Borders, units, neutral territory and . . .

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
ok- whatever, I still consider being called an "idiot" to be an insult.

I consider having my statements ridiculed to be an insult, so I guess we're even.

Besides- other country's shores are close, and their area of influence will overlapp with that of Germany- so how is it explainable that you are claiming that these 200 miles are one countries national borders if mor that one country share these?

Well of course in the case of the North Sea there has to be some sort of compromise made. The 200 mile limit would extend from a number of countries in the area. Which is why they no doubt have made treaties with each other, rather than go to war.

If we can impound a foreign vessel, in this case a Spanish fish factory, then deport the crew, how is that any different from having "National Sovereignty" over those waters. What exactly is your criteria? We told the Spanish to leave, the UN backed us up. It certainly indicates to me that those are our waters.

Granted I'm not a lawyer, but I fail to see the distinction.

Canada was in fact not allowed to use force against the Spanish vessels-

We were prepared to use whatever means necessary in order to make our claim. We even reinforced our fleet when we heard that Spain was sending out a warship. Those Spanish sailors are just fortunate that we're a peaceful country, and prefer to take issues to a court of law.

Nonetheless, this fact does not change the reality that Cnada has been conceeded authority over the resources and shipping regulations in this zone- yet is not, for instance, allowed to make arrests or the like yet to protect its property (in this case the fish stock).

Sorry but we did. As I mentioned, a ship was impounded and it's crew deported to Spain. And with international approval no less.

And like I said, I'm no lawyer so there's no doubt some subtlety I'm missing. But it seems to me that for all intensive purposes, those 200 miles belong to the coastal nation, not the international community. Whether it's economic or national sovereignty, the end result remains the same. If we don't want someone in our waters, we can tell them to leave. And they will have to go or face the consequences.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

okidoke- lets call it even

yup, definitly Canada did what it did- and I never understood how or why (well it was defending its resources and the Spanish ships did not cease their activities in these waters, despite the fact that they should have as long as the matter was under dispute)- anyways it's exactly such cases which keep international politics entertaining (and I am thankfully no lawyer either) So we won't have to figure out how, why and under what circumstances certain things are permissible in one ocasion, while at other times and places this does not apply, hehe. Its like the US bombing a neutral country (without an UN mandate as seems to be in fashion lately)- imagine the case where Mexico drops a few over Texas

I can only imagine that multinational treaties and international corporate law somehow regulate purchases within the 200 mile-zone. In theory any property of a legal entity/corporation within this area would thus fall under the laws of the country in which the legal entity/corporation is registered. This would be the reason why the points are split between "Exclusive economic zones" and "Territorial Seas" as stated in the UN supported international agreements.

There is something similar in practice in the Caspian Sea at the moment: Two new Oil fields have been found there off the coast of Arerbajan and Turkmenistan. Now the previous arrangement were all based on the idea of the Caspian being a Sea. So, every country had its 12 mile boder limit plus the explotation rights- apparently the country which is the closest got priority over the others (this would be an explanation why Canada has undisputedly more of a stake in its fishing grounds than Spain ). Now, in the Caspian the Iranies are patroling south of these new finds within their 200 mile zone and do not allow anybody to actually make probes their (or build a rigg)- they are even questioning the common believe that the Caspian is truelly a sea- they say it is a lake... and this would mean that the entire water area would be split according to the coastal % of each state- and Iran would therefor gain legal and unique access to the otherwise disputed oil fields (if the Caspian "Sea" is really a lake then they are likely to get away with that and in fact incorporate large parts of the Caspian into its national territory). The problem is that the treaties between Iran and the USSR are not up-to -date anymore and the small former Soviet republics have no concrete treaties with Iran that would regulate such a find within the shared economic zone. And since Russia is far and has no chance of getting hold of the oild through international maritime regulation Iran is the runner up at the time.

Judging from this example I believe that while there seems to be a basic charter supported by the UN, most states need to come to their own agreements via uni- and multilatteral (spelling?) treaties. In the Case Canada vs. Spain a new quota was established for EU vessels (other that British ones). I find this subject to be very interesting, while I really wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those that have to go through all the paperwork to establish how everything clings together.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~kryopak/OilGasNews.htm Unfortunatly the article I read on this in German- if there is anybody here interested in this (it's really good and gives a good insight on the power-plays in the "Oil" region)

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

"Der Kampf ums Kaspisch Öl

(Here is the article row- for some strange reason it starts with chapter 8 and then goes down to 1 )

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
okidoke- lets call it even

Judging from this example I believe that while there seems to be a basic charter supported by the UN, most states need to come to their own agreements via uni- and multilatteral (spelling?) treaties. In the Case Canada vs. Spain a new quota was established for EU vessels (other that British ones). I find this subject to be very interesting, while I really wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those that have to go through all the paperwork to establish how everything clings together.

By necessity, any such maritime laws have to be flexible and open to negotiation. There's another problem area in the South China Sea as well. The Law of the Sea accord was obviously designed as a guideline for disputes, but the underlying concept was to give each coastal nation as much sovereignty as possible.

In a situation like Canada and the US, that 200 mile zone can clearly be considered a national boundary. At least until you reach the Caribbean area. In our case, our actions set a precedent for international law, which I think is one reason why the Spanish didn't stop their activities. They wanted to test the provisions of the treaty, to find out just where line was to be drawn. I suspect they didn't like the outcome much.

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
Unfortunatly the article I read on this in German- if there is anybody here interested in this (it's really good and gives a good insight on the power-plays in the "Oil" region)

There's a lot of concern from environmentalists about this region as well. Apparently this oil is under high pressure and heat in a geologically unstable area. They're saying that if the oil companies pump it out as quickly as they want to, there'll be some serious consequences. They're suggesting removal of it at a fraction of the quantities the oil companies want.

[Tattila the Hun]

Pump up the oil and US east coast submerges? A new target for arab terrorist, after all, they should know their oil. A bit out of league of Al-quaeidea (sp?), hmmm?

Is it BTW east coast?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Pump up the oil and US east coast submerges? A new target for arab terrorist, after all, they should know their oil. A bit out of league of Al-quaeidea (sp?), hmmm?

Is it BTW east coast?

The Caspian Sea is no where near the US, it's in Asia in that area where all the countries names end in "stan".

[Tattila the Hun]

Is it near Canada then?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Is it near Canada then?

Man do you need to look at an atlas!! Or else stop listening to Pat Robertson. And no we don't live in igloos and drive dog sleds here in Canada.

He mentioned that Iran has a claim on the oil there, how's that for a clue. That's the country right beside Iraq. Canada's directly north of the US, all the way across in fact. No where's close to the Caspian Sea, in fact it's on the other side of the world.

[TacticalGrace]

Willem,

your chain!

it's just been yanked!

[Willem]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
Willem,

your chain!

it's just been yanked!

Maybe, maybe not. I've come across so much misinformation regarding Canada, especially from our neighbours south of the border, that it wouldn't surprise me if he was for real.

We're the Rodney Dangerfield of the international community I guess.

[Patroklos]

I like Canada, just not Canadians

j/k

[Willem]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I like Canada, just not Canadians

j/k

Well we aren't to fond of you Yanks at the moment either.

[alva]

Well we aren't to fond of you Yanks at the moment either.

You are sometimes ???!!!

[Willem]

Originally posted by alva


You are sometimes ???!!!

It depends alot on who's running the show.