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




How to get Respect for a new Flag.

Home Forums Community General Chat How to get Respect for a new Flag.

This topic contains 34 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of elspru elspru 4 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 35 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1275
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    There is a pesky bit of international law,

    that “nations” can board, seize and otherwise molest “unrecognized nations”.

    So how does one earn respect from a predator?

    Respect enough to leave alone, and find some easier prey.

    Some run, some hide, some have armour, some are thorny.

    So if we are to pioneer a flag for instance:

     black, gray, white.

    We can put it on speedy vessels to be “hard to get” and military vessels to be “difficult to swallow”.

    Or vessels which are somehow “bad for digestion” to predators.

    Perhaps boats or steads full with composting matter.

    Imagine a small submarine, that bothers to have the flag above the water line.

    After spending a whole lot of time pulling it up out of the water by cranes,

    it turns out it’s full of rotting garbage.

    they might simply throw it back in the water.

    Or risk being degraded to “garbage collectors”.

    So these initial boats are somewhat of a “pioneering sacrifice”, so must be at least potentially expendable.

    In case a boat is successfully captured, or in the process of, it should have some remote self-destruct ability.

    It is best to waste as much of the predators energy, and once it’s got the “treat” make it “poof” and disapear.

    Hungry and hurt, the predator goes to find some easier prey.

    Initially can still having “recogized nations” flag at the residential stead(s).

    Once a some boardings have been successfully repeled,

    it may become convenient to use it on residential steads,

    as onlookers would be just as weary of the

    quick, prickly potentially poisonous flag,

    worth practically no calories.

    So at least for the “first impression” boats,

    should all have internationally legal and very boring items,

    with high risk of injury to predator,

    and much potentialy wasted energy.

    Once there are many such ships,

    it becomes difficult for a megalithic army to track them,

    and poor past experience dissuades them from further interaction.

    Of course there is the alternative of becoming an edible fruit,

    and hope that the predator defecates your seed in a prime location.

    Birds and squirrels are quite prolific spreaders of seed.

    #10396
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    elspru wrote:

    There is a pesky bit of international law,

    that “nations” can board, seize and otherwise molest “unrecognized nations”.

    cite your sources?

    elspru wrote:
    So how does one earn respect from a predator?

    Respect enough to leave alone, and find some easier prey.

    Fine as long as you never want to go to port.

    If you want to let into ports you need to run respected Register.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_State_Control

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #10425
    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    elspru wrote:

    There is a pesky bit of international law,

    that “nations” can board, seize and otherwise molest “unrecognized nations”.

    cite your sources?

    [/quote]

    I’m not certain the exact clause or what not.

    It’s supposedly somewhere in the UNCLOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm

    mentioned in this thread http://seasteading.org/interact/forums/community/general-chat/law-sea

    If you know where it is,

    or what the actual clause be,

    I’d love to have a look at it.

    elspru wrote:

    So how does one earn respect from a predator?

    Respect enough to leave alone, and find some easier prey.

    Fine as long as you never want to go to port.

    If you want to let into ports you need to run respected Register.

    [/quote]

    So are you saying that we’d have to limit who can use the flag?

    Or that whoever supports the flag has to have enough might to be respected?

    Please explain.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_State_Control

    Please explain how this is relevant.

    The wikipedia page was just about contracts or something,

    nothing to do with nations or flags.

    Besides if you want to make port of a foreign nation,

    then have your ship in proper order for making port.

    Probably with the minimum supplies required for the port mission.

    Can leave whatever is questionable at the seastead or base.

    tranquil aware desire choice love express intuit channel

    #10439
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    elspru wrote:

    I’m not certain the exact clause or what not.

    It’s supposedly somewhere in the UNCLOS, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm/quote

    nope. no mentionion of reconization anywhere in LOS

    No state is stupid enugh to say, “Anyone can say, ‘we don’t reconize you’ and steal their ships penalty free.”

    Now since this boad doesn’t like links

    The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples

    Appendix: Opinions of the Arbitration Committee

    Opinion No. 1

    The President of the Arbitration Committee received the following letter from Lord Carrington, President of the Conference on Yugoslavia, on 20 November 1991:

    We find ourselves with a major legal question.

    Serbia considers that those Republics which have declared or would declare themselves independent or sovereign have seceded or would secede from the SFRY which would otherwise continue to exist.

    Other Republics on the contrary consider that there is no question of secession, but the question is one of a disintegration or breaking-up of the SDRY as the result of the concurring will of a number of Republics. They consider that the six Republics are to be considered equal successors to the SFRY, without any of them or group of them being able to claim to be the continuation thereof.

