NationStates Jolt Archive

I am attempting to pass a resolution in the world assembly and wanted some suggestions on what I should add/remove/modify or otherwise... here it is...

LAW OF THE SEVEN THOUSAND SEAS

NOTING: There are no international laws regarding the definition and enforcement of internal waters, territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and international waters.

BELIEVING: Internationally recognized rules relating to the sea, and its resources, would improve worldwide economies and allow each individual nation to have more security and control over its ports, seaways, and oceanic resources.

FURTHER NOTING: There is a need for all nations to be able to exercise their full authority and sovereignty over their own nation’s lakes, bays, ports, seaways, coastlines, and oceanic territories, as well as all the natural recourses held within.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY ESTABLISHES THE “LAW OF THE SEVEN THOUSAND SEAS", WHICH DEVIDES THE WORLDS LAKES, BAYS, SEAS, OCEANS, AND OTHER WATERS AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1: Baseline
The “Baseline” is defined as the mean low water mark of the shoreline (average low tide line) of inhabited land in a sovereign nation.

Article 2: Internal Waters
”Internal Waters” are defined as all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal nation is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.

Article 3: Territorial Waters
”Territorial Waters” are defined as waters out to 50 nautical miles from the baseline. The coastal nation is free to set laws, regulate use, use of any resource, and permit or disallow passage of foreign vessels. Foreign vessels are given the right of "innocent passage" through any nations territorial waters (given they display the flag of their home country), with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of said nation’s security.

Article 4: Exclusive Economic Zones
”Exclusive Economic Zones” are defined as waters out to 250 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and over flight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

Article 5: Overlapping Claims
In the event that two or more states have overlapping internal waters, territorial waters, or exclusive economic zones a median line will be drawn dividing the waters based on which country has the closest natural Baseline.

Article 6: International Waters
Any worldly waters not included in the previous territorial definitions, are hereby open to use by any nation, given that said nation does not “affect the environment in a way that is detrimental to the preservation of the natural life forms of said environment.”

ALL OF THE WORLDS LAKES, BAYS, SEAS, OCEANS, AND OTHER WATERS, INCLUDING ALL DISPUTED CLAIMS, SHALL HEREBY BE DIVIDED AND INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ACCORDING TO THIS “LAW OF THE SEVEN THOUSAND SEAS”.

Please post any suggestions
Thank you!

I am attempting to pass a resolution in the world assembly and wanted some suggestions on what I should add/remove/modify or otherwise... here it is...

I promise to be gentle... compared to being trampled to death by a herd of elephants...

LAW OF THE SEVEN THOUSAND SEAS

NOTING: There are no international laws regarding the definition and enforcement of internal waters, territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and international waters.

BELIEVING: Internationally recognized rules relating to the sea, and its resources, would improve worldwide economies and allow each individual nation to have more security and control over its ports, seaways, and oceanic resources.

FURTHER NOTING: There is a need for all nations to be able to exercise their full authority and sovereignty over their own nation’s lakes, bays, ports, seaways, coastlines, and oceanic territories, as well as all the natural recourses held within.

This is in conflict with the recent resolution on piracy, which clearly states that all nations have the right to violate the sovereignity of a WA member's national waters if they use a simple excuse.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY ESTABLISHES THE “LAW OF THE SEVEN THOUSAND SEAS", WHICH DEVIDES THE WORLDS LAKES, BAYS, SEAS, OCEANS, AND OTHER WATERS AS FOLLOWS:

All-caps makes me psychotic.

Article 1: Baseline
The “Baseline” is defined as the mean low water mark of the shoreline (average low tide line) of inhabited land in a sovereign nation.

Article 2: Internal Waters
”Internal Waters” are defined as all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal nation is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.

Article 3: Territorial Waters
”Territorial Waters” are defined as waters out to 50 nautical miles from the baseline. The coastal nation is free to set laws, regulate use, use of any resource, and permit or disallow passage of foreign vessels. Foreign vessels are given the right of "innocent passage" through any nations territorial waters (given they display the flag of their home country), with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not “innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of said nation’s security.

I'm opposed to this entire section. For one thing, I believe it needs to be 200 nautical miles. For another, Forensatha and several other nations have permanently suspended "innocent passage" due to the recent pirate resolution and, at current, will not hesitate to confiscate any civilian vessel that enters our waters without permission and fire upon, with the lack of taking prisoners, any vessel which resists too much or is military in nature and does not have permission to enter our waters.

It is a necessity of our own security that such a motion was put in place and it will not be rescinded until such time as that pirate resolution is removed from law.

Note that regionmates have permission. We have no conflict with them.

