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




Seaseading within EEZ's?

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Seaseading within EEZ's?

This topic contains 31 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of elspru elspru 1 year, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1564
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    I’m mainly thinking about this in terms of seasteading within the 200nm limit around the UK; other countries will no doubt have differente laws. I’m wondering how much resource extraction we can do without getting into trouble…

    I found this about fishing licensing in Scotland – http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/10/30105313/2 I don’t know how it would apply to fishing directly from the seastead, but I’m thinking that if need be, we could just use small sailboats to fish from and transfer the catch quickly to the seastead. Anyway, if we’re not planning on selling them to people off the seastead, we don’t need to worry about that… they’re not going to know.

    Personally, I think that starting a seastead micronation is possible within the EEZ of a country, as long as you’re outside the territorial waters of the country. Unfortunately, you’re not allowed artificial islands, according to the tyranny law of the sea.

    #14511
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Terraformer wrote:
    Unfortunately, you’re not allowed artificial islands, according to the tyranny law of the sea.

    It’s not illegal until the jury says guilty. This interpretation of international law may discourage venture capital and loans, but it does nothing to stop sea-gypsies. Claude Frollo can go pound sand.

    #14513
    Profile photo of tele25
    tele25
    Participant

    I’m mainly thinking about this in terms of seasteading within the 200nm limit around the UK; other countries will no doubt have differente laws. I’m wondering how much resource extraction we can do without getting into trouble…

    Probably a fair bit, for three reasons.

    1. It would take time for anyone to notice.

    2. What would the Royal Navy do apart from keep you under surveilance.

    3. The govt has never done anything to Sealand.

    Personally, I think that starting a seastead micronation is possible within the EEZ of a country, as long as you’re outside the territorial waters of the country. Unfortunately, you’re not allowed artificial islands, according to the tyranny law of the sea.

    And who is going ton police this law?

    Do you have any locations in mind?

    #14515
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Most nations take IUU (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing in their EEZ very seriously:

    Incidents like the recent seizure by Kiribati (which itself had a similar Soviet fishing agreement in 1986) of a US-owned purse seiner, the Tradition, for poaching in its waters have served to undercut US objections. The seizure of the Tradition follows the capture by the Solomon Islanders in September 1984 of the US-owned Jeanette Diana for illegal fishing in that nation’s EEZ.

    strengthen the law to fight illegal, unreported and unauthorised (IUU) fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Mauritius.

    Cod Wars

    Several Virginia fishing boat captains were confronted Thursday in what officials said is the result of a three-year undercover investigation into striped-bass fishing in federal waters known as the Exclusive Economic Zone.

    The Fisheries Agency maintains a fleet of vessels for the express purpose of fisheries monitoring and surveillance. As of the end of 2005, the fleet comprised 38 vessels with a total of 85 crew

    Seychelles has intercepted 3 Iranian flagged vessels using drift nets fishing illegally in its EEZ

    Freeman said the Coast Guard regularly patrols the EEZ looking for violators.

    I could paste many other links. And this is just illegal fishing. You try setting up a permanent colony, with intent to harvest energy and other resources, in a nation’s EEZ and they will shut you down.

    Sealand is a special case, which will never EVER be duplicated. Seasteading will have to go outside the EEZ or it won’t happen at all.

    #14524
    Profile photo of tele25
    tele25
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Most nations take IUU (Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated) fishing in their EEZ very seriously


    I could paste many other links. And this is just illegal fishing. You try setting up a permanent colony, with intent to harvest energy and other resources, in a nation’s EEZ and they will shut you down.

    Sealand is a special case, which will never EVER be duplicated. Seasteading will have to go outside the EEZ or it won’t happen at all.

    I am sure that many nations do take these things seriously, however we are talking about the UK so links about what other nations have done is irrelevant bollocks.

    1. What exactly would the RN do?

    2. Why is Sealand a special case? And why will it never be replicated?

    #14525
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    Sealand is onloy a special case because it was built by the government and then abandoned, making it possible. If another country did the same, it could be duplicated…

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Seasteading is to Boat Living what Traction Cities are to Vandwelling – simply a matter of scale.

    #14528
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    The reason that Sealand can never be repeated is because at the time of its creation there were no laws national or international to prevent it.

    Tele25, if you look at the ‘Cod Wars’ link above you will see precisely what the RN would do.

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

    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Yes, as wohl said, Sealand was founded before the UK extended it’s territorial waters out to 12nm. At the time it was only 3nm. Thus it is a special case and will never be duplicated.

    #14549
    Profile photo of tele25
    tele25
    Participant
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    tele25 wrote:
    What has the UK govt ever done about Sealand? Answer nothing, ever.

    That is not technically correct. Michael Bates was forced to appear in British court in 1968 on firearms charges, and it was Sealand at that time. But the case couldn’t continue because Sealand was in international waters. So you are correct in that the UK has never acted directly against Sealand.

    But that doesn’t mean anything. If a boat from Sealand moved outside it’s claimed territorial waters and tried to fish in the EEZ of the UK, they would be intercepted immediately. Just because the government has not acted against Sealand does not mean the UK takes no interest in illegal activities in its EEZ.

    tele25 wrote:

    The reason why you make the mistake that the RN would do something is because your own govt, navy and coast guard are a bunch of stupid bullying authoritarian scum who would do something and you assume that other countries would be the same.

    Hm. Then why does the Royal Navy offer a course, taught at the Maritime Warfare School in Fareham, on how to be an Exclusive Economic Zone Protection Officer that “emphasises peacetime operations both ashore and afloat in support of activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone.”

    This document is a “Review of Closed Areas In The United Kingdom Exclusive Economic Zone” and describes all the restrictions on fishing and other activities in the UK’s EEZ. You’ll note on page 17:

    “Where an exclusion area is in place, its effectiveness will only be as good as the way it is enforced, and in this respect the MNRs have a suitable infrastructure in place and staff and vessels on site to regularly monitor the area. Many of the SFC byelaws which prohibit access to particular gears (i.e. those areas closed to trawling on the north-east coast) are taken seriously and enforced, and so they are probably effective.”

    In addition, there is the case of the UK trying to limit Spanish fishing boats in its EEZ. It tried to pass a law that 70% of all fishing vessels in its EEZ had to be British owned, and on top of that 70% of all crew of those boats had to be British citizens. While this rule was eventually struck down by the EU, it goes to show that the UK is just as much a “bunch of stupid bullying authoritarian scum” as every other country when it comes to defending its natural resources.

    So you may think that the RN might look at an unregistered and unlicensed seastead floating in its EEZ and fishing illegally and say “Tut Tut Mate! Nothing to worry about here! Let’s go have some tea!” But I feel they would handle it just like any other navy would.

    #21621
    Profile photo of Elan Wilson
    Elan Wilson
    Participant

    A few rather simple questions, I’m not sure if someone here might know the answers…is Sealand entitled, under these modern provisions of admiralty law, and presuming that it is recognized to have constituted Terra Nullius at the time of it’s founding, to maintain it’s own EEZ?  How would this impact the UK’s claimed EEZ?  If Sealand expands it’s topside footprint, would it’s EEZ extend 200nm from it’s new boundaries, or previous ones?  For that matter, does the accretion and erosion of soil presumably affect the footprint of a dirtside nation’s EEZ?  If a nation loses a half mile of coastline due to storm erosion, does it lose a half-mile of it’s EEZ?

    #21623
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    is Sealand entitled…to maintain it’s own EEZ?

     

    Sealand is not entitled to an EEZ under UNCLOS for the following reasons:

    1) It is not a State.

    2) It is technically an artificial island, and islands have their own rules under Part VIII Article 121 which says “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”  It also says under Part 5 Article 60 that “Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.”

     

    How would this impact the UK’s claimed EEZ? 

     

    Part II Article 15 deals with how States that are close to one another determine their territorial waters.  Part V Article 74 (Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts) does the same for EEZs.  Basically the two States have to work something out.

     

    If Sealand expands it’s topside footprint, would it’s EEZ extend 200nm from it’s new boundaries, or previous ones?  For that matter, does the accretion and erosion of soil presumably affect the footprint of a dirtside nation’s EEZ?  If a nation loses a half mile of coastline due to storm erosion, does it lose a half-mile of it’s EEZ?

     

    Part II Articles 5,6 and 7 discuss establishing the baseline from which the territorial waters and thus the EEZ are calculated.  As the low-water line shifts then the boundary of the territorial waters and EEZ shift.  If you lose a half-mile of coastline then your territorial waters border would shrink as well.  But then Article 14 says “The coastal State may determine baselines in turn by any of the methods provided for in the foregoing articles to suit different conditions.” so the State has a great amount of leeway in determining the baseline.

