NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

WISHING to formally codify the rules and regulations of the sea

RESOLVES:
1. That all areas of sea more than 20 kilometres from an internationally recognised settled landmass or scientific research station are described as international waters. The UN may permit archipelagos to have the 20 kilometre limit start from the outside islands and allow waters inside the archipelago to be claimed by the nation who owns it.
2. That all 'international waters' shall be outside the sovereignty of any member nation and that no nation can claim to have sovereignty over them.
3. That all nations shall have in or above international waters, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone:
a) Freedom to fish in designated fishing areas, subject to UN quotas.
b) Freedom to fly
c) Freedom of navigation
d) Freedom to lay cables, pipelines and underwater installations, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone
4. That a UN Commission be established to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty or high ecological sensitivity and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones.
5. An International Maritime Standards Bureau will be created to set international rules on navigation, working hours and other matters it deems appropriate to ensure safety at sea.
6. All states can have ships under their flag. Any state may establish a registry for ships permitted to fly their nations flag. These vessels must be duly owned and operated by citizens of the respective country to be allowed to register with said country. No state shall permit the establishment of a "flag of convenience". Any vessel receiving an "SOS" or distress call should render immediate assistance, no matter their country of origin or current war status.
7. All states shall ensure that vessels under their flag are built and kept to proper seaworthy standards, as defined by the International Maritime Standards Bureau.
8. Piracy is prohibited in international waters and in the territorial waters of any state.
9. Piracy shall be defined as any illegal acts of violence, detention, theft or damage committed by a private vessel or aircraft, or its crew or passengers, against another vessel or aircraft, or the passengers, crew or property of the latter. "Illegal" will be defined by bilateral diplomacy, with the UN intervening if the two nations cannot agree.
10. That all nations will do their utmost to tackle piracy in international waters.
11. That no nation shall shelter pirates. Nations may only employ privateers (which are defined as pirates who work officially for a government) in a time of declared war)
12. That any flagged warship may board a ship if it has reasonable grounds to believe it is engaged in piracy, people trafficking, smuggling, terrorism or any other international crime. If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated by the nation that boarded it to a mutually agreeable value. A database of searches shall be kept by the UN to aid law enforcement. On boarding or attacking a vessel, the warship must immediately run up its national colours or the action will be considered an act of piracy.
13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.
14. All UN resolutions that affect member nations also apply to actions carried out by them or their citizens in international waters.
15. All nations with navigable waterways linking their coast and a landlocked country are encouraged to reach agreements on their use by vessels of the latter country.

It is so resolved.

First glance thoughts:
5. That vessels going between a landlocked country and one with a coast via the latter's waterways can travel without restrictions, provided they are not docking in the latter.I think this is a dealbreaker. Nations are understandably defensive about allowing foreign vessels in territorial waters. I think those rights of passage must be negotiated by the landlocked nations themselves on a case by case basis. Frisbeeteria would feel no compunction about firing on enemy-flagged vessels sailing our rivers, especially when they might be supplying our landlocked enemy neighbor with arms and war materiels. Under this proposal, we would face UN sanctions for fighting a declared and legal war.
9. Piracy shall be defined as any illegal acts of violence, detention, theft or damage committed by a private vessel or aircraft, or its crew or passengers, against another private vessel or aircraft, or the passengers, crew or property of the latter.
Under this, it's not piracy if the pirate attacks a naval vessel. Nor is it piracy if a legitimately-flagged naval vessel engaged in acts of piracy. Nor is there a definition of Privateer, an officially sponsored private 'navy' that is permitted to sink merchant vessels or claim them as a prize of war. It's not bad, there are just some major loopholes.
12. That any warship may board a ship if it has reasonable grounds to believe it is engaged in piracy or people trafficking. If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated.
There are warships on the seas that are not flagged. One could claim that a 'private vessel' from #9 was in fact an armed 'warship' in #12, and they could use that exemption to 'raid the raiders' for personal or national gain. Absent definitions, that would be tough to enforce. Also, we already have a ban on people trafficking. You don't need to explicitly state it here, and it actually weakens your argument by limiting engagement to two activities. A vessel 'engaged in piracy' needs merely to point its guns elsewhere and sail away to no longer be 'engaged'. Piratical intent is much harder to prove.

Also, who compensates? The boarder? The flagged nation of the boarder? The UN? Who arbitrates a just amount? I think the compensation phrase should be dropped.

It's a good draft. It needs a lot of work yet, and I'm glad you posted it here first. Let's see what we can work out.

interesting concept, but i agree that it neeeds a lot of work.

I would support this legislation should the corrections mentioned be worked out. Also, it might be worthwhile to add language establishing "exclusive economic zones" beyond the territorial waters of a nation. If a vast mineral deposit is discovered 21 nautical miles from Sophista's coast, it only makes sense that our government would have the rights to develop it. We have no immediate neighbors, and are certainly closer to the deposit than any other nation. The real-world UN uses the figure of 200 nautical miles, but that could be negotiated here in the forum.

As a landlocked nation, my government takes interest in the following clause:

5. That unarmed civilian vessels going from a landlocked country to international waters, via the waterways of a country with a coast can travel without restrictions, provided they are not docking in the latter.

Traditionally these rights are worked out as bi-lateral agreements (which Frisbeeteria pointed out), but at the same time my government understands just how often the navigation of said waterways has lead to regional conflicts.

One of the reasons my nation is pro-active in the United Nations is the people of NationStates have the ability, provided with amazing technologies, to cause widespread chaos on a scale never before imagined. The NationStates United Nations is most certainly a tool with which we can work together to prevent this misunderstandings, and the Confederated City States believes that an international statement concerning the necessitity for coastal nations to seriously consider granting landlocked nations rights to rivers that frequently originate in their terrority is a wise gesture.

That said, this fifth clause could easily be refined into its own resolution. My government finds nothing objectionable to the current clause, and in general supports the idea that a United Nations resolution should address many of the points raised in this proposal.

I'd also suggest that there needs to be recognition of UN resolutions and their impact on member states, in international water or otherwise.

Komokom would prefer if such ideas as banning privateer fleets were dropped, and agrees that ertainly some things need tightening up, though on the whole, its a really good proposal.

Bumped.

I'll propose this in one week.

Bumped.

I'll propose this in one week.
Were you planning on commenting on or incorporating any of the suggested changes, or were you just going to submit?

12. That any flagged warship may board a ship if it has reasonable grounds to believe it is engaged in piracy, people trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism or any other international crime. If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated by the nation that boarded it.

Well... You got a weak point in "drug smuggle"...
Change it into "smuggle".
I also urge to change the last part away.
-If the search finds nothing, the boarded ship shall be compensated by the nation that boarded it.-
It is better that a report of the findings is sent to a UN database.
In that way you automatically get a worldwide list of "white" sea transporters.


3. That all nations shall have in or above international waters, unless in a Maritime Preservation Zone:
a) Freedom to fish

This is ridiculous!
Fishing has got to be ruled by the UN, to prevent the sea is a dead water within years!



5. That unarmed civilian vessels going from a landlocked country to international waters, via the waterways of a country with a coast can travel without restrictions, provided they are not docking in the latter.

That is not an UN issue!
It should be left to negotiations of nations that are in such a situation themselves.

And then I have a point 13a.

13a. That all nations shall strive to prevent harm to maritime wildlife in international waters, except when the UN has granted fishing quota's.

If you look, I've already incorporated them.

If you look, I've already incorporated them.
OK, I looked.

5) The additions do not answer my objections. Unarmed freighters carrying military supplies to my landlocked enemy are still valid military targets. I still think the proviso should be entirely removed.

12) The concept of 'mutually agreeable value' for boarding compensation is unworkable in practice. I still maintain that boarding compensation should be removed as a requirement.

11) Banning Privateers removes completely the concept of mercenary naval units. I can't support that. A simple ban doesn't suffice.

And let's add something to 1: "more than 20 kilometres from an occupied landmass". Otherwise every stone, reef and microscopic island will become somebody's property and an excuse for territorial wars.

