NationStates Jolt Archive

1. All coastal states have the right to establish:
- territorial sea to a limit of 12 nm
- contiguous zone to a limit of 24 nm
- Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to a limit of 200 nm.

2. Such territory includes the waters, sea bed, subsoil and air space of the seas, and does not include any islands having an area greater than one hectare above the surface at low tide.

Territorial sea

The territorial sea is the sovereign territory of the coastal state.

Contiguous zone

In the contiguous zone, the coastal state may exercise such control as is necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its laws in its sovereign territory.

Exclusive Economic Zone

1. In the EEZ, the coastal state enjoys:
i. sovereign rights of exploration and exploitation of natural resources
ii. exclusive right to establish and to authorise establishment of artificial islands, installations and structures
iii. exclusive jurisdiction over the use of such islands, installations and structures
iv. jurisdiction over scientific research.

2. In the EEZ, other member states enjoy:
i. freedom of navigation
ii. freedom of flight
iii. freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines
provided such activities are not prejudicial to the sovereignty, security or economic livelihood of the coastal state.

3. In any case where the rights of the coastal state and the rights of other states come into conflict within the coastal state's EEZ, the rights of the coastal state prevail.

Mensuration tee hee it sounds like a funny word

1. The outer limits of the territorial sea shall be measured from baselines, taking the normal baseline except where otherwise provided for in this section.

2. The normal baseline is the low-water line along the coast of the coastal state.

3. States situated on atolls or having fringing reefs may take as the baseline the seaward low-water line of the reef.

Lawful use of the seas

The rights granted by this resolution are understood to be subject to the supremacy of international law, and all states in their actions in the territorial sea, contiguous zone or EEZ of any state are required to respect and abide by the rule of international law.

Note: There is more. This is a start.

I imagine the replacement will be rather long and the character count will probably come into play, but you might have to define 'land territory'.

If I recall, what you're looking for is in the RL UN Charter, but I cba to look it up. :p

If I recall, what you're looking for is in the RL UN Charter, but I cba to look it up.
Not really. Although an NSUN charter would be nice.

Has the UN ever actually granted states territorial sovereignty?


Don't nations automatically hold territorial sovreignty anyway? If we haven't been required to surrender it to the UN then how can they "grant" it [back] to us?

Don't nations automatically hold territorial sovreignty anyway? If we haven't been required to surrender it to the UN then how can they "grant" it [back] to us?
That's not quite my point. It's more that fellow UN members should respect each others' territorial integrity. Although I'm not sure how that relates to war.

Well, enough with that. Time to replace The Law of the Sea. I'll edit the first post shortly.

That's not quite my point. It's more that fellow UN members should respect each others' territorial integrity. Although I'm not sure how that relates to war.


Maybe you will be interested in a previous draft on this topic by "Anarin Edarin", few month ago:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=438736

In this thread I posted to suggest the following:

"every UN Nation to recognize definitly their international border and the international borders of every other UN Nation and to no more pretend over more territories ever"

"every UN Nation to recognize definitly their international border and the international borders of every other UN Nation and to no more pretend over more territories ever"
Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. I'm not sure what 'to no more pretend' means, though.

Ok, first draft edited in. I have more to add.

I believe that "sovereign territory" is, by definition, territory to which no other nation has staked claim. Otherwise, it is "disputed territory," and multiple claims have to be resolved by war or international arbitrage. I don't think any international legislation is needed to recognise it, only multilateral consensus.

Of course, if one nation decides to lay claim to territory recognised by most to be sovereign to another, it is considered an invader by most, and dealt with as such. (OOC: Like in the Iraq vs Kuwait war.) But still, for the duration of the war, those territories are disputed, rather than sovereign.

Don't know if this helps. My main point is that waters attached to "disputed territory" would become "disputed waters," and thereby the scope of other types of legislation. Yours is essentially a peacetime project.

Yes, I do have to resolve the issue of war. In the RLUN, it doesn't matter, because they're all chummy allies yay, but the NSUN is a little different.

As a nation of free floating arcologies on the deep ocean, the law of the sea threatens our sovereignty. The deep ocean is our sovereign territory. All deep ocean with 10 kilometers of the shorelines is claimed for free passage, sea harvesting, fisheries, deep sea mining, offshore banking, and commercial activity. We are prepared to uphold our political and civil freedoms.

