[Draft] Protecting Transit Passage

[Ironcastle]

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

ACKNOWLEDGING that well-defined laws of the sea assist national security and the freedom of trade;

CONCERNED that there is a dearth of law regarding the passage of straits;

RESOLVING to clarify and codify maritime passage through these crucial areas;

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which is, at any point of its length, contained entirely within the territorial waters of one or more WA member states;
   2. a ship as any form of nautical vessel that primarily transits via water;
2. Establishes:
   
   1. any ship belonging to a WA member state may transit fully the length of a strait fully controlled by WA member state(s) without deliberate impediment;
   2. that no national law shall in spirit prohibit the transit of law-abiding ships through a strait;
3. Clarifies:
   
   1. this right shall only be granted under the condition that the ship in question does not pose a threat to the peace of security of any state through whose waters it passes;
   2. the ship shall be considered in violation of this resolution if it engages in any of the following activities:
      
      1. any overt or covert threat or act of aggression towards another nation;
      2. any collection of information to the detriment of the coastal state;
      3. any taking on board or discharging of any other vessel, aircraft, or cargo of any kind during passage;
      4. any fishing, mining, drilling, salvaging, or any other economic activity;
      5. any other activity without direct bearing on the passage of the ship;
   3. if a ship violates the resolution, its protection under this resolution will be revoked, and it may be seized legally by the offended party;
   4. nothing in this resolution should be taken as the limiting of a nation's sovereignty over their territorial waters;
   5. this resolution only applies to ships flying the flag of a WA member state;
4. Declares:
   
   1. WA member states retain the right to bar passage to any ship of a nation they are engaged in hostilities with, whether declared or undeclared; or due to the ship failing to comply with other WA resolutions;
   2. WA member states retain the right to enforce their laws on any ship transiting their territorial waters;
   3. no ship protected under this resolution will abuse its protections to engage in smuggling, piracy, or other criminal acts;

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

ACKNOWLEDGING that well-defined laws of the sea assist national security and the freedom of trade;

CONCERNED that there is a dearth of law regarding the passage of straits;

RESOLVING to clarify and codify maritime passage through these crucial areas;

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which is either:
      
      1. no more than twice the (accepted by WA resolution) width of a WA member state's territorial waters;
      2. failing the existence of a WA resolution defining territorial waters, no more than 24 nautical miles;
   2. a ship as any form of nautical vessel that primarily transits via water;
2. Establishes:
   
   1. any ship belonging to a WA member state may transit fully the length of a strait fully controlled by WA member state(s) without impediment;
   2. that no national law shall in spirit prohibit the transit of law-abiding ships through a strait;
3. Clarifies:
   
   1. this right shall only be granted under the condition that the ship in question does not pose a threat to the peace of security of any state through whose waters it passes;
   2. the ship shall be considered in violation of this treaty if it engages in any of the following activities:
      
      1. any overt or covert threat or act of aggression towards another nation;
      2. any collection of information to the detriment of the coastal state;
      3. any taking on board or discharging of any other vessel, aircraft, or cargo of any kind during passage;
      4. any fishing, mining, drilling, salvaging, or any other economic activity;
      5. any other activity without direct bearing on the passage of the ship;
   3. if a ship violates the treaty, its protection under this treaty will be revoked, and it may be seized legally by the offended party;
   4. nothing in this treaty should be taken as the limiting of a nation's sovereignty over their territorial waters;
   5. this treaty only applies to ships flying the flag of a WA member state;
4. Declares:
   
   1. WA member states retain the right to bar passage to any ship of a nation they are engaged in hostilities with, whether declared or undeclared; or due to the ship failing to comply with other WA resolutions;
   2. WA member states retain the right to enforce their laws on any ship transiting their territorial waters;
   3. no ship protected under this treaty will abuse its protections to engage in smuggling, piracy, or other criminal acts;

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

ACKNOWLEDGING that well-defined laws of the sea assist national security and the freedom of trade;

CONCERNED that there is a dearth of law regarding the passage of straits;

RESOLVING to clarify and codify maritime passage through these crucial areas;

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which is:
      
