NationStates Jolt Archive

Maritime Neutrality Convention
Political Stability
Mild

The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

BELIEVING, however, that unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping, particularly neutral shipping or within neutral waters, can lead to international repercussions or otherwise hazard non-belligerent shipping and civilians,

NOTING that belligerent warships may require the use of neutral ports for repairs and maintenance,

The United Nations hereby,

1) DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war,

2) a) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the three nautical miles adjoining a national coastline;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "international waters", for the purposes of this document, as sea or ocean expanses not within the three nautical mile limit imposed by article 2. subsection a), along with a one nautical mile wide channel in bodies of water of less then six nautical miles width bordered by two or more nations,

3) a)DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government,
b) FURTHER DEFINES "offensive armaments", for the purposes of this document, as any weaponry not included in the following: close range anti-aircraft weaponry, anti-submarine devices, heavy and light machine guns, mad sheep railguns, small arms, and naval guns under two inches in diameter

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, where probable cause exists for either, from sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

5) DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable,

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or military naval force.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of weather of such extreme inclemency as to threaten the life of the crew, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship,
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) Should a merchant ship of a belligerent nation should also be berthed in the neutral port at the same time as a warship of the opposing belligerent nation, then the merchant ship shall be given 24 hours grace period before the warship leaves;
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interred;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interred

So, what do you think?

OoC: I got board, watched "Battle of the River Plate", which is a very good movie, and wrote this. It's based on all the Hague convention thingies they mention in it, so I believe it is based on RL...

Tighten up the grammar and formatting to make it easier to read. Then define "belligerent", after that tighten up the proposal so that loose ends and wierd rules don't slip through. Such as, under the current draft it seems neutral nations have to provide aid, which stops them from staying neutral. As well, I don't think neutral nations should suddenly have the responsibility of taking on POWs. Theres other wierd issues and stuff here, but i'll deal with it when i have more time.

On a plus note, though, it is a good idea and with some tightening, it might make a good proposal, keep at it.:)

Change "TRUSTS" to "MANDATES" in clause 4.

I'm not entirely happy with clause 6, and with prohibiting neutral nations from allowing armed ships of either side into their national waters.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Perhaps clause 6 could be reworked a bit... perhaps, neutral nations could inter for the duration of a conflict any warship that seeks entrance into their waters.

Other than that, excellent draft.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

The reason it is not mandated is twofold:

1) At night, the human eye can pick up bright colours from quite a distance, and mandating the flying off flags could, basically, make a convoy or a lone merchant ship a bloody obvious target

2) Basically, we don't want to make it too easy for the enemy to sink civilian ships. One can tell a ships nationality by more then flag (they usually have the registry painted on the side; these are usually black out in war, but let's face it, a painted out name is a give-a-way...)

The internment thing is just a RL thing; I kept it in a sort of disincentive to docking in neutral ports. It's not really aid, as it doesn't say the repairs have to be done for free

How very nice. I've just signed a Letter of Marque for a ship to hunt enemy merchant ships. Am I responsible if the privateer goes rogue and attacks shipping which is not part of the letter of marque. This is precisely how you get pirates.

How very nice. I've just signed a Letter of Marque for a ship to hunt enemy merchant ships. Am I responsible if the privateer goes rogue and attacks shipping which is not part of the letter of marque. This is precisely how you get pirates.

Irrelevant. There's nothing in the proposal mentioning Letters of Marque. Or pirates.


Not that it matters, since the actual game mechanisms don't allow for warfare- and I don't see anyone in the RP section really giving a damn about UN legislation/

Irrelevant. There's nothing in the proposal mentioning Letters of Marque. Or pirates.



The issue is not irrelevant. It may well end up that it isn't addressed in this proposal, but it should be considered. A ship operating under a letter of Marque and Reprisal is not a warship as defined by the proposal, but it is operating under the authority of a belligerent. There may be portions of the proposal that should apply to such ships as well as warships.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

The issue is not irrelevant. It may well end up that it isn't addressed in this proposal, but it should be considered. A ship operating under a letter of Marque and Reprisal is not a warship as defined by the proposal, but it is operating under the authority of a belligerent. There may be portions of the proposal that should apply to such ships as well as warships.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island


I would argue that any ship licensed by a government to engage in acts of war, is "belonging" to that government. "Operating under the authority of a belligerent," as you put it, is tantamout to "belonging to a national government" in my book.

If that is too vague for you, we could just say:

"DEFINES a “warship” as an armed vessel operating under the authority of a national government"

Or is there something else I'm not seeing?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

I would argue that any ship licensed by a government to engage in acts of war, is "belonging" to that government. "Operating under the authority of a belligerent," as you put it, is tantamout to "belonging to a national government" in my book.