As a nation of free floating arcologies on the deep ocean, the law of the sea threatens our sovereignty. The deep ocean is our sovereign territory. All deep ocean with 10 kilometers of the shorelines is claimed for free passage, sea harvesting, fisheries, deep sea mining, offshore banking, and commercial activity. We are prepared to uphold our political and civil freedoms.
Go away.

Go away.

Should I sic my swearing dolphins on him Gruen?

Here is why I do not agree with this: The 12 nautical miles does not bother me. However, the 200 mile exclusive economic zone is contentious. There is no provision for overlapping borders or contiguous states. The concept of "innocent passage" limits travel for moving cities. It is the ability to pass undisturbed through economic zones that is problematic. Please amend this to allow free passage of other states through extended economic zones. 200 miles is a long way from shore.

The other issue is fishing rights. Some fish are highly mobile. We wish to have access to fishing rights within 100 miles of shore.

Second migratory island states or states such as my own are forced to create artificial borders. I will lay claim to any ocean territory that is not within the 200 mile economic zone of coastal waters. Further all high sea mineral rights beyond the 200 mile economic zone are being claimed. Thus I am claiming the high seas.

This is a summary from the UN Law of the Sea:
* Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed "innocent passage" through those waters;
* Ships and aircraft of all countries are allowed "transit passage" through straits used for international navigation; States bordering the straits can regulate navigational and other aspects of passage;
* Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through such designated sea lanes;
* Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection;
* All other States have freedom of navigation and overflight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
* Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ's of coastal States of the same region or sub-region; highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection;
* Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and more under specified circumstances;
* Coastal States share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 miles;
* The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf shall make recommendations to States on the shelf's outer boundaries when it extends beyond 200 miles;
* All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures to manage and conserve living resources;
* The limits of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of islands are determined in accordance with rules applicable to land territory, but rocks which could not sustain human habitation or economic life of their own would have no economic zone or continental shelf;
* States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas are expected to cooperate in managing living resources, environmental and research policies and activities;
* Land-locked States have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States;
* States are bound to prevent and control marine pollution and are liable for damage caused by violation of their international obligations to combat such pollution;
* All marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State, but in most cases they are obliged to grant consent to other States when the research is to be conducted for peaceful purposes and fulfils specified criteria;
* States are bound to promote the development and transfer of marine technology "on fair and reasonable terms and conditions", with proper regard for all legitimate interests;
* States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention;
* Disputes can be submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established under the Convention, to the International Court of Justice, or to arbitration. Conciliation is also available and, in certain circumstances, submission to it would be compulsory. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over deep seabed mining disputes.

1. All coastal states have the right to establish:
- territorial sea to a limit of 12 nm
- contiguous zone to a limit of 24 nm
- Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to a limit of 200 nm.

Just to shut up those people who misinterpret "Metric System", I would suggest that you state these distances in kilometers as well as nautical miles. Unless the character count gets in the way, in which case just leave it.

Just to shut up those people who misinterpret "Metric System", I would suggest that you state these distances in kilometers as well as nautical miles. Unless the character count gets in the way, in which case just leave it.
No. People who misinterpret Metric System can go sulk in a corner. As always, I'm right; they're wrong. That's all that matters.

Oh mods please say I'm right.

Incidentally, I keep meaning to comment on your copyright proposal; I'll do so now.

No. People who misinterpret Metric System can go sulk in a corner.
And vote no on the way.;)

I guess it doesn't really matter, but it might gain you a few extra votes to accomadate nations who use metric.

And vote no on the way.;)

I guess it doesn't really matter, but it might gain you a few extra votes to accomadate nations who use metric.
I'd be surprised if anyone voted against just on that basis. If they did...then I wouldn't want my proposal tarnished with their support anyway, so I'm not too bothered. If it's a big thing, I'll rethink, I guess, but I think there are more important concerns right now.

No. People who misinterpret Metric System can go sulk in a corner. As always, I'm right; they're wrong. That's all that matters.Why hasn't anybody repealed that piece of crap, anyway?

Why hasn't anybody repealed that piece of crap, anyway?

Give me time. I'm waiting till my Anti-Terrorism Act passes. ;)

Why hasn't anybody repealed that piece of crap, anyway?


I was working on a draft repeal proposal [or three], but gave 'Meteorological Cooperation' a higher priority...