      1. no more than twice the (accepted by WA resolution) width of a WA member state's territorial waters;
      2. failing the existence of a WA resolution defining territorial waters, no more than 24 nautical miles;
   2. a ship as any form of nautical vessel that primarily transits via water;
2. Establishes:
   
   1. any ship belonging to a WA member state may transit fully the length of a strait fully controlled by WA member state(s) without impediment;
   2. that no national law shall in spirit prohibit the transit of law-abiding ships through a strait;
3. Clarifies:
   
   1. this right shall only be granted under the condition that the ship in question does not pose a threat to the peace of security of any state through whose waters it passes;
   2. the ship shall be considered in violation of this treaty if it engages in any of the following activities:
      
      1. any overt or covert threat or act of aggression towards another nation;
      2. any collection of information to the detriment of the coastal state;
      3. any taking on board or discharging of any other vessel, aircraft, or cargo of any kind during passage;
      4. any fishing, mining, drilling, salvaging, or any other economic activity;
      5. any other activity without direct bearing on the passage of the ship;
   3. if a ship violates the treaty, its protection under this treaty will be revoked, and it shall be seized by the offended party;
   4. nothing in this treaty should be taken as the limiting of a nation's sovereignty over their territorial waters;
   5. this treaty only applies to ships flying the flag of a WA member state;
4. Declares:
   
   1. WA member states retain the right to bar passage to any ship of a nation they are engaged in hostilities with, whether declared or undeclared; or due to the ship failing to comply with other WA resolutions;
   2. WA member states retain the right to enforce their laws on any ship transiting their territorial waters;
   3. no ship protected under this treaty will abuse its protections to engage in smuggling, piracy, or other criminal acts;

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

ACKNOWLEDGING that well-defined laws of the sea assist national security and the freedom of trade;

CONCERNED that there is a dearth of law regarding the passage of straits;

RESOLVING to clarify and codify maritime passage through these crucial areas;

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which is:
      
      1. no more than twice the (accepted by WA resolution) width of a nation's territorial waters;
      2. failing the existence of a WA resolution defining territorial waters, no more than 24 nautical miles;
   2. a ship as any form of nautical vessel that primarily transits via water;
2. Establishes:
   
   1. any ship belonging to a WA member state may transit fully the length of a strait without impediment;
   2. that no national law shall in spirit prohibit the transit of law-abiding ships through a strait;
3. Clarifies:
   
   1. this right shall only be granted under the condition that the ship in question does not pose a threat to the peace of security of any state through whose waters it passes;
   2. the ship shall be considered in violation of this treaty if it engages in any of the following activities:
      
      1. any overt or covert threat or act of aggression towards another nation;
      2. any collection of information to the detriment of the coastal state;
      3. any taking on board or discharging of any other vessel, aircraft, or cargo of any kind during passage;
      4. any fishing, mining, drilling, salvaging, or any other economic activity;
      5. any other activity without direct bearing on the passage of the ship;
   3. if a ship violates the treaty, its protection under this treaty will be revoked, and it shall be seized by the offended party;
   4. nothing in this treaty should be taken as the limiting of a nation's sovereignty over their territorial waters;
   5. this treaty only applies to ships flying the flag of a WA member state;
4. Declares:
   
   1. WA member states retain the right to bar passage to any ship of a nation they are engaged in hostilities with, whether declared or undeclared; or due to the ship failing to comply with other WA resolutions;
   2. WA member states retain the right to enforce their laws on any ship transiting their territorial waters;
   3. no ship protected under this treaty will abuse its protections to engage in smuggling, piracy, or other criminal acts;

Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild

---

ACKNOWLEDGING that well-defined laws of the sea assist national security and the freedom of trade;

CONCERNED that there is a dearth of law regarding the passage of straits;

RESOLVING to clarify and codify maritime passage through these crucial areas;

Hereby,

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which is:
      
      1. no more than twice the accepted width of a nation's territorial waters;
      2. ii. failing the above, no more than 24 nautical miles;
   2. a ship as any form of nautical vessel that primarily transits via water;
2. Establishes:
   
   1. a. any ship belonging to a WA member state may transit fully the length of a strait without impediment;
3. Clarifies:
   