If that is too vague for you, we could just say:

"DEFINES a “warship” as an armed vessel operating under the authority of a national government"

Or is there something else I'm not seeing?

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

A privateer operating under a letter of Marque and Reprisal definitely does not "belong" to a government. There's nothing vague about it. Privateers are owned by and "belong" to private citizens or corporations. It would probably be best to define and then use the term "belligerent vessel", with a definition the same as or close to the one you suggest.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
The Protectorate of Wailele Island

The problem is that "under the authority" could lead to defensively armed merchant ships becoming classified as warships. How about "offensively armed"?

So, what do you think?

OoC: I got board, watched "Battle of the River Plate", which is a very good movie, and wrote this. It's based on all the Hague convention thingies they mention in it, so I believe it is based on RL...


OOC: The President of Excruciatia can take a short walk off a tall cliff into a deep lake on this one. My old man was merchant seaman for most of his working life, so I would support this one with which-ever one of my nations was in UN at the time.


I would suggest adding to section 5 the "old fashioned" rules of a warship dealing with a merchant ship.

From "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_submarine_warfare)" at Wiki.

The submarine sinking of merchant ships without warning are in violation of the 1930 First London Naval Treaty, which specifies that "...except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety...."


Capt Langsdorff followed those rules on the Graf Spee.

Graf Spee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_pocket_battleship_Admiral_Graf_Spee) at Wiki.

From September through December 1939 Admiral Graf Spee sank nine merchant ships in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, the first on 30 September 1939. Captain Hans Langsdorff strictly adhered to the rules of mercantile warfare at the time and saved all of the crew members of these ships; not a life was lost in these sinkings.

Whenever I think of Langsdorff I wonder if he would have continued like that as the war progressed...

OOC: I'm not sure citing the captain of the Graf Spee is necessarily the best example, considering how his captaincy eventually turned out. ;)

OOC: I'm not sure citing the captain of the Graf Spee is necessarily the best example, considering how his captaincy eventually turned out. ;)

OOC: Better than most!

IC:

I like the change to "offensively armed." That effectively cuts out merchant vessels.

When discussing 'neutral' states, remember to allow for those of them who have invoked the earlier resolution 'Rights of Neutral States' and whose possible actions are therefore limited by its terms...

OOC: The President of Excruciatia can take a short walk off a tall cliff into a deep lake on this one. My old man was merchant seaman for most of his working life, so I would support this one with which-ever one of my nations was in UN at the time.


I would suggest adding to section 5 the "old fashioned" rules of a warship dealing with a merchant ship.




Capt Langsdorff followed those rules on the Graf Spee.



Whenever I think of Langsdorff I wonder if he would have continued like that as the war progressed...

Will add the thing about passengers and crew; good touch!

When discussing 'neutral' states, remember to allow for those of them who have invoked the earlier resolution 'Rights of Neutral States' and whose possible actions are therefore limited by its terms...

I've looked into this, and with creative interpretation, it's fine. A warship being repaired can't be given military aid, it isn't being harboured, as it is chucked out after a few days, and one could consider "stopping the poor buggers from drowning" as humanitarian aid, which is allowed...

OOC: I'm not sure citing the captain of the Graf Spee is necessarily the best example, considering how his captaincy eventually turned out. ;)

OOC: "It aint whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" ;) I think Langsdorff generally did good job of playing by the rules.


By Cobdenia:
Will add the thing about passengers and crew; good touch!

Still OOC: Thanks :) Either way whichever of my nations is UN member at the time I'll vote for this one.

Slightly IC: And anyone that does take out a mechant ship against the rules will have a couple of Excruciatian Carrier Battle Groups after them :sniper: :D

Any other thoughts before I send it on it's test run?

What's the category? [i.e. what would you like your warning to read when I delete it for mis-categorization?]

It strikes me as Human Rights; the taking the civilians off ships bit, along with whole "not drowning" thing. Seems pretty human rightsy to me.

Sorry I didn't get here sooner. There are one or two points I'd like to address. Not entirely deal-breakers, but some are close to.

The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

Perhaps it shouldn't be. Might be the target of a different resolution, though.

BELIEVING, however, that unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping, particularly neutral shipping or within neutral waters, can lead to international repercussions or otherwise hazard non-belligerent shipping and civilians,

NOTING that belligerent warships may require the use of neutral ports for repairs and maintenance,

No issues with this.

The United Nations hereby,

1) DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war,

Fine.

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the three nautical miles adjoining a national coastline. Sea or ocean expanses not within this three mile limit is to be considered, for the purposes of this document, international waters,

I'm mildy concerned about this, as there are nations that are made up of archipelagos(sp?) of islands, which might have a distance between some of the islands greater than 6 nautical miles. This would mean that there are expanses of international waters in the middle of their nation.

3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority to a national government,

No particular issues with this.

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, from sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

My big concern with this clause is that it implicitly grants warships the right to visit and search merchant vessels without stating that any cause for such a search is required.

5) DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable,

Fair enough.

6) TRUSTS that all merchant shipping display the mercantile marine ensign of the nation in which the vessel is registered in an obvious position,

I'd like this better if it was somehow required that any insignia displayed must be from the vessel's registered nation.

7) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;

I'd like this better if there was some requirement to discover the vessel's cause for being in enemy waters. They may have simply drifted off course.

b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;

What would constitute reasonable cause? In the mythical land of RL, if a ship were spotted leaving Canada headed east, it could be reasonably assumed that they might be headed for England, even though their actual destination is Portugal.

c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or military naval force.

Which is why I'd like to see the clause about only flying the home nation's insignia.

8) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship,

This should be made to include allowances for the ship crew's technological capacity for repairs. Either that, or some allowance for the harbour nation to assist in keeping them on schedule.

b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar and sonar equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;

Fair enough, although radar and/or sonar may be necessary for the navigation of some vessels, such as submarines.

c) Should a merchant ship of a belligerent nation should also be berthed in the neutral port at the same time as a warship of the opposing belligerent nation, then the merchant ship shall be given 24 hours grace period before the warship leaves;

I don't really understand this. The merchant vessel will be given grace before the warship leaves. There needs to be some consideration for seaworthiness of either vessel. Perhaps it might be easier to simple enforce the separation of the two entities and their crews while docked in the same nation.

d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interred;

I'm leery about this, especially in the instance of repairs. If someone were to sabotage the repair of a warship, it could cause them to overstay the repair time, and the ship could end up interred through no fault or ill intent on their part.

e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interred

This should provide for the prisoners to be returned to the capturing vessel at the time the vessel leaves port.

Those are just my suggestions. Kivisto is not an incredible naval nation, but I hope we may have helped in some way.

Oh, and the category, in our opinion, would be free trade, as the apparent primary purpose is to protect merchant vessels, which would protect trade and trade routes. I might be wrong, but that would be our choice.

;I'm mildy concerned about this, as there are nations that are made up of archipelagos(sp?) of islands, which might have a distance between some of the islands greater than 6 nautical miles. This would mean that there are expanses of international waters in the middle of their nation.

I must admit, I did think of this, but couldn't find a way of wording it without definitions for archipelago, etc. It just seemed a bit too complicated.

My big concern with this clause is that it implicitly grants warships the right to visit and search merchant vessels without stating that any cause for such a search is required.

This is an RL thing; I don't think there needs to be any reason, AFAIK. After all, you may not know of a reason until you search the ship. No way of telling from the outside, usually.

I'd like this better if it was somehow required that any insignia displayed must be from the vessel's registered nation.
Again, you have to problem of making it too easy for the enemy, for either they fly their own ensign, or none, both of which scream "target" too obviously for my liking. I may remove this clause if the word limit comes to it; it's not really needed, I must admit.

What would constitute reasonable cause? In the mythical land of RL, if a ship were spotted leaving Canada headed east, it could be reasonably assumed that they might be headed for England, even though their actual destination is Portugal.

I was thinking of known sea lanes, being in a convoy with other ships, defensive armament, being painted in camouflage, CAM facilities. That sort of thing. Going in sort of the right direction wouldn't count; again, it comes down to the endless possibilities that I can't really define it.

This should be made to include allowances for the ship crew's technological capacity for repairs. Either that, or some allowance for the harbour nation to assist in keeping them on schedule.
That's why I ask for a team of experts who should take it into account; and it doesn't state that the nation can't provide assistance. It just doesn't explicitly state it can.

Fair enough, although radar and/or sonar may be necessary for the navigation of some vessels, such as submarines.
Actually, that's a case and point as to why sonar and radar are included; without sonar and radar, a submarine would be forced to operate on the surface (which, for all reasonable purposes, it would be anyway prior to docking if it is damaged enough to require repairs for seaworthiness). If these were repaired, it could submerge and thus it would increase it's fighting efficiency. Repairs to the pressure hull would similarly not be allowed.

I'm leery about this, especially in the instance of repairs. If someone were to sabotage the repair of a warship, it could cause them to overstay the repair time, and the ship could end up interred through no fault or ill intent on their part.
Yes, but for the an enemy to saboutage a ship in neutral waters it would need to violate the neutrality of the nation in which it is harboured, and be against this and previous resolutions. I think we have to assume that both sides play by the rules when writing resolutions...