    I should like the Arbitration Committee to consider the matter in order to formulate any opinion or recommendation which it might deem useful.

    The Arbitration Committee has been apprised of the memoranda and documents communicated respectively by the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Serbia, and by the President of the collegiate Presidency of the SFRY.

    1) The Committee considers:

    a) that the answer to the question should be based on the principles of public international law which serve to define the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state; that in this respect, the existence or disappearance of the state is a question of fact; that the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory;

    b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;

    c) that, for the purpose of applying these criteria, the form of internal political organization and the constitutional provisions are mere facts, although it is necessary to take them into consideration in order to determine the Government’s way over the population and the territory;

    d) that in the case of a federal-type state, which embraces communities that possess a degree of autonomy and, moreover, participate in the exercise of political power within the framework of institutions common to the Federation, the existence of the state implies that the federal organs represent the components of the Federation and wield effective power;

    e) that, in compliance with the accepted definition in international law, the expression `state succession’ means the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory. This occurs whenever there is a change in the territory of the state. The phenomenon of state succession is governed by the principles of international law, from which the Vienna Conventions of 23 August 1978 and 8 April 1983 have drawn inspiration. In compliance with these principles, the outcome of succession should be equitable, the states concerned being free of terms of settlement and conditions by agreement. Moreover, the peremptory norms of general international law and, in particular, respect for the fundamental rights of the individual and the rights of peoples and minorities, are binding on all the parties to the succession.

    2) The Arbitration Committee notes that:

    a) – although the SFRY has until now retained its international personality, notably inside international organizations, the Republics have expressed their desire for independence;

    - in Slovenia, by a referendum in December 1990, followed by a declaration of independence on 25 June 1991, which was suspended for three months and confirmed on 8 October 1991;

    - in Croatia, by a referendum held in May 1991, followed by a declaration of independence on 25 June 1991, which was suspended for three months and confirmed on 8 October 1991;

    - in Macedonia, by a referendum held in September 1991 in favour of a sovereign and independent Macedonia within an association of Yugoslav states;

    - in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by a sovereignty resolution adopted by Parliament on 14 October 1991, whose validity has been contested by the Serbian community of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    b) – The composition and workings of the essential organs of the Federation, be they the Federal Presidency, the Federal Council, the Council of the Republics and the Provinces, the Federal Executive Council, the Constitutional Court or the Federal Army, no longer meet the criteria of participation and representatives inherent in a federal state;

    c) – The recourse to force has led to armed conflict between the different elements of the Federation which has caused the death of thousands of people and wrought considerable destruction within a few months. The authorities of the Federation and the Republics have shown themselves to be powerless to enforce respect for the succeeding ceasefire agreements concluded under the auspices of the European Communities or the United Nations Organization.

    3) – Consequently, the Arbitration Committee is of the opinion:

    - that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of dissolution;

    - that it is incumbent upon the Republics to settle such problems of state succession as may arise from this process in keeping with the principles and rules of international law, with particular regard for human rights and the rights of peoples and minorities;

    - that it is up to those Republics that so wish, to work together to form a new association endowed with the democratic institutions of their choice.

    Opinion No. 2

    On 20 November 1991 the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee received a letter from Lord Carrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, requesting the Committee’s opinion on the following question put by the Republic of Serbia:

    Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?

    The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina’.

    1. The Committee considers that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree otherwise.

    2. Where there are one or more groups within a state constituting one or more ethnic, religious or language communities, they have the right to recognition of their identity under international law.

    As the Committee emphasized in its Opinion No. 1 of 29 November 1991, published on 7 December, the – now peremptory – norms of international law require states to ensure respect for the rights of minorities. This requirement applies to all the Republics vis-à-vis the minorities on their territory.

    The Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia must therefore be afforded every right accorded to minorities under international convention as well as national and international guarantees consistent with the principles of international law and the provisions of Chapter II of the draft Convention of 4 November 1991, which has been accepted by these Republics.

    3. Article 1 of the two 1986 International Covenants on human rights establishes that the principle of the right to self-determination serves to safeguard human rights. By virtue of that right every individual may choose to belong to whatever ethnic, religious or language community he or she wishes.

    In the Committee’s view one possible consequence of this principle might be for the members of the Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia to be recognized under agreements between the Republics as having the nationality of their choice, with all the rights and obligations which that entails with respect to the states concerned.

    4. The Arbitration Committee is therefore of the opinion:

    (i) that the Serbian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia is entitled to all the rights concerned to minorities and ethnic groups under international law and under the provisions of the draft Convention of the Conference on Yugoslavia of 4 November 1991, to which the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia have undertaken to give effect; and

    (ii) that the Republics must afford the members of those minorities and ethnic groups all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in international law, including, where appropriate, the right to choose their nationality.

