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




What about artificial islands?

Home Forums Research Law and Politics What about artificial islands?

This topic contains 88 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of  Anonymous 5 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 89 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7351
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    My point was more that by calling it a “Safety Zone” and not “Territorial Waters” it further alienates a seastead from existing nations. The point is to make the seastead look like a “real” nation and not some new entity. That will just make the whole issue more muddled.

    Real nations get a 12nm territorial boundary and an EEZ. If your seastead is going to be a real nation then those are your rights…you might as well claim them.

    Use patrol boats to enforce your boundaries…I doubt we’ll have guns that are effective up to 3nm anyway. I think shrinking the 200nm EEZ to 50nm is a fair compromise.

    #7355
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I can live with 3nm, as Wohl suggested. The safety zone is just for the purpose of national security and navigation safefty around the Seastead’s coastline. In this format the Seastead wont be able to have 12 nm and EEZ. We are on the high seas, Smith, and it cannot be claimed, the maritime law is clear here,…I dont like it but it is what it is. The problem w/ the territorial waters is that the sovereignty of the nation is respected there, it is sovereign liquid territory, if u wish, and UNCLOS prohibits claiming any part of the high sea as sovereign territory, by ANY nation, existing or future.

    Plus, the need for 12 nm terr. waters or EEZ is not that important if your seastead is 1000m, offshore. Think, …any vessel, of any size can navigate 1 nm from the Seastead or 1/2 a nm. It is their right off free passage on the high seas,….and we cant do nothing about it….As long as that said vessel is not on a collision course w/ the seastead, and doesnt present any danger, is free to do whatever he wants. And the EEZ would be usless 1000 nm offshore,…With the average depth around you being1000 ft to,…whatever, exploring (or better said exploiting ) the seabed would be out of question, and anyway you have the right to do that (if technology exist for that depth) because is the high sea,…

    The reality would be that the most we will see of boats will be the top of their masts, or as targets on the radar screen. (and I would love to keep it like that,…). You could go for weeks @ the time whithout a thing on the horizon. Its a huge ocean out there,…

    P.S. Since the unique nature of this ocean-state we shud compromise and take statehood with 3nm Safety Zone. I wouldnt be to eager to take the U.N. or the rest of the the International Community heads on the issue of territorial waters or EEZ. To much publicity,…And,…”A battle that cant be won should not be fought”- Sun Tzu. Get the flag up and keep low key. We will last longer,…

    #7357
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    it cannot be claimed

    Think of it this way…if an undersea volcano suddenly erupted and created a new island inside an existing nations EEZ you can be damn sure that they would claim 12nm from its shores as territorial waters and extend their EEZ. What was once the “high seas” is suddenly territorial waters. Ocean that was once free for all to use is now owned by a sovereign nation.

    Look at the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago off the eastern coast of Brazil. These are nothing more than rocks punching above the ocean and are covered in little more than algae and grass. But if you look at a global EEZ map you will see how Brazil extends its EEZ around these rocks. There is no Safety Zone…these rocks are considered territory of Brazil.

    Take it even further, and imagine that the volcano that erupted was some large seamount in the north Atlantic…middle of nowhere. A passing cruise ship hosting a massive libertarian convention sees the event, and everyone jumps onto this new island and they declare a new nation. According to UNCLOS they will have 12nm of territorial waters and a 200nm EEZ. Again, where once there was nothing but “high seas” you now have ocean owned by this new nation.

    So the idea that the high seas are now and forever owned by all humanity is not true. I am simply stating that a massive, anchored seastead that is home to dozens, if not hundreds, of people has more right to nation status than a bunch of algae-stained rocks. And with nation status comes a 12nm territorial border and a 200nm EEZ.

    #7358
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Get the flag up and keep low key.

    I disagree. Bad things can happen to you when nobody knows you are there. In my opinion the best strategy is to be loud and proud. Announce your new nation to anyone who will listen…and even those that won’t. Everyone needs to know that you are there and trying something new. Existing nations like to do things in the shadows so they cannot be held accountable. How does that saying go…sunshine is the best disinfectant? ;)

    #7359
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    what would happen is this: those libertarians would be out of luck! The Captain of the cruise ship (probably Panamanian or Liberia or some other flag of convenience) would claim the island for that nation, his citizenship not with standing. Anything that floats, no matter how massive, anchored or not, would not be recognized as a ‘Nation’ entitled to a 12nm territorial border or a 200nm EEZ.

    Right now in fact, 39nm NW of Tonga there is a volcano creating an Island and the Tongans have already claimed it! Oh well…

    #7360
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Im also of the lay low philosophy.

    Regardless of whats fair, the legal precedent of random floating structures eating chunks of their territory and EEZ is something all existing nations have incentive to object to. Objections of the ‘eat shit and die’ kind.

    I would only claim control over my own vessel and a modest stretch of water to be controlled for safety reasons, taking care not to have that overlap with territorial waters, and being explicit not to contest any EEZ’s. Thats the only way the international community wont stomp your butt immediately.

    #7361
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    The Captain of the cruise ship

    Hopefully the libertarians would be faster swimmers and get there first.

    Anything that floats, no matter how massive, anchored or not, would not be recognized as a ‘Nation’ entitled to a 12nm territorial border or a 200nm EEZ.

    There is nothing in UNCLOS, or in any reference I have ever read, that says a floating island cannot be recognized as a nation. UNCLOS says “No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.” I am not saying a floating nation does this. A floating nation, fixed in place, is not “subjecting the high seas to its sovereignty” because the moment it declares itself a new nation all that ocean stops being the “high seas” and becomes territorial waters. In fact, UNCLOS states that when talking about the “high seas” it is not talking about EEZ or territorial waters:

    The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State

    So I disagree with the statement that you cannot have a floating nation. In fact the Montevideo Convention, as Ocean stated above, says “territory” and does not say this cannot be water. So by creating a seastead, founding a new nation, and claiming a 12nm territorial border is not going against UNCLOS…in my most humble opinion.

    #7362
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Im also of the lay low philosophy.

    This is not the ocean of the 1800s…you cannot “lay low” anywhere these days. Yes, the ocean is vast. But everyone who is anyone is gonna know you are there and what you are doing.

    So what frightens them more? On the one hand you have a large floating island, permanently fixed in one place well away from any existing nation, that has been discussed in all the major global news outlets and is very open with what it does. On the other hand you have the same structure, perhaps anchored or perhaps floating around on the ocean, that nobody has seen before and is doing god-knows-what. Are they terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Pirates? Slave traders? Nobody knows…and that is what makes existing nations nervous.

    And when they sink you, who will say anything about it? Nobody knows you’re there or what you were doing…they can make up any story they want. With a very loud and very public seastead you might have millions of people (who follow the daily blogs by people on the seastead talking about what life on a seastead is like) all wondering why the place has suddenly gone silent.

    Nah, I want to be out there and loving every minute of it.

    #7363
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    we’re right back where we started. I didn’t say we couldn’t have a floating nation, I said we couldn’t have a floating nation that could claim, enforce and be acknowledged as legitimate with a 12/200! A 3/0 yea, so long as we didn’t push it… To be ‘Loud an’ Proud’ takes boat loads of money, to ‘Lay Low’ and build up to say a quarter-million Citizens who can say ‘NO’ is much cheaper and more practical…I think…

    #7366
    Profile photo of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    A flag and 3/0. @ least 2 people shud agree on something here,…

    #7369
    Profile photo of DM8954
    DM8954
    Participant

    Having physical ‘territory’ (ie. the physical structure of a “seastead”) will probably qualify you for “(b) a defined territory;” under Montevideo Convention. The 12nm/200nm isn’t part of Montevedio, though, is it? These are multiple applications of international law. It’s been made quite clear that artificial islands, floating or not, cannot in any way affect maritime boundaries such as the 12nm territorial waters and the 200nm EEZ. Once you’re officially recognized as a nation, that doesn’t allow you to bypass the law against claiming soverignty over the high seas, it merely proves that it now officially applies to you as an ‘existing state’. Without a natural, immovable landmass with a shoreline to soilidly anchor your claims, you cannot have territorial seas or an EEZ. That’s what the 3nm (or “3/0″) is all about. Not all countries have an EEZ. While this is usually the case only for landlocked countries, it does imply that a free-floating nation may lack any special claim to anything above and beyond what is permitted by the rules that already exist.

