, economy, or its relations with its neighbor,

UNDERSTANDING that the legislation permits nations with overlapping oceanic territory "to voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines," yet noting that nations with border disputes are unlikely come to an agreement if they are led to believe that arbitrary division of territory would occur,

CONCERNED that the arbitrary division of oceanic territory has the potential to damage certain nations by reducing their spheres of influence and/or inciting conflicts between previously ambivalent neighbors,

OOC: The original's wording could probably be improved, and if I'd been writing it then I'd probably have allowed exceptions "as previous international treaties might stipulate", but I think that in general having "arbitrary" rules to fall back on in the absence of agreement about exceptions is more likely to reduce than to increase the risk of conflict.

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to establish limits to oceanic territorial claims, without which a nation may use islands, sand bars, or atolls occurring within the first 12 nautical miles of its oceanic territory as a basis for further claims,

OOC: Why? That's how it works in RL, after all, and if you don't allow all islands to have territorial waters out to the full limits around their shores then how would you handle those nations that consist entirely of islands?If you scrap that detail then you would have to specify in detail what the minimum size of island was for each possible radius of territorial waters, or you could even end up with some islands that belong to specific nations having those nations' territorial waters on one side but international waters instead on its other shores which it seems to me would be ridiculous.

APPALLED that GA#47 includes no provision requiring nations to control pollution within their 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) arising from activities such as deep sea mining and oil exploration that may pollute the EEZs of neighboring nations and damage international fishing grounds,

But it doesn't prevent the passage of another resolution that would do so, correct?

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to include exceptions to sovereign control of territorial waters, giving nations bordering narrow straits or sea channels an undue influence over international shipping that must pass through these water bodies,

Oh?

d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

Maybe there could be a problem about that, but I'm fairly certain that LotS wouldn't block a subsequent resolution about free transit for commercial vessels.

CONVINCED that errors and omissions described herein renders the resolution inoperable and detrimental to World trade and the environment,

Not convinced.
And even if I agreed that there was enough there to justify a repeal, I wouldn't see it as urgent enough to require passage before a replacement that I considererd better was ready fro submission...

(Sorry that I didn't comment during the offsite drafting phase, as requested, but I was too busy with various other matters.)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

iApprove. The replacement will need to cater for the Aegean Sea situation which my ambassador has explained in one of your drafting sessions.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[SNS Timnath Serah]

Repeal “Law of the Sea”

The World Assembly,

APPLAUDING the intentions of GA#47: Law of the Sea, in attempting to set standards by which nations may claim oceanic territory bordering their shores,

REALIZING that the resolution was erroneously addressed to "The United Nations," the predecessor to the World Assembly which no longer existed at the time of the resolution's passage,

OOC: Oops! But, however messy, probably not legal grounds for a repeal (because there have been definite rulings that a resolution being passed "grandafthers in" its contents as legal...).

NOTING that, according the text of the legislation, "waters within 12 nautical miles of [a] nation's sea border" will be under a nation's "sovereign control" and that a nation has "the sole right to harvest natural resources" in "waters within 200NM of [its] sea border,"

FURTHER NOTING that, should any nations with adjacent or opposing shorelines find their "12 nautical miles" of oceanic territory overlapping in any fashion, this legislation arbitrarily divides these waters between the nations regardless of a nation's history, economy, or its relations with its neighbor,

UNDERSTANDING that the legislation permits nations with overlapping oceanic territory "to voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines," yet noting that nations with border disputes are unlikely come to an agreement if they are led to believe that arbitrary division of territory would occur,

CONCERNED that the arbitrary division of oceanic territory has the potential to damage certain nations by reducing their spheres of influence and/or inciting conflicts between previously ambivalent neighbors,

OOC: The original's wording could probably be improved, and if I'd been writing it then I'd probably have allowed exceptions "as previous international treaties might stipulate", but I think that in general having "arbitrary" rules to fall back on in the absence of agreement about exceptions is more likely to reduce than to increase the risk of conflict.

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to establish limits to oceanic territorial claims, without which a nation may use islands, sand bars, or atolls occurring within the first 12 nautical miles of its oceanic territory as a basis for further claims,

OOC: Why? That's how it works in RL, after all, and if you don't allow all islands to have territorial waters out to the full limits around their shores then how would you handle those nations that consist entirely of islands?If you scrap that detail then you would have to specify in detail what the minimum size of island was for each possible radius of territorial waters, or you could even end up with some islands that belong to specific nations having those nations' territorial waters on one side but international waters instead on its other shores which it seems to me would be ridiculous.