    Opinion No. 3

    On 20 November 1991 the Chairman of the Arbitration Committee received a letter from Lord Carrington, Chairman of the Conference on Yugoslavia, requesting the Committee’s opinion on the following question put by the Republic of Serbia:

    Can the internal boundaries between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia be regarded as frontiers in terms of public international law?

    The Committee took note of the aide-mémoires, observations and other materials submitted by the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia, by the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and by the `Assembly of the Serbian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina’.

    1. In its Opinion No. 1 of 29 November, published on 7 December, the Committee found that `the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of breaking up’. Bearing in mind that the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, inter alia, have sought international recognition as independent states, the Committee is mindful of the fact that its answer to the question before it will necessarily be given in the context of a fluid and changing situation and must therefore be founded on the principles and rules of public international law.

    2. The Committee therefore takes the view that once the process in the SFRY leads to the creation of one or more independent states, the issue of frontiers, in particular those of the Republics referred to in the question before it, must be resolved in accordance with the following principles:

    First – All external frontiers must be respected in line with the principles stated in the United Nations Charter, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the Helsinki Final Act, a principle which also underlies Article 11 of the Vienna Convention of 23 August 1978 on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties.

    Second – The boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, and possibly other adjacent independent states may not be altered except by agreement freely arrived at.

    Third – Except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become frontiers protected by international law. This conclusion follows from the principle of respect for the territorial status quo and, in particular, from the principle of uti possidetis. Uti possidetis, though initially applied in settling decolonisation issues in America and Africa, is today recognized as a general principle, as stated by the International Court of Justice in its Judgment of 22 December 1986 in the case between Burkina Fase and Hali (Frontier Dispute, (1986) Law Reports 554 at 565):

    Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles…

    The principle applies all the more readily to the Republic since the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 5 of the Constitution of the SFRY stipulated that the Republics’ territories and boundaries could not be altered without their consent.

    Fourth – According to a well-established principle of international law the alteration of existing frontiers or boundaries by force is not capable of producing any legal effect. This principle is to be found, for instance, in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)) and in the Helsinki Final Act; it was cited by the Hague Conference on 7 September 1991 and is enshrined in the draft Convention of 4 November 1991 drawn up by the Conference on Yugoslavia.

    IN fact the the convention of P.O.W.s says:

    Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
    (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
    (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) that of carrying arms openly;
    (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    elspru wrote:

    So are you saying that we’d have to limit who can use the flag?

    Or that whoever supports the flag has to have enough might to be respected?

    Please explain.

    If a state want’s their ships to be allowed into water’s of other states it has to make sure the ships are safe.

    So yes, “we’d have to limit who can use the flag” or more accoretly, “We has to be able to exert ACTUAL authority oever any ship using our flag”

    elspru wrote:
    Please explain how this is relevant.

    After the Amoco Cadiz sank that year, it was decided to also audit on safety and pollution. To this end, in 1982 the Paris Memorandum of Understanding was agreed upon, establishing Port State Control, nowadays 26 European countries and Canada. In practice, this was a reaction on the failure of the flag states – especially flags of convenience that have delegated their task to classification societies – to comply with their inspection duties.

    Actual fully recognized states have problems having their flag respected if thay are lax of regulating it’s use.

    #10440
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:
    No state is stupid enugh to say, “Anyone can say, ‘we don’t reconize you’ and steal their ships penalty free.”

    oops.

    I ment:

    No state is stupid enugh to say, “Anyone can say, ‘we don’t reconize you’ and steal our ships penalty free.”

    #10442
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:
    nope. no mentionion of reconization anywhere in LOS

    I think he is talking about the section of UNCLOS where it states that the ships of any nation have the right to board any vessel not flying the flag of a recognized nation. That’s why you can’t just paint some lines on a piece of cloth and say you are on a flagged vessel.

    And all your posts about nations keep making mention of the one thing we’ve debated over and over on these forums: territory. To even come close to being recognized as a sovereign nation you need to have territory. While some feel that a floating platform, or even a large ship, can be called “territory” I firmly disagree with them.

    #10448
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Altaica wrote:

    nope. no mentionion of reconization anywhere in LOS

    I think he is talking about the section of UNCLOS where it states that the ships of any nation have the right to board any vessel not flying the flag of a recognized nation. That’s why you can’t just paint some lines on a piece of cloth and say you are on a flagged vessel.[/quote]

    For the third time in this thread alone. NO where in the UNCLOS does it distinguish between recognized nations and unrecognized nations.