     

    For instance, Article 7 has a provision that “In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into…the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.”  So if a big storm washes away a chunk of your coastline you can just draw a straight baseline across that indent and use that to determine borders, thus your territorial waters and EEZ are not impacted by the loss of coastline.

     

     

    #21627
    Profile photo of Elan Wilson
    Elan Wilson
    Participant

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, I wasn’t certain of those finer points, and that helps greatly to clarify the matter for me…I truly appreciate your help.

    I am now left to wonder how these modern provisions of admiralty law impact the concept of the seastead in statehood, and of the existence of the state as a “legal person” under international law, especially as defined by such standards as the Montevideo convention of 1933, and vice versa.  That particular convention defines the qualifications of a state as maintaining a permanent population, maintaining a defined territory, maintaining a government, and maintaining the plenary capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

    If artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands, cannot maintain territorial sea of their own, and if their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea or the exclusive economic zone, is it safe to say that under present standards of international law, a seastead cannot lawfully define a territory in it’s own plenary capacity, and thus, cannot qualify for recognition under such articles as make provisions for statehood?  I’m guessing that any permanent habitat established on the sea floor would be treated the same as an installation, as well, and unable to establish it’s own territory, even in regions of outside of the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones of standing nations on land.

    Is it safe to assume, then, that the present standards of international law are unprepared to recognize a seastead as a sovereign state, and that admiralty law, at present, can make no provision for the defense of the territories and economic interests of a permanent population not vested to the interests of landed nations?

    I’m not trying to steer off-topic…I suppose I’m trying to determine whether a permanent population at sea can exist, under these present standards of law, with any degree of sovereignty or plenary authority as a state, or if such endeavors are to be limited to the colonial interests of originating nations on land.  More specifically, if such a population can ever hold any lawful claim to the waters or submarine soil beneath, above or around it, and to the abundance of resources therein.

    If not, then the establishment of seasteads within the EEZs of existing nations might provide the only standard for the protection of resources depended upon by the seastead, presuming that the seastead is dependent upon mineral or ecological resources in the surrounding waters to sustain the needs of it’s population, and does not carry all that is required to meet the production needs of it’s people within the confines of a vessel or installation.  That’s just a guess, but it seems that the standards of the free and open nature of resources in international waters and outside of exclusive economic zones cannot be legally impacted or secured by the purported claim of any seastead, any more than they can by any nation on land…am I mistaken?

    #21629
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    That’s why the first seasteads should be mobile artificial floating islands. Then, forget about the EEZ bullshit. You are a vessel now and you have the right of passage over any EEZ whenever you want. Keep in mind that the EEZ are in the international waters. And yes, a population can exist on this floating seasteads and enjoy whatever degree of freedom they choose,…why not?

    #21630
    Profile photo of Elan Wilson
    Elan Wilson
    Participant

    That works well to a certain degree…the EEZ issue is only concerning because it limits the free enjoyment of the sea for all purposes other than transit, to landed nations whose exclusive vested interest in the wealth lying a full two hundred miles along the sea floor beyond their beaches I seriously have to question.  It means we can’t harvest fish, plant or harvest a crop, or draw in the wealth of the ocean floor in the regions most lucrative for a population at sea to do so (for example, rendering the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico entirely under the control of such landed nations), and if it was convenient to facilitate some tyrant to seize such a vessel from it’s population, they might even challenge that population’s use of the water itself in such areas for purification, salt extraction, or fuel use, etcetera.

    This leaves the question of what venues of lobby or petition might be pursued for added protections under international law for the rights of seasteaders to the free and unfettered use of the world’s oceans and it’s resources, to meet their needs, as well as to establish recognition of their rights to maintain sovereign states and to define territory at sea, whether or not it challenges these rather arbitrary and previously unprecedented claims over vast expanses of the ocean by landed nations, as well as the question of whether any such agreement is ever likely to be entertained, when such powers over the sea are bound solely to the will and discretion of the same landed nations who arbitrarily claim this dominion over all things “economic” within these large regions of the sea, and who, in their avarice, are likely to remain permanently and willfully unprepared to recognize the rights of any population at sea to engage in the same rightful actions so readily enjoyed on land; to maintain security in their territory, in their economic influence, to use the abundance of resources at their disposal to provide for themselves,their families and their communities, and to maintain the right to freely engage in diplomatic relations with other populations, as they see fit.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 32 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate