Statement from the forgien department of the Netherlands:
"In light of the many questions and debates about the extent of territorial sea that should be admitted sovereign countries, the organisation has decided have this topic raised in a separate setting. And this tabel if for that discussion, so we put the question to you hounroued delegates, how much sea should belong to a soverigen stat?"
Four different calims are pressent im the world, most counties claim a 3nm limit, but a few claim either a 6nm (Iberia), 12nm (UNK) or 20nm (Middle KIngdom) limit.
France supports the Iberian 6 miles limit.
The Habsurgs are happy with 3 nautical mile limit. The rest is God's
Gran Colombia claims a six mile limit from its continental coasts and major islands. In the case of island group possessions, such as the Galapagos or Caymans, baselines will be drawn around the exterior of the island group and those waters within the baselines will also be claimed as territorial.
Gran Colombia commits to cooperative boundary demarcation with its neighbours.
Rohan has operated to the ends of visual range so that any vessel entering sight of the Kingdom of Rohan might know that they are under the protection of the Riddermark, and that the enemies of Rohan might dread the sight of our coasts.
This appears to equate to the 12 nm distance proposed by the United Norman Kingdoms and the United States of New Switzerland.
The Confederate States of America will hold it's final judgment until the end of the conference, however, we say that anything beyond 3 nautical miles and within the bounds of reason suffices as excellent. We will say that the suggestion made by the UNK, NS, and Rohan of 12 nm seems to be the rough extent of 'the bounds of reason,' as there is no way for certain to detect the presence ships reliably beyond this range, save with a continual string of patrol craft around one's coast.
12 nautical miles puts several important straits - Pas de Calais, Straits of Gibraltar, Sicilian Channel, Bab el Mandeb etc. into territorial waters category. Unless FREE innocent passage through territorial waters - be it of merchants or warships - is not included, the Habsburg Monarchy will not sign.
Pas de Calais is already congested with traffic. It's just waiting for a disaster to happen. And territorial waters or not, it will happen.
If the traffic trough Pas de Calais is regulated, by the UK and/or France, chances on such a disaster will diminish, but not go away. But then, at least, messures can be taken to assure such a disaster won't occure again.
If the 6 miles zone is accepted, the 11 miles "undisputed" international waters can still be the anarchistic idiocy it is now.
But at least France can assure a safe passage trough the "territoral waters" then. In the proposed minimum 3 miles zone to much sandbars, rocks, islets and other obstacles will severely restrict the sailing, and impede the natural growth of the economy of all involved.
Another solution for the straits,narrows and other limited manouver room waters is to agree on an international law concerning shipping conduct and rules on navigation. The early beginnings are there already, like the red and green port and starboard running lights on vessels, and the buoy rules followed by most of us.
Habsburg delegate, France never impeded the free and innocent travel trough the 7 seas. And is not even contemplating this in any respect. And not signing these very sencefull laws would be a mark of arrogance. We are just bickering about the finer points and a few numbers, not on the essence of the matter.
On the point of view of the Middle kingdom with the reach of large guns in this case 20 miles, or the UK and Rohirrim stance on visibility , 12 miles as spoken of, these are matters that will change in the nearby future, as these are matters of fysics and technology. The writer Jules Verne could imagine a gun that can shoot the moon, other visionairs see possibilities to see trough darkness as a cat does. And if man can imagine something, sooner or later it becomes true.
That is another matter why France is opting for the limited 6 miles zone. These 6 miles are nautical miles, for France 11112 meters. It is a great consession of France to agree on a non metric messurment. Otherwise we would ask for a 10 km zone.
But all in all, we're not here to restrict trade, but to make it clear to everybody what and were national laws stop and start.
It seems that the Middle Kingdom has the largest territorial waters claims in the world. We had thought it prudent to set the limit as "as far as our guns can shoot". We are however not ignorant of scientific innovation and agree that a more scientific method for setting this distance should be considered.
The proposal of the honourable envoy of the Kingdom of Rohan has merit. I doubt we would tinker with a man's eyes so easily as to give him the sight of a telescope, so let us take the human eye as a measure. This coincides with the belief that man is the paragon of creation and that his eye-sight must by the same reasoning be a Celestial Measure.
Minister Capet
Honorable Prince Pu Lun, please try my goggles...
Quote from: maddox on April 18, 2007, 10:21:56 AM
Minister Capet
Honorable Prince Pu Lun, please try my goggles...
Considering that you must be 33m up to see (the horizon) 12nm out due to the curvature of the earth, a man standing at sea level can see the horizon 3nm out. Goggles will no help you fee further.
Quote from: Korpen on April 18, 2007, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: maddox on April 18, 2007, 10:21:56 AM
Minister Capet
Honorable Prince Pu Lun, please try my goggles...
Considering that you must be 33m up to see (the horizon) 12nm out due to the curvature of the earth, a man standing at sea level can see the horizon 3nm out. Goggles will no help you fee further.
This seems as good a reason as any to remain with the 3nm figure.
"The Reich agrees that three nautical miles is a reasonable and prudent limit."
(ooc: The DKB might be willing to agree to 6nm. But nothing more.)
