1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Antartica

This topic contains 61 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Ancient Man Ancient Man 9 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 62 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22572
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I’m not gonna build anything till sovereignty is acquired. It’s too much risk to start an international corporation in Africa. Countries are the same as corporations, only the scale is larger. And international law right now is like Africa business climate (in relation to country creation). The most logical way is to buy land with sovereign rights and make it be recognized. After that seasteads can be constructed there and granted autonomy, if needed.
    Also, it’s unreasonable to first put something on land and then try to make it sovereign, because the price of acquiring sovereignty will be more expensive. Look at how much firms fail in the first year of existence, for political entrepreneurship the failure rate will be even higher. To succeed, all measures must be taken, the most foolproof way is to have some country cede a piece of sovereign land. Even if a seastead is built instead of buying land, it would still have to go through the same procedure of international recognition. Maybe it would be even harder.

    #22573
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    It’s a catch 22. Without territory (platform or island, no matter which) there is no sovereignty. Built or buy don’t really matter. For sovereignty you’ll have to invest, no matter what. Yes maybe the foolproof way might be to have a country cede a piece of sovereign land….but that could turn out to be he most expensive way.

    Lets just assume you gonna do that and you found a nice atoll in the S. Pacific. When negotiating, you will have to disclose your intention,…I don’t see a way around it. When they’ll find out your intentions, I’ll bet anything they’ll try to get 10 times what that land’s worth. From now on you’re fucked. If you yes, you got ripped off. If you say no, they’ll spread the word out and everybody in that hemisphere will stick it to you. Not only that, but we didn’t even touch the subject of owning territorial waters and an EEZ,…Another international law cluster fuck to be debated :) Maybe Tonga might give you 12 nm territorial, but will they give you 200nm EEZ out of their own? That will cost you extra, lol :)

    There could be an easier way, maybe… Form the online seasteading micronation that I was talking about, and get your political infrastructure going. Perfectly legal. Also, as a micronation, finance and build a floating island and register it under a flag of convenience as a floating resort in international waters, and start operating immediately. Perfectly legal. Since you own the floating island, claim it as territory and try for state recognition NOT WITH UN, but first with “cool” states like Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc, and all the others States who’s citizens had visited and stayed on your island. If you can get recognized by few States that is huge, and can be used as a precedent for UN recognition. BUT, since mobile, you can kiss good bye your 12 hm or EEZ. In fact I haven’t even thought about this problem until this very moment,…you might not get shit if mobile, just because of the complications arising from the territorial waters.

    No matter how, recognition will be a very complicated and expensive process. I wonder if we can get around it,…

    #22575
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Without territory (platform or island, no matter which) there is no sovereignty. Built or buy don’t really matter. For sovereignty you’ll have to invest, no matter what.

    It’s very big difference. The outcome of building process is unknown. And it’s unknown how will countries behave themselves with the seastead and how much of them will be willing to recognize it. On the other hand, the process of buying something is pretty straightforward, what you see is what you get. And there are new land countries recognized regularly, so the island won’t stand out too much.

    Yes maybe the foolproof way might be to have a country cede a piece of sovereign land….but that could turn out to be he most expensive way.

    That’s debatable, look how much money different people already spent, yet with no political result… And that’s not including the price of being recognized, diplomats will have to go around the world, meet politicians, do propaganda etc. Finances are needed for that. Yet at least one recognition is received when you buy sovereign land. So in the latter case it’s not “sovereignty cold calling”.

    When negotiating, you will have to disclose your intention,…I don’t see a way around it. When they’ll find out your intentions, I’ll bet anything they’ll try to get 10 times what that land’s worth. From now on you’re fucked. If you yes, you got ripped off. If you say no, they’ll spread the word out and everybody in that hemisphere will stick it to you

    I don’t see how it is being ripped off. Yes, the sovereign land costs more money than usual land. It must be part of planned expenses.

    Not only that, but we didn’t even touch the subject of owning territorial waters and an EEZ,…Another international law cluster fuck to be debated :) Maybe Tonga might give you 12 nm territorial, but will they give you 200nm EEZ out of their own? That will cost you extra

    BUT, since mobile, you can kiss good bye your 12 hm or EEZ. In fact I haven’t even thought about this problem until this very moment,…you might not get shit if mobile, just because of the complications arising from the territorial waters.