This should provide for the prisoners to be returned to the capturing vessel at the time the vessel leaves port.
I disagree, as I feel that once PoW's enter into neutral territory, they should be interred by that nation, and not handed over to a belligerent. Internment being, theoretically, better then being a prisoner

Oh, and the category, in our opinion, would be free trade, as the apparent primary purpose is to protect merchant vessels, which would protect trade and trade routes. I might be wrong, but that would be our choice.
Maybe; I just got bored off trying to pigeonhole everything as free trade ;)

Wow! Nicely done. I think that easily addressed everything I had. I might just suggest something about probable cause for the warship to search a merchant vessel. Most of the rest I can live with.

Added a probable cause thingy; seems harmless enough.

It strikes me as Human Rights; the taking the civilians off ships bit, along with whole "not drowning" thing. Seems pretty human rightsy to me.

I'm so tired of everything being categorized as Human Rights. It's far worse than Free Trade for being a catch-all category: "Why, everybody should be safe in ships - it's a Human Right!"
"Why, everybody should be safe in movie theatres - it's a Human Right!"
"Why, everybody should be free to drive the wrong way up a one way street - it's a Human Right!"
No.

This is another case of a perfectly good idea that's written without any consideration of how it would fit into the game mechanic. In case you'd forgotten, that's an essential part of the process. Only after everyone has reviewed it and you're ready to post do you even give consideration to the one factor that will make or break the proposal.

Start over.

Pick a category (I'm thinking possibly Free Trade, but more probably International Security) and look for ways to amend this proposal so it actually fits a category. If you can't get it past me and Hack, it doesn't matter how airtight the language is. You MUST have a proper category. It's not an afterthought.

I'm inclined to say that it would most definitely be in International Security, since it is protecting neutral shipping and establishing guidelines for warships and such. Or, is there language that prohibits it from being filed in that category?

IC: We showed this on our CSPAN channel (001) (and if it's not talking, we had somebody say the things in a debate) and unlike many CSPAN (a.k.a. Govt. actions channel) and with our polls we collect from people calling in, we got a question from my Secretary of Defense. He was with our secretary of Commerce who wants me to ask you guys a quick question.

Our commerical ships have 'defensive' turrets on there front side. They sometimes use these to take out other commercial ships. Now, all they are doing is defending there markets. Would that be considered offensive or defensive?

UN Ambassador, Jerry Trimley

Uh. Are you kidding? That's damn well offensive, if not completely belligerent. Attacks from one ship under the flag of one nation usually constitute the start of a war.

Protecting your markets? By blowing the hell out of merchant ships? I'm sure as hell glad Imperial merchant vessels have shields and heavy armor.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador

We do hope the representative is just kidding. We can assure him that, should such a thing be done to a vessel under Ausserland or Wailele Island flag, it will be considered an act of war, and retaliation will be swift and certain.

Miulana Kapalaoa
Secretary of External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island

By Kivisto:
Sorry I didn't get here sooner. There are one or two points I'd like to address. Not entirely deal-breakers, but some are close to.

By Cobdenia (Proposed resolution):
The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

Perhaps it shouldn't be. Might be the target of a different resolution, though.

OOC: I'm ok with merchant shipping being a legitimate target, but as I said only with the conditions of Article 22 of the old "Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (http://www.microworks.net/pacific/road_to_war/london_treaty.htm)" in place. No "Wolf Packs". A merchant ship is a soft target at the best of times.

Another thought, would each individual merchant ship in a convoy be protected by this proposal? (I had an uncle go through a few hell convoys to Russia in WWII. All up he had ships go down underneath him 3 times.) Even if that convoy does have a navy escort...hahaha although then we would probably have situation of the navy boats hiding in the middle of the merchant ships ;)



By Cobdenia (Proposed resolution):
4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search...

By Kivisto:
My big concern with this clause is that it implicitly grants warships the right to visit and search merchant vessels without stating that any cause for such a search is required.

I think if there's a war on, that's cause enough for search.


By Havvy:

Our commerical ships have 'defensive' turrets on there front side. They sometimes use these to take out other commercial ships. Now, all they are doing is defending there markets. Would that be considered offensive or defensive?


IC: The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia slams his fist on the table, grinds his teeth and glares at the UN Ambassador of The Community of Havvy. He then makes a phone call, never taking his eyes off the Ambassador from Havvy.

After he hangs up he announces to the Ambassador from Havvy and the UN "I have ordered 3 Excruciatian Carrier Battle Groups to hunt for these particular ships from Havvy. FOR NOW the Groups just have orders to find the ships, stop them, and send our men aboard to disable the guns. Any disagreement with Excruciatia's actions shall be DEALT WITH."


OOC: Dunno about anyone else, but I think it landed in the Prez of Excruciatia's "offensive" basket? ;) It does add another angle to the proposal though, what about ships like that and/or Kormoran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Kormoran)?

I'm inclined to say that it would most definitely be in International Security, since it is protecting neutral shipping and establishing guidelines for warships and such. Or, is there language that prohibits it from being filed in that category?

No, as I don't think it would boost defence budgets and the like; my current thought is "Political Stability", which has some precedent in these matters (Right's of Neutral States) and the description goes with the proposal ("A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.")

Our commerical ships have 'defensive' turrets on there front side. They sometimes use these to take out other commercial ships. Now, all they are doing is defending there markets. Would that be considered offensive or defensive?

Effective immediately, we are barring any ships from the aforementioned nation of Havvy, either military or commercial, from Altanari waters. Any such ships that do enter our territorial waters will be impounded until they can be determined not to have a hostile intent or armaments.

In addition, Altanar must reiterate that any unprovoked hostile action against our merchant marine will be regarded as an act of war, and we reserve the right to respond accordingly.

And by the way, as you may have noticed by now from the other ambassadors' comments, this is considered highly offensive.

IC: We showed this on our CSPAN channel (001) (and if it's not talking, we had somebody say the things in a debate) and unlike many CSPAN (a.k.a. Govt. actions channel) and with our polls we collect from people calling in, we got a question from my Secretary of Defense. He was with our secretary of Commerce who wants me to ask you guys a quick question.

Our commerical ships have 'defensive' turrets on there front side. They sometimes use these to take out other commercial ships. Now, all they are doing is defending there markets. Would that be considered offensive or defensive?

UN Ambassador, Jerry Trimley

Aw, man...don't make me ring up the Death Star with another target...

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

IC: We showed this on our CSPAN channel (001) (and if it's not talking, we had somebody say the things in a debate) and unlike many CSPAN (a.k.a. Govt. actions channel) and with our polls we collect from people calling in, we got a question from my Secretary of Defense. He was with our secretary of Commerce who wants me to ask you guys a quick question.

Our commerical ships have 'defensive' turrets on there front side. They sometimes use these to take out other commercial ships. Now, all they are doing is defending there markets. Would that be considered offensive or defensive?

UN Ambassador, Jerry Trimley

Of course it f**king would be considered attacking-like, mate. You'd end up with the whole f**king 'ome fleet on your arse if ya' tried owt like tha'?

Able Seaman Jeremy "Dusty" Miller
HES Lullberry, Cholmondley Class Battlecrusier

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/summersailorbw.jpg

Right, trial run started

'Probable typo' alert for the final word...

e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interred.

If what you meant to say was that the neutral government should hold those P.O.W.s in custody until the end of the war (or until the belligerent nations agree to their release), then the word is "interned": What you've actually mandated instead of this is that the neutral government should bury them, apparently (as nothing is said about execution) while they're still alive!

Yeah, I noticed that, along with "...operating under the authority to a national government" instead of "...operating under the authority of a national government"

More glaring typo: "maritime" - you made this mistake in the submitted version too.

Bugger me sideways, I didn't notice that. I shall endevour to amend that in the next submission.

About the COMMERICIAL ships attackin' other ones. Well you see, I give great power to the commerical ships that buy there own ships by allowing them to do whatever they want with them. Unfortunatly, they have taken there privalege way to far, and I am powerless to stop them or risk an imploded economy.

Now, I'm sure that anybody that they trade with, which is unregulated, is probably barred from there attacks. They would be losing a trading partner by attacking somebody they trade with and lose money, which they don't want.

If you want though, you can seek out these ships, and destroy there arms but not destroy it's effectiveness or cargo. One of our satalite pointed out though, that they have cargo surrounding there arms.

We define arms as weapons.

Anyone who can get rid of the arms on a ship, will be given a nice 10,000 trugula check. Granted though, it will probably be taxed.

Why I ask you to do that you shall ask. It is becuase I am afraid the corporations will turn on me, and change govt. so that people have to buy from them everyday! Now, nobody in my country wants that!

Oh yes, and pointing the death star at me will be considered an act of war. Please turn it to some other unfortunate country instantly!

What you've actually mandated instead of this is that the neutral government should bury them, apparently (as nothing is said about execution) while they're still alive!Funniest typo ever.

Bugger me sideways, I didn't notice that. I shall endevour to amend that in the next submission.Would you like it deleted?

It's not a big problem; this submission is just to gage support, I haven't be telegramming this time around

Second submission (now with TG campaign! (tm)) started. Get them endorsement's in whilst there hot!

Guarenteed Typo free. I think

Guarenteed Typo free. I think

OOC: Unlike your post? I'd give you the correct spelling, but I can't spell that word myself.

OOC: Correct spelling for it is guaranteed.....:p

*whistle*

Our concerns:
- we are aware there is no standard international definition of "national waters", but three nautical miles seems terribly small: we would prefer that the twenty nautical mile claims allotted under The Law of the Sea were still recognised; there is also the issue of Exclusive Economic Zones;
- there is no prohibition on flags of convenience: therefore, where a ship is registered may be incidental to its operations;
- in 8 d), "it's" should be "its".