Even the light elevation of Pas de Calais makes it possible to see the UNK , and that's more than 40 km.
That is c.25 nautical miles, and there are elevations at both sides.
The monarchy does not see any need for extension of territorial waters beyond 3 miles.
Austria-Hungary does no see any direct connection between heavy traffic in places like the the Pas de Calais and extent of territorial waters. If France is so concerned with it, maybe build a tunnel to cut down on ferry movement perpendicular to that of merchants and the oh-so-numerous warships?
Imre Nagy, Hungarian Delegate
Rohan was speaking of vessels seeing the coasts of Rohan rather than Rohan seeing ships from shore as being under the protection of Rohan.
From testing, war, and long range fire practise, the Kingdom of Rohan believes that capital ships cannot fire effectively over 10,000 yards with existing technology, and even then it is questionable. That would bring the concept of the 3 mile limit out to 5 miles as a cannon shell flys...at least effectively. Even what most countries believe is a practical battle range of 6,000 yards is about 3 and a half miles.
That being said, if should be legal to deturmine the intentions of a foreign warship before it enters your own territorial waters as it is perfectly capable of raining death and destruction from outside of present European territorial limits.
In wartime territorial limits mean diddly anyway.
Quote from: maddox on April 17, 2007, 11:51:33 PM
Pas de Calais is already congested with traffic. It's just waiting for a disaster to happen. And territorial waters or not, it will happen.
Accident will happen, sooner or later, but as of yet the traffic is not so congested. Also there are already regulations in place for conduct in the Pas de Kales, just no enforceable, but they do not need to be as on one what to risk his or her ship.
The Position of the Netherlands in pragmatic, 3 or 6 is both acceptable,IF the country in question has signed the law of territorial sea. The free passage in straits is central to much of both conventions, and we are going to suggest an addition to the law of the territorial sea that reinforce the free passage in straits for all nations.
This would also open up for a bit more restriction in the rest of the territorial sea, that i get a feeling some nations whish for.
Iberia's stance as already noted is 6 nm. The 3 nm claim of old was based upon the range of coastal artillery to fire out that far.
First a definitionis 1 nautical mile = 1852 meters exactly.
So 3 nm = 5,556 meters
And 6 nm = 11,112 meters
The artillery of today is vastly more powerful and longer ranged than that of the 18th century. A fundamental element of Sovereignty is the ability to defend it and since modern artillery allows the enforcement of a 6 nm claim Iberia is interested why nations would support a 3 nm claim but not the extended one. At the same time we wonder at the logic a 12 nm or 20 nm claims which is out side of a nations ability to enforce the claim from land.
Iberia
- "Habsburg batteries on Malta can blow a ship out of the water well over 6 miles - nautical miles - from the shore. But the Habsburg Monarchy has no need to police anything beyond the Tradition Hallowed 3 mile limit. If a ship comits acts inimical to the Monarchy, it will be shot at - regardless if 3, 6, or 9 miles off shore."
France is still for the 6 nautical miles zone, as any of the counter arguments find their base in the old custom and primitive way of thinking of the never agreed upon 3 Nautical miles limit.
Since the discussion revolves around gun and eyesight ranges, why not use the standard measure used in battle? The yard and meter. And as the the maximum effective range is around 10,000 yds why not use that for territorial water limits? 10,000yds or its equivalent (5 NM, or 10 KM) should be adequate being between the old limits of 3 NM or the new claims of 6 NM. It is about the farthest distance an eye can see from a resonable perch and the maximum effective range a gun can hit.
Admiral Geon speaking
As our New Swiss delegate mentions, why bicker over something that is rather futile in most cases? And why muddying the issue with yet another distance?
Up to now we have only the traditionalists, wanting to keep the historical 3 miles. And the rationalists who want to double this to 6 nautical miles.
If the traditionalists only want 3 miles, nobody will blame or stop them only protecting those 3 miles and ignore the other 3 miles.
I myself can understand the 6 miles the French gouvernement wants. It's my duty to enforce this 6miles if it comes to that.
Pu Lun nodded: "I think it wisest to opt for the 6 nautical miles. The Middle Kingdom is not comfortable with shrinking our Territorial Waters but if it needs to be done in order to ensure Global Harmony we would prefer the largest distance acceptable to all."
GRUMBLE GRUMBLE Ancestors Dishonoured GRUBLE GRUMBLE Imre Nagy agrees to 6 mile Territorial Waters limit in the Name of the Austrian Empire and Hungarian Kingdom GRUMBLE GRUMBLE
The Confederate States of America assent to the 6 mile limit.
New Switzerland does not agree to the 6 NM limit.
Japan agrees with the 6 nautical mile limit of territorial waters...
...
...
...
... and a special 3 nautical mile limit for New Switserland. ;D
Rohan can accept a 6 mile limit, though many vessels will calm to be within protected territorial waters as soon as they can see land. At least until the new international law starts to actually set with the civilian populations and military commanders.
Hendrik Colijn: "The Kingdom of the Netherlands is will acknowledge claim of up to 6nm territorial sea for all counties that are signatories of the Law of the territorial sea, and accepting a 3nm claim from countries that are not."