And let's add something to 1: "more than 20 kilometres from an occupied landmass". Otherwise every stone, reef and microscopic island will become somebody's property and an excuse for territorial wars.

How about "from internationally recognized territory". The other option is "from settled internationally recognized terroritory". But there has to be something that can be used here.

If you look, I've already incorporated them.

Very nice, of course Klopstokia likes to help you with our maritime experience.
And our nation has a true interest in a new definition of sea law, first brought to us by the famous Dutch Hugo Grotius.

But We still have problems with:

---------
5. That unarmed civilian vessels going from a landlocked country to international waters, via the waterways of a country with a coast can travel without restrictions, provided they are not docking in the latter.
---------

What difference is there between a road or a waterway?
Some countries are obliged to check transito traffic for terrorists, weapons and other illegal material.
So this item would frustrate the whole security policy all over the world!
It would force my country to check ships coming in from the sea.
Outside the territorial waters.

1. That all areas of sea more than 20 kilometres from a landmass are described as international waters.I agree with the economic zone argument citing the RL 200 mile range.

4. That a UN Commission be established to determine areas of outstanding marine beauty and designate them Maritime Preservation Zones.Not just beauty but also ecological sensitivity, such as reefs less picturesque than the Great Barrier but just as essential to the balance of the ecosystem, or the breeding grounds of endangered whale species.

5. That unarmed civilian vessels going from a landlocked country to international waters, via the waterways of a country with a coast can travel without restrictions, provided they are not docking in the latter.Concur with objections already noted; this is better left to the regional level.

11. That no nation shall shelter pirates or employ privateers, which are defined as pirates who work officially for a government.Privateers are not strictly speaking engaging in illegal activity; they are private vessels under contract (a Letter of Marque) to the government as mercenaries. I suggest: "No nation shall...employ privateers except in time of declared war...."

12. That any flagged warship may board ....Frisbeeteria mentioned something about unflagged warships. Call me a stodgy old traditionalist, but IMHO we should not be concerned about the rights or prerogatives of unflagged warships. I'd almost go so far as adding a clause that any ship engaging to attack or board another must run up its national colors immediately upon engagement, failure to do so making the engagement an act of piracy.

One question: When was the last time in RL someone did privateering?

I've made some more changes to clause 5, but I still think it's a good idea.

Well, I do know that for a good portion of its history, the Ottoman Navy consisted of privateer vessels. And it remained one of the powers of the Mediterranean until the development of the steel hulled ship.

One question: When was the last time in RL someone did privateering?

I've made some more changes to clause 5, but I still think it's a good idea.
Answer a question with a question: When was the last time so many nations in RL so gleefully attacked one another on a regular basis? And how many RL nations have futuretech side-by-side with elventech and such?

In the Whaling Exemptions thread, at least one nation is offering mercenary Naval units. Those are Privateer vessels as I see it. Somebody is selling their escorts not as a friendly naval unit but as guns-for-hire. I doubt they're the only ones.

I appreciate the effort on clause 5, but it's never going to have enough exceptions to satisfy my nation. We cannot and will not open our navigable rivers to all traffic without some means of vetting them. All current river traffic currently clears through harbor patrol on the one end and locks at the other. They pay transit fees for the privilege (just as drivers do on our toll roads), and we keep the channel dredged with the funds received. If they are doing something we don't like, we turn them away (unless covered by treaty with our two upstream neighbors). It's our river, our call.

In Frisbeeteria, you get what you pay for, and the owner/manager controls it. "No restrictions" is a dealbreaker. Kill five entirely or lose our support.

It's their country, they've got a route to the sea that originates in their territory, they're entitled to use it almost as they like. If you believe they're doing something dodgy, you can stop them and search them.

By the way, have you got any more specific dates on that privateering thing? I know the Ottomans went down in the First World War, but my knowledge of Middle Eastern history is somewhat limited.

Bump.

From President Brian:

We are inclined to vote for this proposal. However, we wish to see the "flags" section amended to include:

Any state may establish a registry for ships permitted to fly their nations flag. These vessels must be duly owned and operated by citizens of the respective country to be allowed to register with said country. No state shall permit the establishment of a "flag of convenience".