    IN fact as recently as 1991 the international community has re affermed that recognization is not required.

    a) that the answer to the question should be based on the principles of public international law which serve to define the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state; that in this respect, the existence or disappearance of the state is a question of fact; that the effects of recognition by other states are purely declaratory;

    #10453
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    by existing states of new states into the international community seems to be based on the new states ability to assume its responsibilities AS a state under international law. Recognition in the case of a Seasteading Nation as a defacto creation would seem to occur after the new nation has demonstrated its ability to maintain istelf and is accepted by members of the international community, either by a formal statement by an existing state entering into diplomatic relations with the new state. Its a “Which came first kind of thing: The chicken or the egg?” We simply have to take our chances and do it…

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:
    For the third time in this thread alone. NO where in the UNCLOS does it distinguish between recognized nations and unrecognized nations.

    And what I am telling you is that if you paint a few colors on a piece of white cloth and hang it from your mast you might as well be flagless.

    You are correct that UNCLOS does not say anything about recognized nations, but you need to be registered in a nation…not just flying its flag. You can only register your vessel in a recognized nation that has a recognized ship registry.

    So in this situation flying the flag of an unrecognized country with an unrecognized ship registry is the same as sailing without a flag. And UNCLOS is very clear about what can happen to you if you do that.

    And you 1991 quote doesn’t say anything about recognition not being required. It says that recognition by other states is declaratory. What that quote is saying is that whether a state appears or disappears it is still up to other states to decide individually if they want to recognize and treat it as a state or not. That is the “declarative theory of statehood”, that you aren’t a state until other states call you and treat you like a state.

    #10456
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    the “Declarative Theory of Statehood” is when a state declares itself independent of recognition.

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    wohl1917 wrote:

    the “Declarative Theory of Statehood” is when a state declares itself independent of recognition.

    Excellent, seems like we can use our own flags.

    What I was thinking is that we could have a nation or flag registry.

    The service provided is applying to various courts and countries

    in case someones nation flag isn’t respected.

    Alternatively could provide security forces

    for operating in world ocean waters.

    Also can offer services like rescue.

    Such a shared service company could be a voluntary organization.

    An inter-tribal alliance, of atom-tribe groups, forming molecules.

    Can even use electronic verificiation of identity.

    tranquil aware desire choice love express intuit channel

    #10469
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    wohl1917 wrote:

    the “Declarative Theory of Statehood” is when a state declares itself independent of recognition.

    Sorry, I meant to say the “Constitutive Theory of Statehood”. My bad.

    #10476
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    First of all, thats a shity looking Flag. Try this one

    And, if you want anybody to “respect” your flag you shud be prepared to defend it and die for what it represents. Thats it.

    #10477
    Avatar of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    Ocean, I didn’t think much of it either. To blah but hey be nice: to each his own! The Republic uses the National Colors of Red, Yellow and Blue which are the primary colors occurring in nature from which all other colors are composed. The SRGB Standard colors and numbers are Red FF0000, Yellow FFFF00 and Blue 0000FF. The flag of the Republic utilizes the National Colors to illustrate the three primary elements of our oceanic world: the Sun, Sky and Sea. The Sea makes up the bottom 1/3 of the hoist and the sky the upper 2/3rds on a horizontal line. The disk of the Sun is ½ the hoist in diameter, bisected by the line and covered by the Sea, one radius from the hoist. From the vertical the Suns rays are set 60’ apart at 30’, 90’, 150’, 210’, 270’ and 330’ radiating outward covering 10’ of arc, 5’ on either side of their line. Four rays are seen above the horizontal line of the Sea, the lower two showing only 5’ above that line.

    The National Flag is flown over our Embassies, Seastations and is the Battle Flag of the Republic and has a hoist to fly ratio of 4 by 9, and be large, and if flown on a pole, that pole should be at least 3 but not more than 5 times the flags diagonal length tall. The Ensign, or common use flag, has a hoist to fly ratio of 3 by 5, the fly being approximately 1 inch per foot of waterline of the vessel and is to be flown on a staff at the stern when the boat is at anchor displayed from 0800 till sundown and while under way. It may be flown at the peak of a gaff-rigged vessel or from the leach of a jib-headed mainsail 1/3 of the way down from the peak, or from the backstay 1/3 of the way down from the peak, or on a stern staff if the boom does not over hang the stern.

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Wow, those sure are a lot of rules for a flag. Am I free to fly the flag however I choose on my seastead if I am part of the Republic, or is there a strong central authority that regulates and enforces these flag rules? The idea of forcing individual seasteads to fly a flag a certain way doesn’t seem to work well with “Libertarian ideals of Freedom and Self-Determination”.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 35 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate