NationStates Jolt Archive

Maritime Borders

Category- Political Stability
Strength- Mild
Proposed by- Shesharlie, edited by St Edmundan Antarctic


AFFIRMING that nations cannot claim sovereign control over vast swathes of oceans to protect their interests,

BELIEVING that defining national and international boundaries in the seas will reduce the likelihood of international conflicts,

RECOGNIZING that nations do have the right to enforce their laws and exert their interests in bordering waters along their shores,

CONSIDERING the passed Resolutions #152 and #208,

1. DECLARES that for any nation with a coast:
a) The Baseline follows the lowest astronomical tide of a coastal nation. When the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines will be used;
b) The waters within 12 nautical miles (NM) of that nation's baseline should normally be counted as its ‘Territorial Waters’ (TW), within which it may enforce any and all of its laws;
c) The waters between 10NM and 22NM of that nation’s baseline should normally be counted as its ‘Contiguous Zone’ (CZ), within which it may enforce its laws on matters such as smuggling, illegal immigration, and maritime safety;
d) All of the waters within 150NM of that nation’s baseline should normally be counted as its ‘Economic Exploitation Zone’ (EEZ), within which it has the sole right to exploit natural resources (except that foreign vessels may use the winds and currents for travel) and has the duty to enforce relevant UN resolutions;
e) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters, and the airspace 12NM above their surfaces;

2. DECLARES that any waters totally enclosed by a single nation’s shores and/or CZ shall also be counted within that nation’s TW;

3. RECOGNIZES that nations controlling localized groups of islands that can reasonably be defined geographically as archipelagos may rule the waters between their islands, defining these as ‘Archipelagic Waters’ which hold the same status as TW, with their outer boundaries measured from the outside shores of the outermost islands;

4. DECLARES that if any nation is located solely at sea, without any significant land area, then its TW shall normally include all of the waters that its people habitually occupy and it shall have a CZ and EEZ that extend to the normal distances beyond these;

5. RECOGNIZES possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as:

a) The boundaries between the TW of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b) Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall normally be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM apart a median ‘International Waterway Zone’ (IWZ) of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as though it lay further than 150NM from either nation's shores;

6. DECLARES that, except as specified in clause 1, the laws applying on all ships, other vehicles, and offshore installations at sea shall be the laws of the nations in which those entities are registered to;

7. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits;

8. CREATES an organization called the 'Maritime Claims Commission' (MCC), and gives this the right and duty of binding arbitration in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas.
============================================================================
OOC: this is the proposal as seen on the list of proposals.

Not bad for a first attempt; and it is a topic on which we couls use legislation.
Now, let's see...

Unfortunately you can't write the line that goes immediately under the title, before the Category & Strength are defined: What goes there is an automatic response by the game's programming, which depends on the category chosen.

In clause #2, you've said "boarders" when I think you meant to say "borders".

For clause #3, some definition of "archipelago nations" might be needed.

For clause #5, there's the problem that we don't have a very wide body of 'international law': All that we've got is the resolutions, and there are a lot of important matters that they don't cover.

How would this handle interactions between UN members and non-UN nations?

clause 2 has been fixed.

for clause 3, would this be suitable?
"3a. Define an archipelago nation as a nation that governs a localized group of islands that are geographically defined as an archipelago"

and to tackle clause 5- we (or I) could spend time creating another proposal defining laws that are relevant to international waters. I think this is the best choice because this proposal is only intended to create international waters. Creating the laws that govern international waters should be done elsewhere, IMO.

Pugliasium was simply wondering if it would be possible to make exceptions in areas were the continental shelf extends further out to sea than 15 nautical miles. For instance, the Grand Banks of NewFoundland is one example, and because of this it is impossible for nations to enforce codfish protection laws.

Could the resolution bechanged to allow coastal nations to have control of their continental shelves provided that they can defend and patrol them?

Count DaCanz,
Envoy to NSUN

What about two islands that that 15 NM overlap who controls that area they both might claim.. Same with nations sharing a common land border that ends at the beach..

Then this is fine but many nations don't reside in places where every nation is a UN member thus how does this prevent conficts with those outside the UN.,.... remember there are 3 or 4 more nations not in UN than just one in it.

A small point but one to consider... just what is the exact measure of a NM... as do believe that the UN has yet to set a standard for any form of measurements. Thus is your NM is 1000 grums per mile another is 2000 grums per mile.... what do they go by add those that don't have any idea what a grum is in distance. (Grum = distance a snail crawls on a rainy day to above the heat)

Shorty Nosmarkarse
Minister of Standard Cavirra,
CEO Cavirrian Racing Snails International
"If they slow boil em add salt butter"

I would have to say maybe, Pugliasium

I actually made debate on International Waters in a high school Model UN conference at Brown University.

One of the claims was exactly as yours is. The body (I was a delegate in SPECPOL) decided against 2 resolutions that gave continental shelf rights to nations. The disputed issue was that whatever we came up with, nations with large continental shelves (such as Danish Greenland- as a RL example we encountered in session) had far more national waters granted to them because their continental shelf went for hundreds of miles...many delegates threw hissy fits.

Now on NS, it would give you great incentive to repeal this resolution if it did not include any continental shelf laws, but as i said earlier- im sure there could be a way in making an international law that could grant nations to protect the natural environment (such as the codfish) around their continental shelf.

For what you are asking- [im assuming to protect nations' environmental resources such as the fishing industry] i think the UN would have to pass a specific resolution dictating who can do what, where.

=============================================================================

What about two islands that that 15 NM overlap who controls that area they both might claim.. Same with nations sharing a common land border that ends at the beach..
Your first point is valid. If two nations had less than 15NM between them, I think there would have to be the amendment where the control is split down the middle, until there is greater than 15NM between the islands. Your second point is covered by clause 2.

and to consider your third point- UN versus non-UN. It would be outside the UN's jurisdiction to mandate this to EVERYONE. So, unfortunately- this will only apply to UN nations...unless you can come up with something better.

And to define 1 NM, i think it I would have to add what 1NM can be measured as. maybe even rename it for NSUN sake...

how does this sound?
1a. Define that 1 nautical mile be measured as as a minute of arc along a meridian of the Earth at the equator;


note: added <15NM dispute clause

As the UN has already endorsed the metric system (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=23), shouldn't you give the boundary in kilometers?

-Plutonian Ambassador Raymond Gardner

:p

As the UN has already endorsed the metric system (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=23), shouldn't you give the boundary in kilometers?

-Plutonian Ambassador Raymond Gardner

:p

well, that makes things easier!
1 nautical mile = 1852 meters = 1.852 km.

so i hope we're all cool if i round this number up to 2km?
that would change the draft to "30 km"

In principle, the Logopian Government supports this resolution. That being said, we have some concerns:

"3a. Define an archipelago nation as a nation that governs a localized group of islands that are geographically defined as an archipelago"

It is our opinion that having the defined term inside the definition doesn't really help in making the term any more clear.