By the way, given that the term "Metric System" is simply another way of saying "System of Measurement" and the resolution concerned doesn't actually define -- or even list -- any of the units to be used, how are nations from worlds where equivalents of the RL 'Metric System' were never invented supposed to know what units they're supposed to be converting to the use of?
Couldn't just strike the resolution down as illegal for depending on a RL concept, could you? ;)

Here is why I do not agree with this: The 12 nautical miles does not bother me. However, the 200 mile exclusive economic zone is contentious. There is no provision for overlapping borders or contiguous states.

I was wondering about that too. What happens when the zones overlap?

I was wondering about that too. What happens when the zones overlap?

War! :p

I'd be surprised if anyone voted against just on that basis. If they did...then I wouldn't want my proposal tarnished with their support anyway, so I'm not too bothered. If it's a big thing, I'll rethink, I guess, but I think there are more important concerns right now.
Stick with nautical miles.

Why hasn't anybody repealed that piece of crap, anyway?
It's on the "to do" list.

I was wondering about that too. What happens when the zones overlap?
Every median point is taken. I still do have lots to add into this. I think it would read something like:

"Where the territory of two nations overlaps, they will be divided by a line of median points, or through bilateral negotiation."

It's on the "to do" list.
I was working on a draft repeal proposal [or three]...
Give me time. I'm waiting till my Anti-Terrorism Act passes

Warms my heart, it does. There's hope yet.

Here is why I do not agree with this: The 12 nautical miles does not bother me. However, the 200 mile exclusive economic zone is contentious. There is no provision for overlapping borders or contiguous states. The concept of "innocent passage" limits travel for moving cities. It is the ability to pass undisturbed through economic zones that is problematic. Please amend this to allow free passage of other states through extended economic zones. 200 miles is a long way from shore.
Let me try to understand this. You want him to change the text to accomodate the passage of "moving cities"?

I would like to change this to include free passage of non-military vessels and a right of free flight over said extended economic zones by commercial aircraft, as well as commercial submarine traffic. Yes, of course I would like moving cities to be included, specifically domed mobile arcologies. Military vessels would be a separate issue.

We believe this is a fine start towards replacing the worthwhile provisions of the recently repealed "Law of the Sea" resolution. We are particularly pleased to note that the respected representative of Gruenberg has wisely chosen to limit the scope of this proposal to defining the scope of territorial waters and other zones of maritime control. We are firmly convinced that one of the major causes of flawed and ineffective proposals is the practice of trying to do everything imaginable at one fell swoop. Better three or four resolutions that cover the ground properly than one catch-all that fails.

We will undoubtedly have some further comments as the debate progresses, but, as of now, we look forward to supporting the proposal.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Minister for External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

This appears to be a well thought-out draft, and thus has our tentative support.

Two points, however.


2. Such territory includes the waters, sea bed, subsoil and air space of the seas, and does not include any islands having an area greater than one hectare above the surface at low tide.


This is potentially ambiguous. Logically, land is indeed not maritime territory, but what would be the text's significance in terms of sovereignty over those islands?

Second, I believe the proposal should include a mention that all maritime claims should be seperated by a body of international waters. In this way, not only would they not overlap, but they would not be contiguous either, and vessels would be able to travel in between without infringing on sovereign waters.

This should probably apply only to territorial seas, and not to EEZs. The latter can be contiguous (though obviously not overlapping), but the former should not be.

Ambassador Christelle Zyryanov,
PDSRA

Second, I believe the proposal should include a mention that all maritime claims should be seperated by a body of international waters. In this way, not only would they not overlap, but they would not be contiguous either, and vessels would be able to travel in between without infringing on sovereign waters.

The government of St Edmund is considering this suggestion: We are currently inclined to disagree with it.

From President Brian:

I would like to request that Gruenberg include a provision that expressly prohibits the creation of "Flags of Convenience" when it comes to merchant shipping.

A line or two that requires that the flag state of the vessel must have a "real or tangible" link to the operators, owners and crew of the vessel would solve this problem.

Flag of Convenience carriers present an easy means for certain states to profit at the expense of other states, through lowering their maritime taxes, having little to no regulatory oversight of their merchant marine, and allowing for the exploitation of seafarers. Requiring a real or tangible link between the flag state and the vessel strengthens the environmental, economic and human rights protections necessary for viable, safe, and secure maritime transportation.

We would be willing to work with you to craft this portion of the replace to LoTS.

From President Brian:

I would like to request that Gruenberg include a provision that expressly prohibits the creation of "Flags of Convenience" when it comes to merchant shipping.

A line or two that requires that the flag state of the vessel must have a "real or tangible" link to the operators, owners and crew of the vessel would solve this problem.

Flag of Convenience carriers present an easy means for certain states to profit at the expense of other states, through lowering their maritime taxes, having little to no regulatory oversight of their merchant marine, and allowing for the exploitation of seafarers. Requiring a real or tangible link between the flag state and the vessel strengthens the environmental, economic and human rights protections necessary for viable, safe, and secure maritime transportation.

We would be willing to work with you to craft this portion of the replace to LoTS.

Given the existence of nations outside the UN, the impact of this would be...

Given the existence of nations outside the UN, the impact of this would be...

...to ensure that at least within the UN, there would be no Flag of Convenience states. That would cut down on the potential number of abusing states significantly.

...to ensure that at least within the UN, there would be no Flag of Convenience states. That would cut down on the potential number of abusing states significantly.

Aren't you that NatSov nut?

What is to stop a company from just claiming their allegiance to some other nation that's not in the UN? All of a sudden, they aren't required to follow those regulations! And shit, that means we might all lose a few companies in the process.

Where's your NatSov now?

Aren't you that NatSov nut?


Nah, that's me. :p

Aren't you that NatSov nut?

What is to stop a company from just claiming their allegiance to some other nation that's not in the UN? All of a sudden, they aren't required to follow those regulations! And shit, that means we might all lose a few companies in the process.

Where's your NatSov now?

This has everything to do with national soverignty. This ensures that the laws passed to regulate the merchant marine in individual nations mean something - it ends the practice of nation shopping that is prevalent under the current system. Companies set up fronts and channel money through cut outs in order to claim their vessels belong to the FOC nation.

I can go into more detail if you wish. But I wouldn't want to keep you from drafting your next resolution ensuring the right of all dogs to crap on your lawn or whatever other nonsense you dream up.

...to ensure that at least within the UN, there would be no Flag of Convenience states. That would cut down on the potential number of abusing states significantly.

The number of states is irrelevant. All that matters is the number of ships. As long as there is ONE non-UN unregulated nation, all ships are free to use the flag of that nation, whatever the UN might tell them.

In other words, think again.

The number of states is irrelevant. All that matters is the number of ships. As long as there is ONE non-UN unregulated nation, all ships are free to use the flag of that nation, whatever the UN might tell them.

In other words, think again.

There are other steps that can be taken to deal with states outside the UN by UN member nations, including but not limited to embargoes, tariffs and vessel prohibitions.

If we are going to make the argument here that because non-UN states exist the provision is unenforcable renders nearly every single UN resolution currently on the books meaningless. This is a specious argument.

Even the most ardent national sovereigntist recognizes that the UN has the authority to regulate international commerce. Ensuring fair competition between the shipping lines of UN states by not allowing for forum shopping is a benefit and I hope that Gruenberg will include this provision in their redrafted LotS proposal.

There are other steps that can be taken to deal with states outside the UN by UN member nations, including but not limited to embargoes, tariffs and vessel prohibitions.

So you are saying the UN should actually promote hostile behaviour towards any outside nation that does not follow UN regulations? Not a good idea, if you ask me.

If we are going to make the argument here that because non-UN states exist the provision is unenforcable renders nearly every single UN resolution currently on the books meaningless. This is a specious argument.

Factually untrue. Most UN resolutions (except for a chosen few that should be burned) have non-trivial consequences, even if only one third of the world is forced to comply.

Even the most ardent national sovereigntist recognizes that the UN has the authority to regulate international commerce. Ensuring fair competition between the shipping lines of UN states by not allowing for forum shopping is a benefit and I hope that Gruenberg will include this provision in their redrafted LotS proposal.

Don't get me wrong, I think regulating international commerce and ensuring fair competition are wonderful goals. But you fail to recognise that your suggestion furthers neither.

The UN should have the realism and humility to recognise its own power, and not to overreach.

Firstly, this proposal will not deal with the high seas, or with international waters. And, given that (and given that during the debate on the repeal I said I, more than once, said this) I will not be replacing the flags of convenience clause. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion, which concentrates solely on territorial claims. If, in later discussions of a second replacement (actually, the second replacement is likely to be a right of innocent passage, so a third replacement) it crops up again, and is relevant...I'll likely say no. I like flags of convenience.

Secondly, I will be editing the proposal tonight, with some of the comments made. I am not fully sure of the point the representative from Ariddia was making: it sounds reasonable, but I don't quite understand the mechanics of it.