   1. this right shall only be granted under the condition that the ship in question does not pose a threat to the peace of security of any state through whose waters it passes;
   2. the ship shall be considered in violation of this treaty if it engages in any of the following activities:
      
      1. any overt or covert threat or act of aggression towards another nation;
      2. any collection of information unrelated to direct passage;
      3. any taking on board or discharging of any other vessel, aircraft, or cargo of any kind during passage;
      4. any fishing, mining, drilling, salvaging, or any other economic activity;
      5. any other activity without direct bearing on the passage of the ship;
   3. if a ship violates the treaty, its protection under this treaty will be revoked, and it shall be seized by the offended party;
   4. nothing in this treaty should be taken as the limiting of a nation's sovereignty over their territorial waters;
   5. this treaty only applies to ships flying the flag of a WA member state;
4. Declares:
   
   1. WA member states retain the right to bar passage to any ship of a nation they are engaged in hostilities with, whether declared or undeclared;
   2. WA member states retain the right to enforce their laws on any ship transiting their territorial waters;
   3. no ship protected under this treaty will abuse its protections to engage in smuggling, piracy, or other criminal acts;

I've tried to work around the Law of the Seas resolution for this. I had a look for existing drafts or resolutions regarding this, and the only similar thing I could find was in 2014, so I don't think this has been covered by the WA yet.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Well you clearly have a good grasp of the kind of text that a resolution should have, and you haven't submitted this yet, so those are both good signs. And providing a link to the existing resolution you're dancing around is also a nice touch, as it makes reference checking easier.

There are, however, issues with your clause 2, as you have foreseen, given clause 3, especially 3.d., but the Law of the Seas states "Waters within 24 nautical miles (‘NM’) of a member nation's sea border, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be considered that nation’s 'Territorial Waters' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws" - how does that work with your proposal if the national law is "thou shalt not pass through our territorial waters"? Or, say, if the strait in its entirety (or at least across the water area at some point) is nature reserve, where no ships are allowed unless they have a specific scientific interest and have permission of the nation(s) on both shores?

Also, there's a few resolutions about safety requirements (oil and dangerous chemicals probably have their own resolutions - I suggest searching the passed resolutions thread found on this forum) and how nations are allowed to deny passage to anything violating those.

Oh and your definition is a bit confusing. Given that territorial waters are defined as 24 nautical miles, then how can anything that's wider than twice that (your definition 1.a.i.), be "no more than 24 nautical miles" (your definition 1.a.ii - and btw, you have an extra ii. there)? Like, how can something wider than 48 nautical miles be no more than 24 nautical miles?

Also, 3.b.ii. would mean that getting a weather forecast would make the ship be in violation. Or using radio to ask how some big sport match result came out. I think you need to re-think the wording, because even the crew just looking around and marveling at the pretty view around them is them taking in information.

There is also at least one resolution about epidemic control, with stuff about border closures, and I'm fairly sure you can't add "except ships" in there and not run into trouble. And speaking of trouble, double-check (because I can't remember if it passed or not) if there's something requiring ships to help another ship that has run into trouble, because 3.b.iii. wouldn't let the ship pick up a liferaft full of survivors. Same for a helicopter in distress (for a bigger ship).

All in all, a good start, though I don't quite see how it adds anything to Law of the Seas (full duplication renders a proposal illegal) or how Law of the Seas wouldn't cover straits. But even if it's deemed not to be duplication, there's going to be a lot of work ahead for you, and even then it might not pass, because nations tend to jealously guard their borders, even seaborders, and might decide to vote against it, innocent or not.

I would suggest adding a clause about giving everyone a kitten, whether or not they own a ship.

[Ironcastle]

• Removed duplicate numbers/letters
• Tried to clarify the definition with the addition of Article 2 Section B
• Changed Article 3 Section B Subsection II to maybe be better
• Added a section to Article 4 Section A allowing a nation to bar access to ships that fail to comply with other WA resolutions

While Law of the Seas provides a good foundation for establishing maritime territory, it doesn't provide anything relating to transiting straits. Also, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation regarding ships or aircraft in distress.