Article 4: Exclusive Economic Zones
”Exclusive Economic Zones” are defined as waters out to 250 nautical miles from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and over flight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.

Article 5: Overlapping Claims
In the event that two or more states have overlapping internal waters, territorial waters, or exclusive economic zones a median line will be drawn dividing the waters based on which country has the closest natural Baseline.

Article 6: International Waters
Any worldly waters not included in the previous territorial definitions, are hereby open to use by any nation, given that said nation does not “affect the environment in a way that is detrimental to the preservation of the natural life forms of said environment.”

ALL OF THE WORLDS LAKES, BAYS, SEAS, OCEANS, AND OTHER WATERS, INCLUDING ALL DISPUTED CLAIMS, SHALL HEREBY BE DIVIDED AND INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ACCORDING TO THIS “LAW OF THE SEVEN THOUSAND SEAS”.

Not bad, but given the current status of the world's waterways and the current potential military conflicts, I don't believe this one should come up before the WA just yet. There may be other problems with it besides what I have pointed out, too.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

For one thing, I believe it needs to be 200 nautical miles.
Any particular reason? Under the UN, it was 12 nautical miles.

Untill the dreadfull injuries done to member state's territorial integrity by the recent piracy statute are undone we will not be able to support any resolution on the law of the sea. This one is decidedly unsatisfactory in any case and we reccomend its authors research the current statutory cannon before attempting this task.

yours e.t.c. ,

the recent piracy statute...we reccomend its authors research the current statutory cannon

Avast! It be the statutory cannon off the port bow!

How comical! we naturally meant canon but how fortuitous we should have spelt the word thus.


yours in merriment,

Any particular reason? Under the UN, it was 12 nautical miles.

It has to do with the fact that some nations choose to put underwater colonies in the water near their nation, By limited it as much as this does, it creates an issue with that type of expansion.

I think it's kind of best to ignore such weird things as underwater colonies...things can get too confusing. In my old one, it would be permitted to build colonies outside the 12 mile limit (exclusively whithin the EEZ, one could have argued, if it came up), and the 12 miles around that would be considered TW. I personally think 50 is too much.

Also, what with this and Diplomatic Protection, is imitation the sincerest form of flattery or what?!

We would suggest having a twelve mile radius to national waters, with a further twelve mile "contiguous zone" in which customs and coastguard may operate. In addition we suggest a 200 mile economic preference zone exists in which the nation or nations who share it have preferential fishing rights and such. Additionally rights over continental shelf and seabed geological features should be secured to the member nations adjacent to them.

Of course we would still be unable to actually support this statute since without actual territorial integrity these rights would be nominal.

yours e.t.c. ,

It has to do with the fact that some nations choose to put underwater colonies in the water near their nation, By limited it as much as this does, it creates an issue with that type of expansion.If that's all you can come up with, there doesn't seem to be much point. An underwater colony would be treated no differently to an island. So I'll ask again: why 200 nautical miles, instead of 12 or 2,500?

Probably not, but...SilentScope?

If that's all you can come up with, there doesn't seem to be much point. An underwater colony would be treated no differently to an island. So I'll ask again: why 200 nautical miles, instead of 12 or 2,500?

A strict reading of the legislation states that "territorial waters" and EEZs are defined relative to the coastal baseline. The presence of any underwater colonies would not affect that. This would close the fatal loophole in the orginal UN "Law of the Sea" resolution, which caused no end of trouble, as we recall.

We think this proposal has merit. A uniform application of ocean territorial claims would go a long way towards mitigating international conflict. With a little editing and discussion perhaps--as the esteemed representative from QUOD points out, we need some consensus on the reasonable limits of territorial claims--we think this would be useful legislation.

A strict reading of the legislation states that "territorial waters" and EEZs are defined relative to the coastal baseline. The presence of any underwater colonies would not affect that. This would close the fatal loophole in the orginal UN "Law of the Sea" resolution, which caused no end of trouble, as we recall.
Right. But surely that would suggest we should change the definition, rather than jumping to some arbitrarily large upper bound. I don't have a problem with the 'underwater colony' idea that so dogged the discussion of the UN's "Territorial Waters" resolution ad nauseam, but I don't see they should be treated as some huge anomaly that totally changes normal paradigms of international law.

I think it's kind of best to ignore such weird things as underwater colonies...things can get too confusing. In my old one, it would be permitted to build colonies outside the 12 mile limit (exclusively whithin the EEZ, one could have argued, if it came up), and the 12 miles around that would be considered TW. I personally think 50 is too much.

Which itself creates a case where the WA is discriminating against a nation simply because they choose to build underwater. Is that any different than if the WA chooses to discriminate against a nation simply because they don't have humans in them?

Also, what with this and Diplomatic Protection, is imitation the sincerest form of flattery or what?!

You write good resolutions.

If that's all you can come up with, there doesn't seem to be much point. An underwater colony would be treated no differently to an island. So I'll ask again: why 200 nautical miles, instead of 12 or 2,500?

For one thing, it's measured from the coast of the actual land. This automatically excludes anything underwater, and as such underwater colonies would not be counted as land.

And, the 200 nautical miles itself is picked specifically because of the Pirate resolution. It gives a nation enough time to react to any hostile forces before the forces reach a point where they could fire on underwater colonies. Something which 12 nautical miles do not. Admittedly, anything over 50 is rediculous if it wasn't for that particular particular resolution, but it's created a situation where you may need to react quickly to the actions of outside nations.

For one thing, it's measured from the coast of the actual land. This automatically excludes anything underwater, and as such underwater colonies would not be counted as land.
Which, as I just said, makes a case for changing the base of definition, not the distance.
And, the 200 nautical miles itself is picked specifically because of the Pirate resolution. It gives a nation enough time to react to any hostile forces before the forces reach a point where they could fire on underwater colonies. Something which 12 nautical miles do not. Admittedly, anything over 50 is rediculous if it wasn't for that particular particular resolution, but it's created a situation where you may need to react quickly to the actions of outside nations.
If the piracy resolution bugs you, write a repeal. You have already demonstrated your capacity to draft proposals and get them to quorum. It's not reasonable to advocate amending other proposals in a way you actually acknowledge to be flawed, just to skirt its provisions.

Which, as I just said, makes a case for changing the base of definition, not the distance.

Unfortunately, I am unsure what definition would be nice that wouldn't also cause more problems. Working on a possibility, though.

If the piracy resolution bugs you, write a repeal. You have already demonstrated your capacity to draft proposals and get them to quorum. It's not reasonable to advocate amending other proposals in a way you actually acknowledge to be flawed, just to skirt its provisions.

It's also not reasonable to believe this resolution isn't going to get changed anyway. Even if you deal with my quibble over the amount of water is included as territory, you still have to deal with the fact this one can't really go anywhere because its provisions on how nations are to deal with their own territory is in direct conflict with the piracy resolution. And once you remove that to bring it out of conflict, this proposal loses a good portion of what it has going for it and also ends up with people questioning why they should support it.

No matter how you look at it, the piracy resolution has to be dealt with before this one can be brought up before the assembly. And, frankly, right now I have another proposal that I'm working on, one which I find more important than working on a repeal for something where the problems can be fixed through simple overapplication of military force.

I am attempting to pass a resolution in the world assembly and wanted some suggestions on what I should add/remove/modify or otherwise... here it is...
Category? Strength?

Article 5: Overlapping Claims
In the event that two or more states have overlapping internal waters, territorial waters, or exclusive economic zones a median line will be drawn dividing the waters based on which country has the closest natural Baseline.
I seem to remember the old Cobdenian version having a neutral channel between overlapping territorial waters. This still seems like a good idea, to prevent peace-time blockading. That sort of blockading might be a side-effect of some of the threats that have been bandied about in response to the piracy business, so it's definitely worth addressing.

Such neutral zone is very good indeed.

But I think it is better to have nations not controlling both sides of a waterway between to seas. In such a case it would be advisable that a neutral zone should be in the territorial zone of one nation.

(I will make a real life argument only because that will make clear what I mean.)
If the street of Gibraltar would be from one nation, a whole lot of nations would have no exit from the Middle Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. (Because the channel of Suez is of Egypt already.) This would bring so much tension that a war would start soon in such a case.

So in this proposal I like to see a solution for cases like this.

Regards

No matter how you look at it, the piracy resolution has to be dealt with before this one can be brought up before the assembly.
Unless this one has the fairly standard (from NSUN days) 'boilerplate' clause "Except as limited by earlier resolutions that are still in force" added at an appropriate point...

Article 3: Territorial Waters
”Territorial Waters” are defined as waters out to 50 nautical miles from the baseline

If this was revised back down to 12 nm, we could support this proposal. As it is, 50 nm seems excessive to us. We would also be more comfortable with a smaller EEZ delineated, say 200 nm.

Also, at the risk of being nitpicky, could we possibly change the title? "Law of the seven thousand seas" seems a little grandiloquent to us, and not descriptive enough of what this proposal would do.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I'd like to see the representatives from the Sons of Somerled come back and incorporate some of these suggestions.

This proposal has been submitted and resubmitted multiple times and has never come close to quorum. Either work on it or drop it. Don't just assume that if you submit it often enough it will eventually pass.