We also share the concern that this proposal does not address the issue of nations whose territorial waters overlap.

On a different note, given the wide diversity of nations, species and technological levels represented in this body, we wonder if there any nations that actually live underwater; and whose territory is effectively on the ocean floor. If this is the case, shouldn't the proposal address this particular situation? I mention this only as to point out an issue the author might want to consider.

whilst a boundary is a good idea, and at a solid distance, what would happen with the judicial jurisdiction and security of offshore platforms, such as oil rigs, drilling rigs, observer stations, scientific post's, and any pipelines. whilst they belong to the company of 1 country, they may be technically in the coastal territory of another one, therefore subject to their laws, and under their protection.

Whilst is would be too complicated to deal with these issues in turn, perhaps make a clause stating that any offshore platforms that under the resolution, any offshore air assets that would lose their territorial water status as they are over the 30km limit, will remain within their existing countries territory, as will the waters 1nm around the platform. This is because these platforms could be without their nearest countries protection and could be too far away from their corporation's home nation to enjoy their protection, and with no immediate protection, they may be threatened by pirates, hippys, rivals or hostile countries.

Logopia, I believe you havent read clause 3a [which isnt on the draft yet] all that well. It attempts to define an archipelago nation not simply an archipelago. There's a difference.

Also, Logopia, you failed to take into account clause 2a, which resolves your "overlapping" issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TheCraigzone, first, let me say you have quite the way of saying things! Secondly, it would be correct to assume nation A's oil platforms that fall into nation b's waters are under nation b's laws. But, international waterway laws need to be drafted [but won't be drafted in this draft] and that is certainly something to consider.

I think the resolution as a whole is good, I would definitely come out of my inactivity and vote for it.

I have one problem though, what about already claimed ocean water?

You could try to take it away from the countries, however they would be mad.

You could let them, but it would be deemed unfair.

I'd suggest to define all past claims to be under international water law. They still belong to countries; just you are under the jurisdiction of international law.

yes, the ambassador learned his political speaking from watching reruns of yes minister and mimicking the style of sir humphrey appelbey.

i do think it the territorial situation regarding offshore platforms would need to be clarified in this resolution, and not left to a later date.

Even if my previously mentioned amendments had a time lapse on it, so companmies and countries and the UN would have the time to-

a: secure their rigs from attack.
b: resolve any ongoing legal issues,or disputes, before the platforms are removed from a countrys territory, and therefore jurisdiction.
c: clarify the position of these rigs under international law. for instance who would hold an oil company accountable for environmental damage committed by the rig, if the damage was committed in international waters.

On another seperate point, the 30 km zone is too small. At 30km, many aircraft would be only a few minuted from land, and could release their payloads before the attacked country would be allowed to defend itself.

Ok, Ive done some research and I put in some amendments that are derived from the real-life Laws of the Sea. They cover the issues of economic exploitation, sovereign control, and further clarify archipelago nations.

A small point; confidently defining the EEZ (a concept we are a little uneasy with, but don't for a moment suggest that you change) and then diffidently urging that overlapping EEZ's should be mutually redefined by the nations concerned seems a little dangerous, particularly when care has been taken in the division of potentially disputed national waters. We are particularly not keen to leave the disputed area doubly defined as the EEZ of both nations when they have not reached a mutually agreeable division, which would appear to be the current case. Of such legal contradictions are wars born.

Indeed, our concerns are adressed in the latest draft.

Im almost certain the correction of the draft was done after we posted. If this isn't the case, my apologies.

I would strongly advise against using kilometers. Nautical miles are called that for a reason. Furthermore, even in the real world, international treaties and law use nautical miles. Honestly, they just make more sense than kilometers:

A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea travel.


Speaking as a player, not as a mod, mind. Legally, either works.

Defining International versus National Waters4. Recognize that special underwater states be granted waters as defined in clause 1 in radii with the center of their complex as the focal point of the radii;



This as I read is not fair to those nations noted.... as to draw limits from the center of the complex would cut them from holding areas others have from the shoreline... thus if say a complex is exactly the set limit then their waters end at the edge of the complex or their shore.. Also how does one figure the center of a complex that is not circular... and parts may extend over 1000 of km edge to edge of it.. Your max limit is 275 KM thus at 500 Km they are short 225 KM and thus under this have no control over that area..

The waters over their complex should be consider like airspace over any land nation and theirs to control.. thus waters from the edge of the complex out should be given them as if it were shoreline. Not from the center... unless it is done from the center of a land base nation..

Also as you extend this from the original one distance to here up to 275KM you are sure to infringe on some nonUN nations waters... so how do you propose to settle disputes over this issue..


Bubbasa Hubba,
Minister of Something in Cavirra

that appeases the ambassador's concerns with the protection of offshore platforms, however it does not address non economc assets, like sea exploration beacons, or should these non economic offshore paltforms fall under the classification of EEZ as no laws protect them already and legally, they are viewed in the same way as offshore economic platforms ?

EEZ dispute issue has been addressed. It now lies in clause 2a.

I would strongly advise against using kilometers. Nautical miles are called that for a reason. Furthermore, even in the real world, international treaties and law use nautical miles. Honestly, they just make more sense than kilometers:

Speaking as a player, not as a mod, mind. Legally, either works.

I did start off with NM with the first drafts. Unfortunately there were disputes on "how to measure a NM" because it hasnt been introduced in the NSUN worlds. Since the NSUN has adopted the metric system as its standard measuring system, I felt that the km was more useful than the NM because its internationally the Standard unit in NSUN.


[...]Also as you extend this from the original one distance to here up to 275KM you are sure to infringe on some nonUN nations waters... so how do you propose to settle disputes over this issue..


Bubbasa Hubba,
Minister of Something in Cavirra

275km is in reference to the Economic Exploitation Zone. Only nations may enter that zone for economic purposes only. As I recall, nonUN nations don't have to abide by any rules set by the UN. So as far as the waters go- everything is fair game. I do understand that this only has power to moderate UN member nations.

Im not sure if there is any way to resolve disputes between nonUN and UN member nations in a UN resolution without infringing on the UN Charter. The only way to do it in my opinion is to add a clause such as "Encourages all member nations to respect these rules for non-UN nations as well."

that appeases the ambassador's concerns with the protection of offshore platforms, however it does not address non economc assets, like sea exploration beacons, or should these non economic offshore paltforms fall under the classification of EEZ as no laws protect them already and legally, they are viewed in the same way as offshore economic platforms ?

I think they'll be classified as EEZ materials such as them offshore platforms

With regard to aquatic nations: There are certainly several groups of sapient dolphins, and at least one of whales, claiming nationhood...

With regard to law in International Waters: RL practice is for the law of whatever nation a ship (or airplane, or offshore oil-rig, or whatever) is registered in to apply on that ship/airplane/rig/whatever when they're in (or over) International Waters.

With regard to nautical miles: I'm failry sure that they're already used in an earlier resolution and can therefore be taken as already defined.

im referring to fixed assets, but dont worry, as they will still be part of the EEZ of their nearest country, i dont think it should be a problem.

With regard to aquatic nations: There are certainly several groups of sapient dolphins, and at least one of whales, claiming nationhood...

With regard to law in International Waters: RL practice is for the law of whatever nation a ship (or airplane, or offshore oil-rig, or whatever) is registered in to apply on that ship/airplane/rig/whatever when they're in (or over) International Waters.

With regard to nautical miles: I'm failry sure that they're already used in an earlier resolution and can therefore be taken as already defined.

First- if you can prove these dolphins and whales have permanent structures, then they can be granted waters as under clause 4.

Second- your idea makes sense. Ill consider making an amendment to accommodate that.

Third- noted, and in the process of conversions.

well theres a seaworld, does that count?

well theres a seaworld, does that count?

adding in a clause because dolphins and whales live in seaworld would be illegal accourding to NS rules. First off, its a real-world reference. Second, its humerous- much like "the right to arm bears."

Can I make a suggestion: In maritime Neutrality, I used 12 Nm for territorial waters. I'd suggest keeping it standard. Might be worth looking at Maritime Safety standards too. Definately use Nm and not clicks. Furthermore, in Martime Neutrality, I established a channel one NM wide of International Waters in channels less then 24 nm across that are bordered by two different nations, so that there is always a way through for shipping (which is quite important in times of war).
Links to the two resolutions abovementioned.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Maritime_Safety_Standards_Act

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Maritime_Neutrality_Covention

OoC: this was almost the same as a resolution I was planning on writing. I would offer you a hand, but I'm abroad at the moment and sitting in an internet cafe. And the bloody z and y are in the wrong place. And I keep hitting the ß key which is more then a little irritating, so It'll have to wait until I get back. I'm more then a little experienced with boaty resolution ;)

Can I make a suggestion: In maritime Neutrality, I used 12 Nm for territorial waters. I'd suggest keeping it standard. Might be worth looking at Maritime Safety standards too. Definately use Nm and not clicks. Furthermore, in Martime Neutrality, I established a channel one NM wide of International Waters in channels less then 24 nm across that are bordered by two different nations, so that there is always a way through for shipping (which is quite important in times of war).
Links to the two resolutions abovementioned.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Maritime_Safety_Standards_Act

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Maritime_Neutrality_Covention

OoC: this was almost the same as a resolution I was planning on writing. I would offer you a hand, but I'm abroad at the moment and sitting in an internet cafe. And the bloody z and y are in the wrong place. And I keep hitting the ß key which is more then a little irritating, so It'll have to wait until I get back. I'm more then a little experienced with boaty resolution ;)

Thanks for this! Ill revise my draft to compliment resolutions # 152 and #208.

And I have switched the measurements to NM from km.

275km is in reference to the Economic Exploitation Zone. Only nations may enter that zone for economic purposes only. As I recall, nonUN nations don't have to abide by any rules set by the UN. So as far as the waters go- everything is fair game. I do understand that this only has power to moderate UN member nations.

Im not sure if there is any way to resolve disputes between nonUN and UN member nations in a UN resolution without infringing on the UN Charter. The only way to do it in my opinion is to add a clause such as "Encourages all member nations to respect these rules for non-UN nations as well."
This on the 275 KM is now clear however you still have not addressed the issue of how water-based nations determine their water rights verses land base. Limiting them to waters off a center point is keeping them from claiming waters they would hold if they were land based. This also opens the issue of the space over their nation since any nation may claim it if it is within their limit yet they can't as it may be outside their limit...

Again pointing to a nation with a 1000 KM circle complex thus a radii of 500 KM means that they only get the 275KM from center of that complex... thus not the 225 KM over the remainder of their complex. Also don't have any claim on the 275 KM beyond the edge/shoreline of the complx.... Then consider the separate distances and just what rights they would have to lands at those distance.. based on the terms set in your resolution.....

I would also note that not all nations are laid out in such a simple form as a circle so the above is only an example and would not fit real area held by most nations (RW or NS)...

For 6 c I would recommend 'enforce relevant international law'; there's nothing stopping the UN passing more boaty resolutions.

More comments to follow, when I have time.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

This on the 275 KM is now clear however you still have not addressed the issue of how water-based nations determine their water rights verses land base. Limiting them to waters off a center point is keeping them from claiming waters they would hold if they were land based. This also opens the issue of the space over their nation since any nation may claim it if it is within their limit yet they can't as it may be outside their limit...


This has been taken care of, see clause four.


4. Recognize that special underwater states that have permanent structures be granted waters as defined in clause 1 with the edge of their complexes as their shores. Waters directly above the complex will be considered TW;

In clause #2, you've said "boarders" when I think you meant to say "borders".

You also did that in the title, you might want to ask the mods nicely to remove the copy you've submitted and fix that before submitting again.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yes, I was well aware of my mistake, as it clearly said at the bottom of the first post.

Yes, I was well aware of my mistake, as it clearly said at the bottom of the first post.

Yes, but your most recent submission was made after you made your first post in this thread, and yet the error has yet to be corrected (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=boarders).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I understand it still needs to be corrected.
I chose not to correct it because I also made this mistake in the actual submission of the proposal. I thought- well, they're both wrong...I might as well tell everyone that im aware of it. Once the proposal on NS gets fixed/taken down, ill fix this.

And I would hope that the NS community can forgive a n00b every now and then for making a typo, WHICH they have made clear that they are aware of it.

so back off.

so back off.

Do not be alarmed, noble representative of Shesharlie. It is not the intention of the revered Mr Flibble to mate with you.

The First Singer's earphone translator squawks.

But Representative Flibble's stance makes clear that his intentions are not amatory.

Squawk.

I thought you said everything with humans was based on sex?

Squawk.

That is clearly nonsense. How can they be on heat all the time?

Squawk, squawk.

(The First Singer looks up, realises that he has the floor, and looks as embarrassed as a sentient whale can, which, in view of the amount of face he has, is quite a bit.)

I beg the Chair's indulgence. There appears to have been some miscommunication. However, to return to the subject that has brought us here today: there has been mention of a race of sentient whales being concerned about the effects of this proposal. We are, but, I should point out, not on our own behalf. We are the dominant species on our planet, though that may change in some eons, as it seems that certain land-dwelling marsupials have begun using tools ... but I digress. My point is that we face no challenge for our dominance of the waters of Worldsong, and therefore would be unaffected by the proposal.

We have, however, pre-sentient cousins who, harried by the greedy exploitation of WhaleCo and their ilk, have retreated at our urging to international waters. They are a nomadic race, as, indeed, are we. They have no structures and no place of registration; not even a "homeland", for it is our belief -- and, by our careful teaching, theirs -- that the waters of their world are their homeland.

They are in no way a nation-state yet, and we would not expect the proposer to have taken them into consideration. However, it would seem within the realm of the possible that other nations are both nomadic and seaborne. Their "structures" might well be merely a vessel on which each individual or family is housed, and their "centre" the centre of a fleet of such vessels.

I would ask the proposer, therefore, whether his Clause 4 addendum means that nomadic nations which sail the surface of the sea must therefore be at risk at any time of inadvertently sailing upon the territorial waters of any undersea nation.

I regret that it was not possible for me to reach here before the proposal was submitted -- I understand that it cannot now be further altered -- but I would appreciate it if the proposer would clarify the situation in any explanatory comments he might care to make.

I understand it still needs to be corrected.
I chose not to correct it because I also made this mistake in the actual submission of the proposal.I know that the typo is in the submitted version, that's the one I was talking about. I simply wanted to make sure you were aware of it.
I thought- well, they're both wrong...I might as well tell everyone that im aware of it. Once the proposal on NS gets fixed/taken down, ill fix this.That's all I ask.

And I would hope that the NS community can forgive a n00b every now and then for making a typo, WHICH they have made clear that they are aware of it.Actually, I'm trying to prevent you from having what happened to me, happen to you. My resolution (#109 Nuclear Armaments) has a typo in it which Word's spellcheck failed to pick up (apparently it skips words in all caps) and no one on the forums noticed until it was up for vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC
I'm taking a copy of the current draft away to work on offline, to see whether I can come up with solutions to its potential problems (with sea-based nations, overlapping EEZs, and non-UN nations): I'll try to post my ideas either tomorrow or Monday, for Shesharlie and the rest of you to consider...

ok...i think everything is settling out with the typo I made and i hope we can all cool down. The mods have promptly switched this thread title, and they removed the typo'd proposal from the list.

Since there has been some new discussion about nomadic seafaring states, and the proposal has been withdrawn, I will allow for some further revision until St Edmundan Antarctic submits his suggestions [at the latest- Monday the 10th].

[at the latest- Monday the 10th].

Just remember the international date line. Your Monday the 10th may not be QoD's or St Edmund's. It would be a pity to miss out on the advice of either of these experienced players because of a deadline.

Maritime Borders
c. Enforce the laws set by Resolutions #152 "Maritime Safety Standards Act" and #208 "Maritime Neutrality Convention and other relevant laws;"
==========================================================
OOC: This proposal was removed from the proposal list for typo revisions.

This reference to set numbers of resolutions needs to be omitted as it leaves opens grounds at some point for a repeal of this.. due to a repeal of either of the two existing resolutions at some later point.

Simply Enforce existing maritime resolutions in these areas... don't fix them to ones that may later be repealed and not exist... Or don't mention it at all as a resolution these stand on their own merit.. and if this is to ammend them then it would not be legal.. As one might say setting the boundries within which one nation (or NSUN) might enforce R152 or R209 would be ammending them since neither of these set that boundery limit in them.. and here you do and refer to them...

Okay, here are my suggestions about some possible changes for this proposal: I’ve put them into the form of a new draft, although of course you’re perfectly free to use as many or as few of them as you want without following this revised pattern…
(It should still be just within the legal limit…)


Maritime Borders

Category: Political Stability? Global Disarmament?
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Shesharlie

The United Nations,

AFFIRMING that nations cannot claim sovereign control over vast swathes of oceans to protect their interests,

BELIEVING that defining national and international boundaries in the seas will reduce the likelihood of international conflicts,

RECOGNIZING that nations do have the right to enforce their laws and exert their interests in bordering waters along their shores,

CONSIDERING the parameters set forth by Resolutions #152 and #208;

1. DECLARES that for any nation with a coast _
a. The waters within 12 nautical miles (NM) of that nation's shores should normally be counted as its ‘Territorial Waters’ (TW), within which it may enforce any and all of its laws;
b. The waters between 10NM and 22NM of that nation’s shores should normally be counted as its ‘Contiguous Zone’ (CZ), within which it may enforce its laws on matters such as smuggling, illegal immigration, and maritime safety;
c. All of the waters within 150NM of that nation’s shores should normally be counted as its ‘Economic Exploitation Zone’ (EEZ), within which it has the sole right to exploit natural resources (except that foreign vessels may use the winds and currents for propulsion) and has the right and duty to enforce relevant UN resolutions;
d. All of these zones also include the floors of those waters, and the air up to a height of 12NM above their surfaces;

2. DECLARES that any waters totally enclosed by a single nation’s shores and/or Contiguous Zone shall also be counted within that nation’s Territorial Waters;

3. RECOGNIZES that nations controlling localized groups of islands that can reasonably be defined geographically as archipelagos may rule the waters between their islands, defining these as ‘Archipelagic Waters’ which hold the same status as Territorial Waters, with their outer boundaries measured from the outside shores of the outermost islands;

4. DECLARES that if any nation is located solely at sea, without any significant land area, then its Territorial Waters shall normally include all of the waters that its people habitually occupy and it shall have a Contiguous Zone and EEZ that extend to the normal distances beyond these;

5. RECOGNISES that such territorial claims may need to be limited where they would otherwise overlap, and so declares that _
a. The boundaries between the Territorial Waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b. Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall normally be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c. Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these;
d. Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM apart a median ‘International Waterway Zone’ (IWZ) of 1 NM width shall be established between them, and will be treated as though it lay further than 150NM from either nation's shores;

6. DECLARES that, except as specified in clause #1, the laws applying aboard all ships, other vehicles, and offshore installations at sea shall be the laws of the nations in which those vehicles or installations are legally registered;

7. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with those non-UN member nations that also accept these limits;

8. CREATES an organisation called the 'Maritime Claims Commission' (MCC), and gives this the right and duty of binding arbitration in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas.


Summary of the suggested changes

Firstly, having now spent a bit longer considering the matter and bearing in mind the official definitions of the Categories, I think that as this measure is aimed at reducing international conflicts the ‘Global Disarmament’ category might be considered more appropriate than ‘Political Stability’ (as the latter is actually about increasing governments’ control over their peoples…).

I’ve left the preamble basically unchanged, apart from changing “swaths” to “swathes” (apparently both spellings are legal, but the latter is the one that I’m used to…), changing ‘KNOWING’ to ‘BELIEVING’ (again, a matter of taste…), and re-writing the clause which that word opens so that — in my opinion — it flows better.

For clause #1, I haven’t changed the actual contents significantly but have — again — altered the wording so that in my opinion it flows better. I added the bit about allowing foreign ships to use the winds & currents in EEZs, in the (probably vain) hope of preventing subsequent arguments about whether those count as “natural resources”.

My version’s clauses #2 to #4 would replace and supplement the original’s clauses # 3 & 4, to cover enclosed waters (and also, effectively, those cases where a single nation controls an entire planet…) as well as archipelagos and purely marine nations. They would now cover those aquatic nations that are actually nomadic, at least as those have “habitual” waters instead of wandering entirely at random, as well as those that include any fixed locations on sea-beds.

I’ve moved the clause about borders and overlapping claims to after those sections about special cases, instead of leaving it before them (as #2, as it was in the original), because this seemed more coherent to me, and tried to clarify the situation about overlapping claims.

Clause #5.d basically uses the definition from the ‘Maritime Neutrality Covention’, as is necessary to prevent an illegal contradiction: Unfortunately this fails to address the question of what happens when the waters between two nations aren’t even 1NM wide, but I don’t see a legal way of fixing this detail…

I’ve dropped the definition of ‘International Waters’, for now, in order to save characters for use in the other clauses. The clause about International Law being applied to the areas designated as International Waters I’ve likewise cut, for now, because of it not applying to people/ships/etc from non-UN nations.

The sub-clause encouraging “member nations to propose more laws regarding interaction, conflict, and other points of interest in International Waters” I cut to save space, because I don’t want to encourage too much UN regulation, and because they’d probably do so anyway without this urging…

I’ve dropped most of the sections about nations enforcing International Law in general and Cobdenia’s maritime resolutions in particular, because they’re superfluous: All resolutions automatically become part of all member-nations’ national law-codes, after all, and we’ve already specified where those apply…

I’ve turned the sub-clause about respecting the rights of non-member nations into a clause that only applies if those nations are following the rules, which seems fairer to me.

And I’ve added a UN agency to settle the disputes that would probably still occur…

Important Question

Do we need to specify the state of the tides at which shorelines should be defined for these purposes? After all, there are certainly areas on the RL Earth where this could make a difference of over a mile…

Okay, here are my suggestions about some possible changes for this proposal: I’ve put them into the form of a new draft, although of course you’re perfectly free to use as many or as few of them as you want without following this revised pattern…
(It should still be just within the legal limit…)





Summary of the suggested changes

Firstly, having now spent a bit longer considering the matter and bearing in mind the official definitions of the Categories, I think that as this measure is aimed at reducing international conflicts the ‘Global Disarmament’ category might be considered more appropriate than ‘Political Stability’ (as the latter is actually about increasing governments’ control over their peoples…).

I’ve left the preamble basically unchanged, apart from changing “swaths” to “swathes” (apparently both spellings are legal, but the latter is the one that I’m used to…), changing ‘KNOWING’ to ‘BELIEVING’ (again, a matter of taste…), and re-writing the clause which that word opens so that — in my opinion — it flows better.

For clause #1, I haven’t changed the actual contents significantly but have — again — altered the wording so that in my opinion it flows better. I added the bit about allowing foreign ships to use the winds & currents in EEZs, in the (probably vain) hope of preventing subsequent arguments about whether those count as “natural resources”.

My version’s clauses #2 to #4 would replace and supplement the original’s clauses # 3 & 4, to cover enclosed waters (and also, effectively, those cases where a single nation controls an entire planet…) as well as archipelagos and purely marine nations. They would now cover those aquatic nations that are actually nomadic, at least as those have “habitual” waters instead of wandering entirely at random, as well as those that include any fixed locations on sea-beds.

I’ve moved the clause about borders and overlapping claims to after those sections about special cases, instead of leaving it before them (as #2, as it was in the original), because this seemed more coherent to me, and tried to clarify the situation about overlapping claims.

Clause #5.d basically uses the definition from the ‘Maritime Neutrality Covention’, as is necessary to prevent an illegal contradiction: Unfortunately this fails to address the question of what happens when the waters between two nations aren’t even 1NM wide, but I don’t see a legal way of fixing this detail…

I’ve dropped the definition of ‘International Waters’, for now, in order to save characters for use in the other clauses. The clause about International Law being applied to the areas designated as International Waters I’ve likewise cut, for now, because of it not applying to people/ships/etc from non-UN nations.

The sub-clause encouraging “member nations to propose more laws regarding interaction, conflict, and other points of interest in International Waters” I cut to save space, because I don’t want to encourage too much UN regulation, and because they’d probably do so anyway without this urging…

I’ve dropped most of the sections about nations enforcing International Law in general and Cobdenia’s maritime resolutions in particular, because they’re superfluous: All resolutions automatically become part of all member-nations’ national law-codes, after all, and we’ve already specified where those apply…

I’ve turned the sub-clause about respecting the rights of non-member nations into a clause that only applies if those nations are following the rules, which seems fairer to me.

And I’ve added a UN agency to settle the disputes that would probably still occur…

Important Question

Do we need to specify the state of the tides at which shorelines should be defined for these purposes? After all, there are certainly areas on the RL Earth where this could make a difference of over a mile…

this is excellent! Its a whole lot better than how I explained things.
Ill assimilate it with the original...almost all of the revisions i can agree with and/or understand why.

nice job!!

I also have an answer to the tides problem...ill throw it in

This resolution is a good one. there is such need for distinguishing between a nations territorial waters and international waters.

however, The Ministry does not feel that 12 miles is a good distance to claim territory. 12 miles is simply too far. such a distance would cause much confusion for nations who border each other and who are wanting to claim parts of the same body of water. The Ministry also does not feel that regulating government action up to 150 miles off a nations borders is overkill.

At present time,The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Commonwealth of Le Terre cannot support this resolution, however if it were changed to say 3-5 miles, and that b-d of clause 1 were removed, it would have our full support.


http://i14.tinypic.com/62xxkp3.jpg

We note, with some trepidation, that despite Mr Flibble's attempts to nail his awful warning to the inside of every skull in the room, the resubmitted proposal is now "Martime Borders". None the less, we wish the ambassador well in his quest for approvals.

The Ministry does not feel that 12 miles is a good distance to claim territory. 12 miles is simply too far.Heh. The Federation claims two hundred miles. Silly UN.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

We note, with some trepidation, that despite Mr Flibble's attempts to nail his awful warning to the inside of every skull in the room, the resubmitted proposal is now "Martime Borders". None the less, we wish the ambassador well in his quest for approvals.

Mispelling is a tradition with nautical proposals; Maritime Safety Standards Act was originally submitted as "Marmite Safety Standards Act", and, of course, there is the submitted Maritime Neutrality Covention.

12 miles is a practical distance; say a ship is smuggling people, and it's a three mile limit. You discover what the ship is doing just as it leaves port. By the time you are able to intercept it, a ship doing 12 knots would only take 15 minutes to be clear of territorial waters and getting away scot free. With a 12 mile territorial limit, it would take an hour - plenty of time to launch a fast MTB or even send a patrolling destroyer or corvette and intercept the blighter.

12 miles is also used in previous resolutions. Reducing it to three would be rather confusing...

