NationStates Jolt Archive

In connection with the current omnibus resolution on the Law of the Sea, there have been a number of complaints made. Our own opposition is centred on the Law's failure to specify a 200-km Exclusive Economic Zone, and the threat this would pose to our economic livelihood.

Although the fate of that resolution is not yet known, we would like to begin formulating a new resolution that would permit Exclusive Economic Zones.

Our initial thoughts are that a resolution, classified under free trade, would define territorial waters to a 20-km limit. There would also be defined a 200-km limit in which the coastal state retains all economic and military rights but agrees to allow the right of passage. All waters outside those limits would be defined as international waters with the freedoms given in the Law of the Sea proposal. The archipelagic principle would be maintained, and a median line principle added to define the borders between overlapping exclusive economic zones.

We are very interested in woring with others on a resolution to this effect.

If the Law of the Sea is defeated or ruled out of order, then further resolutions from it might also be passed, classified as environment, social justice and so forth as appopriate.

Alvaro Pinto
Tanah Burung ambassador-at-large on maritime law

((sorry if this is in the wrong place, duplicates somethign already said, or steps on anyone's toes in any way. It's been many months since i paid much attention to the UN forum, and i know things have changed but not the details of how they've changed.))

SeOCC is very interested in creating a UN sanction EEZ resolution, but would like to see certain issues addressed.

First, the 'right of passage' should be narrowly defined to grant this right only to unarmed, non-hostile vessels. No nation should be forced to allow foreign vessels to interfere with the normal running of their nation within the EEZ, and state's should have the power to enforce basic laws within the EEZ. We would like the EEZ to also be an exclusive military zone, for the same reasons as above.

We would also like to see a UN sanctioned protocol for the deployment of military vessels near the territorial waters of foreign nations, to avoid potential conflicts in the future.

SeOCC UN Delegation

The Law of the Sea resolution has now passed. While applauding the initiative pf the resolution sponsors, we also note that the major objection raised was that "20 km is not enough" for territorial waters.

This was the basis of our objections to the Law of the Sea, posted earlier:

The 20-km limit to territorial waters is completely unacceptable.
- we depend on fish caught within our 200-km territorial waters limit for food. If these waters are opened to international fishing, our country will face starvation.
- our economic plans envision use of the sea-bed off our coasts, to a 200-km limit, for farming and resource exploitation. If these sea-bed areas are opened to international exploitation, our country's future prosperity will be threatened.
- most waters are declared "international" and thrown open on a first-come, first-served basis. This will ensure a scramble for maritime resources in which the wealthy and powerful will have an unfair advantage.

We still feel this way, and are calling for a new resolution to fix this problem with our new and internationally-binding Law of the Sea. Since the resolution is designed to limit the free trade implications of the Law of the Sea and is explictly protectionist, free trade now seems an inappropriate category. International security, which is more than simply military, or social justice might be better. We had intended to call for territorial waters of 200 km, but now that the UN has passed the Law of the Sea must re-frame these thoughts to accord with the resolution now passed. We also note and agree with the comments from SeOCC, but have retained the concept of EEZ while attempting to incldue military safeguards.

Our initial thoughts are that a resolution might look something like this draft:

NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS

Recalling that the General Assembly recently passed the Law of the Sea, and

Agreeing that a 20-km limit to territorial waters is not sufficient for the national economic security of many states,

The United Nations:

Recognizes the sovereign right of states to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to a limit of 200 km from that state's coastline.

Consents to those states managing fisheries, the sea-bed and all natural resources for their own economic benefit, including the right to exclude other nations from these waters and to manage these waters in accordance with their own national law.

Requests states with EEZ's to allow the right of passage to ships of other nations for the purpose of peaceful commerce and travel.

Further requests these states to ensure good environmental stewardship of the EEZ.

Where EEZ claims overlap, the border shall be defined by drawing a median line half way between the land masses of each state.

SeOCC is very interested in creating a UN sanction EEZ resolution, but would like to see certain issues addressed.

First, the 'right of passage' should be narrowly defined to grant this right only to unarmed, non-hostile vessels. No nation should be forced to allow foreign vessels to interfere with the normal running of their nation within the EEZ, and state's should have the power to enforce basic laws within the EEZ. We would like the EEZ to also be an exclusive military zone, for the same reasons as above.

We would also like to see a UN sanctioned protocol for the deployment of military vessels near the territorial waters of foreign nations, to avoid potential conflicts in the future.

SeOCC UN Delegation


I would have an objection to the "unarmed" part of this. While I accept they should not be hostile I would not want my vessals out on the open seas with no way of defending themselves against attacks by other ships.

We suggest only one change:

NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS

Recalling that the General Assembly recently passed the Law of the Sea, and

Agreeing that a 20-km limit to territorial waters is not sufficient for the national economic security of many states,

The United Nations:

Recognizes the sovereign right of states to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to a limit of 200 km from that state's coastline.

Consents to those states managing fisheries, the sea-bed and all natural resources for their own economic benefit, including the right to exclude other nations from the EEZ and to manage these waters in accordance with their own national law.

Requests states with EEZ's to allow the right of passage to ships of other nations for the purpose of peaceful commerce and travel.

Further requests these states to ensure good environmental stewardship of the EEZ.

Where EEZ claims overlap, the border shall be defined by drawing a median line half way between the land masses of each state.

The bolded section is for clarity, to assure there is no confusion that nations have jurisdiction over their EEZ.

SeOCC UN Delegation

I take it that there will be some consideration for what I would term "preservation of life"? That is if a ship gets in to trouble in the open seas (international water) it would be permitted to sail in to any EEZ and to land, regardless of the laws of the nation who's EEZ it is coming in to.

I take it that there will be some consideration for what I would term "preservation of life"? That is if a ship gets in to trouble in the open seas (international water) it would be permitted to sail in to any EEZ and to land, regardless of the laws of the nation who's EEZ it is coming in to.

I think we could say it is covered here:


Requests states with EEZ's to allow the right of passage to ships of other nations for the purpose of peaceful commerce and travel.


But we also could amend that to read:

4. REQUESTS states with EEZ's allow the right of passage of ships from other nations for the purpose of peaceful commerce and travel or in the event of an emergency.

Notes, I personally like numbered activating clauses, and I also like to capitalize that first word or two in order to make it more clear where clauses begin. Very minor style suggestions. :)

Amended as suggested. I think "international security" is the best category, none seeming quite right.

NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS

Recalling that the General Assembly recently passed the Law of the Sea, and

Agreeing that a 20-km limit to territorial waters is not sufficient for the national economic security of many states,

The United Nations:

1. RECOGNIZES the sovereign right of states to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to a limit of 200 km from that state's coastline.

2. CONSENTS to those states managing fisheries, the sea-bed and all natural resources for their own economic benefit, including the right to exclude other nations from the EEZ and to manage these waters in accordance with their own national law.

3. REQUESTS states with EEZ's to allow the right of passage to ships of other nations for the purpose of peaceful commerce and travel or in the event of an emergency.

4. FURTHER REQUESTS these states to ensure good environmental stewardship of the EEZ.

5. DECIDES that where EEZ claims overlap, the border shall be defined by drawing a median line half way between the land masses of each state.

Amended as suggested. I think "international security" is the best category, none seeming quite right.

NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS

Recalling its resolution, that the General Assembly recently passed the Law of the Sea, adopted Sep. 29, 2004, which recognized a 20 km limit to territorial waters, and

1. RECOGNIZES the sovereign right of states to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), to a limit of 200 km from that state's coastline.

2. CONSENTS to those states managing fisheries, the sea-bed and all natural resources for their own economic benefit, including the right to exclude other nations from the EEZ and to manage these waters in accordance with their own national law.

3. REQUESTS states with EEZ's to allow the right of passage to ships of other nations for the purpose of peaceful commerce and travel or in the event of an emergency.

4. FURTHER REQUESTS these states to ensure good environmental stewardship of the EEZ.

5. DECIDES that where EEZ claims overlap, the border shall be defined by drawing a median line half way between the land masses of each state.

A case could be made that clauses 1 and 3 restrict the political freedoms of nations, similar to the "Rights and Duties of UN States". Clause 2 grants a freedom, but again is consistent with the "Rights and Duties of UN States" resolution. Clause 5 is a definition, and doesn't have a category.

You'll want to double check, but I like it. In fact, I would hope that Sophista would be cheering right now.

p.s. I don't know the code for strikethrough font

Psh. Cheering is an understatement. We tried to get the 200km provision added to the Law of the Sea, but I guess not all proposal authors are as gracious about accepting good ideas into their resolutions as we are. Had such a provision been in place, an entire war could've been avoided.

p.s. I don't know the code for strikethrough fontEh... I'm not sure there is one? http://forums.jolt.co.uk/misc.php?do=bbcode

SeOCC looks forward to endorsing this proposal.

SeOCC UN Delegation

This is a wholly appropriate and necessary proposal. Well done.

We enthusiastically support this proposal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Anything wot promotes sea commerce deserves th' honest support o' all pirates! Arrr....

The proposal will be submitted as soon as i receive a temporary second UN endorsement for this purpose. Thankee for the support. Yarr.

The proposal will be submitted as soon as i receive a temporary second UN endorsement for this purpose. Thankee for the support. Yarr.

Do you have one forthcoming? I'm positive you can have one if you were to take a temporary (or permanent) visit to the IDU. I'm pretty certain that XG, Groot, Cheney, or Randomerica would be happy to give you another, and all of these nations respond quickly to inquries.

Thanks, but i've obtained a second endorsement within the region. The proposal is now submitted under the name National Territorial Waters and the international security category.

If you visit the IDU page (see link in my sig file) you may find some campaign tools to help you.

I also recommend that you telegram anybody that is supporting any of the repeals on the Law of the Sea. While my government approves of the Law of the Sea, these other governments my favour your proposal. I'll certainly ask Groot Gouda to endorse it. :)