NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm currently working on the international maritime convention, which will be signed by at least a number of nations, and want it to appeal to as many players/nations as possible.

To put short, it will combine basics of maritime law regulations, such as right of passage and rendering help to vessels in trouble, with a common rescue at sea and environmental damage mitigation organization. There are several questions, though.



I. Funding.

As these activities require funds, they have to be collected. Since most players don't keep a track of their merchant fleet, it will have to depend on naval vessels tonnage. Merchant fleet usually is much larger: e.g., there's 900 million tons of merchant vessels and 8 million tons of warships in the world today. Due to warship typically costing over $100,000/ton, though, it only corresponds to 5-10 times higher cost of merchant fleet. For high militarization, top it can be is Navy being half the cost of total fleet.
So, taking smth. in between, currently I'm thinking of this:

n.1. The signatories will contribute to the collective fund a sum of no less than N$200 per ton of conventionally powered naval vessels (at combat load), and N$500 per ton of nuclear-powered vessels they operate.
n.2. The collective fund will be used to procure and maintain vessels and equipment required for ship and crew rescue, dangerous shipwrecks salvage, environmental disaster cleanup, mapping, seafaring assistance, and other required operations. The collective force will be available to all signatories when needed, and will assist, in accordance to the treaty, all parties in need, but with priority given to the signatories.
n.3. When the collective force is used to assist non-signatory parties, full market cost for the operation will be requested. Signatories will only have to compensate direct costs involved in expensive operations, such as deep sea nuclear materials salvage, and have a year's period for payment.

But the amount is undecided. I wonder, what would you consider fair and acceptable amount required to contribute? ~1% of naval vessels cost ($1000/ton)? ~0.1% ($100/ton)? Or make it all-voluntary?




II. Territorial waters size.

Another question is related to national waters size. IRL, they are pretty close to the shore - just 24 miles; and exclusive fishing/mining zone ends at 200 nmi. In NS, players perhaps want to lay claim to more, so, in this convention, I'm thinking of making it like this:

n.1. Territorial Waters will be defined as the waters within 200km from the low-water line, but not more than 1/4 of the distance to the nearest land in possession of another nation.
n.2. Aligned Waters will be defined as the waters within 1000km from the low-water line, but not more than midpoint to the nearest land in possession of another nation.
n.3. When the borderline is defined as fraction of distance between nations, it can be changed per their mutual agreement. In areas where this distance is below 400km, all waters in between can be defined as Territorial by mutual agreement.

Any suggestions? Do you think it's too much or too little? What limits would you suggest, and do you think it's better to have 2 zones or 3 zones (as in RL law)?



III. Writing style.

The final question is about what style would you prefer. For instance, which form would you more inclined to sign ?

a) "n.2. Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. "
(formal form - as in RL law)

b) "n.2. Territorial Waters will not extend beyond the midpoint to the nearest land area in possession of another nation, unless a specific agreement is made between them."
(simplified)




I'd appreciate all comments on the question, and, of course, on what would you like or expect to see included in the treaty.
It will be finished, and there's a serious group of nations to be behind it - we hope to make it something akin to NS law of sea. So your opinions and suggestions matter.

1% sounds right, but might be a bit much for some nations. I do like the idea of tying cost per tonnage to powerplant (conventional or nuclear) in the Funding section.

I: 0.4% or 1%, depending on how many members you aim at, with the option of starting entirely voluntary projects in addition to the collectively funded ones.

II: Two or three zones; exclusive economic zone and territorial waters, with the option of claiming limited control over a contiguous zone to prevent infringement of national law, illegal crossing of the border of as extensive measures against smuggling et cetera.
n1: In areas where this would result in both states' respective territorial zones ending less than [something] km from the low water mark of each state, the states should have the option of ''mutual control'' or something like that. N3 doesn't seem to allow for this.
n2: what are those aligned waters that are defined? They aren't mentioned anywhere else.

III: The first one.


EDIT: Does this maritime convention focus solely on maritime law?

I aim at making it as widespread as sensible.


Aligned waters are something between contiguous waters and EEZ - I thought EEZ would cause questions from many players. But, unlike EEZ, the nation would have the right to restrict passage of military vessels there.

Territorial waters here include RL contiguous zone (the difference between the two IRL is not that big), but, following NS tradition to keep a lot of control, offer rights to these of internal waters. Full control over military vessel passage, right to restrict 'innocent passage' for merchant ones, enforcement of local laws.

As for three zones, I thought of 50nmi (100km) coastal waters - full control; 200nmi (400km) territorial - merchant vessels can pass always, apart from suspected; 1000nmi (2000km) aligned - EEZ rights, plus potentially hostile (hostile alliance) naval vessels can be blocked.

Mutual control is good idea. Technically, IRL it would just be done by agreement between states, but perhaps it's really better to keep a mutual zone by default.


The specific convention is about maritime law, with some extensions, such as Ship Register, Collective Force (BTW, any other ideas for a name for collective peaceful rescue/salvage/environ. fleet?), and others. But all maritime things, or perhaps maritime+aviation. Other things would go into other conventions.




A possibly controversial addition might be Q-ships restriction, needed to complement a provision restricting attacks on merchant vessels between signatories (restricting, not forbidding). That, of course, only can work if the signatories are first made sure these really are merchant ones.

I'm thinking of this variant: actually, true Q-ships would be allowed, as well as any vessel with defensive armament. What would be forbidden is explicit use of ships disguised as merchant for attack purposes.

An addition to the convention might be creation of Ship Identification Code. Every applying vessel would be given public record and private code, and the code works like electronic signature. A ship transmits her ID, that ID links to Register record about her, from dimensions and speed to armament and sonar signature (optionally). Or possibly ID plus code which allows to decypher sensitive parts of that record.
Besides, a private generated key is sent, which, combined with location and time, and hash checked against Register, proves the sender is the true owner of the code.

Basically, this is an electronic passport for ships. Vessels carrying armament would, of course, have to record it in their sent data. Now, attacks on bearers of such code w/o offensive armament, if both key is true and the ship's signature matches the Register, would be treated as informed attacks on peaceful vessels, and subject to regulations. These would be, in particular, providing option to surrender, or otherwise making sure of crew safety; and explicitly forbidding sinking of passenger ships, unless proven to be troop transports.
Those without such key are generally too, but with the clause "...Unless there are reasons to suspect offensive capabilities and hostile intentions."

I aim at making it as widespread as sensible.Then perhaps .4 to .7 is in order, depending on the type of propulsion (higher for nuclear, lower for conventional).


Aligned waters are something between contiguous waters and EEZ - I thought EEZ would cause questions from many players. But, unlike EEZ, the nation would have the right to restrict passage of military vessels there.Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Kind of an intermediate between an EEZ and a CZ, if understand you correctly?


As for three zones, I thought of 50nmi (100km) coastal waters - full control; 200nmi (400km) territorial - merchant vessels can pass always, apart from suspected; 1000nmi (2000km) aligned - EEZ rights, plus potentially hostile (hostile alliance) naval vessels can be blocked.Yeah, that sounds good. A bit more elaborate definitions on whom can be denied access and on what grounds, and which agency is ultimately responsible for upholding these laws, and we should be fine.


The specific convention is about maritime law, with some extensions, such as Ship Register, Collective Force (BTW, any other ideas for a name for collective peaceful rescue/salvage/environ. fleet?), and others. But all maritime things, or perhaps maritime+aviation. Other things would go into other conventions.Then perhaps we need some rules of naval warfare, overfishing, use of international waters for scientific purposes, use of international waters for economic purposes and so on.




A possibly controversial addition might be Q-ships restriction, needed to complement a provision restricting attacks on merchant vessels between signatories (restricting, not forbidding). That, of course, only can work if the signatories are first made sure these really are merchant ones.

I'm thinking of this variant: actually, true Q-ships would be allowed, as well as any vessel with defensive armament. What would be forbidden is explicit use of ships disguised as merchant for attack purposes.True Q-ships then, as opposed to merchant raiders. I am still opposed to armed vessels masquerading as civilian ships, but I guess I'm pretty alone about that on II. I'd suggest allowing civilian ships that can reasonably be assumed to be threatened by enemy ships in times of war (merchant ships for example), carry weapons for self-defence (and these weapons are therefore limited in numbers, in range and capabilities).

I approve of the Ship Identification Code proposal.

The Ship Identification Code could probably just use an IFF transponder-interrogator system connected with the surface search/navigational array. Relatively easy, no new technology necessary. A good idea.

How about Littoral Protection Zone (LPZ) for 0-50 nmi., 0-100 nmi. as the Coastal Defence Zone (CDZ), 0-200 nmi. as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, same as present), and 0-1000 nmi. (within reason) as the Wartime Engagement Zone (WEZ)?

Yes, SIC will work on conventional technology. As IFF can be spoofed, though, it would rather be largely based on signatures warships can detect.

How about Littoral Protection Zone (LPZ) for 0-50 nmi., 0-100 nmi. as the Coastal Defence Zone (CDZ), 0-200 nmi. as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, same as present), and 0-1000 nmi. (within reason) as the Wartime Engagement Zone (WEZ)?
Perhaps a bit complex, and I don't see much difference between LPZ and CDZ. As for WEZ, well, warfare means engagement everywhere anyway.

Falls suggested 1000nmi for EEZ, which is a bit high, but would for sure satisfy anyone. I'm thinking of introducing a "de facto control" clause: while this zone can be extended up to 1000nmi, actual control is signatory's responsibility. Unlike with closer zones, violation of this zone wouldn't constitute automatic convention breach, but only warrant the owner the right to stop fishing vessels or deny right of passage to potentially hostile military ones.

For regions with working internal government, the region is, of course, free to set own internal limits.


True Q-ships then, as opposed to merchant raiders.
Yes. One can arm his merchant vessels as he wants, and defend against attacks, but using them in offense is a breach of the treaty, stripping his ships from its protection.