5. RECOGNISES that such territorial claims may need to be limited where they would otherwise overlap, and so declares that _
a. The boundaries between the Territorial Waters of nations that adjoin each other on coasts shall normally be straight-line continuations of their land borders;
b. Any waters where two or more nations’ claims would overlap shall normally be divided along lines mid-way between those two nations’ shores;
c. Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these;
d. Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM apart a median ‘International Waterway Zone’ (IWZ) of 1 NM width shall be established between them, and will be treated as though it lay further than 150NM from either nation's shores

This is well and good until 5d as it takes away rights to areas given in the other parts here and opens them to anyone. If the distance between my nation and nation X is just 3NM why should we allow for a 1NM open path over our waters also not have the same legal rights to control these waters any other nation does at 3NM... this in the first parts clearly gives the rights to nations to control their own and come to agreement on how that area that may overlap is controled.

One must consider national security here as a matter since it would permit warships to sit off our shore at 24NM and even much closer as they would be free to sit in these IWZ... Others nations with no such limits could keep warships at a greater distance...

Also a question comes to mind over nations with rivers as borders rather than oceans.... since believe this refers to waters not oceans or rivers any waters is covered in it.

this is excellent! Its a whole lot better than how I explained things.
Ill assimilate it with the original...almost all of the revisions i can agree with and/or understand why.

nice job!!

I also have an answer to the tides problem...I'll throw it in

I'm glad that you like (and are using) it.
Okay, your solution to the tides problem works for me... and so does your additional line about deeply-indented coasts & such.

Umm. We seem to have lost the line saying that it's the United Nations that does these things: In your earlier drafts this appeared between the preamble and the operative clauses, in my draft it preceded the preamble, but in the current draft I can't see it at all...

By the way, for future reference, if you ever want to give another nation credit for their contributions in the submitted version of a proposal (which there probably wouldn't be enough characters left to do in this one anyway, after restoring the reference to the UN, if it fails to reach quorum and you decide to make any changes before re-submitting it...) then current practice is to add a line at the very end of the text after all of the operative clauses.

Mispelling is a tradition with nautical proposals; Maritime Safety Standards Act was originally submitted as "Marmite Safety Standards Act",

*resists the temptation to draft a proposal for which the latter title would actually be accurate* ;)

This is well and good until 5d as it takes away rights to areas given in the other parts here and opens them to anyone. If the distance between my nation and nation X is just 3NM why should we allow for a 1NM open path over our waters also not have the same legal rights to control these waters any other nation does at 3NM... this in the first parts clearly gives the rights to nations to control their own and come to agreement on how that area that may overlap is controled.

One must consider national security here as a matter since it would permit warships to sit off our shore at 24NM and even much closer as they would be free to sit in these IWZ... Others nations with no such limits could keep warships at a greater distance...

I'm not particularly happy about that section, either, but unfortunately it's necessary in order to avoid contradicting the already-passed Resolution #208 'Maritime Neutrality Covention'...

Also a question comes to mind over nations with rivers as borders rather than oceans.... since believe this refers to waters not oceans or rivers any waters is covered in it.

Umm.
But the [i]title defines this proposal as being about "Maritime" borders, meaning ones in the seas, and previous Mod rulings have stated that resolutions' titles can affect how they apply...

I'm not particularly happy about that section, either, but unfortunately it's necessary in order to avoid contradicting the already-passed Resolution #208 'Maritime Neutrality Covention'...[/QUOTE}Then perhaps one needs to look at this section of this as amending 208 if it was added to accomidate that resolution in some way... thus is also illegal as it stands here.

If 208 were not present the situation would not exist to where there would be a contridiction and if this can only exist by adding to some part of 208 an explination telling of how to have both then you are amending 208 to add that explination to let this exist with 208.... even if you have not so noted resolution 208 in the proposal you clearly know there is a possible problem between the two that needs a fix.... and this is that fix...



But the [i]title defines this proposal as being about "Maritime" borders, meaning ones in the seas, and previous Mod rulings have stated that resolutions' titles can affect how they apply...We see that and this clears the question up we had on the issue of waters....;}

You can't ammend resolutions, you can only repeal and replace.

The reason for the channel is quite simple. Using the RL example of the Oresand straights, which is less then 25 NM across, if oil was discovered their, then the Swedish and Danish government could, if they so wished, build a long line of oil rigs blocking the way for shipping. Or, say you are transporting something to Poland that is illegal in Denmark and Sweden but not in Poland, then the ship would be breaking the law by entering those waters. By having a one NM channel, the ship could carry on it's merry way and deliver it's cargo.

You can't ammend resolutions, you can only repeal and replace.Then the question is this ammending resolution 208 to give it priority over this one should it pass? If so it's illegal then once 208 is repealed will there be an ammendment to get this part out?

The reason for the channel is quite simple. Using the RL example of the Oresand straights, which is less then 25 NM across, if oil was discovered their, then the Swedish and Danish government could, if they so wished, build a long line of oil rigs blocking the way for shipping. Or, say you are transporting something to Poland that is illegal in Denmark and Sweden but not in Poland, then the ship would be breaking the law by entering those waters. By having a one NM channel, the ship could carry on it's merry way and deliver it's cargo. So why should one nation be required to let illegal acts go on within their borders or in this case waters they should control. I beleive the UN has no right to change the laws of one nation to accomidate the laws of another. Thus if nations have a right to ban lollypops and a ship is found in it's waters carring them then they face trail under that nations laws. The company, nation of the ship needs to know the laws of the nations that control them or face charges when it enters those waters in violation of those laws. If it has to transport these items that are banned by another nation them move the another route.. They would have to keep their distance around those other nations with the greater water area between them.


The UN nor any other body needs to say you have to turn you head to these special cases. This is clearly a place where the UN would not be promoting national equality but descriminating against those nations with shorelines less than 25NM apart. Exposing them to greater dangers and undermining their national security..

As any crimal, terrorist. or nation might park a warship in these INW and fire missiles at that nation. Since they are closer they have the added advantage now of hitting larger richer targets that are deeper inland. That nation has no prior recourse as those ships are free to go and come as they might.


Then another point... if nation A and B are small island say both only 30NM wide and 10nm betwen them then from their shores they should have control up to 150NM as per this... that means on agreement with nation A that nation B can explore up to 110 miles off nation A shores away from the waters between them and A can also off B shores also enforce laws... should they both agree to this. Secion 5d takes these rights given prior away from them.

You give the group of islands that is a common nation full controll of all waters between those islands in it's control without consideration for a INW between those islands. Suppose the five islands have no less than 200NM between them yet clearly can claim them under this. So what about the INW in this case?

OOC: Since you used RL examples how does this work for Hawaii and mainland US then add in fact that Alaska is not connected to mainland US but they share waters.... also if US takes in say Cuba and Puerto Rico or the VI...

So why should one nation be required to let illegal acts go on within their borders or in this case waters they should control. I beleive the UN has no right to change the laws of one nation to accomidate the laws of another. Thus if nations have a right to ban lollypops and a ship is found in it's waters carring them then they face trail under that nations laws. The company, nation of the ship needs to know the laws of the nations that control them or face charges when it enters those waters in violation of those laws. If it has to transport these items that are banned by another nation them move the another route.. They would have to keep their distance around those other nations with the greater water area between them.

The waterway would not be part of that nation, or it's waters. It is international waters - where the law of the nation in which the ship is registered to apply. It is not changing their laws at all; merely reducing the area in which these laws are allowed to apply

The UN nor any other body needs to say you have to turn you head to these special cases. This is clearly a place where the UN would not be promoting national equality but descriminating against those nations with shorelines less than 25NM apart. Exposing them to greater dangers and undermining their national security..

As any crimal, terrorist. or nation might park a warship in these INW and fire missiles at that nation. Since they are closer they have the added advantage now of hitting larger richer targets that are deeper inland. That nation has no prior recourse as those ships are free to go and come as they might.

Urm...have you read Maritime Neutrality? You are perfectly allowed to sink a ship in international waters. By not having a channel (using my example) Denmark and Sweden could prohibit all ships from travelling to Poland, thus destroying the Polish economy. That seems a might unfair and giving those nations that have control of waterways an unfair advantage. You say it is descriminating against nations that have shorelines less then a certain distance apart, as it compromises their security (which it doesn't), whereas by not having it you are severely militarily and ecomically discriminating against nations that lie beyond straights. In fact, your NOT allowed to sink a ship in Neutral waters - using the Denmark Sweden example, if the ship launched it attack from Swedish waters onto Denmark, and Sweden was Neutral, the Danish couldn't do a thing about it if there wasn't a channel.

Archipelegoes have their own exemption in the resolution; the waters between the islands is classed as territorial waters (thus the waters between the Hawaiian islands would be all US Territorial Waters)

The waterway would not be part of that nation, or it's waters. It is international waters - where the law of the nation in which the ship is registered to apply. It is not changing their laws at all; merely reducing the area in which these laws are allowed to apply



Urm...have you read Maritime Neutrality? You are perfectly allowed to sink a ship in international waters. By not having a channel (using my example) Denmark and Sweden could prohibit all ships from travelling to Poland, thus destroying the Polish economy. That seems a might unfair and giving those nations that have control of waterways an unfair advantage. You say it is descriminating against nations that have shorelines less then a certain distance apart, as it compromises their security (which it doesn't), whereas by not having it you are severely militarily and ecomically discriminating against nations that lie beyond straights. In fact, your NOT allowed to sink a ship in Neutral waters - using the Denmark Sweden example, if the ship launched it attack from Swedish waters onto Denmark, and Sweden was Neutral, the Danish couldn't do a thing about it if there wasn't a channel.

Archipelegoes have their own exemption in the resolution; the waters between the islands is classed as territorial waters (thus the waters between the Hawaiian islands would be all US Territorial Waters)

You miss the point here around Hawaii and the mainland US as suppose one considers mainland US an island in itself then Hawaii and Alaska also an island all part of one main nation... add in possibility of say Guam, Cuba, VI, and PR to this massive island group... even considered an island chain.... thus an acrchipellego... which covers a massive water area.. The distances between the Islands of Hawaii is far greater than 150NM then not sure about Mainland US and Alaska thus these can claim all waters between them as TW (forgetting Canada in there and it just water between US and AK). Say this was seen as the American Islands and included all three regions... island masses. Does 208 call for an INW between islands in an archipello? If it does then another problem here as this sets those waters as TW and sets no distance on the waters between islands in this APgo.


But do not see the problem with Poland and the other nations that reguires special consideration as they have straight line control of waters as if their borders were extended and by this those waters that overlap would be under other parts that call for dividing them even or each nation making cosiderations with the other over those waters. So if Poland and the others got together and decided to share contol of those waters common to all three then under this it's their right and is incourage while this gvies that right they under 208 don't have. So more conflict here with 208 and this one.

You could claim, under this resolution, that the waters between the Hawaiian Islands is territorial. The water between the mainland US and hawaii would not (excepting 12 miles on either side), as the US is not an island, and not part of the Hawaiian archipelago group. There would not be a strip of TW between the US and Hawaii, only between the Hawaiian islands themselves due to the definition of archipelago. An archipelago is a group or cluster of islands; not bit's of one nation that happen to be seperate.

But do not see the problem with Poland and the other nations that reguires special consideration as they have straight line control of waters as if their borders were extended and by this those waters that overlap would be under other parts that call for dividing them even or each nation making cosiderations with the other over those waters. So if Poland and the others got together and decided to share contol of those waters common to all three then under this it's their right and is incourage while this gvies that right they under 208 don't have. So more conflict here with 208 and this one.

Saying that nations could have overalapping territorial waters is like saying that the US and Canada should have overlapping land borders: saying it would unfeasible would be being charitable.

Now, Snefaldia isn't a seafaring nation by any stretch of the word, but we do have a sizeable seaport and access to the sea. It's entirely possible that we might have colonies in some far-off area.

What would be the exceptions for, say, a colony or enclave entirely surrounded by extra-national waters? Say Colony A of Snefaldia is in the Sea of X. The Sea of X is part of the territorial waters of Nation B, to the league. What would be the protocal for gaining access to Colony A? Could Nation B extort Snefaldia for right-of-passage?

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

That's an interesting problem. I'd rephrase

d. Where there is a straight less 25NM across, where sea access to further nations requires shipping to travel through said straight, a median ‘International Waterway Zone’ (IWZ) of 1NM width, or in the case of a straights less then 1NM at least 1 cable, shall be established between them, and will be treated as though it lay further than 150NM from either nation's shores;

Although that is hellishly confusing. This does need to be sorted, otherwise (using an RL example) Turkey could place a stranglehold on the Ukraine and Bulgaria. In much the same way that, in my previous example, Sweden and Denmark could gang up on Poland or Latvia

I wish we were allowed diagrams in proposals...

Denmark...Since you mention it how does this effect mainland Denmark and the islands part of it's nation also some of the other nations along the Baltic have islands. Thus you have half these nations in NSUN other half not so how do you resolve this problem of who controls what. NSUN has no control over non UN members and thus if they decided Poland pays to get out then what will the UN do.




Also there is no limit on how far apart islands are before they are not considered part of a group of islands.. or a cluster as you put it. Thus America (and any island off it consider part of it) and Hawaii (as well all other islands around it) as well a Puerto Rico, Cuba, and VI could all be seen as a single island group.

OOC: One of the greatest problems with a proposal of this nation is one is trying to get a 'one shoe fits all' policy in place when it not possible. As long as NSUN membership is not total NS members then disputes will come up. The idea is to promote peacefull means of settling those disputes not incourage all to follow UN rules, since that 'all' is a minority that even between it's own can't find common ground on all problems they might face. The proposal in part is good it promotes the meeting of nations to settle disputes over this issue then it fails when it starts dictating how they settle it. As the problems are never the same for all nations just look at the Baltic Sea area and the nations around it. Suppose Sweden and Norway decide to take control of it all... While the rest claim only 1NM from their shores and the rest is open waters with each agreeing on times to fish what types fish can be caught when and how many can be caught. The solution would not be to move to the side of Norway and Sweden simply because they follow UN resolutions on this but to move Norway and Sweden in line in the area only with the other nations in it. Here if all the nations around the Baltic were to join the UN then they would be required to change a working agreement thus creating a nightmare for all involved in implementing the UN policies. If not by way of this one but by 208 now an active resolution.

The UN nor any other body needs to say you have to turn you head to these special cases. This is clearly a place where the UN would not be promoting national equality but descriminating against those nations with shorelines less than 25NM apart. Exposing them to greater dangers and undermining their national security..

As any crimal, terrorist. or nation might park a warship in these INW and fire missiles at that nation. Since they are closer they have the added advantage now of hitting larger richer targets that are deeper inland. That nation has no prior recourse as those ships are free to go and come as they might.

Sadly true... but then, unless those two nations get on very well with each other, they'd both be at risk of attacks from each other across those narrow straits anyway...

This does need to be sorted, otherwise (using an RL example) Turkey could place a stranglehold on the Ukraine and Bulgaria. In much the same way that, in my previous example, Sweden and Denmark could gang up on Poland or Latvia

Or the UN could solve this potential problem by passing my proposal on 'International Transit of Goods' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=525967)...

Actually, having thought about the matter a bit more, I think that maybe clause # 5.d of this proposal might work better if it just said that
"d) In narrow seas, ‘International Waterway Zones’ (IWZ) that do not belong to any nation may be established according to any relevant rules in other UN Resolutions;"
as this would keep us in compliance with #208 while that is in force but would allow more flexibility if it's ever repealed or if another proposal wants to tackle the problem of single nations controlling narrow straits...


Also there is no limit on how far apart islands are before they are not considered part of a group of islands.. or a cluster as you put it. Thus America (and any island off it consider part of it) and Hawaii (as well all other islands around it) as well a Puerto Rico, Cuba, and VI could all be seen as a single island group.

"Ahem!" I point out that the relevant clause in this proposal requires that the classification of islands as forming archipelagoes has to be done "reasonably"...

Good idea about d. although I'd reword it such:
"d) In narrow seas, ‘International Waterway Zones’ (IWZ) that do not belong to any nation may be established by the MCC to allow shipping to procede to further nations without travelling through territorial waters, and according to any relevant clauses in other UN Resolutions;"

Just gives the mandate to the MCC and narrows such mandate

"Ahem!" I point out that the relevant clause in this proposal requires that the classification of islands as forming archipelagoes has to be done "reasonably"...

Agreed, and if a nation was unreasonable about it, then clause 8 would come into effect.

8. CREATES an organisation called the 'Maritime Claims Commission' (MCC), and gives this the right and duty of binding arbitration in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas.

Which pretty much stops nations from being stupid (like Britain claiming that the Orkeneys, UK, channel islands, Gibraltar, the Falklnads, British Antartic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory ,the Pitcairn Island, St Helena, Tristan De Cuhna, British Virgin Island, and Bermuda as one archipelagoes and thus bringing world trade to a complete standstill.)

Approvals: 54 (WZ Forums, Kyrakkarin, Misplaced States, Jesioneka, Psycotia Island, Xarvinia-Wurttemburg, Wicked229, Grand Cavvus Islands, Yacare, Belphalas, Txiniamagna, Ellenburg, Blahminia, The Voltarum, Carsonii, The Liberation Armies, Rhomlia, Santa Maria De La Loma, Letonija, Wenukemal, Fearsome attack, LDT, The East Dogs, Nercc, United Khandins, Sumoor, Minoriteeburg, Alfegos, Jacarro, Orchistan, Jajistan, Derbb, ShuHan, Chaos pyro, Tofufreefood, Meriac, Pax-Ottomana, The Sacred Orb, Si Se Puede, Great Bights Mum, Tzardom, Imperfectia, Co-ed Showers, Artha Mirano, Silage, Sir samuel moore, Spaz Land, Studutopia, Dizziness, PINTALHURSO, Mikltk, Tirabon, Sven the Crusader, The Really Cold People)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 65 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 12 2007

Unfortunately it doesn't now look likely to reach quorum, this time, but -- especially if, as I suspect, nobody's been TGing for it -- that's a very promising number of approvals on which to build for next time around...

If anybody here happens to check the approvals received closer to the time at which this proposal would (in the absence of a MASSIVE last-minute surge in support) get removed from the list, would they please post the details in this thread.

Good idea about d. although I'd reword it such:
"d) In narrow seas, ‘International Waterway Zones’ (IWZ) that do not belong to any nation may be established by the MCC to allow shipping to procede to further nations without travelling through territorial waters, and according to any relevant clauses in other UN Resolutions;" Just gives the mandate to the MCC and narrows such mandate
I like your choice of wording for that section, but we're already very close to the maximum length allowed: We'll have to see...
(and of course it's actually up to Shesharlie, anyway...)

haha...sorry for the large gap of absence...school's been tough since it started

anyways, I actually had to cut out some words because it was too long! So adding any new information would be at the cost of other information.

Anyways, Ive been TGing this as much as i could...some people have met me saying this proposal was poorly written. The point is, with a few hours left on the proposal table, my prediction is that it won't get to quorum this time.

Itll go through another period of revision before i send it back up (with correct spelling everywhere!).

Anywhoo, I think this is doing quite well for a first-timer's proposal, eh?

haha...sorry for the large gap of absence...school's been tough since it started

anyways, I actually had to cut out some words because it was too long! So adding any new information would be at the cost of other information.

Ive been TGing this as much as i could...some people have met me saying this proposal was poorly written. The point is, with a few hours left on the proposal table, my prediction is that it won't get to quorum this time.

Itll go through another period of revision before i send it back up (with correct spelling everywhere!).

Anywhoo, I think this is doing quite well for a first-timer's proposal, eh?

anyways, I actually had to cut out some words because it was too long! So adding any new information would be at the cost of other information.

I'll take a look, and see whether I can trim a few characters from anywhere without breaking any of the existing sections.

Anyways, Ive been TGing this as much as i could...some people have met me saying this proposal was poorly written. The point is, with a few hours left on the proposal table, my prediction is that it won't get to quorum this time.

Itll go through another period of revision before i send it back up (with correct spelling everywhere!).

Anywhoo, I think this is doing quite well for a first-timer's proposal, eh?

It did EXTREMELY well.
(Of course, the fact that there had been nothing at vote in the General Assembly for a few days might have encouraged some delegates to be more generous with their approvals than would otherwise have been the case...)

Have you been told how to create the url leading to the proposal in the list of submitted ones, for inclusion in TGs, yet?