Firstly, this proposal will not deal with the high seas, or with international waters. And, given that (and given that during the debate on the repeal I said I, more than once, said this) I will not be replacing the flags of convenience clause. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion, which concentrates solely on territorial claims. If, in later discussions of a second replacement (actually, the second replacement is likely to be a right of innocent passage, so a third replacement) it crops up again, and is relevant...I'll likely say no. I like flags of convenience.


We agree wholeheartedly with the distinguished representative of Gruenberg. For once, let's have an opportunity to vote on a proposal that does one thing and does it well. Far too many potentially good proposals have been ruined by the authors trying to accommodate every concern of every member on every issue remotely related to the subject.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Minister for External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island

I believe that "sovereign territory" is, by definition, territory to which no other nation has staked claim.

Not exactly. The concepts of sovereignity and territory are divided, meaning whether you're a sovereign and what your territory is are different questions under international law. Both are decided by international recognition however, not by who stakes a claim to what.

You're a sovereign because other sovereigns have formally recognised you and treat you like a sovereign. Territorial disputes are typically ajudicated these days, but that really only means that there are many many nations that have agreed by treaty to accept the decision of the international court.

So it's more accurate to say that sovereign territory is that territory that other nations recognise as yours and disputed territory is where there are significant numbers of nations on both sides that are willing to support the opposing claims.

Hence the futility of war.

With Regard
Oliver Woofenhausen
Ambassabor
The Most Serene Republic of Smedley Underfoot

Secondly, I will be editing the proposal tonight, with some of the comments made. I am not fully sure of the point the representative from Ariddia was making: it sounds reasonable, but I don't quite understand the mechanics of it.

"If you're referring to the latter part, what I meant, essentially, is that we should specify that an area of international water should exist between otherwise contiguous territorial seas. Foreign vessels could then navigate that band or stretch of international water without infringeing on the territorial seas of nearby nations. Perhaps the resolution could specify the width of such 'corridors'?"

Ambassador Christelle Zyryanov,
PDSRA


(OOC: Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is essentially what happens in RL. In the Red Sea, for example. There, the territorial waters of, for instance, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would normally be contiguous, making it impossible for any foreign vessel to travel through the Red Sea. By inserting a corridor of international waters, ships regularly navigate the Red Sea without infringeing on anyone's waters. And it avoids them having to go all the way around Africa via the west.)

"If you're referring to the latter part, what I meant, essentially, is that we should specify that an area of international water should exist between otherwise contiguous territorial seas. Foreign vessels could then navigate that band or stretch of international water without infringeing on the territorial seas of nearby nations. Perhaps the resolution could specify the width of such 'corridors'?"

Ambassador Christelle Zyryanov,
PDSRA

(OOC: Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is essentially what happens in RL. In the Red Sea, for example. There, the territorial waters of, for instance, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would normally be contiguous, making it impossible for any foreign vessel to travel through the Red Sea. By inserting a corridor of international waters, ships regularly navigate the Red Sea without infringeing on anyone's waters. And it avoids them having to go all the way around Africa via the west.)

As written, your suggestion would seem to mandate sections of international waters not only through the middles of any [narrow] seas that have different nations on either side but also inwards to the coasts at the points where the land borders between any two nations meet the shore: Was this intentional?
Also, I would suggest that any such rule should only apply when the distance between the two nations' coasts exceeds some specific threshhold (such as the distance that would be allowed to any indivdidual nation for its territorial waters if no other nation was close enough for their claims to overlap).

(OOC: Do you know whether that's a widespread practice in RL, or whether the particular example that you mentioned is actually an unusual situation? I'm wondering, in particular, about the Straits of Dover...)

As written, your suggestion would seem to mandate sections of international waters not only through the middles of any [narrow] seas that have different nations on either side but also inwards to the coasts at the points where the land borders between any two nations meet the shore: Was this intentional?
Also, I would suggest that any such rule should only apply when the distance between the two nations' coasts exceeds some specific threshhold (such as the distance that would be allowed to any indivdidual nation for its territorial waters if no other nation was close enough for their claims to overlap).

(OOC: Do you know whether that's a widespread practice in RL, or whether the particular example that you mentioned is actually an unusual situation? I'm wondering, in particular, about the Straits of Dover...)
IC: It's under consideration at the minute.

OOC: I think it's Part 3 of UNCLOS. Which is long, and I haven't read, but I will tonight.