Flags of convenience are a menace to safe commercial shipping and reward countries with little or no regulation or taxation codes, resulting in more accidents, abhorrent working conditions and little to no accountability in regards to accidents at sea. Any Law of the Sea proposal should make this clear.

Second, there should be a codified requirement that any vessel receiving an "SOS" or distress call should render immediate assistance, no matter their country of origin or current war status.

Brian's Room

A few "Amendments" to your Amendments.

Concerning Submarines...

1. Submarines Are exempt from flying any flags while in International Waters during surface trasits
2. Submarines shall have all the standard navigational lighting port, starboard and aft, but are exempt from the bow light. Also, they shall have a single, yellow in color, light, visible from 360 degrees, located midships... This light shall flash three pulse flashes, one for each second, for three seconds, with a 3 second pause. Submarines shall use this navigational light at all times during Shipping Lane Transits on surface
3. Submarines are exempt from responding to SOS calls, but are required to relay any SOS Messages received.
4. Any submarines found operating near your own units, civilian or military, which are "unknowns" may be treated as hostile warships. Unless the Vessel surfaces and signals her surrender.

In General...

Standard Maritime Navigational Lights shall be used on all vessels transiting on the surface..... These include...
1. a Bow Light visible forward, color white, viewable arc of 225 degrees, visible up to 2 nauticle miles for vessels under 65feet, visible up to 6 nauticle miles for vessels over 65 feet.
2. "side" lights, "red" port, "green" starboard, viewable arc 112.5 degrees, viewable for minimum of 1 nauticle for vessels under 65 feet, viewable for minimum of 3 nauticle miles on vessels over 65 feet.
3. a Stern Light, visible from aft, color white, viewable arc 135 degrees, visible from at least 2 nauticle miles for ships less than 65 feet, at least 3 nauticle miles for vessels over 65 feet.
4. Masted Vessels shall also include a light, color white, with visible arc of 360 degrees, at near top of the vessels highest mast

5. In addition to the SOS and CQD messages, vessels shall fly their national flag "inverted" (upside down), if possible, for "visual" recognition of their distress status.

6. When vessels are in Transit through shipping lanes, ships shall be given precedent based upon distinction of rank or tonnage. Smaller vessels or more maneuverable vessels shall be responsible to keep clear of the path of larger less maneuverable vessels.

From President Brian:

I agree that the exemption for submarines is acceptable. By "flying of a flag" I would, of course, be speaking merely of the vessels registry, and not the physical flying of a flag.

A few "Amendments" to your Amendments.
Rather than add all of these emminently sensible additions to an already long proposal, I'd recommend establishing an International Marine Standards Bureau to attend to such specific needs and suggestions. That could be done in a single line, and would have the benefit of including anything you might have skipped (such as depth of draft, who's responsible for dredging channels, the nature of nautical charts, channel markers and lighthouses, and all that sort of thing.)

I still contend that article 5 (concerning navigable rivers) should be addressed separately and does not belong in a "Laws of the Sea". Since it addresses internal matters of national soverignty (the right of free passage within a nation), it should be put in its own resolution.

Rather than add all of these emminently sensible additions to an already long proposal, I'd recommend establishing an International Marine Standards Bureau to attend to such specific needs and suggestions. That could be done in a single line, and would have the benefit of including anything you might have skipped (such as depth of draft, who's responsible for dredging channels, the nature of nautical charts, channel markers and lighthouses, and all that sort of thing.)

I still contend that article 5 (concerning navigable rivers) should be addressed separately and does not belong in a "Laws of the Sea". Since it addresses internal matters of national soverignty (the right of free passage within a nation), it should be put in its own resolution.

Rather than an "Marine Standards Bureau" I would suggest such be passed to an Admiralty Court, we could easily draft it to incorporate already existing Admiralty Courts, merely an admin department to pass these to local National Admiralty courts.... this would also leave a good deal of the "enforcement" in the hands of those nations with the viable naval power to patrol international waters....