    It’s possible to turn down EEZ selling suggestion. Why the need in EEZ, it’s enough to have territorial waters to build seasteads and then they can go in international waters and do whatever they want. And in the case of mobile seasteads the EEZ is also not really needed, in my opinion.

    Form the online seasteading micronation that I was talking about, and get your political infrastructure going. Perfectly legal. Also, as a micronation, finance and build a floating island and register it under a flag of convenience as a floating resort in international waters, and start operating immediately. Perfectly legal. Since you own the floating island, claim it as territory and try for state recognition NOT WITH UN, but first with “cool” states

    The problem is that the outcome of building process of seastead is quite uncertain, and it’s uncertain how will online discussions realize in practice. It’s like starting new company, big chance of failure before even getting to recognition part, according to statistics. In my opinion, people from online micronation first have to work on something in reality, to better know each other and to check their beliefs in practice. Because a person might behave differently in real life than in the Internet.
    In any case, there’s truth to your words… I suppose it should be possible to buy a ship and try just that. Buying ship is more reliable than building new structure. And it’s possible to live on a ship to test political ideas and to seek recognition. And after ship recognition start building seasteads, buying lands etc. But this plan has one shortcoming, there’s no recognition guranteed, and it could take years to get one. With buying sovereign land at least one recognition is received right with the purchase.

    No matter how, recognition will be a very complicated and expensive process. I wonder if we can get around it

    Well, the one way to get around it is to lobby for standartization of country creation international laws. So that it becomes possible to automatically receive recognition, as in declarative theory of statehood. But, I suppose, creating seasteads and countries is part of such lobbying.

    #22579
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    It is true that creating seasteads and countries, or even micronations is part of such lobbying. But the effort seems pretty thin to me…

    On the other hand, maybe we,..well you, lol, are setting the bar to high. It is either FULL RECOGNITION, by all states, and becoming a UN member or nothing (correct me if I’m wrong). Somehow I perceive it like having an old beat up Chevy and insisting on getting full coverage insurance instead of just the minimum state required (no pun intended).

    Maybe if the bar is lowered to the “minimum required” it might not be so expensive and complicated. I am quoting here the internationally accepted standards for state recognition:

    “There are two traditional doctrines that provide interpretations of when a de jure sovereign state should be recognized as a member of the international community. The “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. By contrast, the “constitutive” theory defines a state as a person of international law if it is recognized as such by AT LEAST another state that is already a member of the international community.
    The criteria for inclusion means a polity must claim statehood, lack recognition from at least one UN member state, and either:
    1. Satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or
    2. Be recognized as a state by at least one UN member state.”

    So, it seems that if 1.2.3.4 are worked out (which was behind my micronation idea from inception) and then just find 1 (just one!) UN member state to recognize you, that might do it. How hard that can be? In the end, and if it comes down to it, money talks,…Find out the most corrupted UN member State and “lobby” the president in exchange for recognition. Done deal. And I am kind of serious on this one :)

    #22591
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    but we didn’t even touch the subject of owning territorial waters and an EEZ

    Once you have an ocean-facing sovereign piece of land, you automatically have territorial waters and an EEZ. You have to enter into negotiations with neighboring nations to work out the borders, etc. But those are rights granted to sovereign nations in UNCLOS, not something you have to pay for.

    you might not get shit if mobile

    Under UNCLOS you can declare a “safety zone” around artificial installations of up to 500m. Not exactly an EEZ but it’s something…

    Since you own the floating island, claim it as territory and try for state recognition NOT WITH UN, but first with “cool” states like Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc,

    We’ve had this debate before…I don’t care how “cool” the state is there is no one who is going to grant territory status to a floating block of concrete. I don’t care how much dirt is piled up on it, or how big it is, or how well established your online micronation is. The only chance you would have of getting “territory” would be if you built up a structure from the ocean floor, and even then I think it improbable.

    Without territory (platform or island, no matter which) there is no sovereignty. Built or buy don’t really matter. For sovereignty you’ll have to invest, no matter what. Yes maybe the foolproof way might be to have a country cede a piece of sovereign land….but that could turn out to be he most expensive way.

    It is still my opinion that you cannot build territory, so it does matter. I believe that getting an existing country to sell you a piece of land, which then becomes its own sovereign country, is the best course of action. Will it be expensive? You bet. Incredibly expensive.

    But, as I’ve said in other threads, we don’t need a huge piece of land. It can be a crappy piece of blasted rock in the middle of nowhere. As long as it’s recognized as a sovereign nation we can create our own ship registry and allow mobile or stationary seasteads to fly our own flag. We can create a Seastead Nation which exists for the sole purpose of allowing seasteads of all kinds to be flagged under an existing state. This Seastead Nation will not care what kind of government you have on your seastead, what kind of construction it is. It will have no say in how you run your seastead, although there may have to be some restrictions for the sake of maintaining some good relations (no human trafficking, weapons of mass destruction, etc). It will allow seasteads on the high seas to be flagged, so as to avoid the rules about un-flagged vessels, and yet retain near complete autonomy.

    So we don’t need an entire atoll. Just something that stays above the water surface and allows us to maintain a permanent population and working government. It doesn’t even need to be on the water, although that would be nice. I’m sure we could possibly convince Eritrea, which is a highly corrupt nation with a GDP of only US$3B, to part with one of the small islands in the bay outside Asseb in the Southern Red Sea Region. It may cost a billion or so, but imagine how much further that billion would go to advancing seasteading than the money so far spent. If only we knew of a billionaire who is a huge proponent of seasteading…

    #22595
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    If this is what you believe, than all you have to do is wait for a billionaire to build you a nice seastead.

    #22596
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    I didn’t say the billionaire would build the seastead. Do you even read? The billionaire would form a sovereign nation that would act as a ship registry to supply seasteads with a flag of convenience. People are on their own building their own seasteads based on whatever they like.

    And you’ll need a billionaire to build the seastead as well. If you think US$167M is a lot for 300 people in protected waters, what do you think it will be on the open ocean?

    #22597
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I see.

    #22598
    Profile photo of spark
    spark
    Participant

    Hi;

    How about a platform without a flag and a sailboat with a flag. I can dock to or leave the platform.
    I can leave valuable item in the boat under a flag. US Coastguard would board anyways, flag or no flag.

    I think it would be good to build different things at the same place.
    It would be interesting to be able to move from structure to structure.
    For example on a seamount to build an anchored pylon structure, sitting on the seabed. And to build
    floating structures, and may be underwater structures also. And of course boats.

    For me a seastead does not have to look like a regular house. I like unusual living srturctures.
    It can be unusual inside and outside.

    But most of all, I think it would be good to really build something and to place it somewhere just to see
    what will happen. It could be a simple platform: may be some styrofoam or polyurethane foam covered with
    ferrocement. To tow it out to the ‘high sea’ and anchor it to the seabed. And just leave it there.

    #22602
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    What on Earth you and Smith are smoking, man?

    #22608
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    OCEANOPOLIS

    On the other hand, maybe we,..well you, lol, are setting the bar to high. It is either FULL RECOGNITION, by all states, and becoming a UN member or nothing
    Maybe if the bar is lowered to the “minimum required” it might not be so expensive and complicated.

    I’m not saying all or nothing. It’s good if anything comes out of such experiments. What I mean is that the goal should be set high. It’s OK if no sovereignty is reached, but the attempts to get it should be made with unbounded enthusiasm and considered of high priority.
    For me the problem with lowering bar is that it stops people from making achievements. Why create average thing when a great thing can be built? There’s a difference between trying maximum, failing and getting minimum and between trying minimum.

    I am quoting here the internationally accepted standards for state recognition

    The problem is that these standards are accepted only by scholars. The states don’t care about them, each state has its own way of doing things. It’s manifested in the way how many of the war conflicts lately have to do with claiming sovereignty and independence…

    i_is_j_smith

    You have to enter into negotiations with neighboring nations to work out the borders, etc. But those are rights granted to sovereign nations in UNCLOS, not something you have to pay for.

    Thing is, the negotiations start right when someone is discussing the buying of sovereign land. And for the EEZ, as it is in UNCLOS, the seller will probably ask more money when selling the island. So it’s cheaper to renounce EEZ.

    This Seastead Nation will not care what kind of government you have on your seastead, what kind of construction it is.

    But such a nation will face tremendous international pressure. The myriad of seasteads will be disturbing to a lot of countries, for different reasons, and the single point of failure will be this Seasteading Nation. I agree that it can be a nice workaround temporarily, but it’s not a gamechanger. Look at what is happening with tax havens. You are essentially proposing that a tax haven should open its own tax havens. Today it’s hard to fight with tax havens, because they’re different countries, if the tax havens were grouped under one entity, they would be finished already. Loopholes like that are not reliable enough on the long distance. The real goal should be the declarative theory of statehood being approved by major powers.

    The billionaire would form a sovereign nation that would act as a ship registry to supply seasteads with a flag of convenience.
    And you’ll need a billionaire to build the seastead as well.

    Why the need in billionaire? It’s possible for determined people to make money, like the Traitorous Eight did. My main point is: if one can’t make money, then what makes one think they can run a country? It’s hard enough to earn money, running a country is even harder. That is, if we speak of a country whose founders want to achieve something globally, not simply be a new take on the Amish.

    spark

    How about a platform without a flag and a sailboat with a flag.

    Mixing flags is a nifty idea, actually. It can be used as one of the ways of protecting seastead, some modules and boats under different jurisdictions besides the jurisdiction of seastead, then if someone decides to use force or occupy the sovereign structure, they would have to deal with arising complications.

    I think it would be good to build different things at the same place.

    But it’s hard to secure heterogenous infrastructure. Just something to think about…

    #22609
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    To Ancient.

    I cannot agree with your statement that “The problem is that these standards are accepted only by scholars. The states don’t care about them, each state has its own way of doing things…” I navigated for years and I can tell you for a fact that maritime and international law it is respected by most of the states.

    How can we even think about sovereignty if we consider the Montevideo Convention, UNCLOS, Maritime and International Law irrelevant?

    #22610
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I navigated for years and I can tell you for a fact that maritime and international law it is respected by most of the states.

    We were speaking about recognition of countries, not about any international law.

    How can we even think about sovereignty if we consider the Montevideo Convention, UNCLOS, Maritime and International Law irrelevant?

    Of these only Montevideo is about recognition of countries. It is also not a truly international law, only regional. It was made by US in times of Good Neighbor Policy. When that was over, so was Montevideo over, as can be seen in the case of Taiwan.

    #22611
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Recognition of countries is international law, isn’t it? Also, in the context of seasteading (in particular regarding the status of floating islands in international waters) I think that all those conventions are relevant and inter-related. But that’s just my belief…

    Now, if the internationally standards for state recognition are accepted only by scholars and the states don’t care about them, if the Montevideo Convention is passe, than you don’t have to worry about anything in terms of creating a new country!

    As for the Montevideo Convention being “over” :

    “However, as a restatement of customary international law, the Montevideo Convention merely codified existing legal norms and its principles and therefore does not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.[10]
    The European Union, in the principal statement of its Badinter Committee,[11] follows the Montevideo Convention in its definition of a state: by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory and not a determinative factor of statehood.[12]”

    #22612
    Profile photo of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    Recognition of countries is international law, isn’t it?

    Here’s your words: “I am quoting here the internationally accepted standards for state recognition”
    I wasn’t commenting on any international law, but specifically on this.

    Also, in the context of seasteading (in particular regarding the status of floating islands in international waters) I think that all those conventions are relevant and inter-related.

    They’re relevant to seasteading as a whole, but I don’t think there’s something in them about recognizing new countries, correct me if I’m wrong.

    As for the Montevideo Convention being “over”

    De facto no one cares about it, look at how US chooses to recognize or not to recognize. Same with EU. It’s all based on geopolitics, not on international law. No one actually ended the era of Westphalia sovereignty. It ended by itself when massive wars and conflicts started, so is the case with Montevideo. It was silently aborted.

    Now, if the internationally standards for state recognition are accepted only by scholars and the states don’t care about them, if the Montevideo Convention is passe, than you don’t have to worry about anything in terms of creating a new country!

    Recognition must be received from each particular state according to its criteria, there’s no other way now, even UN doesn’t have well-defined rules of receiving sovereignty.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 62 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate