NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, phase three of my quest to become the undisputed king of boaty resolutions. This was an idea I had ages ago, simultaneously though of by Shesharlie who drafted an idea that never went to quorum (and whose permission I have to rehash the idea), pretty necessary and about as controversial as "Repeal Fight the Axis of Evil" one hopes.

Territorial Waters
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Cobdenia

Description: REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the Marine Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, (MARITIME), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie


REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabalise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the neccessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast,:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question ;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters;

3. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor whithin the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters'
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may haxard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines;

4. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths.

5. DECLARES that any waters totally enclosed by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

6. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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 channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

7. AFFIRMS that landlocked nations, except in times of war or economic sanctioning, are to be given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states,

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

9. FOUNDS the 'Maritime Claims Commission' (MCC), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jursidiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie

Some bits removed, some added on, but generally simpler

OOC: Good luck on your quest for boaty resolutions.
But in the interest of making this resolution, well, interesting...

IC: "One question.

...What about nations which reside underwater?

There (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=atlantis_capitol) are (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=atlantis_colorado) four (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=the_atlantis_alliance) nations (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=kiri_atlantis) in the UN that call themselves 'Atlantis', and may be presumed to reside underwater.

There (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=adrianaoceania) are (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=deep_oceans) also (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=greater_oceanium) 9 (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=gulf_oceana) different (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=ocean_finance) nations (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=oceanblue) in (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=reformed_oceana) the (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=south_oceana) UN (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=terra_oceanis) who has the word 'Ocean' or some deriviaite in their name, suggesting they control an entire Ocean.

That's just in the UN though. There are many other non-UN nations who also reside underwater. I just point to the UN ones because they are the ones who has the most to pay attention to here.

I admit that I made quite a big assumption when I assume that all, or even most of these nations make claims to oceans. But it is a rather simple matter of establishing a city underwater, and they may be members of the UN, so it is best to deal with that now.

The problem I see is that you define territoral waters as only waters near nations that has coasts. Anytyhing that is not territoral waters or an exclsuive water zone (which I point, nations underwater DO NOT HAVE under this proposal) becomes 'International Waters', which would therefore basically blow up these nations who basically live underwater. These underwater nations basically cannot defend their own territories (via mines), and their natural resources themselves are under threat: anyone can claim international waters and start mining in it.

Basically, they will lose territory under this proposal, and I think many oceanic UN nations would become quite shocked and start protesting and be angry as soon as they read this UN resolution. This could provoke international tensions, even warfare, which is something the UN shouldn't do.

We believe that there should be a clarification considering the status of Underwater Nations and how they relate in international law and how much juristiction they would have.

I won't vote for this unless you call it a "covention".

Category? Strength?

You know, when Hack is a feeble old man propped up in a wheelchair in the nursing home with a crocheted blanket over his knees, passers-by will occasionally hear him wheeze, "Category? Strength?"

And, on the other side of the world, my ghost will be wailing, "But you can't ameeeennnndddd! You must repeeeeeeeeaaaallll!"

(And if Cobdenia hears either of us, he'll think he's half seas over.)

First thing: your first boaty resolution founded UNSEAWORTHY, and this one will found a committee whose name implies it will have an equally narrow scope. This is going to mean every maritime resolution needing a committee is inevitably going to create a new one: wouldn't it be easier to set up a more general UN Maritime Commission (of course, it would have to be reformatted into an appropriately inane acroynym, but that's not important right now) that could be used as a point of reference for all maritime issues? (Much as the UNEA can be used for environmental ones, and the UNEAF for educational ones.) As a note, we are not saying that there shouldn't be a committee involved in this proposal - the details would be much too complex without a source of independent arbitration - but that in general, alphabet soup can be a little indigestible.

We'd welcome the preamble making note of the fact that international, that is non-territorial, waters form part of the global commons and hence that any nation's, or individual's, attempt to infringe on this constitutes an attempted appropriation of the common property of all humankind.

No issues with clause 3 except spelling and grammar: 'within', 'devices', 'hazard'. And we're on clear on whether it is meant to constitute a total ban on placing sea mines in international waters, or just on doing so 'indiscriminately'. There are some similar issues elsewhere in the proposal but they can be addressed later: 3 just stuck out a little.

Clause 4 reads oddly: I'm not sure you can 'authorise that'. Perhaps 'declares'? And perhaps it should read 'the outer limits shall be measured as the furthest point from...'.
6...
c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these;
This should perhaps include 'not to the detriment of the claims of other nations or international waters', given it seems to imply these nations can choose divisions along any lines.
7. AFFIRMS that landlocked nations, except in times of war or economic sanctioning, are to be given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states,
Hmmm, I think this will be controversial. We wouldn't necessarily oppose it, but can well imagine other nations who don't enjoy particularly cordial relations with all nations on their continent doing so. Furthermore, I think this is a little inconsistent given there is no right of safe passage through other national waters granted to coastal nations.

I'm not saying drop the clause, but it seems awfully slightly dealt with, whereas there are surely many, many considerations needed: can they choose any path to the sea? Does it override a nation's right to decide who and what can enter and leave their country? What restrictions are there on a nation accessing the sea for an activity that would be legal under their jurisdiction but not under that of the nation they need to bypass?
8. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits;
This could also encourage member nations to reach similar agreements with non-members.

Finally: what about archipelagic waters? Are they to be treated as internal seas?

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

7. AFFIRMS that landlocked nations, except in times of war or economic sanctioning, are to be given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states,


How does this (if at all) apply to trade tariffs? Our ports do some international trade and our railways carry the good out. Does this mean that we can't charge for it, or can tax the goods?

Nigel Youlkin
USP UN Ambassdor

I'm glad to see this idea revived, and will try to find the time in which to comment in more detail tomorrow.
Might posting a link to Shesharlie's thread on the matter here, so that people can see what points were already discussed back then, be a good idea?

I would like to echo the advice of Ambassador Madison. Use this opportunity to establish a more broadly empowered committee (UN Maritime Commission) that can be referenced by future boaty resolutions.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Might posting a link to Shesharlie's thread on the matter here, so that people can see what points were already discussed back then, be a good idea?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537426

OOC: Good luck on your quest for boaty resolutions.
But in the interest of making this resolution, well, interesting...

IC: "One question.

...What about nations which reside underwater?

There (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=atlantis_capitol) are (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=atlantis_colorado) four (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=the_atlantis_alliance) nations (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=kiri_atlantis) in the UN that call themselves 'Atlantis', and may be presumed to reside underwater.

There (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=adrianaoceania) are (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=deep_oceans) also (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=greater_oceanium) 9 (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=gulf_oceana) different (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=ocean_finance) nations (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=oceanblue) in (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=reformed_oceana) the (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=south_oceana) UN (http://www.nationstates.net/99062/page=display_nation/nation=terra_oceanis) who has the word 'Ocean' or some deriviaite in their name, suggesting they control an entire Ocean.

That's just in the UN though. There are many other non-UN nations who also reside underwater. I just point to the UN ones because they are the ones who has the most to pay attention to here.

I admit that I made quite a big assumption when I assume that all, or even most of these nations make claims to oceans. But it is a rather simple matter of establishing a city underwater, and they may be members of the UN, so it is best to deal with that now.

The problem I see is that you define territoral waters as only waters near nations that has coasts. Anytyhing that is not territoral waters or an exclsuive water zone (which I point, nations underwater DO NOT HAVE under this proposal) becomes 'International Waters', which would therefore basically blow up these nations who basically live underwater. These underwater nations basically cannot defend their own territories (via mines), and their natural resources themselves are under threat: anyone can claim international waters and start mining in it.

Basically, they will lose territory under this proposal, and I think many oceanic UN nations would become quite shocked and start protesting and be angry as soon as they read this UN resolution. This could provoke international tensions, even warfare, which is something the UN shouldn't do.

We believe that there should be a clarification considering the status of Underwater Nations and how they relate in international law and how much juristiction they would have.


I'll see what I can do, but I'm not going to loose sleep over 13 votes.

First thing: your first boaty resolution founded UNSEAWORTHY, and this one will found a committee whose name implies it will have an equally narrow scope. This is going to mean every maritime resolution needing a committee is inevitably going to create a new one: wouldn't it be easier to set up a more general UN Maritime Commission (of course, it would have to be reformatted into an appropriately inane acroynym, but that's not important right now) that could be used as a point of reference for all maritime issues? (Much as the UNEA can be used for environmental ones, and the UNEAF for educational ones.) As a note, we are not saying that there shouldn't be a committee involved in this proposal - the details would be much too complex without a source of independent arbitration - but that in general, alphabet soup can be a little indigestible.

Agree, will come up with something.

Hmmm, I think this will be controversial. We wouldn't necessarily oppose it, but can well imagine other nations who don't enjoy particularly cordial relations with all nations on their continent doing so. Furthermore, I think this is a little inconsistent given there is no right of safe passage through other national waters granted to coastal nations.

Yeah, I might drop that. It's the passage most likely to go if it surpasses the word limit.

Finally: what about archipelagic waters? Are they to be treated as internal seas?
Only if the islands are less then 25 NM apart; they are exempted from the clause concerning international channels. Just makes life simpler, really.

This could also encourage member nations to reach similar agreements with non-members.

Fair point

This should perhaps include 'not to the detriment of the claims of other nations or international waters', given it seems to imply these nations can choose divisions along any lines.
Fair point

Yeah, I might drop that. It's the passage most likely to go if it surpasses the word limit.Hmm, I don't know. What if?:

ENCOURAGES member nations neighboring landlocked nations to grant said nations free-access rights to and from the sea, excepting cases of war or economic sanctions;I tried inserting the "without taxation of traffic through transit states ..." language in there, but couldn't make it fit just right. Would "free-access rights" translate to "tax-free"?

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast,:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question ;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters;

3. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters'
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines;

4. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths.

5. DECLARES that any waters totally enclosed by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

6. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations or encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

7. ENCOURAGES member nations neighbouring landlocked nations to grant said nations free-access rights to and from the sea without taxation of traffic, excepting cases of war or economic sanctions;

8. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members;

9. FOUNDS the UN Maritime Commission (UNMC), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie

Trying to think of something better the UNMC...

Hmm, I don't know. What if?:

I tried inserting the "without taxation of traffic through transit states ..." language in there, but couldn't make it fit just right. Would "free-access rights" translate to "tax-free"?


Wouldn't be the first time it's happened but maybe I'm missing the point, what does it have to do with in international waters resolution. It seems more like transit practices to me. Again if I'm missing something obvious that ties it into international waters.

Because otherwise landlocked nations will be crying "Unfair".

Incidentally, I've come up with Committee for United Nations Transport & Shipping, but I think I can do bettet...

Tough crap, geography sucks like that sometimes.

Are we saying that a country that has ports must allow neighboring nations to use those ports free of charge?

It only encourages that, and it only affects taxation. You can charge them for using your railways, your ports, harbour fees, but not tarrifs on the goods. If you go along with it.

Gotcha. Makes sense. Not particularly fond of it but I see how that ties back to international waters now.

On thing on this great proposal, but what about ice? Would this proposal consider it water? Ice may be made from water, but it is more like land, you can have permanent settlements in the further northern reaches, of the well, in the colder areas of the general mishmash that is the undefinable place that NS nations reside. Ice should be claimable, as it is far different from ocean. If someone wants to build on it, who are we to stop them, it helps solve the problem of world overcrowding, one way or another. Just putting my two cents in.

I've come up with Committee for United Nations Transport & ShippingNo.

Okay then. I'll change it to the Shipping, Harbours, and International Transport Society...

Also no.

You also can't use Federated United Convention for Keeping Oceans Free of Fiends.

Dagnammit; have to stick with boring old UNMC...

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast,:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question ;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters;

3. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters'
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines;

4. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths.

5. DECLARES that any waters totally enclosed by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

6. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations or encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

7. ENCOURAGES member nations neighbouring landlocked nations to grant said nations free-access rights to and from the sea without taxation of traffic, excepting cases of war or economic sanctions;

8. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members;

9. FOUNDS the UN Maritime Commission (UNMC), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie

Your numbering of clauses now omits a "2".

Re clause #4: I can see what you're trying to say, but think that maybe the way in which the territorial waters of undersea nations are defined could stand a slight improvement.

Re clause #5: "shall" or "are to be", not "shall are to be"?
Also, I'd suggest changing this to cover areas of water that are surrounded by a single nation's territorial waters (as defined in the previous clauses) rather than by its actual shores, to cover any cases where a body of water has openings out into the wider seas but these are controlled by a single nation that also owns all of that sea's shores. (What I'm thinking of here is situations like the RL Roman Empire's control of the Mediterranean: This wasn't entirely enclosed by the Empire's shores, because of the straits at Gibraltar and the Dardannelles that linked it to other seas, but both sets of straits are narrow enough that they'd have fallen within the Empire's territorial waters if those were defined according to clauses #3 & #4...)

Re clause #6.c: I'd suggest replacing the word "or" in "as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations or encroach onto international waters;" with "and do not".

Re clause #6.d: I still think that any such median channel should only be imposed if those nations' shores are also more than some minimum distance (such as, at least, 2 or 3 NM) apart.
In fact, as your proposal is currently written, wouldn't any pairs of nations whose shores are currently less than 1 NM apart at any points actually be forced to widen the intervening bodies of water in order to comply with this clause?
I presume that the purpose of this clause was to keep pairs of nations from blocking the passage of foreign shipping through any straits that lie between them, but as currently written wouldn't it also create channels of international waters along those lines where the current borders between the territorial waters of pairs of nations that also have land borders run in from the 12 NM line to the coast? Was this intentional?

I'm another person suggesting that clause #7 should be cut, and handled in a a separate ('Free Trade') proposal. In fact, it would be covered by my own proposal on 'International Transit of Goods' (Edit: which I''ve just re-submitted, using another puppet, as the list was short enough at the moment that I could reasonably hope any delegates looking for ideas to approve wouldn't quit before getting to it) if that ever gets to quorum...

As currently written, wouldn't clause #9 actually empower the UNMC (or whatever you end up calling it) to arbitrate in ALL disputes over "national jurisdiction" rather than just ones involving maritime territorial claims?

7. ENCOURAGES member nations neighboring landlocked nations to grant said nations free-access rights to and from the sea without taxation of traffic, excepting cases of war or economic sanctions

*President Vladimir Stands*

Karshkovia can NOT support this draft. We are a land bordering on the sea, and while we have quite good relations with our neighbors, we will not be forced to allow another nation to have access to and use our ports.

This draft force nations like ourselves to allow land locked nations to land military equipment, including nuclear, Biological, and chemical weapons in our ports and on our shores....weapons that may be used against us!

Karshkovia will support this resolution if article 7 is removed.

This draft force nations like ourselves to allow land locked nations to land military equipment, including nuclear, Biological, and chemical weapons in our ports and on our shores....weapons that may be used against us!

No, it doesn't. It ENCOURAGES you to do it. It also encourages you not to tax them. But if you want, you can do both (unless the military equipment includes whitegoods -- military fridges and stoves? -- for which the UN most reprehensibly passed a free trade resolution a while ago, or anything else the Free Trade mob has forced onto us).

What I'd be tempted to do is let the military equipment through, tax it for every last dollar, and then use the money to bribe all other surrounding landlocked countries to deal messily and terminally with your aggressor nation -- I mean, it's in their own interests to do so, you're a port, you might let them have free passage. And it keeps your own folk away from all that untidy warfare.

President Vladimir, our noble if somewhat stuffy colleagues are all very careful with words. "Encourages" and "recommends" and "implores" and "suggests" and such terms can pretty much be read as, "You don't have to if you don't want to, but we'd really, really like it if you did."

--Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

OOC: Karshkovia, what's written above is IC, as you can tell from the attribution. It's from my President, who is more than a little loopy about a lot of things, including free trade. So nothing there is any sort of mod ruling, okay?

OOC: No problems here :) I'm a pretty easy going guy.

IC: Ah, yes, I can see your point. I was more against the original wording but the 'encouraging' changes our stance.

Trade good, yes I could understand allowing them through... we just have port fees, docking fees, import of dangerous weapons fees, hazardous material fees... Oh I can see this being a very GOOD resolution!

Landlocked nations could always dig an underground access to the ocean and then build a platform in international waters that reaches underwater to the tunnels. The platforms could then claim a part of the ocean as part of their domain. So you ship to this platform, it takes the goods down an elevator to the bottom of the ocean and into a tunnel access and then shipped by some bullet train/subway to the landlocked nation, then up an elevator and then distributed to the population like any other normal nation. This way, landlocked nations can also develop a navy to protect their assets.

Shouldn't there be a provision for UN members which occupy an entire planet, with no other nations present?

Landlocked nations could always dig an underground access to the ocean and then build a platform in international waters that reaches underwater to the tunnels.

"...You know how expensive and unenvorimentally friendly that is?! It would be highly impratical to do so. You could very well just claim you could mine fish on land if you think very hard."
---Dr. Bob.

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast,:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters;

3. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters'
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines;

4. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths.

5. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

6. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

8. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members;

9. FOUNDS the UN Maritime Commission (UNMC), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie

I think I've got the acronym: Maritime Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, or MARITIME!

EDIT: how does one add a poll? Daft question, but then I only just discovered the multiquote button

I think I've got the acronym: Maritime Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, or MARITIME!Dude, you can't have the first word be the same as the acronym! Do you never watch Jon Stewart? :D

EDIT: how does one add a poll? Daft question, but then I only just discovered the multiquote buttonGo to "Thread Tools" at the top of the page, click to drop down menu. "Add a Poll" should be one of the options.

Cheers:

National Waters: With Added Poll Goodness!

Delighted as we are to see the back of clause 7 (guaranteed to lose our vote no matter how conditionally it was written, we fear), the subsequent clauses need renumbering again.

If we may pre-emptively poke a separate question, one which we have no particular disagreement with but can forsee howls of outrage in the offing, might we ask why the Exclusive Economic Zone is considered appropriate and necessary? And why 200 nautical miles?

Delighted as we are to see the back of clause 7 (guaranteed to lose our vote no matter how conditionally it was written, we fear), the subsequent clauses need renumbering again.

Yeah, that'll get sorted

If we may pre-emptively poke a separate question, one which we have no particular disagreement with but can forsee howls of outrage in the offing, might we ask why the Exclusive Economic Zone is considered appropriate and necessary? And why 200 nautical miles?

It's to sort out the problem of who has the right to drill oil, fish, mine deep sea manganese nodules. Obviously, we can't have a free for all (OoC: Britain went to war with Iceland three times in the seventies over fishing rights) for reasons of the management of fisheries, but we can't limit it to the 12 mile limit as most of the best goodies are further out then that. Why 200 NM? Basically, there are no goodies that you don't get 200 NM from land that you find 300 NM from land, on the whole.

OoC: And because it's the distance used in RL. It's all pretty arbitrary, I could go for 100NM, I could go for 1,000,000NM. Same goes for territorial claims. Hence sticking to the RL measures - no reason why not, and I'm sure there are reasons they came up with 200NM that I don't know about or don't really care about..

It's to sort out the problem of who has the right to drill oil, fish, mine deep sea manganese nodules. Obviously, we can't have a free for all (OoC: Britain went to war with Iceland three times in the seventies over fishing rights)
OOC: for some value of 'war' that didn't include any actual shooting, if I recall correctly
for reasons of the management of fisheries, but we can't limit it to the 12 mile limit as most of the best goodies are further out then that. Why 200 NM? Basically, there are no goodies that you don't get 200 NM from land that you find 300 NM from land, on the whole.
IC: As we said, we have no objections to this, we merely thought it wise to rehearse the argument before less rational objectors required pacifying.

OOC: for some value of 'war' that didn't include any actual shooting, if I recall correctly


OoC: I think there might have been a bit of "put that codfish down or we might consider firing a warning shot across your bows", but not much more. War was declared, I believe, but both sides held off for negotiations.

Dude, you can't have the first word be the same as the acronym! Do you never watch Jon Stewart? :D

So we'd be dealing with Maritime Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, or Nambla?

Shouldn't there be a provision for UN members which occupy an entire planet, with no other nations present?

Doesn't clause #5 cover their situation?

Doesn't clause #5 cover their situation?
It does now ;)

So we'd be dealing with Maritime Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, or Nambla?

I am now very, very tempted to put that!

Clause 5 may also cover those underwater colonies, if they define shore as their little installation on the ocean floor. But then again, I'm not an underwater colony, so I don't know how they'll be sastified.

Doesn't clause #5 cover their situation?

It does now, which is good... Was getting me worried before... But I could support this now.

Clause 5 may also cover those underwater colonies, if they define shore as their little installation on the ocean floor. But then again, I'm not an underwater colony, so I don't know how they'll be sastified.

Clause 4 includes that. 5 wouldn't usually...

We believe the idea was once brought before the council and failed for many reasons.. One was the fact it left out nations existing underwater as well as forget not all nations reside on a single planet or that not all worlds that are part ocean and lands.... some worlds have no water at all others are all water.. others are some where out there just off cloud nine.... in the shadow realms of neverworld... so this doesn't apply to all UN member nations and needs to be left to each nation to deal with as they find needed based on individual national needs.. We would be more concerned with the claiming of areas of open space between our home planet than waters between the land masses on it...


Also this will conflict with existing treaties between members and non members on usage of existing ports in their regions.. thus since the UN has no control over waters claimed by non members then to declare one solution to who uses and controls them is not possible.

One of the thoughts on underwater worlds came up in prior was defining their waters from the so called borders of the world and forgetting waters over them... as it gave them waters from the edge but left open waters over them for others to claim... due to the range one nation might claim under the proposal presented.

Also there was some questions on right of ways for land locked nations or nations needing to travel through waters legally claimed by other nations to get to open waters.. from port locked in on at least tree sides by land masses not open waters as the right of way extened to cover the full area claimed by another nation under the proposal..


Sir Paulo VeHinnie,
Minister of Oceanomics Cavirrian Trade Unions,
Captain of the GSS Soosloow, X111V

We believe the idea was once brought before the council and failed for many reasons.. One was the fact it left out nations existing underwater as well as forget not all nations reside on a single planet or that not all worlds that are part ocean and lands.... some worlds have no water at all others are all water.. others are some where out there just off cloud nine.... in the shadow realms of neverworld... so this doesn't apply to all UN member nations and needs to be left to each nation to deal with as they find needed based on individual national needs.. We would be more concerned with the claiming of areas of open space between our home planet than waters between the land masses on it...

Undersea nations have been taken into account, as have all sea/all land planets. This resolution isn't concerned with space, nor should it be.


Also this will conflict with existing treaties between members and non members on usage of existing ports in their regions..

Not neccessarily

c) Nations with overlapping claims may voluntarily agree to divisions along other lines than these, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;

thus since the UN has no control over waters claimed by non members then to declare one solution to who uses and controls them is not possible.

And as they aren't in the UN, you can ignore their claims of soveriegnty and territoriality

One of the thoughts on underwater worlds came up in prior was defining their waters from the so called borders of the world and forgetting waters over them... as it gave them waters from the edge but left open waters over them for others to claim... due to the range one nation might claim under the proposal presented.

a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;

Also there was some questions on right of ways for land locked nations or nations needing to travel through waters legally claimed by other nations to get to open waters.. from port locked in on at least tree sides by land masses not open waters as the right of way extened to cover the full area claimed by another nation under the proposal..

The clause about 1NM channels prevents this in most circumstances; other issues of rights of passage are outside the perogative of this resolution, and I believe are being dealt with by another resolution by St Edmund.

Clause 4 includes that. 5 wouldn't usually...

Oops. Didn't see that. Anyway, now fully in support.

---Dr. Bob

Landlocked nations could always dig an underground access to the ocean and then build a platform in international waters that reaches underwater to the tunnels. The platforms could then claim a part of the ocean as part of their domain. So you ship to this platform, it takes the goods down an elevator to the bottom of the ocean and into a tunnel access and then shipped by some bullet train/subway to the landlocked nation, then up an elevator and then distributed to the population like any other normal nation. This way, landlocked nations can also develop a navy to protect their assets.

Ah, but digging under a nations borders could be construed as an hostile act. The hypothetical Land-Locked Nation could use to stage troops and then dig up into the country above. While it is very laughable that any nation would think of wasting money in such a way, there is nothing preventing the nation which the tunnels were dug under from collapsing them, or 'fuming them out' with nerve gas to 'get rid of rodents'.

But it is silly talk, da?

DA!

When one drinks a lot of vodka, one can say many things!!! Hooah!

