NationStates Jolt Archive

Setting Territorial Waters
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Aqua Anu

Description: Aware of the Repeal of “Law of the Sea” by resolution 141

Concerned with: The current default of only 12 nautical miles (22 Km) is far too small for adequate protection

Also Concerned with: the ease of hostiles parking outside with the default in times of war or tension, the ease of international pirates to operate within a tight territory control with out being in violation of laws, and other potential threats not mentioned by the lack

Proposes: For territorial boundaries to be extended to 50 miles (80 KM)

Allows for: U.N. Members to secure and enforce their borders as they see fit



Approvals: 33 (Ellenburg, WZ Forums, Ellelt UN Clone, Understood correctnes, Rokenecia, Sea Bridge, Errinundera, Lusapha, Gallantaria, Baldamundonia, Capitalist Haven, Twafflonia, Equilla Neramie, Samsom, Gauresh, Section-9, Geoff_20, Tyrionistan, The Hounddog, The Isle Monte Cristo, Basiklia, Artimuatar, Huskerpedia, The Derrak Quadrant, MacDraiocht, Tercios Viejos, Spaz Land, Natural Caus, Arendias, Radkonya, ValentineJSchwartz, Akkz, Aiej)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 85 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 6 2007





Repeal "Right to Refuse Extradition"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #103
Proposed by: Aqua Anu

Description: UN Resolution #103: Right to Refuse Extradition (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: REALZING: Not every nation believes in Capital Punishment

SHOCKED BY: The idea because a nation doesn’t believe in the Death Penalty that it would so obstruct justice

STRONGLY CONCERNED WITH: The potential for fugitives especially terrorists to use this as a safe harbor to avoid jail time or execution

CALLS FOR: The repeals of this resolution



Approvals: 18 (Gortania, NewTexas, Ellenburg, WZ Forums, Ellelt UN Clone, Understood correctnes, Lusapha, Gmaz, Compulsoria, Gauresh, Tyrionistan, Real Truth, Basiklia, MacDraiocht, Leg-ends, Arendias, Estayland, Hafun)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 100 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Jan 6 2007



Questions, Comments, Suggestions?


Delegate,

Alejandra Cannon

It might have been an idea to create two threads, one for each proposal: otherwise, it will get horrendously confusing.

Just to comment on the first one, there exists no default of 12 nautical miles. The Law of the Sea was repealed; as of now, territorial waters are undefined by the UN. Your 'also concerned' clause makes no real sense - I suspect some words are missing - and extending territorial waters makes no provision for channels narrower than 100 miles [sic? - should probably be nautical miles], not to mention other problems.

The final clause also seems rather thrown in: border security is not really something to be dealt with in a territorial water designation proposal, especially in such sweeping terms.

We'd support a proposal to set territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, but think the issue is more complex than this rather brief proposal gives the issue credit.

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

if it's not under U.N. Defining therefore it falls under International Law outside of U.N. Jurisdiction, defalting at such number. Most other nations seem to adher to a default 12, what diffrence does it make if it is undefeind by U.N. Jurisdiction

Border secutrity does fall into teritorial waters they run in the same. But Economic Zones have no concern to us right now, I'm willing to bet there is already a Resolution dealing with such. This is matter of security not trade

if it's not under U.N. Defining therefore it falls under International Law outside of U.N. Jurisdiction, defalting at such number. Most other nations seem to adher to a default 12, what diffrence does it make if it is undefeind by U.N. Jurisdiction

Border secutrity does fall into teritorial waters they run in the same. But Economic Zones have no concern to us right now, I'm willing to bet there is already a Resolution dealing with such. This is matter of security not trade

The honorable representative of Quintessence of Dust is correct on all counts. There is no "default" definition of territorial waters. Absent action by the NSUN, any nation can make any claim they want.

Border security is a completely separate issue from establishment of territorial waters. Covering them in the same proposal is inappropriate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I agree with setting national "sea boundaries" at 80 KM. Perhaps what is needed is to rewrite the draft to set "sea boundaries" at 80 km either as waters under national influence.

Ellelt has a long coast line, even if the northern part of that coastline is blocked up by pack ice 11 months out of 12. Our Western and Eastern and South-eastern coast lines would be better protected by such a measure.

VK

We'd support a proposal to set territorial waters and exclusive economic zones, but think the issue is more complex than this rather brief proposal gives the issue credit.

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

We, too, would like to see such a proposal. As Mr. Madison notes, though, it is a rather complex issue, and the proposal in question here barely scratches the surface. Rather than trying to draft two porposals at once, we would suggest that the representative from Aqua Anu focus on one at a time. Setting territorial waters and EEZs will take quite a bit of effort, and we hope that the representative from Aqua Anu will direct his full attention to getting such a worthwhile proposal to the floor.

And please don't try to repeal "Right to Refuse Extradition." It's a pretty good resolution. Besides, one of your major concerns about it, that terrorists could use it to escape justice, is negated by Resolution #168, "UN Counterterrorism Initiative (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=167)."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

why 80km or 22km? All these figures are arbitary - before any number is included in a proposal, surely there must be justification for this number? Otherwise, it's simple for people to say it shouldnt be 80km, it should be 100km, etc etc.

I'm not going to touch the second proposal, apart from to say I oppose.

You silly people and your kilometers. Heh, and your small territorial waters. Using google's handy conversion tool, it seems my zone extends for just over 321 km.

Rawr.

Why not? A wider range of 50/80 provides for better security, otherwise any old nation that wants to can park right outside in their subs or battle ships for no real reason, other than to potentially attack. These are action demonstrated by U.N. Member The United States of Independent Hitmen, whom by the way you refused to take any poltical action against, but that's another matter. A few months ago, we found and drove out two I.H. Subs from Aqua Anu waters and our ally had to drive them out of their own waters. I.H. claimed to be their rightfully under a 12mile/22K boundry. Despite best efforts to convince the sub commanders that we adhered to a boundry of 12, don't claim to me they don't adhere to one because they do.


Alejandra Cannon

Just my 2 cents...
I was reading an article about Indonesia 2 days ago (about the Indonesia new maritime minister who is working hard to map its thousands of islands and give names to the thousands of them with no names, sending teams visiting these islands with GPS and asking local people for potential culturaly used name for these islands)

Anyway, I then learned that the RL UN granted in 1985 Indonesia the special status of "archipelagic State", allowing Indonesia (in a similar way as did the repealed NS #74 The Law of the Sea)
"waters inside the archipelago to be claimed by the nation who owns it"
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:i2YGzn6yoikJ:www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/IDN_1996_Act.pdf