I would agree that "navigatable rivers" does not belong in the pervue of International Maritime Law.... as the rivers, regardless of a nations land-locked status, belong to the nation itself, and therefore control over traffic accross them should be rightly determined by the state as such, their legislature or whatever lawful body, and through their National Admiralty Courts

Updated. I've dropped clause 5 and replaced it with a less stringent clause 15. Standards Bureau is in. Any typos, suggestions, please let me know. I intend submission on the 9th.

My respect to you for a considered and valuable proposal. However, I have a number of concerns in addition to those raised (and, in my mind, resolved) earlier by other delegates. Before I outline these concerns, I feel some background on Ecopoeia may be advisable.

The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia is a fairly diffuse archipelago* located off the south-east of the continent of Alçaera. Our territory has remained fixed for several decades now. Several islands that come under Ecopoeian jurisdiction are unoccupied, though maintained by us as reserves and science outposts. One group of islands, the Argyres, is the only known habitat of the rare Saki monkey, our national animal.

1: The Argyres and numerous other islands claimed yet not settled by Ecopoeia are further than 20 km from settled territories. This article threatens our claim to continue administering the islands. Please advise if the maintenance of small scientific research stations is sufficient to qualify as settling under the terms of this proposal.

3 & 4: There are substantial expanses of open water located between our islands. We reserve the right to declare these areas as Ecopoeian territory and thus exempt from exploitation.

9: ‘Illegal’ is, presumably, a criteria set by individual nations. Accordingly, the nations concerned will have to come to an agreement, with the UN intervening only if the case remains unresolvable through bilateral diplomacy. Correct?

I hope my fears are unfounded, otherwise I am regretfully unable to lend my nation's support for this proposal.

Kind regards
Varia Yefremova

*OOC: A cross between Japan and the Soloman Islands, maybe. if you look at many Pacific nations, they are granted large expanses of ocean between islands as their own sovereign territory. I am unaware of the UN administering rights of exploitation.

Updated. I've dropped clause 5 and replaced it with a less stringent clause 15.
A completely agreeable replacement. Thank you.

What were you planning to propose this under? I'd suggest Free Trade, Strength Mild.

5. An International Maritime Standards Bureau will be created to set international rules on navigation, working hours and other matters it deems appropriate to ensure safety at sea.

It should be made clear that this Bureau should only deal with matters not otherwise covered in this resolution.

13. That all nations shall strive to prevent pollution of international waters and harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing.

They may reasonably be exempt from preventing harm to marine life in fishing areas, but the way this is phrased means that they are also exempt from preventing pollution - meaning governments aren't obliged to stop the dumping of toxic waste on our foodstocks. How about "That all nations shall strive to prevent harm to marine wildlife, except where the UN has permitted fishing, and to prevent pollution of international waters"?

I'd also like to see Ecopoeia's problems dealt with, as I know of a nation in my region which also consists of an archipelago.

From President Brian:

We are inclined to vote for this proposal. However, we wish to see the "flags" section amended to include:

Any state may establish a registry for ships permitted to fly their nations flag. These vessels must be duly owned and operated by citizens of the respective country to be allowed to register with said country. No state shall permit the establishment of a "flag of convenience".

Flags of convenience are a menace to safe commercial shipping and reward countries with little or no regulation or taxation codes, resulting in more accidents, abhorrent working conditions and little to no accountability in regards to accidents at sea. Any Law of the Sea proposal should make this clear.

Second, there should be a codified requirement that any vessel receiving an "SOS" or distress call should render immediate assistance, no matter their country of origin or current war status.

Do you not see?

This proposal is being made just to close the loophole that allows whaling under non-UN flags

I think it is a rather low and dastardly attempt to again hit nations economies. When does it ever stop?

Do you not see?

This proposal is being made just to close the loophole that allows whaling under non-UN flags

I think it is a rather low and dastardly attempt to again hit nations economies. When does it ever stop?
That's right. The Law of the Sea is actually a thinly-veiled attempt to hammer capitalist economies.

Come on, this is a basic international issue that really ought to have been addressed long ago. I welcome it, though I have my fears as detailed above.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I welcome a "law od the seas" proposal, however a total ban on flags of convenience is absolutely out of the question. It also does not recognise at all that crews may actually be multinational.