[Marxist Germany]

"This is a great draft for a first attempt, ambassador! Support. "

[The New Nordic Union]

'As others have mentioned, this is a well-done first draft and we express our general support for the idea. However, the delegation from Ironcastle should be careful not to try to legislate for non-member nations; as the draft is currently worded, clauses 1.a. and 2.a. do not differentiate between member nations and non-member nations.'

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm interested in this one. I'll provide some feedback later today. If I don't shoot me a telegram.

[Ironcastle]

The ambassador presents another draft.

Ambassador Andrews: I believe these changes to Articles one and two should resolve the Nordic Union's issues with the draft. In addition, we've gone ahead and changed the name of the treaty to better reflect what it legislates.

[Marxist Germany]

The ambassador presents another draft.

Ambassador Andrews: I believe these changes to Articles one and two should resolve the Nordic Union's issues with the draft. In addition, we've gone ahead and changed the name of the treaty to better reflect what it legislates.

"I suggest the title "Protecting Transit Passage" or "Transit Passage Act", ambassador Andrews."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Subclause 3(b)(ii) is rather overbroad, ambassador. If an airplane flies overhead and the crew of the foreign ship is able to read its tail number and registry code, that could be considered illegal intelligence gathering under this proposal. I will try to come up with different wording for you, but this is some nuanced business, worth taking a while to get right."

[Wallenburg]

if a ship violates the treaty, its protection under this treaty will be revoked, and it shall be seized by the offended party;

You should use "may", not "shall". Member states should not be forced to seize ships for launching boats inside a straight or fishing in a straight.

[Ransium]

I think there’s some real potential here. Not that there’s indications this will happen here, but many first time authors rush things to submission. Expect to draft this for several weeks before submitting and I think the prospects of this resolution are good.

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: I'll try to comment on this in the next day or two.)

[Araraukar]

1. no more than twice the (accepted by WA resolution) width of a WA member state's territorial waters;
2. failing the existence of a WA resolution defining territorial waters, no more than 24 nautical miles;

OOC: I still don't quite understand this. How can something be 48 miles but no more than 24 miles?

And what happens if a strait is wider than 48 miles?

[Ironcastle]

OOC: New draft trying to clarify a strait definition and changing the wording of seizing ships. As for Araraukar's question, by this definition if a strait is wider than 48 miles it doesn't fall under this treaty. For 3(b)(iii) I'm still trying to work on a good wording too.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

1. no more than twice the (accepted by WA resolution) width of a WA member state's territorial waters;
2. failing the existence of a WA resolution defining territorial waters, no more than 24 nautical miles;

OOC: I still don't quite understand this. How can something be 48 miles but no more than 24 miles?

And what happens if a strait is wider than 48 miles?

OOC: For the second portion, if a straight were to be wider than 48 miles then at least some portion of it would be within international waters under current resolutions, and thus there is no need to protect transit through it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd add some padding on each side because ships can be wide. D&B raises a good point about if the width can change.

[Araraukar]

OOC: As for Araraukar's question, by this definition if a strait is wider than 48 miles it doesn't fall under this treaty.

OOC: And presumably counted at the narrowest point?

What if one side is a WA nation and the other is non-WA nation?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We submit the following for consideration

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which are, at any point of their length, contained entirely within the territorial waters of one or more member states;

We believe this would better serve the author's intent, and handle situations where straits vary in width along their course.

As a semantic note, we would prefer the use of the term "resolution" or "act" to "treaty" throughout as this is a piece of legislation, not a diplomatic agreement among high contracting states.

[Araraukar]

We submit the following for consideration

1. Defines:
   
   1. a strait as a narrow passage of water connecting two seas or other large areas of water which are, at any point of their length, contained entirely within the territorial waters of one or more member states;

We believe this would better serve the author's intent, and handle situations where straits vary in width along their course.

OOC: That would make much more sense.

[Kenmoria]

“2a should probably be clarified to avoid legislating on unavoidable or perfectly reasonable impediments. For example, a narrow crossing with large buildings on either side is an impediment, but there’s not much that can be done about it.”

