Topic: Locations

Locations

This topic has 1 voice, contains 18 replies, and was last updated by Altaica 725 days ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)

Author	Posts
Author	Posts
May 20, 2010 at 1:15 pm #10221
Terraformer	Hmmm… given the difficulties of living in the deep ocean, it might be worth looking for a friendly nation that would let people live in their EEZ without much trouble. Or we could just go the Gordian knot route to dealing with rules…
May 26, 2010 at 7:09 pm #10268
Altaica	thebastidge wrote: Mauritius will claim and annex any new piece of land that might emerge in the area automatically, just as occurred in the similar case of the Republic of Minerva on the Minerva Reefs, which is now part of Tonga. Mauritius does already claim the entire area.” Fiji also claims the Minerva Reefs. Altaica wrote: In November 2005, Fiji laid a complaint with the International Seabed Authority claiming ownership of the Minerva reefs. Tonga and Minerva lodged a counter claims. The most recent information I can find seems to show that Tonga still claims the reefs and that Fiji do not recognize any maritime water claims to the reefs. the ISA’s site doesn’t have an mention of the Minerva reefs. ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen
May 27, 2010 at 7:14 pm #10290
Carl-Pålsson	Terraformer wrote: Hmmm… given the difficulties of living in the deep ocean, it might be worth looking for a friendly nation that would let people live in their EEZ without much trouble. The nation whose flag you will be flying will probably let you do this. But the advantage of living and operating on your seastead compared to the nearest land might be severely decreased if you do this. i_is_j_smith wrote: It is very doubtful that a seastead will work inside an EEZ. You cannot harness wind or wave energy, catch or farm fish, distill seawater, or dump waste. The nation that owns the EEZ has “sole exploitation rights over all natural resources”. All you can do inside their EEZ is navigate freely and lay submarine pipe and cable. This seems like a very extreme interpretation of the use of resources. Distilling water?? Has this been tested in practice or in court? It seems like you could define turning your propeller in the “natural resources” could be covered by this as well, making the EEZ totally off limits. Not that I doubt that they would try, if they wanted to get rid of an annoying seastead. But would they succeed?
May 28, 2010 at 8:25 am #10298
Altaica	Carl wrote: This seems like a very extreme interpretation of the use of resources. Distilling water?? Has this been tested in practice or in court? What court? the International Seabed Authority? or the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea? Carl wrote: It seems like you could define turning your propeller in the “natural resources” could be covered by this as well, making the EEZ totally off limits. UNITED wrote: In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention. ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen