NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty much identical to Territorial Waters. Currently on the list, but stuck it up here incase there are gross spelling errors (as usual)

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-World Assembly member nations that also accept these limits, and reach similar agreements with non-members,

7. FOUNDS the World Assembly Nautical Commission, and charges it to arbitrate in international disputes about territorial claims in the seas and national jurisdiction.


If someone can think of a word like Commission, Bureau, etc. that starts with "K" I would be very greatful...

Naturally we are opposed to this measure. Pirate lore has long since established that the waters may only be ruled by the gods, pirates at their mercy. Nations have as much right to own water as they do to own the air they breathe, therefore we will remain against.

~~WYMP

This looks to be a well-written statute which will be very beneficial to the world community, thus the People of Aundotutunagir are opposed.

As for the spelling/grammar..

REALISING the current possibility for nations to claim vast swathes of oceanic territory for legal and economic reasons,
Isn't "swaths" the more common spelling?

3. AUTHORISES that
This is clumsily worded. Maybe DECLARES that would be better.

the sea border is to be considered to be at the point where
the sea border is considered to be at the point where

waters meets the land at low tide,
Should be either "waters meet" or "water meets".

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

5. NOTES that possible issues of overlapping claims be resolved as follows:
claims are to be resolved

d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM,
than

I have no idea how to spell "archipelagic". We'll assume you have it correct.

I have no idea how to spell "archipelagic". We'll assume you have it correct.

That's the correct spelling.

Dawson: WYMP you blasted dog don't be helpin' the heathens. Let 'em be taken to the depths fer their blasphemy.

WYMP: Yes, Captain Dawson.

d) Where two nations’ shores are less than 25NM, and greater then 2NM,

Yeah, I don't think measuring in nanometres is very useful.

NM = Nautical Miles, my friend.

Doesn't exist, sry you can't establish your WANK.

But yes, I do agree with this proposal. It also helps define anything else nautical we attempt to pass. Many resolutions would define an activity as legal within soveriegn waters or legal within international waters or illegal within another nation's economic zone or something of that nature.

Also, just to be clear, this resolution does not prevent the construction of remotely operated turrets into the seabed or naval drones since they do not indiscriminately target shipping, am I right?

We called for this back during the ill-fated debate on Private Security on ships and are thrilled to see it. Fully support.


Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador

Its good to see that the king of all things boaty from the UN has decided to take up the call once again. Three Cheers for Sir Cyril! Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah! The Palentine will fully support this as well.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Hmm, doesn't look too bad, I'm not saying I oppose it but I think the word 'coast' would be workable and simpler instead of 'sea border' because some nations may mistaken it for a border located right in the middle of the sea but as you defined it, that's okay.

Yours,

We are entirely happy with the inestimable Sir Cyril's work, and since the proposition is now at vote we have gladly cast our ballot in favour. Congratulations again, Sir Cyril!

Wait, what? I didn't expect it to reach quorum - wanted it to fail so I could de-crap-spellingerise it.

Ho hum...

Looks like its heading towards the same situation that I am in.

We have been instructed to vote against this resolution.




Yours,

Cyril are you requesting we vote against?

Wait, what? I didn't expect it to reach quorum - wanted it to fail so I could de-crap-spellingerise it.

Ho hum...

At least it will give the grammer-nazis something to do in the debate, old boy.:D
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Meh, the spelling's not a real problem. Chances are it will pass anyhoo, despite slight problems with the spelling. It's not worth repealing for that only, really; so if you want to vote for, please do. The actual content is as I want it to be

Meh, the spelling's not a real problem. Chances are it will pass anyhoo, despite slight problems with the spelling. It's not worth repealing for that only, really; so if you want to vote for, please do. The actual content is as I want it to be

Don't feel bad, remember Nuclear Armaments was passed with a typo that no one even pointed out until it was up for vote.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well, considering the only change from the original "Territorial Waters" and this version is the "WA" reference and the change in acronym, it must logically have had the same errors!

Voting against resolution as delegated.

Voting against resolution
Whoa, shocker.

My vote, and your kind response (quite a snappy retort I must say) .. neither are much of a shock, but I go by the vote of my region- so please do not quote to infer I vote simply as I see fit. As for shocking things.. *shrug* maybe a resolution (not a repeal) being defeated might* shock me. But meh.

How did the UN reference get through? Sort of invalidates the proposal, given we are the WA.

WYMP: Seeing as the outlines of this proposal only applies to the UN, we will be voting in favor.

Dawson: Arr, yer waters not be safe anymore. Do ye know where yer ships lie? Hahahaha.

I have cast my vote in favor of United Nations Resolution #235.



( OOC: Sorry Cob, couldn't resist.:tongue: )

I think we've got to be a bit careful now and not press the submit button on things we don't really want to see in the record with our names on it. Things can get to quorum without much of an effort. More than likely, with fewer regions, there's a greater proportion of delegates actually trolling through the proposals list to approve.

At least it makes the UNOG's evil plans easier to come to fruition.

At least it makes the UNOG's evil plans easier to come to fruition.

Hey now! Don't be giving the rubes warnings.:D

Hey now! Don't be giving the rubes warnings.:D

I wouldn't worry too much, old bean. We're just a couple of nine volt batteries short, and once that has been sorted...well...you know...

I wouldn't worry too much, old bean. We're just a couple of nine volt batteries short, and once that has been sorted...well...you know...

Nah, we've still got a bit left till the next petrol station. and it passed, but don't feel bad about it there's always that repeal button.

Nah, we've still got a bit left till the next petrol station. and it passed, but don't feel bad about it there's always that repeal button.
Why on Earth would we repeal it? It's perfect!

No, no I didn't say it was bad but it's just my opinion. Overall I think it will work in its current form.

how is the "World Assembly Nautical Commission" defined?

How did the UN reference get through? Sort of invalidates the proposal, given we are the WA.

Gnomes! Arrest that delegate!


-- Dicey Reilly, chair Pro Tem of the Helluva Clanger That Was Committee and Wrongfully President of Ardchoille.






[OOC: It got through because I didn't notice it. Because I was used to the old UN. I have been skulking around trying to avoid the Admins ever since.]

Arr, we be delighted that the World Assembly Nautical Commission be charged with patrolin' the UN's International waters for territorial disputes. Cause we be patrolin' the WA's. Hahahahaha!

how is the "World Assembly Nautical Commission" defined?

The usual defintion of the WANC is best performed through the medium of ballet:

Sir Cyril raises his arms, and quickly goes into a ballet first position, performs an arabesque penchée, quickly into a épaulement efface, then into a fondu and finishes with a Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

The usual defintion of the WANC is best performed through the medium of ballet:

OOC: oh dear. I have been too stressed lately if I missed that :-) Congratulations(?) on getting it past, old man.

So you're basically copying the 12nm rule from RL with no real consideration of why it was adopted? So far as I know no real navy operates ships of the line whose main armament is large cannon with a maximum shore bombardment range of 12nm. Nowadays it's more along the lines of missiles with ranges in the hundred, if not thousands, of miles.

I chose it because if one is going to choose a number that is for all intents and purposes arbirtrary, one might as well go for the one used in real life. Basing it upon weaponry is pointless, as otherwise we get into the realms of "Wah! I can attack with my ships all over the world" and "My floating deathstar can nook the moon lolz".

Incidentally, the 12 mile limit has nothing to do with weaponry in real life. The old three mile limit did, but as the 12 mile limit came in in 1982, in the era of missiles....