[Ironcastle]

The Ambassador presents yet another draft.

Ambassador Andrews: The Federal Republic has elected to adopt Desmosthenes and Burke's proposal to adjust Section 1(a). The language of the resolution has also been changed to reflect that, as opposed to a treaty. Finally, perhaps the inclusion of 'deliberate' in Section 2(a) could resolve Ambassador Lewitt's concerns.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Clause 2 and clause 3.d. still conflict, because you don't have full authority over your national waters if you have to allow ships to pass through them.

Also, no reply that I have seen has been given to the "what if the area is offlimits to all ships because it is a nature reserve/area where an endangered species lives" issue. Especially as I'm fairly sure there are actual resolutions that encourage such reserves to be set aside. (If the migratory species one still exists, that would likely also apply.) But even if there was no resolution to enforce such areas, they exist in Real Life so it's not unreasonable to expect them to exist in NS (and they certainly exist for Araraukar). EDIT 2: Related to that, and a possible solution to it, would be requiring the ships to stick to established transport routes in general, because if a strait is not one of those already, then it might be because it's too dangerous or offlimits for other reasons (cultural reasons exist too).

EDIT: 3.b.ii. should probably have plural of states, as there are two shores in a strait and they don't necessarily belong to the same nation.

And 4.c. should end in a period.

EDIT 3: I'd like to also see an addition of the ship not being allowed to significantly disrupt the legal lives and activities of the locals, so that, say, local fishermen who have traditional fishing nets set in the water (this goes with EDIT 2) don't get their nets destroyed because some bully of a transport ship couldn't be arsed to follow the transport routes that don't go through the strait.

Hopefully last EDIT: Given the Law of the Seas and GA #34, International Transport Safety, what new does this proposal actually do?

[Ironcastle]

OOC: As far as I can tell, there is no provision in either of those resolutions to allow ships to transit through straits. A country can just block ships through straits from whoever they want, whenever they want at their own whims at present. Actually, the entirety of GAR #168 is woefully underwritten as is, at least in my opinion.

I believe Section 4(a) covers the whole nature reserve issue, though I do admit it could be clarified better.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Re clauses ‘3.d’ and ‘4.b’: These can safely be dropped, because ‘Law of the Seas’ specifically acknowledges (at the start of its clause ‘2’) that it applies only “subject to any limits that WA law places on national rights” so you don’t need to work round it like this and leaving those sub-clauses in would — as has already been pointed out in this discussion — create possible internal contradiction within this proposal if a member nation’s national laws say “no passage”.
Re clause ‘4.a’: I’d drop the bit about undeclared hostilities, because otherwise you leave the MAJOR loophole that a member nation wishing to block passage by another nation’s ships for whatever reason could simply claim “undeclared hostilities” and do so... Thus making the proposal much less useful.
Re clause ‘4.c’: “Declares…” How can the WA guarantee that?!? You really need a different verb there.

Law of the Seas states "Waters within 24 nautical miles (‘NM’) of a member nation's sea border, and any further waters that are enclosed by these, shall be considered that nation’s 'Territorial Waters' over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all of its own laws" - how does that work with your proposal if the national law is "thou shalt not pass through our territorial waters"?

As I’ve pointed out just above, ‘Law of the Seas’ specifically allows itself to be over-ridden by “any limits that WA law places on national rights”, so there’s no problem here.

if the strait in its entirety (or at least across the water area at some point) is nature reserve, where no ships are allowed unless they have a specific scientific interest and have permission of the nation(s) on both shores?

Also, no reply that I have seen has been given to the "what if the area is offlimits to all ships because it is a nature reserve/area where an endangered species lives" issue. Especially as I'm fairly sure there are actual resolutions that encourage such reserves to be set aside. (If the migratory species one still exists, that would likely also apply.) But even if there was no resolution to enforce such areas, they exist in Real Life so it's not unreasonable to expect them to exist in NS (and they certainly exist for Araraukar). EDIT 2: Related to that, and a possible solution to it, would be requiring the ships to stick to established transport routes in general, because if a strait is not one of those already, then it might be because it's too dangerous or offlimits for other reasons (cultural reasons exist too).
EDIT 3: I'd like to also see an addition of the ship not being allowed to significantly disrupt the legal lives and activities of the locals, so that, say, local fishermen who have traditional fishing nets set in the water (this goes with EDIT 2) don't get their nets destroyed because some bully of a transport ship couldn't be arsed to follow the transport routes that don't go through the strait.

Perhaps a clause saying that member nations can only apply such restrictions to foreign ships if they also apply them to ships of their own, and that if the rules involve allowing only a limited number of permits for ships to pass then foreign shippers must be allowed a reasonable share of those permits (with a relevant existing WA agency, such as WANC, given powers of binding arbitration where the system’s fairness is disputed) might work for this?

OOC: For the second portion, if a straight were to be wider than 48 miles then at least some portion of it would be within international waters under current resolutions, and thus there is no need to protect transit through it.

And hopefully the ‘international’ section would actually be navigable, rather than blocked by shoals…

What if one side is a WA nation and the other is non-WA nation?

You mean, should member nations be required to allow passage through their sides of straits where a non-member nation on the other side doesn’t do so? I think that they should.

Actually, the entirety of GAR #168 is woefully underwritten as is, at least in my opinion.

The maximum length allowed was lower in those days, at 3500 characters as compared to the current 5000, so those of us working on it limited ourselves to replacing the unfortunately-repealed resolution ‘Law of the Sea’ and left passage rights for a separate proposal which another player volunteered to start. When they effectively gave up on the WA I added this to my own “To Do” list, but…

_____________________________________________

How about adding a clause that offers non-member nations the ability to benefit from this measure as though they were members if they voluntarily declare & demonstrate(to the relevant existing committee or agency... probably WANC, again) that they are voluntarily in full compliance with this and with whatever other GA resolutions apply specifically to shipping matters?

[Araraukar]

Perhaps a clause saying that member nations can only apply such restrictions to foreign ships if they also apply them to ships of their own ... might work for this?

OOC: Would work, as long as the nation whose waters they are, is the one issuing the permits/lines of transit. I'm asking it OOCly but ICly it's very relevant as due to various archipelagos off the coast of the mainland, Araraukar's national waters reach fairly far, but most of the archipelagos have straits and passages that would cut through nature reserves (think in RL how certain sea bird/seal colony islands are no-go-zone for ships) that, like I said in the question, are only allowed for certain number of scientific expeditions - though if some other nation would like to launch one, they'd likely be denied but their scientists would be invited onboard an Araraukarian one.

Though now that I think of it, there perhaps should be something mentioned about a nation being able to temporarily deny passage if, say, there's been an accident or something, that would make it difficult or impossible to safely get through without disturbing the rescue effects. Or, like, oil spill - you don't really want ships passing through the area when you're trying to contain that. Or certain size of ships could be told to go around/wait (small fishing ships might be able to get through, but a huge container ship wouldn't).

Also, this concerns only natural passages, yes? Or would like the RL Suez canal or Panama canal also be included? Can nations ask for payment for the passage (if they ask the same payment of all the ships, including their own), or require large vessels to be moved though with tug boats/piloted by maritime pilots instead of their own captains?

OOC: For the second portion, if a straight were to be wider than 48 miles then at least some portion of it would be within international waters under current resolutions, and thus there is no need to protect transit through it.

And hopefully the ‘international’ section would actually be navigable, rather than blocked by shoals…

If the international bit was not navigable (think barely below surface rocks and coral reefs for proper boat hazards ), then would this proposal have effect or not?

What if one side is a WA nation and the other is non-WA nation?

You mean, should member nations be required to allow passage through their sides of straits where a non-member nation on the other side doesn’t do so? I think that they should.

I was thinking more of conflicting interests - if the WA state was quite happy to let ships pass, but a non-WA nation thought the area was too fragile as an ecosystem to let ships pass and would be quite happy to sink any ship attempting to enter the strait... Perhaps a clause or subclause of the safety of the vessel, not just of the nation, should be added (if there isn't already, I'll try to resolidify my brain to check such things later)? Because it might not be the doings of the WA nation that make the strait dangerous.