Fortunately, UN "sovereignty" can never extend to UN nations so I for one will simply ignore any and all claims that non-UN flags of convenience are not allowed.

I can only presume that this person who proposed this latest resolution read about this flag loophole in the first* whaling resolution and decided to close the hole with this fancy new resolution without mentioning it.

Besides, should you not check with your Aperinian friends? Last time I heard they claimed several thousands of miles as their territorial waters. Same goes for many others. Non-UN nations could simply extend their claims.

And what exactly gives the United Nations the authority to legislate for international waters in a world where there are many non-UN nations? I would think this is all highly illegal.


*Some people are now looking into banning military active sonar to protect the silly seacows, effectively preventing the possibility of protecting oneself from a sea-based nuclear attack.

I wasn't actually aware of a loophole, so I couldn't have proposed this with that in mind. I got the idea for this when someone mentioned something about piracy.

There may be a multinational crew, but the ship is still flown under one flag.

I'll stick in a thing about archipelagos.

Besides, should you not check with your Aperinian friends? Last time I heard they claimed several thousands of miles as their territorial waters. Same goes for many others. Non-UN nations could simply extend their claims.

And what exactly gives the United Nations the authority to legislate for international waters in a world where there are many non-UN nations? I would think this is all highly illegal.
I'm highlighting the above comments only but please don't think I'm ignoring your other remarks, simply leaving them for others to address.

I am unaware of Aperin* claims on "several thousands of miles of territorial waters". If they exist, then such claims by UN member states in Aperinwill have to be revised in light of this proposal, should it pass.

Your comment regarding non-UN nations is a pertinent one. I would be very interested to hear others respond to this as I am yet to form a decisive opinion on the matter.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

*For other delegates' information, Aperin is a northern hemisphere continent largely populated by anti-capitalist nations. Alçaera is a southern hemisphere continent populated largely by ex-colonies of historical imperial powers in Aperin. Ecopoeia (or Unta as it was known at the time), for example, changed hands between the Mercantiles (now Anhierarch) and the Celdonian Empire.

There may be a multinational crew, but the ship is still flown under one flag.


Your idea to pursue a standardization in rules governering the flagging of ships is an excellent one. Ships are like airline stewardesses. Flags aren't flown on top of the ship so you know which language you'd like to use in case you want to ask for directions. They are flown on a ship so that if that particular ship is in trouble or causes trouble, that a government can take responsibility for them. They are also flown for the protection of that ship, because ships flying no flags are not protected at all from simply being sunk.

Consider it this way ... you live in the imaginary land, USA. You are driving a non-descript van, your van has no registeration. There have been a string of robberies in the neighborhood you are cruising through. What are your chances of getting out of that neighborhood without a visit from the local police department?

The other comments about "multinational flags" was frankly lame. My government hopes you continue to include provisions concerning national responsibility for maritime vessels. Though it may be appropriate for them to be their own resolution.

Bump. I will propose on Monday.

This has now been submitted.

Knootoss is right, it's a blatant attempt to shut down those whaling under a non-UN flag. Of course, if all you need to be able to fly a nations flag is a crew member of said nationality....Easily solved by us through 'liasons' to be a part of the crew.

No, you won't put a stranglehold on our business. The Order may not be a UN Nation and therefore have no business with the UN, but it does become our business when the UN tries to move in and regulate us. If this proposal is passed through, the Order will continue our 'flags of convenience' program, and there is not a thing the UN can do to put a stop to it.

Agreed, UN would lack much enforcement power on non-UN nations flying flags of convienince (in the NS universe)... We don't have true "International" scope of operations, only in conjunction with those who are members, IC, Tekania, under provision would be unable to enforce boarding vessels lacking Flags, or Flags of convienince, unless the perpetrator actually acted against our own nation... And would be forced to treat fellow UN nations attempted enforcement as Pirates... It's an overstepping of UN authority that is impossible to enforce, unless all member nations suddenly turn in to Fascist dictatorships(which they won't)....