Ah, but digging under a nations borders could be construed as an hostile act. The hypothetical Land-Locked Nation could use to stage troops and then dig up into the country above. While it is very laughable that any nation would think of wasting money in such a way, there is nothing preventing the nation which the tunnels were dug under from collapsing them, or 'fuming them out' with nerve gas to 'get rid of rodents'.

But it is silly talk, da?

*rips up plans and tosses them in the trash*

Curses, foiled again!
_______________________________________
General Gobb of the Tired Goblins.

And as they aren't in the UN, you can ignore their claims of soveriegnty and territoriality

Tell this to the members who must work with non UN members to survive because of where they are in this world of ours.

The UN is to promote peace not encourage war especialy with non member nations who outnumber them and control far larger areas of this world..

Start stepping on their toes and you may find a boot up your rear... and the UN will not be there to pull it out only watch it drive deeper in...

We should not promore ideas that drive them to be against us but to live in peace with us and your very tone would drive them far from us. As if the UN condones such then they can expect non members to return the respect given them in such actions as suggested here.


Sir Paulo VeHinnie,
Minister of Oceanomics Cavirrian Trade Unions,
Captain of the GSS Soosloow, X111V


<<<Sends an aide into the office of General Gobb of the Tired Goblins to empty his trach can....>>>

<<<Sends an aide into the office of General Gobb of the Tired Goblins to empty his trach can....>>>

Too late, I already emptied it.

Scruffy
Janitor
UN Building Management

Tell this to the members who must work with non UN members to survive because of where they are in this world of ours.

The UN is to promote peace not encourage war especialy with non member nations who outnumber them and control far larger areas of this world..

Start stepping on their toes and you may find a boot up your rear... and the UN will not be there to pull it out only watch it drive deeper in...

We should not promore ideas that drive them to be against us but to live in peace with us and your very tone would drive them far from us. As if the UN condones such then they can expect non members to return the respect given them in such actions as suggested here.


Sir Paulo VeHinnie,
Minister of Oceanomics Cavirrian Trade Unions,
Captain of the GSS Soosloow, X111V


<<<Sends an aide into the office of General Gobb of the Tired Goblins to empty his trach can....>>>


I see, and how, pray, is the current situation any better? Currently, there is nothing stopping a UN member or a non-UN member claiming ridiculously large swathes of Oceanic territory as territorial waters and getting belligerent when a ship trespasses onto "their waters". This resolution will prevent UN nations from doing so; a situation notably better then the status quo. I'd also bring your attention to the following article:

8. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members;

Note, it is only an encouraging clause, so you can respect their possible ludicrous claims if you so wish

Submitted:

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the Marine Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, (MARITIME), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie


Approval link:http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=waters (Territorial Waters)

You've still got this little tangle of words included...

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

And there should be an apostrophe before the 's' in "nation's"

Oh, and wouldn't reading this clause literally mean that any nations containing any such enclosed waters wouldn't be entitled to any other territorial waters, in any seas to which they shared access?

My suggested re-write of this clause, if you feel like getting the current draft pulled from the list for tidying up, would be either
4. DECLARES that any bodies of water that are bordered by only a single nation’s shores shall be included within that nation's territorial waters;
-- which is closest to what you were trying to say -- or
4. DECLARES that any bodies of water that are bordered by only a single nation’s territorial waters, as those are defined in the preceding clauses, shall also be included within that nation's territorial waters; which I personally would prefer.

You've still got this little tangle of words included...

It wouldn't be a Cobdenia wet resolution without a cock up. :D

I don't think it's too major, the meanings clear, and it doesn't effectively mean something that I didn't intend...

Nice boaty resolution, old boy. Here's hoping it gets to vote so I can bring my nation's brave but profane naval defenders to the debate.

This should be going to vote at the next update. I'm not sure if Cobdenia intended to start a new thread or use this one. If this becomes the Official AT VOTE thread then the thread title needs to be changed since it was submitted as Territorial Waters, not National Waters.

Territorial Waters

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.


Category: Political Stability


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Cobdenia

Description: REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilise international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The United Nations hereby,

1. DECLARES that, for any nation with a coast:
a) The waters within 12 nautical miles of that nation's sea border should normally be counted as its 'Territorial Water', over which the nation shall have sovereign control and may enforce any and all laws of the nation in question. Waters above undersea nations are to be considered territorial in addition to those extending beyond the sea border;
b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;
c) All of these zones also include the floors of those waters.

2. PROCLAIMS that waters that are neither territorial nor within the exclusive economic zone be considered 'International Waters';
a) National jurisdiction is to be extended to vessels registered in that nation traversing, and on offshore installations located in, international waters and the exclusive economic zone;
b) Nations are prohibited from intentionally placing devises that may hazard shipping indiscriminately in international waters, including but not limited to sea mines.

3. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths,

4. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the Marine Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive, (MARITIME), and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

Co-authored by Shesharlie

Approvals: 128 (The Artic Republics, Lythus, Baruk-Azhik, WZ Forums, Solar Vengance, Letonija, Unlucke, Keelon, Doofinia, Sanguinis Lands, East Gatodor, Hollowmenphobia, Zarbli, Iron Felix, Stribog, New Alboria, Trey Nation, ZTN, Vampire Drummer, Kattia, Niatland, The Earthen People, Nouveau Le Mans, Ithania, Graalium, The Land of the Pun, Khalnar, Flibbleites, Jayshua, Polonezia, Cardinal Chase, Tyrantstan, Extremation, Yshurak, GodKing I, Ellenburg, Park of state, No Taxes, Lothkar, Zealotopia, Tekato, Kristonion, Disillusioned Peoples, Adelie Penguinity, New Hamilton, Midbar, Amplusterra, Mousehold Heath, Punggol, Kayikistan, Grave Danger, Egy Nemzet, Caesarea Philippi, Neo Ozia, LithuanianEmpire, Jedi States, Auevia, The Digital Network, Wee Free peeps, Mikkeroonia, Th3 Neutral Planet, Gates of Fire, The Sobani, Azerbajerkistan, Iucunditas, Voyles, TheGreatHarmon, Miahland, East Ying, Foward Unto Dawn, Praeland, Psycotia Island, Northern Clivonia, Chuck Norris Haters, Fruity Oat, Daitezen, Sancte Michael, Vom53, Moe-zambique, The Third Farr, The Rhinoceros, Fabingrad, Comnemnus, Dimotopia, Pointing Crazy Monkeys, Vampire Piggies, Antigony, Gummertia, Waterana, Jey, Satanic warfare, Cool Hippies, Kungpaomao, Simond, Ducaliantia, Accident Prone, Saltcourcia, Sarkra, Asyhlo AO, Jedi Soccer Players, Great British Islands, Nurdia, Rubina, Zauberdragon, Paleotopia, Post Texas, New Steelton, Herrebrugh, Erese, Yderia II, COMUNI, Jajistan, Crados, Slices Right, Lunar Destiny, Sarejavo, Misplaced States, Alpacadom, Koshlandia, East Hylia, Norwedenland, Kayloria, Aztec National League, New Androssia, Skenderbeg, Niveus Vesica, Dlefsrednas, Montav)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Resolution is up for vote as of now.

Speaking as the Acting Delegate for Reformed Oceania I must indicate I cannot support this Resolution as it currently stands, but would support it absolutely and fervently with amendment.

Our region in particular has from time to time has seen some of its more senior nations extend their territorial claims for the purposes of protecting natural sanctuaries or preventing the trafficking of human forced labour.

Allowing exceptions for the aforementioned cases would prevent any objection from our end. Of course, it would be necessary that some kind of review process be considered so that this not become a loophole to undermine the resolution entirely.

[signed]
Dr Ivana Flemmings
Chairman of Regional Council
Acting Delegate to United Nations

OOC comment

Oops! Can't understand how I missed this detail earlier...
I realise that it's now too late to change anything, given that the proposal is actually at vote, but isn't it in the wrong category? 'Political Stability' is supposed to cover reducing the political freedoms of individuals within nations, not tensions between nations, isn't it?

the mods haven't complained in the past, polstab was used in diplomatic immunity and neutral shipping
excuse shit typing, using ps3 as computer is kaput

There seemed to be a change at the Palentine Delegation. Insted of the usual suspects, a large portable aquarium was in its place. Inside the glass walls, a couple of dolphins were swimming. At first, some of the delegates to the snake pit...err... General Assembly were shocked. Why would that bastion of barbaric militant machismo(TM), that fountain of unwholesome depravity, that antithesis of all things good, decent and pure, The Palentine, allow such creatures that are well known to be cute, cuddly and beloved by children everywhere to debate in its place? A few residents of the Antarctic Oasis were not as suprised. They were quite familiar with THESE dolphins, and to be frank, a little nervous about what was to transpire. The rest of the assembly gasped in horror, as the Thessadorian Ambassador made her way into the hall, and was greeted by a raucious chorus, from the dolphins.
"WOOOOOOOOO! <CENSORED><BLEEP> Abso<BAD WORD>lutely out<BLEEPING>standing! Show us your<VILE WORD><BEEP><BLEEPING><FILTHY WORD>, Baby!

After the small pod finally calmed down with a few more choice profanities that I dare not mention, One of the dolphins swam up to a waterproof microphone that was set up for their use.

"Greetings you<FOUL WORD><FILTHY WORD><NASTY WORD> Wankers! I'm Admiral of the Red, Nolly ,of the Palentine Naval Dolphin Sqaudron. I'm abso<GROSS WORD>lutely <EXPLITVE DELETED> happy, to cast the <BLEEPING> Palentine vote <BLEEP><BLEEPING><BLEEP> FOR, the <VERY VILE AND GROSS WORD><ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACT> resolution.

Miss Sakura Yamamoto, the ambassador from Neo Kirisubo had her universal translator keyed to learning mode for now and listened to the English translations of the speeches. She had to stifle a chuckle at the bleeped out speech from the Palentine delegation although.

She walked to the stand wearing a light pink flowery kimono tied with a black and red obi the way a man would do so and made her speech in slightly accented English.

"Honourable members of the NSUN General Assembly. The Neo Kirisuban Space Federation will be casting their vote for this well thought out resolution.

We are a space fairing people but our twinned homeworlds have our provinces separated by water. So we can understand the need for this.

The nations of the NSUN resident on Earth will surely benefit from this."

Her speech was short and she made her way back to the seat she occupied.

the mods haven't complained in the past, polstab was used in diplomatic immunity and neutral shipping

OOC: Curiouser and curiouser...

excuse shit typing, using ps3 as computer is kaput
Excused, of course.

Agregorn is against this resolution, for personal reasons (we are considering war with a nation that has a substantial coast, and granting them more land would make them harder to anihilate). This law grants an unfair advantage to large nations or nations that are primarily coastal. We believe the borders of a nation extend (politically) to the edge of their land. In the case of such unique nations as Atlantis, their boarders can only extend to where they are able to control themselves underwater. As such, they may lay claim to shipping routes and charge fees accordingly. I'd like to see them try to control the skies though. Such issues are fodder for complex arguments, and will only entice hostility that presently exists. I move for a law that would grant rights of passage to other nations through more neutral areas (such as oceans and airspace), but still secure the strictly defined boarders of other nations, including the mermaids and other derisively unique sentients.

Agregorn is against this resolution, for personal reasons (we are considering war with a nation that has a substantial coast, and granting them more land would make them harder to anihilate).

Your government's desire to make it easier to launch a war against another nation is no reason for us to vote against a resolution.

This law grants an unfair advantage to large nations or nations that are primarily coastal.

Do you care to explain how it grants an unfair advantage? As it stands now, nations can claim pretty much whatever they want as their territorial waters.

We believe the borders of a nation extend (politically) to the edge of their land.

Does that mean that you don't believe your borders extend over the waters around your nation? In that case, we'll start sending our fishing fleets, resource extraction ships, and colony survey ships your way. I'm sure your government won't mind...after all, your borders only extend to the edge of your land, right?

Of course, we're only being sarcastic here; Altanar respects the territorial boundaries (including the waters) of other nations. But do you see why the idea that borders only extend to the land is a really bad one?

Such issues are fodder for complex arguments, and will only entice hostility that presently exists.

That potential already exists, as again, nations can claim pretty much whatever they please as their territorial waters right now without any form of regulation.

Altanar is in favor of this resolution. The exact extent of the territorial waters around our lands, as well as those of our neighbors, are currently the subject of a serious international dispute. This resolution would codify the extent of territorial waters under international law, which we feel is sorely needed.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

*The Federation of Arctic Countries's representive stands up*

We are in favour of this resolution that will be all

*sits down*

Agregorn is against this resolution, for personal reasons (we are considering war with a nation that has a substantial coast, and granting them more land would make them harder to anihilate). This law grants an unfair advantage to large nations or nations that are primarily coastal. We believe the borders of a nation extend (politically) to the edge of their land. In the case of such unique nations as Atlantis, their boarders can only extend to where they are able to control themselves underwater. As such, they may lay claim to shipping routes and charge fees accordingly. I'd like to see them try to control the skies though. Such issues are fodder for complex arguments, and will only entice hostility that presently exists. I move for a law that would grant rights of passage to other nations through more neutral areas (such as oceans and airspace), but still secure the strictly defined boarders of other nations, including the mermaids and other derisively unique sentients.

Admiral Nolly casts a eye over at the delegate and says,
"Well <CENSORED><BLEEPING><BLEEP> excuse me for<YOWZAH> swimming! You don't <FOUL WORD> want nations to <BLEEPING><BLEEP> control more land? Well <FILTHY WORD> guess what <BAD WORD> genuis? As things stand now, any <VERY VILE WORD><CENSORED> nation can claim as much of the<BLEEPING> sea as they want. The <EXPLITIVE DELETED> Cobdenian ambassador is <FILTHY WORD><GROSS WORD><MAN, THATS DIRTY> trying to keep that from <CENSORED> happening with this <ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACT> resolution.

(OOC: for some of you not familiar with the dolphins, they aquired sentience after getting inducted in the Palentine Navy to protect them under the repealed Protection of Dolphins Act. Unfortunately they picked up their speech patterns from being exposed to many Chief Petty Officers and Gunny Sgts. Thus they became the foul mouthed scourge of the southern Antarctic oceans...just ask the Kawaiian Nuncio:D)

............wow. My fellow delegates I applaud our Dolphin friends, that made alot more sense than they usually do.

Specifically, when constituent islands may be separated by more than 12 NM? In the specific case of the islands of Outer Micronesia, a 20NM Territorial Waters would cut it, but 12 NM would allow for gaps in our territorial sovereignty. Seems a bit awkward.

Comments from the Author, Cobdenia, or others?

Willy, Ambassador Emeritus, Outer Micronesia

d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

For all intents and purposes your nation is considered all one unit, with it's farthest reaches as it's borders.

For all intents and purposes your nation is considered all one unit, with it's farthest reaches as it's borders.

I thank my honored colleague of The Dourian Embassy. Is this "for all intents and purposes" explicitly framed somewhere in the proposal and I'm just missing it? Certainly possible as I'm working on a caffeine deficit...

I will vote AGAINST this resolution as it takes territory away from U.N. nations and puts the taken territory up for grabs for non-U.N. members who don't have to obey this resolution. There is too much of a chance for non-U.N. military dictatorships to expand with this resolution.

What if a national monument such as a giant statue resided in or over the water and another nation right next to you would technically have it in their territory? Would the line be changed or what. Also what if there are nations that float in the water somewhere? I see no mention of these.

We've chosen to vote against this resolution. We object to clause 1c, or to be specific, the size of 1c, as compared to 1a. 200 nautical miles is a rather vast territory, and while, economically sound, enforcing that distance is nearly impossible militarily, and trying to enforce it with one's navy would even seem to be against 1a, which lists the territorial distance as 12 nautical miles.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

I will vote AGAINST this resolution as it takes territory away from U.N. nations and puts the taken territory up for grabs for non-U.N. members who don't have to obey this resolution. There is too much of a chance for non-U.N. military dictatorships to expand with this resolution.


Judge Norton and Joebot had been hidden behind their desk when Norton slowly raised his head above it.

He was wearing an army surplus helmet on which he had attatched a five star General's insigna and decorated it with twigs an leaves to simulate jungle cammoflague. Except he wasn't in the jungle. He was looking through an ancient pair of binoculars at the Qwertuiland delegation. He then began giving flight path tragectories to Joebot who was kneeling beside a mortar-like cannon with a dandelion poking out from beneath his helmet. The bore was at least five times that of a regular mortar, but it was a mortar none the less.

"Inclination, 57 degrees. Time of flight 4.8 seconds. Impact time, .67 seconds. Fuse timer set at 3.7 seconds." Norton said as Joebot fiddled with the charge he was preparing to load. "Wait for it. Wait for it. Wai...NOW!"

The charge slid down the barrel and erupted back out the other end after it struck the anvil in the breech. As the shell screamed through the air, Norton reached over to a radio he had handy and flipped it on. "The Ride of the Valkyries" began blaring from its speakers, as the shell reached its maximum height and began to plummit towards the Qwertuilands.

Shortly before it was doomed to impact the delegation it exploded releasing a pile of rubber chickens on those beneath it. Norton turned off the radio.

"Your arguments have been addressed by the Altanarians. I suggest you think first before speaking again, or should I bring out the egg launcher?

Have a nice day."

We've chosen to vote against this resolution. We object to clause 1c, or to be specific, the size of 1c, as compared to 1a. 200 nautical miles is a rather vast territory, and while, economically sound, enforcing that distance is nearly impossible militarily, and trying to enforce it with one's navy would even seem to be against 1a, which lists the territorial distance as 12 nautical miles.


I believe you are referring to section 1b.

You don't have to maintain all 200NM's. Section 1b states:

All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;

You are entitled to use as much of that water as you can to harvest natural resources. Anything you can't maintain is classified as international waters. To be perfectly honest, if you can't get enough resources out of 100NM you should seriously rethink your harvesting techniques.

You'd be correct, I meant 1b. Clearly I need new contacts. Now if only Her Divine Majesty would see fit to send me supplies, including my contacts...

I think, however, you misunderstood me. Frankly, I think 200NM is much, much too large. 100 would have been fine. We have no issue with harvesting enough, in fact, I'm informed our current methods only use approximately 75 miles or so, anyway. What we are, however, is jealously protective of things that belong to us. We'd see it as our duty to... police those extra waters to be certain no one else is trying to use them.

Simply put, there are nations that will be effected by this legislation that will require more than 100NM. I see how you would want to protect that which you are entitled to, but if it is beyond your means, do you not think it would be better left alone until such time as you have a sufficient naval force to police an area that size?

Make no mistake, it is a large area but it is necessary to satisfy all needs. And I hardly think anyone will be particularly interested in using your waters when they would have such a large area of their own.

and if my neighbors are all non-UN members who have outlandish claims and express the desire to claim whatever region I give up because of this resolution? Should this not have a clause referring to claims made amongst UN nations and that with non-UN members we can still make other claims?

For example, I stop a UN member ship 20 miles off my coast and we both agree that this is international waters, but seconds later I stop a non-UN member ship at the exact same spot and I can express violation of my sovereign territorial waters.... I would wish this clause or something allowing this contingency be included. Otherwise, this is one law that my confederal oversight will veto and over-rule and since we are part of a greater confederation and that they provide my foreign affairs policy, we end up being between a rock and a hard place. Remember, we are only one member of this huge confederation, and the only one who has been allowed to be a UN member, semi-autonomy only goes so far; and they argue that we are not really a region per se but rather an ambassadorial department which controls land and has similar accoutrements of your typical autonomous nation-state. Please help us, because we would rather keep control of our border patrols and keep flying our sovereign flag for our security forces which protect our seazone claims than have them all fly the flag of our confederal association.

and if my neighbors are all non-UN members who have outlandish claims and express the desire to claim whatever region I give up because of this resolution? Should this not have a clause referring to claims made amongst UN nations and that with non-UN members we can still make other claims?

I really couldn't make heads or tails out of what you just said for the most part, so I'm going to try to take a stab at what I think you're concerned about. Feel free to correct me if I'm off base.

If you're wanting a UN resolution to explicitly spell out what a UN member can demand of a non-member in regards to the resolution's subject, you're out of luck. Since UN resolutions have no effect on non-members, there's really no point for the resolution to spell out what you can do when dealing with a non-member; hopefully your government is capable enough of figuring that out for itself, for your nation's sake. And as already pointed out, there is this clause:

6. ENCOURAGES member nations to respect these rules in their interactions with non-UN member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

You can try to negotiate with your non-member neighbors to get them to agree to follow international law, or come to some other form of understanding on what your territorial waters shall be. That's really a matter to resolve with your neighbors, though, and if they're not UN members, it's not within our purview to make them play nice with you. As for your seeming concern about your "confederal association" responding to this negatively towards you, that's definitely not a UN problem to solve; you'd either need to fix those issues on your own by talking to your "confederal association", or stop being part of it.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I really couldn't make heads or tails out of what you just said for the most part,<snip>]


I'm glad I wasn't the only one.

Frankly, I think 200NM is much, much too large.

OOC: I suspect that's mainly there because it's what the EEZ is in RL. Easily recognisable.

I see how you would want to protect that which you are entitled to, but if it is beyond your means, do you not think it would be better left alone until such time as you have a sufficient naval force to police an area that size?
Not precisely a wise idea. That which isn't strictly enforced and claimed from the start is often seen as simply giving up the rights to such things. To start with a policy of not policing such areas, then others come in, claim it, work that area... They can make a strong argument that any claim to those areas they're working is null and void, since we didn't enforce it from the get-go. It's more work, and much more hassle, for our navy, which, I must say, isn't precisely our strongest area.

Further, any nation that requires more than 100NM must either have an incredibly vast population with a very small shoreline.. or incredibly inefficient harvesting methods. The first indicates all sorts of other problems they probably have, the second, well, that can be remedied by trade and some proper advances. From other nations, of course, few Karians would risk impurity by visiting said nations.

Serifina Karin

OOC: I suspect that's mainly there because it's what the EEZ is in RL. Easily recognisable.
OOC: I'm not surprised, but just because something's there in an RL Law or equivalent doesn't mean it has to be the same here.

Apart from the fact that the intention behind this resolution that attempts to regulate international versus national Territorial Waters is sound, the idea that 12 nautical miles is enough for any nation to claim as its own, is way too few. We realize that there are small nations that would love to have the additional space and would disagree.

However, the idea that a nation attempting a hostile act can get within 12 miles of your shores before you can lodge a protest, is way too dangerous to consider. Further, nations without the environmental consciousness, may attempt to use these international waters for dumping grounds, destroying the ecosystems and creating a plethora of pestilences in the aftermath by claiming they were not within the borders of the nation they used for the dump site.

We also feel that these United Nations should have been consulted in the drafting of this resolution to hammer out what would be acceptable in terms of how far or how close a nation's territorial waters extend.

In conclusion, from a nation that champions political freedoms, we find that a proposal like this that restricts them arbitrarily, to keep the peace, is in fact doing just the opposite.

Therefore, we are voting against this resolution.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

Not precisely a wise idea. That which isn't strictly enforced and claimed from the start is often seen as simply giving up the rights to such things. To start with a policy of not policing such areas, then others come in, claim it, work that area... They can make a strong argument that any claim to those areas they're working is null and void, since we didn't enforce it from the get-go. It's more work, and much more hassle, for our navy, which, I must say, isn't precisely our strongest area.




Why would a nation waste the time and effort to go out of their way to use your waters when we both have established that they likely have more than they need already?

Specifically, when constituent islands may be separated by more than 12 NM? In the specific case of the islands of Outer Micronesia, a 20NM Territorial Waters would cut it, but 12 NM would allow for gaps in our territorial sovereignty. Seems a bit awkward.
Comments from the Author, Cobdenia, or others?
Willy, Ambassador Emeritus, Outer Micronesia
For all intents and purposes your nation is considered all one unit, with it's farthest reaches as it's borders.
Lacking further confirmation or elaboration beyond vague quote above from our esteemed colleague from The Dourian Embassy, the Gentle Peoples of Outer Micronesia will be voting and campaigning against.

Willy, Ambassador Emeritus, Outer Micronesia

*snip*

OOC: Sorry, I replied to your post and went to work. I just got back.

IC: The truth of the matter is it's not explicitly stated, but the resolution allows enough leeway for you to define waters between your constituent islands as your own territory.

That which isn't strictly enforced and claimed from the start is often seen as simply giving up the rights to such things. To start with a policy of not policing such areas, then others come in, claim it, work that area... They can make a strong argument that any claim to those areas they're working is null and void, since we didn't enforce it from the get-go.

With respect, we'd disagree with this interpretation. A UN member could try to make such a claim against you, but they're still bound by the terms of the resolution if it passes, regardless of whether or not you immediately enforce it. That doesn't change unless you give them explicit permission to be in your waters, no matter whether or not they think you "gave" your rights up simply because you didn't blow their ships out of the water immediately.

Apart from the fact that the intention behind this resolution that attempts to regulate international versus national Territorial Waters is sound, the idea that 12 nautical miles is enough for any nation to claim as its own, is way too few. We realize that there are small nations that would love to have the additional space and would disagree. However, the idea that a nation attempting a hostile act can get within 12 miles of your shores before you can lodge a protest, is way too dangerous to consider.

Right now, a hostile nation can get as close as they want to without any codified international law to give you grounds for protest. How is that any better? Right now, your nation could claim that the waters for 1 kajillion miles around your nation belong to you, and another nation could just look at that and go, "meh", and build an oil rig on your beach, and under international law, you have no recourse. Please clarify for me how that's a better state of affairs, because I can't see it. And if you think the boundary should be greater than 12 NM, I predict that would be a nonstarter, as some nation or other would object about it being too large.

Further, nations without the environmental consciousness, may attempt to use these international waters for dumping grounds, destroying the ecosystems and creating a plethora of pestilences in the aftermath by claiming they were not within the borders of the nation they used for the dump site.

With no regulation whatsoever in international law concerning territorial waters, a nation can just disregard what you claim to be your waters, and do whatever they please. This includes polluting. And again, under international law, your nation would have no recourse at all.

We also feel that these United Nations should have been consulted in the drafting of this resolution to hammer out what would be acceptable in terms of how far or how close a nation's territorial waters extend.

I am quite sure that the author of this resolution spent time posting drafts of this resolution before putting it up for vote. Did you comment at that time?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Altanar pretty much covered it. Take issue with any part of this you want, but saying it doesn't go far enough when people can currently go up to your beaches and shake their butts at you as long as they're on the water is kinda... dumb. There are currently NO international laws governing oceanic territory, so anything is an improvement. I feel this resolution in particular is a fantastic improvement.

I'd like to add that no one anywhere can use the ocean for dumping anything because of R34 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029700&postcount=35). That point is entirely moot.

I'd like to add that no one anywhere can use the ocean for dumping anything because of R34 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029700&postcount=35). That point is entirely moot.[/QUOTE]

Whos to say you cant do that over land borders anyway.

Also there seems to be nothing said about the enviroment. The ocean currents will never give a dam about borders just like migrating animals. This is one of the main reasons i voted against this. Someone can overfish stock in internation or national waters without a dam as it is not anothers territory.

Economically it could be concluded because nation A is overfishing nation B might as well take all thats left as soon as possible.

Why not use tectonic plates as borders where possible where there is alot less aquatic transfer as well as establish "No take zones" where nothing can be moved or taken for the future economy and enviroment of nations

Lacking further confirmation or elaboration beyond vague quote above from our esteemed colleague from The Dourian Embassy, the Gentle Peoples of Outer Micronesia will be voting and campaigning against.

Willy, Ambassador Emeritus, Outer Micronesia

okay, basically if 2 islands are 24nm apart or less then the waters between them are territorial .if more then 24nm apart then there is gap. so as long as none of your islands is more then 24nm from another all the waters you occupy are territorial. its not perfect as i'd rather have all archipelago waters territorial, but it would have been too complicated and there is a word limit

200nm was chosen as eez as any number would be arbitrary so i thought it best to stick to rl. plus itmeans nation's can conserve deep water species more easily if they want

Thanks for the clarification. Still seems a bit weak in this regard. I will consult with our Minister of Seaways and our Naval leaders and determine if a change in vote is required.

3 Reasons I'm against this bill.

Real life is meaningless in this game. NM? Isn't Resolution #24 still on the books and would require this bill to use metric in describing distance rather than nautical miles? WTF are NM anyway, my nation doesn't use that measurement. Country borders aren't set in stone in Nationstates. Where can I see a map of my nation relative to others.

This resolution only locks out UN members from certain waters while non UN members are free to explore for all the natural resources they can handle.

I can't tell if I'm going to gain power overall, I figure that it is more likely that a select few nations will have gains while mine and most others have moderate losses. Countries that do not have shores have no claim to these exploratory regions. Countries with the largest shore-lines benefit more than others.

I object to the concept that the UN has the right to decide territory, especially in a manner like this that implies theft from those who may own the waters in question.

i vote for as my nation is landlocked, and the ocean makes my people angry. Blue is too good a color, someone should put forth a resoution that the ocean should be officially recognised as black not blue.

The Royal Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations is busy preparing for the christening party of Ambassador's newborn twins to analyze or even translate the resolution at vote. As such, we ABSTAIN from voting in this resolution.

Adam di Sadalucco
Translator at the Royal Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations

PS. If anybody has any ideas or experience in party planning, kindly drop by our office. Thank you.

OOC. Don't fully understand the resolution, though I have this instinct to vote against, but I'm not voting unless I have thought about it or can fully justify my position... so I just said they are preparing for a party. But the party is for real. If you have any ideas/advice for RPing a party in the UN, kindly send me your thoughts via TG. Thank you.
:D

Nigel stands up why do I always have to follow the nutters? he thought.

My fellow colleagues I rise to day in support of this resolution as it is thoughtfully laid out and equally beneficial to all. Furthermore I would like to respectfully point out to some assembled here today that "Because the Non-UN nations won't like it" is not a viable argument.

OOC: crap. The Nutters comment wasn't meant for our friends from Brutland and Norden.
OOC: Don't worry, s'all fine. That was due to a timewarp. :)

EDIT: OMG more timewarp! :D

OOC: crap. The Nutters comment wasn't meant for our friends from Brutland and Norden.

I object to the concept that the UN has the right to decide territory, especially in a manner like this that implies theft from those who may own the waters in question.

Theft? How in the seven hells does it imply theft at all? As things stand now, no one can make a claim that they "own" any waters at all (not without using brute force and hoping they have more of it than the other guy, anyway). Theft is a crime, and for something to be a crime, there has to be a law in place that makes it a crime. Right now, there is no such law in place regarding territorial waters, so no nation "owns" any waters on a legitimate basis in international law, and therefore nothing can be "stolen" from them. This resolution would actually define territorial waters and EEZs under international law, providing a legal basis for you to call something theft.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

This is one of the main reasons i voted against this. Someone can overfish stock in internation or national waters without a dam as it is not anothers territory.

Nations can do that now, because there is no clear definition of what international or national waters are. If this resolution passes, at least there will be clearly delineated boundaries within which nations can manage the environment properly within their own territorial waters and EEZs, rather than the mucked-up mess that exists now.

Why not use tectonic plates as borders where possible where there is alot less aquatic transfer as well as establish "No take zones" where nothing can be moved or taken for the future economy and enviroment of nations

Tectonic plates are vast areas, which don't conform at all with national boundaries. Using them as borders would be about as useful as using a toothpick as a prosthetic leg for an elephant. As for the "no take zones" idea, nations would (I imagine) be free to do that within their territorial waters and EEZs if they chose to. Doing that on a broader scale, however, is entirely too intrusive in the affairs of member states.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Sir Bodsworth walks to the podium, hurriedly flipping through a reference manual.

"Ah ha! Here it is...in case of rubber chicken-filled bombs or other explosives, make sure to wear a....seriously? The best defense is a green sombrero? Ok...and when dealing with foul-mouthed cetapods...either distract them with a female of the same species, or invite them to partake in one of their favorite, sailor activities, such as drinking, singing while drunk, oogling opposite-gender specimen, or telling tale tales of their exploits..."

Sir Bodsworth glances up, realizing he just read that outloud to the entire assembly.

"Umm...yes...always be prepared! The Neutrino's Guide to the Impossible! Pick yours up today in the Tanulari offices...make that the bar! Now, to business...

Ahem...honored delegates, we proudly support this beautifully crafted and worded resolution. Both our lawyers and grammer teachers cried upon reading it. The lawyers said, quote "There aren't enough loopholes for us to use! NOOOOOO!" The grammer teachers, quote "This author needs to be sent back to pre-school! He writes like a blind drunk! Redundancy and poor language skills!"

We have taken these as signs of a wonderful peace of legislation! We salute the writer and all who helped with the draft as marvelously talented...whatevers!"

Sir Bodsworth picks up the book and begins to flip through it as he walks away; the mic picks up his mumbling:

"When weasels start eating UN delegates..."

Judge Norton and Joebot had been hidden behind their desk when Norton slowly raised his head above it.

He was wearing an army surplus helmet on which he had attatched a five star General's insigna and decorated it with twigs an leaves to simulate jungle cammoflague. Except he wasn't in the jungle. He was looking through an ancient pair of binoculars at the Qwertuiland delegation. He then began giving flight path tragectories to Joebot who was kneeling beside a mortar-like cannon with a dandelion poking out from beneath his helmet. The bore was at least five times that of a regular mortar, but it was a mortar none the less.

"Inclination, 57 degrees. Time of flight 4.8 seconds. Impact time, .67 seconds. Fuse timer set at 3.7 seconds." Norton said as Joebot fiddled with the charge he was preparing to load. "Wait for it. Wait for it. Wai...NOW!"

The charge slid down the barrel and erupted back out the other end after it struck the anvil in the breech. As the shell screamed through the air, Norton reached over to a radio he had handy and flipped it on. "The Ride of the Valkyries" began blaring from its speakers, as the shell reached its maximum height and began to plummit towards the Qwertuilands.

Shortly before it was doomed to impact the delegation it exploded releasing a pile of rubber chickens on those beneath it. Norton turned off the radio.

"Your arguments have been addressed by the Altanarians. I suggest you think first before speaking again, or should I bring out the egg launcher?

Have a nice day."


It'd be called AGREEING with the Altanarians.

I support this resolution 100%

b^.^d

Why would a nation waste the time and effort to go out of their way to use your waters when we both have established that they likely have more than they need already?

Greed. Or rare resources found only in Karian waters. Or any other of a hundred possible reasons.

Greed. Or rare resources found only in Karian waters. Or any other of a hundred possible reasons.

I would point out to the esteemed ambassador from Karianis that as it stands now there is nothing stopping any nations from getting to those rare resources.


Nigel Youlkin.

Theft? How in the seven hells does it imply theft at all? As things stand now, no one can make a claim that they "own" any waters at all (not without using brute force and hoping they have more of it than the other guy, anyway). Theft is a crime, and for something to be a crime, there has to be a law in place that makes it a crime. Right now, there is no such law in place regarding territorial waters, so no nation "owns" any waters on a legitimate basis in international law, and therefore nothing can be "stolen" from them. This resolution would actually define territorial waters and EEZs under international law, providing a legal basis for you to call something theft.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Theft is a matter of taking the property of another. It exists whether a law does or not. Do you have taxes? then you engage in theft, whether you define taxes as a crime as not. Theft is an action separate from its legal classification.

I am speaking of theft from private companies who have established fenced fish farms and such things in various waters. By splitting them up this way, whichever party gets them can steal the fish farm.

and there might not be a UN law, but there are definitely national laws for those who have already made claim to various waters.

Theft is a matter of taking the property of another. It exists whether a law does or not.

Wrong (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft). Theft is defined as "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it; an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property". An action cannot be felonious or unlawful without a law saying it is, and someone willing to enforce it.

Do you have taxes? then you engage in theft, whether you define taxes as a crime as not. Theft is an action separate from its legal classification.

Again, your definition of theft is wrong. And your point about taxes makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I am speaking of theft from private companies who have established fenced fish farms and such things in various waters. By splitting them up this way, whichever party gets them can steal the fish farm.

Unfortunately, I'm not overly sympathetic to companies who just chose to plop their fish farms or whatnot wherever they chose, without being cognizant of where they were putting them. I also don't think that this would be a huge problem. More to the point, we consider this to be a distinctly minor issue that does not merit defeating this resolution. We remain confident that private business and local governments can resolve such disputes in good spirit and like adults.

and there might not be a UN law, but there are definitely national laws for those who have already made claim to various waters.

So you may have a national law about your waters. Why should anyone else care that you do? Why should Altanar, for example, honor it? You're not getting the point. Having an international law in place on territorial waters will codify specific and equal guidelines that all UN members will be bound to follow. That's a lot more reassuring to us than the idea that every nation should just pass their own individual laws, creating a big fishy mishmash of individual legislation on territorial waters, and hope everyone else they run across decides to play nice in the pool.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Right now, a hostile nation can get as close as they want to without any codified international law to give you grounds for protest. How is that any better? Right now, your nation could claim that the waters for 1 kajillion miles around your nation belong to you, and another nation could just look at that and go, "meh", and build an oil rig on your beach, and under international law, you have no recourse.

If a nation tried parking an oil rig on our beach, without our consent, you can bet that would lead to armed conflict pretty quickly. Our beach is our land, not territorial waters. You can expect us to defend it. This resolution does allow for arbitration, but it may not be enough to stop armed conflict from occurring and with these numbers may provoke it.


Please clarify for me how that's a better state of affairs, because I can't see it. And if you think the boundary should be greater than 12 NM, I predict that would be a nonstarter, as some nation or other would object about it being too large.


Again, discussion on this should have been done before these figures were laid out.


With no regulation whatsoever in international law concerning territorial waters, a nation can just disregard what you claim to be your waters, and do whatever they please. This includes polluting. And again, under international law, your nation would have no recourse at all.


Under this resolution, we have to rely on the "MARITIME" commission? Seriously, what can they do other than sit there as the arguing goes on?

This isn't exactly the only recourse we want available either.


I am quite sure that the author of this resolution spent time posting drafts of this resolution before putting it up for vote. Did you comment at that time?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

It needs another draft.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

REALIZING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,

CONCERNED that such a situation has the potential to destabilize international security,

SEEKING to remedy this situation, whilst taking into account the necessity for nations to impose legal and economic jurisdiction over waters bordering their shores,

The Genesis Federation does hereby cast it's vote in favor of this resolution!!

Egy Nemzet

UN delegate of the Great Genesis Federation

:)

The People's Republic of the Ryou Black Island votes FOR this resolution.

Nimmia Zyuui, UN Ambassator of the People's Republic of The Ryou Black Islands.

The usual bickering continued in the halls of the GA, per usual. The debate had been over the same bit of silliness and outlandish hypothetical instances that those present were all too familiar hearing. The arguing was interupted abruptly when the Zarquonian flagship, the Mother Mayii (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=711), suddenly crashed into the side of the building. No harm was done to the UN, but the burning question was how it actually got that far inland. Before the members had time to ponder the question to any extent, a cry rang out from the crow's nest.

"Land ho!!"

A shot rang out and the lookout fell to his death. A small figure had climbed up the mast grabbing one of the riggings and using it to swing through one of the windows into the GA. He missed, however, and slammed squarely into the wall below his target. Slowly climbing upward he managed to tumble through the window then stand up and dust himself off. It was Captain, "One Eye" Botcher (http://www.piratesversusninjas.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/yoda_pirate.jpg) of the Zarquonian Navy.

"Hmm. Shiver your timbers, I will. Powerful legislation this is. Powerful. Pass this bill we must, or suffer we shall. Without, pirates are free to roam waters with no clear sense of national waters. We...."

The Captain stopped short when he saw the dolphins from the Palentine sitting in the room. He stormed over to their tank and gave them the what for.

"You <BLEEP> bunch of <FOUL WORD> silly no good <REALLY FOUL WORD>. The right mind I have to take your <NOT REALLY SURE IF THAT IS A WORD BUT IT SOUNDS BAD> dorsal <WORD THAT MAKES BACK HAIR STAND UP> fin and <PHYSICAL ACT THAT HAS BEEN OUTLAWED IN SEVEN STAR SYSTEMS>...."

And it went on for a while.

If a nation tried parking an oil rig on our beach, without our consent, you can bet that would lead to armed conflict pretty quickly. Our beach is our land, not territorial waters. You can expect us to defend it. This resolution does allow for arbitration, but it may not be enough to stop armed conflict from occurring and with these numbers may provoke it.

Of course it may not be enough to stop armed conflict. I don't think it's within the purview of this resolution - or the entire freaking UN, for that matter - to totally stop armed conflict. You admit, though, that the resolution will give nations a foundation to negotiate, rather than fight. So you're objecting.....why? I'm also still waiting to hear how this resolution will provoke conflict where none already exists.

Again, discussion on this should have been done before these figures were laid out.

And that is a perfect lead-in to this...

It needs another draft.

I notice you made no attempt at all to answer my question as to whether or not you raised objections during the drafting. I'll take that as a no.

With all due respect, your delegation has no reason to complain now about wanting "other means of recourse" or wanting more "discussion". In keeping with the maritime theme, that ship sailed during the drafting process, and you chose to skip the cruise, stay home and have some sour grapes instead. And as for your comment about the MARITIME commission, what actions would you want them to take, exactly? Do you have any suggestions at all?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Let me get this right! Nation A has 12NM from its shores that it can claim as it's water unless:
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.
Nation B is withing say 20NM of it thus both must give up a 1NM international zone between them and end up with on a 9.5 NM water area they each can claim.. Then they also face the fact that Nation C can camp in international waters 9.5NM from their shores and spy on them or even launch an attack on them. They can't do a thing until after the attack has been and then it too late. Then consider there is only 3NM between Nations A and B... Nation C is not .5NM from their shores to lauch an assault and they can't do a think until he has entered their waters.. Also all Nation C has to do is launch from intenational waters and it over before it starts in most cases...

Also consider that Nation A (us) is in UN and Nation B is not and we are just 20NM apart.... They claim half the distance between us 10NM and we can only claim 9NM to open this international waterway. Hell get back if they just 3NM... and we each claim half the distance... We have .5N of waters to claim as we by this have to open a 1NM waterway. Then we will just let the non member nation claim all waters between shores of our nation and theres and we pay them a small sum to use their waters..... thus we have no waters between us-Nation A and Nation Z.. so the UN can't set policy in non member's national waters.. or decide what they can claim... We under treaties have to abide by their rules in their waters just as any nation entering them would... except where and as allowed here we have sat down and made exceptions to any rules they may impose... as would think we can sit down with non UN members and make treaties... on water rights same as we might with a member...

Also we did not see any references to how you deal with waters over underwater nations.. just waters beyond what would be their shores which they don't have underwater... As it would be like building a space station over Narion A to spy directly on them if you park a ship over them and spy on them and those waters this ship is in is international waters so it has all rights and protections given ships in international waters, fishing.... yea...

This is best to leave out all set rules and just let this so called council deal with each nation that has problems with shared waters... as with 4 nations not in the UN and at least one of the sharing waters with a member nation it could become a problem..

As believe the writer of the proposal has the idea one can ignore non member claims on waters around them. But have been absent and not seen an update on what may have been the reply to an earlier reference to where this attitude was taken by him or another member here.. We do not need to provoke non member nations into a dispute over water rights... we need to settle any such in peace and calm..

*snip*

What, the, fuck. Cavirra I'm going to point out that if you want to blow the shit out of someone who's sitting 9.5 NM out and in international waters you can just blow the shit out of them. International waters doesn't afford them protection from the business end of your guns. Also, while the UN can't set policy on non-member nation's water boundaries, you can. With guns. Heck if they aren't UN members then you don't have to split the waterway at all. You could even just tell them to shut the hell up and take their territory by force, with guns. Is there anything they don't solve?


Moving on, the honorable delegate from HawaiianFreedom seems a bit tiffed he wasn't consulted before this was sent to vote. I will remind you that there has been a discussion on this topic for at least 12 days previous to now. You didn't bring anything up before it went to vote, and the legislation is not inherently flawed.

There may be a bit of unaddressed issues, but to be fair, if this resolution leaves something up to interpretation you can, oh I don't know, interpret it.

The figures this resolution puts forward are also fairly reasonable, if you don't like 'em tough shit. He coulda came up with some unreasonable values that satisfied you, and lost everyone else. I'd say from looking at it he did a good job of finding a happy medium.

Moving on, the honorable delegate from HawaiianFreedom seems a bit tiffed he wasn't consulted before this was sent to vote. I will remind you that there has been a discussion on this topic for at least 12 days previous to now. You didn't bring anything up before it went to vote, and the legislation is not inherently flawed.

There may be a bit of unaddressed issues, but to be fair, if this resolution leaves something up to interpretation you can, oh I don't know, interpret it.

The figures this resolution puts forward are also fairly reasonable, if you don't like 'em tough shit. He coulda came up with some unreasonable values that satisfied you, and lost everyone else. I'd say from looking at it he did a good job of finding a happy medium.

OOC: There was also a reasonable amount of discussion about these matters, a few months ago, when Shesharlie's proposal on this topic was being drafted.

Ok my personal feelings on this is that well, if our oceans are on our boarder they belong to us, Though recorces that are among them could be sheared if the nation permits it whether or not they do should be left up for debate and vote for the country.

Ok my personal feelings on this is that well, if our oceans are on our boarder they belong to us, Though recorces that are among them could be sheared if the nation permits it whether or not they do should be left up for debate and vote for the country.

This is an obvious nonsense, we fear. If we use the mythical map of RealWorld for a moment to avoid any possible misunderstanding leading to ill-feeling between nations here present... [The ambassador tacks a map of the western hemisphere up onto a handily provided flipboard]... Thank you.

Observe the Atlantic ocean, here. ::points:: It is on the borders of the United States ::points in the vague area of Brasil::, so by this logic it belongs to the United States. However, it is also on the borders of Spain ::waves vaguely across Western Europe::, so must belong to them as well. In the same way we find that the Atlantic ocean belongs exclusively to each of Ireland, France, Canada, Nigeria, South Africa, Cuba, Argentina and a whole host of even less familiar fantasy nations.

Thus by reductio ad absurdam, the principle enunciated by the esteemed Ambassador of Galvainia cannot work. We require some form of agreed law by which to determine how to divide up national and international waters, and the honoured ambassador of Cobdenia has provided an entirely reasonable process to do so in this resolution.

Ok my personal feelings on this is that well, if our oceans are on our boarder they belong to us, Though recorces that are among them could be sheared if the nation permits it whether or not they do should be left up for debate and vote for the country.

Admiral of the Red Nolly stops swearing at Captain Botcher for a minute. The other two dolphins of course continue the profanity battle. She swims over to the microphine to address the Galvainian delegate.

"If the <CENSORED><BLEEPING> ambassador had some <FOUL WORD> basic reading comprehension skills, then he <GROSS ACT><BAD WORD> would have <BLEEPING><BLEEP> known that some of his<FOUL EXPLITIVE> concerns were already <FILTHY WORD> addressed....

4. AUTHORISES that the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where waters meets the land at low tide, where such a border would exist at sea level in the case of undersea nations, or an estimation of where fresh water meets salt water where the coastline is disrupted by river, etc., mouths.

5. DECLARES that any waters bordered by a single nation’s shores shall are to be considered as that nations territorial waters;

6. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
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 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, as long as they are not to the detriment of the claims of other nations and do not encroach onto international waters;
d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM, apart a median channel of 1 NM width shall be between them, and will be treated as international waters, except in the case of archipelagic nations.

<REALLY NASTY WORD> furthermore...

b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;....

And...

9. FOUNDS the UN Maritime Arbitration & Recognised International Thalassic Institutional Management Executive(MARITIME) commission
, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.

So there is your<CENSORED><BLEEP> Answer."

Nolly then swims back over to the other dolphins and starts swearing at the esteemed Captian Botcher again...

"So how the <CENSORED><BLEEP><BEEP> did you<DIRTY WORD> get here you <FOUL WORD> parrot molester? We were <BLEEP><BLEEPING> right about the <REALLY GROSS ACT> wheels on the<YOWZAH> bottom of your <ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACT><EXPLITIVE DELETED> boats!"

...this continues on for quite some time....

<snip>

Captain Botcher broke away from the dolphins for a moment to address the Cavirrans.

If give the locations nations you say, you will. Test their naval protocal, I shall.

And he went back to cursing the dolphins as Judge Norton stood.

You are making typhoon out of a malestrom, and it isn't working. We can sit here making these hypothetical arguments till the sea cows come home. As the Dourians have said, this law does not protect anyone who wishes to use international waters as a staging ground for missle attacks. If you know they are there and they might have bad intentions, you need to deal with it. If a surprise attack is staged then what do you expect to happen? Regardless of whether this is passed or not, you'd still be bombed.

Who put the Poll on this?

Wrong (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft). Theft is defined as "the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it; an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property". An action cannot be felonious or unlawful without a law saying it is, and someone willing to enforce it.
That is only one definition, not all of them. There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" definition. There are right and wrong arguments assuming certain definitions, but definitions themselves are not, as values, objective :D.


Unfortunately, I'm not overly sympathetic to companies who just chose to plop their fish farms or whatnot wherever they chose, without being cognizant of where they were putting them. I also don't think that this would be a huge problem. More to the point, we consider this to be a distinctly minor issue that does not merit defeating this resolution. We remain confident that private business and local governments can resolve such disputes in good spirit and like adults. Sounds to me like, considering the existence of governments like yours, it is a huge problem and not something to be resolved in that manner because the translation of "I'm not overly sympathetic" from usual UNspeak is "I''m gonna take it away." You stealing (or expropriating or immorally looting if you prefer those terms for the meaning I assign) billions in ocean properties from various parties is not a "minor issue that does not merit defeating this resolution." Without protecting rights, including property rights, the UN has no reason for existence. If the UN violates them in this manner, it sets itself up as the enemy of human rights.

So you may have a national law about your waters. Why should anyone else care that you do? Why should Altanar, for example, honor it?
Ikir Askanabath, AmbassadorWhat gives Altanar the right to steal things by cancelling the property laws of that national law?

and no I don't have a national law about my waters, my nation is landlocked. My comment is not based on my own particular situation but on justice :D.

and no I don't have a national law about my waters, my nation is landlocked. My comment is not based on my own particular situation but on justice :D.

Judge Norton runs at the window and throws himself out of it after hearing this. He runs back into the assembly, dripping wet, grabs the Ambassador from Objective Values and throws him out the window where he lands in the pool below.

"There, now the man is an island unto himself."

Ambassador Willers walks out of the fountain and calls Prince Rahl

"Do I have to deal with these people?"

"Yes, it's your job, unless you'd rather work for someone else."

"Fine."

Willers hangs up and walks back into the embassy, requesting at the desk to be belted into a heavy electric wheelchair so he can't be suddenly thrown out of windows anymore.

That is only one definition, not all of them. There is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" definition. There are right and wrong arguments assuming certain definitions, but definitions themselves are not, as values, objective :D.

What prattle is this? You can make up all the definitions for words you like, it doesn't make them true. Using your logic, I could say that "tomato" means "cat".

Sounds to me like, considering the existence of governments like yours, it is a huge problem and not something to be resolved in that manner because the translation of "I'm not overly sympathetic" from usual UNspeak is "I''m gonna take it away."

No, when I said I wasn't overly sympathetic, that simply meant that I didn't care. Altanar couldn't be bothered, frankly, to take anything away from you or anyone else. Our government doesn't operate that way, and you thinking that it does simply shows that you know nothing about us.

You stealing (or expropriating or immorally looting if you prefer those terms for the meaning I assign) billions in ocean properties from various parties is not a "minor issue that does not merit defeating this resolution." Without protecting rights, including property rights, the UN has no reason for existence. If the UN violates them in this manner, it sets itself up as the enemy of human rights.

Again, you're missing the point, which is really a simple one, so I can't see why it eludes you. Without this resolution, anyone can swoop in and take everything you've got in your waters, because there is nothing in international law saying they can't. You've got a lot more to lose if this resolution doesn't pass than you do if it does pass. Would you rather see a relatively small amount of investment change hands (or be renegotiated with the governments whose territorial waters they'd fall under), or risk losing everything because another UN nation steams in with its navy and turns your waters into their pond?

What gives Altanar the right to steal things by cancelling the property laws of that national law?

A better question is this: without this resolution, what tells us (or any other nation) that we can't? Right now, there isn't diddlysquat stopping anyone from doing so.

and no I don't have a national law about my waters, my nation is landlocked. My comment is not based on my own particular situation but on justice :D.

If this is your concept of justice, I shudder to think about what happens to people in your legal system.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

What prattle is this? You can make up all the definitions for words you like, it doesn't make them true. Using your logic, I could say that "tomato" means "cat". And it would be highly inconvenient, considering cat has nothing to do with the conventional definition of tomato, but as long as you made it clear I would make any arguments with you about cats in terms of "Altanarian tomatoes" :D

By the way conventionally theft is often used in a non-legalistic sense, I didnt make it up and it's at least a cognate concept of the dictionary definition. Cat already has a word for it that isn't tomato, what I refer to as theft has no convenient term other than theft.


No, when I said I wasn't overly sympathetic, that simply meant that I didn't care. Altanar couldn't be bothered, frankly, to take anything away from you or anyone else. Our government doesn't operate that way, and you thinking that it does simply shows that you know nothing about us."The average income tax rate is 73%"
Nuff said, your government does operate that way (taking people's property), unless you wish to claim the UN is lying about you.



Again, you're missing the point, which is really a simple one, so I can't see why it eludes you. Without this resolution, anyone can swoop in and take everything you've got in your waters, because there is nothing in international law saying they can't. You've got a lot more to lose if this resolution doesn't pass than you do if it does pass. Would you rather see a relatively small amount of investment change hands (or be renegotiated with the governments whose territorial waters they'd fall under), or risk losing everything because another UN nation steams in with its navy and turns your waters into their pond?Billions is not a small amount. What I'd rather see is a resolution that solved this problem. WITH this resolution, anyone can come in and take anything, as long as they've been handed the waters.



A better question is this: without this resolution, what tells us (or any other nation) that we can't? Right now, there isn't diddlysquat stopping anyone from doing so.
And this resolution does diddlysquat stopping you from doing so, and enables nations that don't presently have the money to get a military strong enough to do so to do so. The nations that do have the money, of course, are more likely to have obtained it with a relatively free market, and thus less likely to take it. This resolution thus increases the odds by granting the nations who don't have enough freedom to make enough money to get enough ships to have national waters in their own right, national waters by default; and thus gives them the chance to expropriate, and essentially forbids those they are expropriating from from defending themselves (oh wait, under the present system, the companies can HIRE someone to defend their property, which just maybe means the statement "there isn't diddlysquat stopping someone from doing so" is FALSE :D

"The average income tax rate is 73%"

And ours is higher, however for that the citizens of my nation get police protection, a stong military to stop aggressors, roads to drive on, a public transport system to drive them on, heathcare and a myriad of other services. So please tell me how this is stealing? Please tell me how you've perverted the definition of stealing to include being paid for services...

Nigel S Youlkin
UN Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

Perhaps I might have confused some earlier, let me try to clear this up.

b) All of the waters within 200NM of that nation’s sea border should normally be counted as its ‘Exclusive Economic Zone', within which it has the sole right to harvest natural resources, but otherwise considered as international waters;

Regardless of whether or not you can militarily maintain 200NM, those waters are yours for your economic use only. It's right there in black and white. No other UN nation has the right to use it for any purpose, even if they already had a fishing industry set up in what would be constituted as another nation's waters by this resolution. The exchange of what becomes of that industry would be between the two nations that it effects.

Further, if someone is in your waters, it's up to you to take care of it. The UN has no power, nor can it ever be given power, to raise any form of police force. So it doesn't matter if someone is out in international waters outside your nation with the intent of blowing you off the planet. Nothing can be done about it.

By the way conventionally theft is often used in a non-legalistic sense

By people who, no doubt, don't know what the real definition of the word is.

"The average income tax rate is 73%"
Nuff said, your government does operate that way (taking people's property), unless you wish to claim the UN is lying about you.

I have to ask at this point exactly how, and in what paint-huffing moment, the delegate of Objective Values came to that conclusion. In return for the taxes collected, His Majesty's Government provides the people of Altanar with a superb education system, law and order, a strong military, and a multitude of services. As the honorable delegate from Philimbesi pointed out, the government receives payment, and in turn renders desired services to the populace, which it could not do without that funding. And while I can't say how your populace would react to an undesired tax level, I can say with certainty that the people of Altanar would revolt, either politically or in the good old-fashioned guns and explosions kind of way, if our taxation level was beyond what the people were willing to accept. Thus, our taxation level in no way constitutes theft.

Billions is not a small amount. What I'd rather see is a resolution that solved this problem. WITH this resolution, anyone can come in and take anything, as long as they've been handed the waters.

Despite your sky-is-falling bleating, this resolution offers ample means for nations to negotiate with each other, or with the private sector, to resolve any disputes that may arise once the boundaries are set. This can be done either through the MARITIME commission, or through just talking to each other, for the Pantheon's sake. Your claim that "billions" will be lost is, frankly, overdramatic and overstated, as any reasonable and sane nation will negotiate with their neighbors and the private sector to make sure everything gets resolved fairly. And again, you've ignored my point that it's better to risk losing a little bit than losing everything, which you risk right now with no rules whatsoever to block anyone from taking it all.

And this resolution does diddlysquat stopping you from doing so,

Absolutely and utterly wrong. By codifying what territorial water boundaries shall be, and requiring all UN members to follow those boundaries, this resolution will ensure all UN members comply, and provides a means of resolving disputes. This offers a lot more protection than what exists now...which, as I've told you repeatedly, is nothing. Without a foundation in international law guaranteeing your rights to your waters as a nation, there is nothing in existence to legitimize anyone's claims, other than barbarism and brute force. Is that really so hard for you to grasp?

This resolution thus increases the odds by granting the nations who don't have enough freedom to make enough money to get enough ships to have national waters in their own right, national waters by default;

So are you trying to say that nations who don't have enough freedom, money or ships (as you put it), shouldn't have the right to their own territorial waters? Sounds like you're just trying to uphold the status quo to me, with questionable intent.

and thus gives them the chance to expropriate, and essentially forbids those they are expropriating from from defending themselves (oh wait, under the present system, the companies can HIRE someone to defend their property, which just maybe means the statement "there isn't diddlysquat stopping someone from doing so" is FALSE :D

I see. So, you're in favor of maintaining a system where it doesn't matter if the waters in question should belong to another nation, if someone has already plopped themselves down there and began exploiting them. You're in favor of a status quo where nations or private companies can exploit waters and resources that don't legitimately belong to them, simply because the nation those waters are next to doesn't have the military force to prevent that exploitation of their resources and waters. And you're in favor of a system that is little better than anarchy on the oceans, where any nation or company can make whatever ridiculous, unfair or grandiose claims they wish, with no means of recourse under international law.

In other words, your nation's position is stupid and self-serving. Thanks for the clarification.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

And ours is higher, however for that the citizens of my nation get police protection, a stong military to stop aggressors, roads to drive on, a public transport system to drive them on, heathcare and a myriad of other services. So please tell me how this is stealing? Please tell me how you've perverted the definition of stealing to include being paid for services...

Nigel S Youlkin
UN Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

Sir, there is a fundamental difference beteen taxes and "being payed for services." The difference is force. If you want to be paid for services, when they don't pay, withhold the service. Then it's not theft, and it's not a tax. If you stick them in jail, or shoot them, or whatever you do, when they don't pay, then it is.


By people who, no doubt, don't know what the real definition of the word is.There is no such thing as a "real" definition. Definitions are ARBITRARY. When people assign a new meaning to a word, that becomes the definition.

I have to ask at this point exactly how, and in what paint-huffing moment, the delegate of Objective Values came to that conclusion. In return for the taxes collected, His Majesty's Government provides the people of Altanar with a superb education system, law and order, a strong military, and a multitude of services. As the honorable delegate from Philimbesi pointed out, the government receives payment, and in turn renders desired services to the populace, which it could not do without that funding. And while I can't say how your populace would react to an undesired tax level, I can say with certainty that the people of Altanar would revolt, either politically or in the good old-fashioned guns and explosions kind of way, if our taxation level was beyond what the people were willing to accept. Thus, our taxation level in no way constitutes theft. See above. Your objection of "revolts" assumes only those who have enough of a majority or armed minority to revolt successfully have rights. If you obtain your money by threat of force (e.g. a prison penalty or whatever for not paying) you are robbing them. If you withdraw services for not paying, it's not a tax (defined as a compulsory contribution to state revenue, Oxford English dictionary) :D.

My government gets paid for its services without taxes. Do you know how? Businesses register their contracts with the courts and pay a small portion of the value of the contract to the court to insure it. If they choose not to, the contract is simply not enforceable in court.

So are you trying to say that nations who don't have enough freedom, money or ships (as you put it), shouldn't have the right to their own territorial waters? Sounds like you're just trying to uphold the status quo to me, with questionable intent. If a nation has no ships, no money, it has no use for waters (making something from nature property can only be done by adding labor to it in a way that enhances its value).
If a government does not provide freedom to its citizens, the government has no right to exist let alone have territorial waters :D. There is nothing standing in the way of those nations getting money except their own socialist policies.

I see. So, you're in favor of maintaining a system where it doesn't matter if the waters in question should belong to another nation, if someone has already plopped themselves down there and began exploiting them. You're in favor of a status quo where nations or private companies can exploit waters and resources that don't legitimately belong to them, simply because the nation those waters are next to doesn't have the military force to prevent that exploitation of their resources and waters. And you're in favor of a system that is little better than anarchy on the oceans, where any nation or company can make whatever ridiculous, unfair or grandiose claims they wish, with no means of recourse under international law. No, not "whatever claims they wish." If you make use of a piece of land with no current owner (such as a farm in the wild) it becomes yours. The same with ocean space. Their claims are limited by how much they can actually labor with and make use of.

There is no case in which a party got there first and created value with the waters in which it is still possible to say another nation "should" have them. There can be no entitlement to take another person's property withoout their consent.

I would in fact favor an international law on the matter if it were JUST, but given a choice between a law that forbids people to protect their property from thieves and no law at all I'd take the latter.

Absolutely and utterly wrong. By codifying what territorial water boundaries shall be, and requiring all UN members to follow those boundaries, this resolution will ensure all UN members comply, and provides a means of resolving disputes. This offers a lot more protection than what exists now...which, as I've told you repeatedly, is nothing. Without a foundation in international law guaranteeing your rights to your waters as a nation, there is nothing in existence to legitimize anyone's claims, other than barbarism and brute force. Is that really so hard for you to grasp?There is NO SUCH THING as a law that isn't force. International law is ultimately enforced by "barbarism and brute force" as you put it or not at all. I will support a man using force to defend himself, I will not support the UN in initiating force by passing this resolution.

Setting up an arbitration board is not a protection but a violation.

I'll ignore the self-contradictory ad hominem at the end of your message.

-Ambassador Willers

There is no such thing as a "real" definition. Definitions are ARBITRARY. When people assign a new meaning to a word, that becomes the definition.
However to redefine a word in the manner in which you have, ambassador, and then to a moral stance whose force is derived entirely from the actual listed definition of the word is a contemptible debating tactic. We recommend ceasing to use it, lest others begin to consider your objectivity not so much questionable as absent.

There is no such thing as a "real" definition. Definitions are ARBITRARY. When people assign a new meaning to a word, that becomes the definition.
OOC: ::flinches::

You're... sort of... right.
For a word to have a new meaning in a language, as distinct to a sub-culture, there needs to be a widespread understanding of the word with the associated meaning. If other people will not accept a word meaning a particular thing, then the word does not mean that particular thing. Language ain't as simplistically complex as Humpty Dumpty would have it.

Plus of course you're working with denotative meaning only here, when any semantician worth their salt would know you need connotative meaning as well, let alone pragmatic considerations.

Quick note:

Who ever said these nations resided on earth? The planet our nations occupy could be an earth-LIKE one, but with much more land mass and much lower density (to account for the larger size of the planet, it needs to be less dense in order to compensate for gravitational pull. Plus, changing density's fun.)

Of course it may not be enough to stop armed conflict. I don't think it's within the purview of this resolution - or the entire freaking UN, for that matter - to totally stop armed conflict. You admit, though, that the resolution will give nations a foundation to negotiate, rather than fight. So you're objecting.....why? I'm also still waiting to hear how this resolution will provoke conflict where none already exists.


If we took this tack with every resolution, saying there is no current one, we could say no conflict is ever provoked by a resolution, so why fight it and let them all through. The problem here is that this resolution has nothing listed to ensure that disputes over territorial waters will be reduced AT ALL. What you don't see is that the figures posted in this resolution, claim it is helping, when it is just parsing out the ocean and expecting everything will work out. How can it? There's nothing to enforce the issue here. This resolution doesn't provoke conflict all by itself, but it doesn't help reduce it in the slightest either. So, what good is it?



I notice you made no attempt at all to answer my question as to whether or not you raised objections during the drafting. I'll take that as a no.

With all due respect, your delegation has no reason to complain now about wanting "other means of recourse" or wanting more "discussion". In keeping with the maritime theme, that ship sailed during the drafting process, and you chose to skip the cruise, stay home and have some sour grapes instead. And as for your comment about the MARITIME commission, what actions would you want them to take, exactly? Do you have any suggestions at all?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

We have every right to complain as a voting UN member. Have you seen how these proposals work? You can vote for them, but you can't vote against them. We would do everything we could to prevent votes moving forward for this type of legislation, but there isn't any stopping some of the boneheaded drafts that get through, or did you miss the Max Barry holiday resolution?

What we would like would be a minimum of 50 miles from shore covered under territorial waters, and a system that works out the sharing of waters that could be used for an economic zone. Exclusivity can also provoke conflict in shared zones.

The commission should have the ability to authorize sanctions if a dispute goes on for too long, with no compromise put in place. Something to get things moving and for the good of everyone would be good. Waters in dispute could work out a shared plan of cooperation, parsing of resources, and perhaps the United Nations would get some reasonable economic benefit from working out these disputes that could be used for relief efforts. Of course how the commission can resolve disputes could have some details posted in the resolution to ease the minds of concerned UN members like us.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

What we would like would be a minimum of 50 miles from shore covered under territorial waters, and a system that works out the sharing of waters that could be used for an economic zone. Exclusivity can also provoke conflict in shared zones.

The commission should have the ability to authorize sanctions if a dispute goes on for too long, with no compromise put in place. Something to get things moving and for the good of everyone would be good. Waters in dispute could work out a shared plan of cooperation, parsing of resources, and perhaps the United Nations would get some reasonable economic benefit from working out these disputes that could be used for relief efforts. Of course how the commission can resolve disputes could have some details posted in the resolution to ease the minds of concerned UN members like us.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

There is nothing in this resolution that would bar you from sharing your waters if you could reach an acceptable agreement with another nation, UN member or not. It merely states that anywaters that are less than 200NM from your shores are yours, and you may do as you please with them.

I have just one problem with this resolution: the definition of "sea border". In some countries (correct me if I'm wrong), their sea borders can and do actually change, based on the level of the low tide. Since this part forms much of the basis of most of the resolution, until this can be fixed, I'm voting against.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

We have every right to complain as a voting UN member. Have you seen how these proposals work? You can vote for them, but you can't vote against them.Bullshit, there are currently 2,045 votes cast against this resolution. Don't tell me you can't vote against.
We would do everything we could to prevent votes moving forward for this type of legislation, but there isn't any stopping some of the boneheaded drafts that get through, or did you miss the Max Barry holiday resolution?First off, resolutions fail all the time (just ask the Kennyites) it's just that the site only tracks the ones that pass. Secondly, the Max Barry day one should never have come up for vote in the first place.

What we would like would be a minimum of 50 miles from shore covered under territorial waters, and a system that works out the sharing of waters that could be used for an economic zone. Exclusivity can also provoke conflict in shared zones.

The commission should have the ability to authorize sanctions if a dispute goes on for too long, with no compromise put in place. Something to get things moving and for the good of everyone would be good. Waters in dispute could work out a shared plan of cooperation, parsing of resources, and perhaps the United Nations would get some reasonable economic benefit from working out these disputes that could be used for relief efforts. Of course how the commission can resolve disputes could have some details posted in the resolution to ease the minds of concerned UN members like us.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

You know, these suggestions would have been much more helpful during the drafting phase. Maybe in the future, instead of just whining about how you don't like the resolution up for vote, you should actually be helpful by commenting on some of the proposals being drafted.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Bullshit, there are currently 2,045 votes cast against this resolution. Don't tell me you can't vote against.
First off, resolutions fail all the time (just ask the Kennyites) it's just that the site only tracks the ones that pass.He might actually be talking about the proposal list ... the fact that you can approve a proposal for vote, but not "disapprove" it.

I have just one problem with this resolution: the definition of "sea border". In some countries (correct me if I'm wrong), their sea borders can and do actually change, based on the level of the low tide. Since this part forms much of the basis of most of the resolution, until this can be fixed, I'm voting against.

Similarly, it mentions an exception in disputes by archipelagic nations, but doesn't mention the resolution method for these disputes, thus I too vote against it.

I have just one problem with this resolution: the definition of "sea border". In some countries (correct me if I'm wrong), their sea borders can and do actually change, based on the level of the low tide. Since this part forms much of the basis of most of the resolution, until this can be fixed, I'm voting against.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

The change would be so insignificant, I cannot think of a time in which such a fact would matter. So you lost 10 ft of land, big deal. One could just as easily argue that the possibility of shifting tectonic plates could also cause a change in border size, but I don't see anyone doing that.

The People's Republic of Foward Unto Dawn

Similarly, it mentions an exception in disputes by archipelagic nations, but doesn't mention the resolution method for these disputes, thus I too vote against it.
Well, it's been my experience that when the UN is silent on a matter, it falls to the nation to decide what to do. Just because it's not spelled out, doesn't mean you can't do anything. Take the initiative!

~ Hari Desana

The change would be so insignificant, I cannot think of a time in which such a fact would matter. So you lost 10 ft of land, big deal. One could just as easily argue that the possibility of shifting tectonic plates could also cause a change in border size, but I don't see anyone doing that.

The People's Republic of Foward Unto DawnYes but the rule of a 1NM free pass zone for international waters between nations is a big deal to many that would loss control of waters they now claim.. to allow any ships free travel in waters between their nations simply because they are not 25NM apart like other nations. As they loose waters due to the rules set here. Nature effects the shores not the UN, unless there is more going on in the sub-levels then we might know about, and if so as a member we feel we should know if we are as members suppose to be supporting what the UN does, and that all members need to know this.. not just the select few that will profit by robbing nations of their waters if this is passed and we like many have to give up some while they gain a free sale in our waters.

Yes but the rule of a 1NM free pass zone for international waters between nations is a big deal to many that would loss control of waters they now claim.. to allow any ships free travel in waters between their nations simply because they are not 25NM apart like other nations.

True, but without a reolution such as this, ships may be allowed free travel anywhere they want. Even within 1NM of your shore. And don't give me the argument that your nation will have the authority to determine what constitutes your national waters. That is totally meaningless to other nations without a mandate from the UN that says all nations must comply with the rules of another.

Without this, you are setting yourself up for worse than what you fear at present.

Well, it's been my experience that when the UN is silent on a matter, it falls to the nation to decide what to do. Just because it's not spelled out, doesn't mean you can't do anything. Take the initiative!

~ Hari Desana

The dolphins briefly cease their activites of swearing at Captaain Botcher of the Zarquon Navy, making rude and obscene suggestions to various female members of the general assembly(especially the Thessadorian Ambassador), and generally blessing the ambassadorswith their gift of language. Admiral Nolly swims back to the microphone and says,

"Now that is the most<CENSORED><BLEEP><BLEEPING>sensible<FOUL WORD><RUDE SUGGESTION> bit of common<DIRTY WORD><VILE WORD>sense I've <EXPLITIVE DELETED> heard during the <ANATOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ACT><REALLY GROSS EXLITIVE> debate!"

Afterwards, the dolphins resume thier fun.

The resolution Territorial Waters was passed 5,801 votes to 2,530, and implemented in all UN member nations.
Congratulations to Cobdenia!

We would like to add our congratulations as well. Despite the naysayers, a valuable article of international law has been created by the passage of this resolution. We are pleased to see that some sanity yet still remains within these hallowed halls.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

The resolution Territorial Waters was passed 5,801 votes to 2,530, and implemented in all UN member nations.
Solensina Tadefta, head of the Safalran UN Delegation, writes:

Our statisticians (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=235) have provided us with the following trivia:

This resolution is the:

235th resolution
137th active resolution
6th Political Stability resolution
4th Political Stability (Strength: Mild) resolution
5th resolution by Cobdenia


It passed with a majority of 69.6%, fairly average from a resolution safety (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-safety/#resolution235) perspective.

I rise to add my congratulations to Cobdenia. A succinct and beneficial piece of legislation. I'm being told that one of the three new patrol boats we've purchased in order to maintain better order on our coasts is being dubbed the USPS Cobdenia.


Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador

Champagne and Pot Noodles (sorry about the latter, the cook died and Pointy volunteered) will be served in the offices of the Cobdenian mission for those who supported this resolution. Furthermore, those who voted against are to meat in the car park, from where they'll be able to view the spectacular sight of 30 chinamen mooning them from a Zeppelin whilst going "Nah-nah,na-na-nyah"

Hmmm, Pot noodles does sound nice.

It also sounds a lot like the Neo Kirisuban emergency ration packs as well.

I'll be at the party with my aide Lt Cmr Sato. It'll give her a chance to wear her cream dress kimono as well.



Ambassador Sakura Yamamoto