APPALLED that GA#47 includes no provision requiring nations to control pollution within their 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) arising from activities such as deep sea mining and oil exploration that may pollute the EEZs of neighboring nations and damage international fishing grounds,

But it doesn't prevent the passage of another resolution that would do so, correct?

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to include exceptions to sovereign control of territorial waters, giving nations bordering narrow straits or sea channels an undue influence over international shipping that must pass through these water bodies,

Oh?

d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

Maybe there could be a problem about that, but I'm fairly certain that LotS wouldn't block a subsequent resolution about free transit for commercial vessels.

CONVINCED that errors and omissions described herein renders the resolution inoperable and detrimental to World trade and the environment,

Not convinced.
And even if I agreed that there was enough there to justify a repeal, I wouldn't see it as urgent enough to require passage before a replacement that I considererd better was ready fro submission...

(Sorry that I didn't comment during the offsite drafting phase, as requested, but I was too busy with various other matters.)

Although I have a very low opinion of the current version, I am with Bears Armed in that a superior replacement needs to be ready to roll before this is repealed.

[Ratateague]

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to establish limits to oceanic territorial claims, without which a nation may use islands, sand bars, or atolls occurring within the first 12 nautical miles of its oceanic territory as a basis for further claims,

OOC: Why? That's how it works in RL, after all, and if you don't allow all islands to have territorial waters out to the full limits around their shores then how would you handle those nations that consist entirely of islands?If you scrap that detail then you would have to specify in detail what the minimum size of island was for each possible radius of territorial waters, or you could even end up with some islands that belong to specific nations having those nations' territorial waters on one side but international waters instead on its other shores which it seems to me would be ridiculous.

DISMAYED that the repeal even suggested this! Being one of those island nations, I agree with Bears Armed and object to what is suggested here. If any of our islands were to be farthest from the mainland outside said 12 nautical mile range, but relatively close to the rest, what sense would that make? To not own the water in-between for safe, guaranteed travel..? Not that we don't trust our neighbors, but we'd still run the risk of pirates! Suppose there was an archipelago that had a large span of water in between a circle of islands. Given that there were no smaller nations within, would it not have jurisdiction over those waters, even if it owned all that was surrounding it? And assuming that a new proposal were to give a range to all existing land, what of Volcanic Arcs or other circumstances of newly-formed islands?

So all that being said, is it not reasonable to own the water up to and in-between islands? Not to mention a safe buffer around outermost islands for means of maritime defense and resources.

[Speculine]

As stated by a few other ambassadors, we would be willing to support this repeal if a a fair alternative were on the table. Nations like Ratateague do deserve a protected right to hold their own waters though.

[A mean old man]

As stated by a few other ambassadors, we would be willing to support this repeal if a a fair alternative were on the table. Nations like Ratateague do deserve a protected right to hold their own waters though.

There is actually a different group of authors working on a replacement right now. If theirs turns out to be unsatisfactory, then an appropriate replacement can easily be created.

...as co-author of the proposal I obviously agree with what is written within it and support its passage as a resolution.

[Baptovia]

Voting against as the repeal leaves open too much territories that are presently claimed and is very likely to lead to wars, pirate activities, worse polutions (if certain nations take control), mass confusion and once an island's "territorial waters" are taken over by another nation, the surrounded nation is easily taken over afterwards.

[A mean old man]

Voting against as the repeal leaves open too much territories that are presently claimed and is very likely to lead to wars, pirate activities, worse polutions (if certain nations take control), mass confusion and once an island's "territorial waters" are taken over by another nation, the surrounded nation is easily taken over afterwards.

Considering the current legislation isn't even addressed to our assembly, I'd assume this is already the case anyway. "The United Nations" is obsolete and, therefore, so is this legislation.

[SNS Timnath Serah]

There is actually a different group of authors working on a replacement right now. If theirs turns out to be unsatisfactory, then an appropriate replacement can easily be created.

...as co-author of the proposal I obviously agree with what is written within it and support its passage as a resolution.

Could I trouble you for a link?

[Black Marne]

For. Enough said.

[Baptovia]

Voting against as the repeal leaves open too much territories that are presently claimed and is very likely to lead to wars, pirate activities, worse polutions (if certain nations take control), mass confusion and once an island's "territorial waters" are taken over by another nation, the surrounded nation is easily taken over afterwards.

Considering the current legislation isn't even addressed to our assembly, I'd assume this is already the case anyway. "The United Nations" is obsolete and, therefore, so is this legislation.

So what? It isn't the only one that mentions that ahem august non-existent body.

[Dizyntk]

Considering the current legislation isn't even addressed to our assembly, I'd assume this is already the case anyway. "The United Nations" is obsolete and, therefore, so is this legislation.

So what? It isn't the only one that mentions that ahem august non-existent body.

"Yes, but any law or treaty made by or for an extinct legislative body no longer has any legal effects. Any nation noticing the wording is free to ignore GAR#47 for that very reason."

[A mean old man]

So what? It isn't the only one that mentions that ahem august non-existent body.

It doesn't just "mention" it - it addresses the resolution to it.

Can we have our resolutions addressed to a "non-existent body?"

If we'd like them to have no function, yes.

[Baptovia]

It doesn't really matter as much as you seem to believe it should.

[A mean old man]

It doesn't really matter as much as you seem to believe it should.

It doesn't matter that it does nothing due to being improperly addressed?
...
Depends on how much you value the WA's function, I guess.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Considering the current legislation isn't even addressed to our assembly, I'd assume this is already the case anyway. "The United Nations" is obsolete and, therefore, so is this legislation.

As Bears Armed pointed out:

OOC: Oops! But, however messy, probably not legal grounds for a repeal (because there have been definite rulings that a resolution being passed "grandafthers in" its contents as legal...).

We approve of the proposal for the other reasons given, and would like to add that it might make more sense to extend EEZ distances to infinity, as then resources can be properly and much better managed - no more uncontrolled fishing in international waters.

[Dizyntk]

Considering the current legislation isn't even addressed to our assembly, I'd assume this is already the case anyway. "The United Nations" is obsolete and, therefore, so is this legislation.

As Bears Armed pointed out:

OOC: Oops! But, however messy, probably not legal grounds for a repeal (because there have been definite rulings that a resolution being passed "grandafthers in" its contents as legal...).

We approve of the proposal for the other reasons given, and would like to add that it might make more sense to extend EEZ distances to infinity, as then resources can be properly and much better managed - no more uncontrolled fishing in international waters.

"The question then becomes, who is in control over given areas? If EEZ's are not limited, then there will be greater chances that various nations will come into conflict over competeing claims. Hence having unlimited EEZ rights would, in our opinion, cause an increase in war. Not something the WA should be promoting I would think."

[A mean old man]

I think my concern with how the borders set by this resolution could infringe upon the borders of nonmember states was lost in the draft due to edits, however that also stands as a reason to support the repeal.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom would need to see some replacement being drafted before considering supporting this repeal."

[Bears Armed]

It doesn't really matter as much as you seem to believe it should.

It doesn't matter that it does nothing due to being improperly addressed?
...
Depends on how much you value the WA's function, I guess.

OOC: On the basis of past Modly rulings, once a resolution has been passed everyhing within it -- no matter how many rules were broken withoout that being noted before the passage -- is considered legal. Therefore you can't base a repeal on an apparent 'illegality'... and I'm fairly sure that we had a Modly ruling to the effect that we should regard this particular resolution as a legal piece of WA legislation despite that mistake.
(In this particular case, for your information, the author had also been the author of the previous international organisation's resolution on this subject and accidentally submitted a version of what was basically the same draft in which he hadn't yet got around to replacing the name rather than the later one in which he had done so...)

[Goddess Relief Office]

DISMAYED that GA#47 fails to establish limits to oceanic territorial claims, without which a nation may use islands, sand bars, or atolls occurring within the first 12 nautical miles of its oceanic territory as a basis for further claims,

OOC: Why? That's how it works in RL, after all, and if you don't allow all islands to have territorial waters out to the full limits around their shores then how would you handle those nations that consist entirely of islands?If you scrap that detail then you would have to specify in detail what the minimum size of island was for each possible radius of territorial waters, or you could even end up with some islands that belong to specific nations having those nations' territorial waters on one side but international waters instead on its other shores which it seems to me would be ridiculous.

I'll just briefly address Bear's third criticism of our proposal which seems to have created some misunderstandings. What the text means, to quote Trav-Coch, is "The concern here is that nations can make cascading claims as per the text of the original resolution, and this could lead a to an inordinately large area being claimed as sovereign territory. e.g: Suppose that, within the territorial waters of a nation (after the first claim), there lies an uninhabited island. Let's assume that it is fully within the nation's sovereign territory in such a way that its shoreline abuts the 12 NM territorial water boundary. So, obviously, it will belong to that nation. Now again, using this island the nation can claim a further 12 NM of sea/ocean as its territorial water. Rinse and repeat."

This concern can be easily addressed by changing the text in the original resolution to add the words "one time claim not exceeding 12 nautical miles". Without these words, however, the loophole is such that nations may claim multiple times.