NationStates Jolt Archive

With thanks to those who made suggestions, here is the text just submitted to allow 200-km exclusive economic zones at sea.

NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS

Recalling its resolution, the Law of the Sea, adopted Sep. 29, 2004, which recognized a 20 km limit to territorial waters,

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.

Those who hated the Law of the Sea becuase "20 km is not enough" may want to endorse this -- it gives you what you wanted, 200 km.

It is not uncommon for nations to have a wide continental shelf bordering their shores. If the EEZ is only 20 km then it is entirely possible for foreign nations to set up oil platforms almost within sight of our borders. Not to mention siphoning off the oil reserves that are just off our shores.

Moreover, foreign factory fishing trawlers could strip the our continental shelves of schools of fish, since fish swim freely and don't distinguish whether they are 20 or 50 or 100 km from shore.

A 200 km EEZ ensures that the economic rights of our nations are respected and protected.

Is this a repeal proposal? Has Law of the Sea already been repealed when I wasn't looking?

Is this a repeal proposal? Has Law of the Sea already been repealed when I wasn't looking?

I believe this is a modification of that proposal. And not before time, given the objections of most of the nations to the original proposal.

This is not a repeal proposal, since the Law of the Sea was passed and contains some useful legislation. It is an attempt to improve the Law of the Sea based on the number one objection, by allowing nations to control more of their own coastal waters.

This is not a repeal proposal, since the Law of the Sea was passed and contains some useful legislation. It is an attempt to improve the Law of the Sea based on the number one objection, by allowing nations to control more of their own coastal waters.

I was given the impression that in order to do anything but add on to a previous resolution you had to repeal it and rewrite it. There was some Moderator chap who mentioned it...