Three miles is just the RL (well, for WWII) limit in this sense; this limit only applies to this document, not things like fishing or the like. Flag's of conveninience, I think, are of little consequence - it's similar to flying another nation's flag. You can work out where there going by there course or location, and are thus sinkable. 8 b)...blast. Well, I've already the telegramming, so...

Three miles is just the RL (well, for WWII) limit in this sense; this limit only applies to this document, not things like fishing or the like. Flag's of conveninience, I think, are of little consequence - it's similar to flying another nation's flag. You can work out where there going by there course or location, and are thus sinkable. 8 b)...blast. Well, I've already the telegramming, so...

It's 8 D. Also, if you take out your parenthesis, you get the following: Thee miles is just the RL ...blast. Well, I've already the telegramming, so...

If I become delegate, I shall try to vote for it.

You spelled convenience wrong...

Right, might resubmit this one.

Any new thoughts that don't involve the grammar of my postings :p

Running under the assumption that the version in the first post is accurate to what you intend to use, let's see...


3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government,

It occurs to me that almost any armament could be used offensively. Not really an issue, just a thought.

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, where probable cause exists for either, from sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

I think I might have an issue with the implicit permission granted to warships to sink any ship on the water without reason so long as they secure the passengers etc beforehand.

"Right, get off the ship, we're sinking it."

"But Why?"

"What do you mean, why?"

"Surely there must be some reason for sinking my ship."

"No, not really. I just want to sink something. So, you can get off so we can keep you safe while we sink it, or stay on board and we'll sink it anyways for refusing to comply."

6) TRUSTS that all merchant shipping display the mercantile marine ensign of the nation in which the vessel is registered in an obvious position,

I still wish that this was more mandatory.

8) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:

Possibly include some exceptions for inclement weather.

e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned

I thought I had an issue with this, but it serves as an incentive for warships to stay out of neutral territory, which I don't mind.

ooc: you forgot the first "i" in Maritime :p

other than that i like this proposal.

"Right, get off the ship, we're sinking it."

"But Why?"

"What do you mean, why?"

"Surely there must be some reason for sinking my ship."

"No, not really. I just want to sink something. So, you can get off so we can keep you safe while we sink it, or stay on board and we'll sink it anyways for refusing to comply."


Attacks on neutral ships under most circumstances are prohibited by clause 7 (except under cirtain circumstances, largely if the flag is fake, or it is supplying an enemy)- as the purpose of sinking merchant vessels is largely to disrupt supplies, no reason other then this exist to sink a merchant vessel. And by sinking a merchant vessel, you are carrying this reason out. So, our theoretical captain, by just wanting to sink something, is actually doing something useful for his side of the conflict. I suppose under the wording a captain could sink one of his own countries merchant ships, but I think we can ignore that. He'd have to be off his rocker to do it...


Clause six is to be removed

Might try and include inclement weather. Because inclement is a good word and needs to be used more often

Attacks on neutral ships under most circumstances are prohibited by clause 7 (except under cirtain circumstances, largely if the flag is fake, or it is supplying an enemy)- as the purpose of sinking merchant vessels is largely to disrupt supplies, no reason other then this exist to sink a merchant vessel. And by sinking a merchant vessel, you are carrying this reason out. So, our theoretical captain, by just wanting to sink something, is actually doing something useful for his side of the conflict. I suppose under the wording a captain could sink one of his own countries merchant ships, but I think we can ignore that. He'd have to be off his rocker to do it...

Right. Images of Capt. Jack Sparrow come jumping to mind, but you are correct.

Might try and include inclement weather. Because inclement is a good word and needs to be used more often

That's as good a reason as any.

Clause 7 now reads:

PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of weather of such extreme inclemency as to threaten the life of the crew, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:

I don't know if this has been brought up, but my concern is overlapping of oceanic claims (National Waters). Sure, three miles is small, but some countries, perhaps mine included, is within only several miles of another and I don't think it would help if claims overlapped, leaving out a neutral zone. It seems to me a clause should be added specifying, in the case of, say, a six-mile boundary between nations, with each nation claiming three miles and leaving no space in between, a buffer zone of one mile in the middle of said waterway would be mandated to allow for neutral ship passage. This would be especially relevant to nations located along rivers or straits or canals, which barely stretch over three miles in distance from shore to shore. This would ensure that a neutral ship, in this example, Austrian would be able to cross through, for example, the Iron Gate of the Danube River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron Gate (Danube)) and not be attacked by either Serbia or Romania.
(I had to use a real-life reference, here, since it's the only one I have.)

This would be a good addition to this resolution and, I think, fits in perfectly. It could be called the "Overlap/Neutrality Clause."

Just a thought.

I've changed clause two to read:

2) a) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the three nautical miles adjoining a national coastline;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "international waters", for the purposes of this document, as sea or ocean expanses not within the three nautical mile limit imposed by article 2. subsection a), along with a one nautical mile wide channel in bodies of water of less then six nautical miles width bordered by two or more nations,

Added definition of offensive armaments

It has been submitted for a second trial run. Some rejigglification had to be done in order for it to fit in the word limt, so here's the current proposal

The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

BELIEVING, however, that unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping, particularly neutral shipping or within neutral waters, can lead to international repercussions or otherwise hazard non-belligerent shipping and civilians,

NOTING that belligerent warships may require the use of neutral ports for repairs and maintenance,

The United Nations hereby,

1) DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war,

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the three nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; where a body of water is less then six nautical miles wide, and bordered by two nations, a one nautical mile channel equidistant from the two national coastlines is to be considered as international waters,

3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government,

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, where probable cause exists for either, from intentionally sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

5) DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable,

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or military naval force.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of weather of such extreme inclemency as to threaten the life of the crew, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship,
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) Should a merchant ship of a belligerent nation should also be berthed in the neutral port at the same time as a warship of the opposing belligerent nation, then the merchant ship shall be given 24 hours grace period before the warship leaves;
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interred;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internies are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war. The only condition of their internment is to be that they will be prohibited from leaving the neutral nation until the cessation of hostilities.

Would we be correct in assuming that the definition of "offensively armed" has disappeared in order to comply with the word limit?

I have only one concern, and it's a very minor one. What about the case when a nuclear submarine, considered a warship under clause 3 strikes a merchant vessel by accident causing it to be incapable of navigation without prior placing of said passingers and crew in a place of safely because the crew is grossly incompitent? Not that this would ever happen in the fine navy of Retired Werepenguins, but we hear jokes about this from the ficticious "real world" all the time.

Would we be correct in assuming that the definition of "offensively armed" has disappeared in order to comply with the word limit?
Yep

I have only one concern, and it's a very minor one. What about the case when a nuclear submarine, considered a warship under clause 3 strikes a merchant vessel by accident causing it to be incapable of navigation without prior placing of said passingers and crew in a place of safely because the crew is grossly incompitent? Not that this would ever happen in the fine navy of Retired Werepenguins, but we hear jokes about this from the ficticious "real world" all the time.

If I can fit the word "intentional" into the second submission, I shall. Should sought that problem out

Made some adjustments, largely superficial

The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

BELIEVING, however, that unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping, particularly neutral shipping or within neutral waters, can lead to international repercussions or otherwise hazard non-belligerent shipping and civilians,

NOTING that belligerent warships may require the use of neutral ports for repairs and maintenance,

The United Nations hereby,

1) a)DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "merchant vessels" as non-offensively armed vessels carrying cargo or passengers,

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the three nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; where a body of water is less then six nautical miles wide, and bordered by two nations, a one nautical mile channel equidistant from the two national coastlines is to be considered as international waters,

3) a) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "offensive armaments", for the purposes of this document, as any weaponry not included in the following: close range anti-aircraft weaponry, anti-submarine devices, heavy and light machine guns, mad sheep railguns, small arms, and naval guns under two inches in diameter,

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, where probable cause exists for either, from intentionally sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

5) DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable,

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or military naval force.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of weather of such extreme inclemency as to threaten the life of the crew, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship,
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) A belligerent warship may not leave a neutral port until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant ship of an adversary
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interned;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war. The only condition of their internment is to be that they will be prohibited from leaving the neutral nation until the cessation of hostilities.

Can anyone remind me what the character limit is?

3600 characters including spaces and line breaks. If you have Microsoft Word, it can give you the number that you've currently got.

3600 characters including spaces and line breaks.

3500?

Martime Neutrality proposal

The Anarchist Alliance can not accept the part of this document that "DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable" as it doesn't discriminate between their land and sea teritories. Consequently, any vessel wanting to enter its teritories must first apply for the proper allowances, after passing wich it has the same rights as citizens of The Anarchist Alliance. Any vessel failing to comply with the borderpassing rules of The Anarchis Alliance will be viewed as an unfriendly trespasser and arrested.

Narmoth
Elected First Speaker of International Affairs of The Anarchist Alliance

Roland
Elected Marshall of The Armed Militia Defenders of The Anarchist Alliance

The definition of "national waters" in the proposal makes it entirely clear that it precisely does discriminate between the land and sea territories of a neutral nation. We are afraid we did not follow the remainder of your argument, unless perchance you see this clause as requiring that you (as a neutral nation in a conflict) were required to allow any vessel docking rights, or any land transportation vehicle within that vessal disembarkation rights at your docks. In such a case, your analysis would be in error.

Due to word limit problems, some bits have had to be cut. Currently reads as follows:

The United Nations,

REALISING that merchant shipping is considered a legitimate target in warfare,

BELIEVING, however, that unrestricted attacks on merchant shipping, particularly neutral shipping or within neutral waters, can lead to international repercussions or otherwise hazard non-belligerent shipping and civilians,

NOTING that belligerent warships may require the use of neutral ports for repairs and maintenance,

The United Nations hereby,

1) a)DEFINES “neutral shipping” as merchant vessels registered in non-belligerent nations during a time of war;
b) FURTHER DEFINES "merchant vessels" as non-offensively armed/unarmed vessels carrying cargo or passengers,

2) DEFINES “national waters”, for the purposes of this document, as the seas or ocean within the 12 nautical miles adjoining a national coastline; where a body of water is less then 25 nautical miles wide, a one nautical mile channel equidistant from the coastlines is to be considered as international waters,

3) DEFINES a “warship” as an offensively armed vessel, be it surface vessel or submarine, operating under the authority of a national government or international alliance;

4) PROHIBITS a warship, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being duly summoned, or of active resistance to visit or search, from intentionally sinking or rendering incapable of navigation a merchant vessel, be it belligerent or neutral, without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship's boats are not regarded as a place of safety,

5) DECLARES all merchant shipping, be it neutral or belligerent, within the national waters of a neutral nation to be inviolable,

6) PROHIBITS attacks on neutral shipping, except in the following circumstances:
a) When neutral shipping is within the national waters of an enemy nation;
b) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that the neutral ship is proceeding to an enemy port;
c) When there is reasonable cause to suspect that a merchant ship or warship of an enemy nation is displaying the ensign of a neutral mercantile marine or military naval force.

7) PROHIBITS belligerent warships from entering the national waters of a neutral nation under threat of internment, except in cases of extremely inclement weather, or when entering a neutral port in order to undergo repairs urgent for seaworthiness, in which case the following must be adhered to:
a) A team of nautical experts from the neutral nation are to assess the damage to the ship and estimate the maximum time required to repair the ship;
b) No repairs are to be made that will in anyway increase the fighting efficiency of the warship. This includes, but is not limited too, repairs the weaponry, re-armament, radar, sonar and asdic equipment. Only repairs to ensure seaworthiness are permitted;
c) A belligerent warship may not leave a neutral port until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant ship of an adversary;
d) Should a warship be discovered not to require any repairs, overstay the time period set for repairs, or be in neutral waters without good cause, the warship and it’s complement are to be interned;
e) Should prisoners of war be present on the warship when it docks in the neutral port, the prisoners of war are to be handed over to the neutral government and interned. Such internees are not to be considered prisoners of war, however they will be entitled to the rights entitled to prisoners of war.

Bump. I'm going to submit this with tg campaign soon, so be prepared...

Can I suggest dropping the definition of 'national waters'? National waters is something the UN should probably legislate on in due course, but it's much more complex than your brief definition clause can really allow for, and there's a danger any subsequent legislation would not work with this one. It would be better to simply say 'national waters as determined by national and international law', thereby allowing for subsequent legislation that specifically defines the scope of national waters.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

And here I was just about to say the exact same thing as Quintessence.

3 miles is ridiculously short in some cases (with the range of engagement for WWII era ships being several times that, and modern ships even more), and ridiculously long in others (the aforementioned straits, channels, or boundary areas). National waters are likely to be defined already, so I don't see a need for a specific rule in this resolution.

Plus cutting it might give you a bit more leeway with the word limit.;)

The problem with having no definition of international waters, or relying on previous, repealable, resolutions is that it leaves it open for countries to claim greater distances as national waters, and this can lead to confusion and problems (OoC: Iran does this). The range of ships is not really and issue, as it only matters in cases of neutral nations, who shouldn't be under attack judging by previous resolutions (and if they were to be attacked, the national limit is hardly going to be adhered to anyway). Similarly, these definitions are only for the purpsoes of this resolution, hence a future resolution about continental shelf fishing limitations or the distance would not be hampered by this resolution.

I am, however, going to increase the channel bit from six miles to seven miles, due to channels being a yard over sixmiles would get rather messy...

Wow. That's some tiny national waters. The Hack claims two hundred miles as our national waters.


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OoC: Just checked and discovered that the three mile limit was abolished in 1988 in favour of a 12 mile limit over which a country has soveriegnty, in addition to a 200 mile limit for the harvesting of natural resources. So I'll change it to 12

Submitted, TG campaign underway. Endorse now and get entered into the free Great KCRC giveaway

It's the happy, happy, happy, quorum dance!
Do the happy, happy, happy, quorum dance!

Congrats. But I just noticed you missed the 'n' in 'Convention'.