    I can understand wanting to grab everything you’re possibly entitled to. It would be unwise to forego something you might otherwise be able to attain, simply because there are good reasons why you might be denied. However, the idea that ‘the worst they can do is say no’ isn’t something I would be willing to bet on in this situation. It would probably be better to understand the various laws completely and only defend what is already justifiable within the current system.

    Also, I think a 12/200 might be somewhat detrimental to many of our goals anyways. Instead of having limitless opportunities for dynamic nation forming and socio-political experimentation, only the first X-number of nations to successfully found their countries will be able to make a claim at all. If every 1-man nation has full rights to a huge chunk of the ocean provided they get there first (whether 200nm or 12nm) space will be just as limited as it is on land within a much shorter number of attempts. It also draws existing countries into a land-grab for the remaining sea floor the instant there is a loophole around the problem of making claims on formerly international territory. If all you get is soverignty over the vessel under your feet and a safety buffer in the immediate area, there’s no incentive for the US (for example) to start mass-producing artificial islands to extend their territorial waters but there is plenty of incentive for the peaceful founding of new nations, no matter how limited their external power may extend.

    The main problem with establishing vast permenant territories is part of the very nature of seasteading AND part of the reason artificial platforms and islands were excluded from affecting these boundaries in the first place. How can a floating, movable, destructable object define a stationary and permenant boundary? A single bad storm or a team of Navy Seals is all it takes to either cut your moorings and force you out of position or send your structure to the bottom of the sea. Either would instantly nullify your claim to territory.

    Despite the potential for real-time tracking of objects around the globe, I don’t think anyone would be able to convince the UN or any other existing state to accept a system under which a constantly moving nation could claim rights to resources no matter where they happen to travel. You can’t allow a situation where a stationary point can change hands without a moment’s notice. The whole point of these boundaries is predictability and relative stability. It currently takes quite a dramatic event to change the boundaries of a country along with many years ofnegotiation and/or paperwork and red tape.

    It’s my understanding that, as a seastead nation, most of us only want the rights of: political and social autonomy, free trade, and the ability to harvest the resources necessary to sustain our own way of life peacefully. We don’t need full and exclusive rights to specific sections of sea floor, except for anchoring or local resource extraction, which is already available in international waters under current law and which should also be protected from interference by the safety zone, however large it ends up being. If you can create a zone of exclusivity around a particular region of resources then you can also be excluded from that same region of resources by some other entity. Then what?

    I think it would be much better if the high seas remain essentially as they are now. Free. The only additional rights we’re looking for is the ability to control our own lives on our own seasteads without undue outside interference.

    Unfortunately it sounds like the old 3nm or modern 500meter safety zone would only apply to stationary structures. Sorry, you can’t float toward something stationary and then attack ‘in self defense’ as they enter your safety zone by not moving out of your way. So, I’m guessing a mobile structure will only have a similar safety zone similar to whatever large ships are permitted. For many, this won’t be a problem, since stationary homes have benefits of their own and many followers. A broader territory might be added to that list of benefits if the legal status holds true to this line of argument. …but who knows how a new discovery of a minor subsection might affect our understanding of the factors involved here.

    #7372
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    Im also of the lay low philosophy.

    This is not the ocean of the 1800s…you cannot “lay low” anywhere these days. Yes, the ocean is vast. But everyone who is anyone is gonna know you are there and what you are doing.

    So what frightens them more? On the one hand you have a large floating island, permanently fixed in one place well away from any existing nation, that has been discussed in all the major global news outlets and is very open with what it does. On the other hand you have the same structure, perhaps anchored or perhaps floating around on the ocean, that nobody has seen before and is doing god-knows-what. Are they terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Pirates? Slave traders? Nobody knows…and that is what makes existing nations nervous.

    And when they sink you, who will say anything about it? Nobody knows you’re there or what you were doing…they can make up any story they want. With a very loud and very public seastead you might have millions of people (who follow the daily blogs by people on the seastead talking about what life on a seastead is like) all wondering why the place has suddenly gone silent.

    Nah, I want to be out there and loving every minute of it.

    I agree with the publicizing of your presence and intentions: i mean ‘lay low’ with regard to claims made over limited resources. Trying to contest even the EEZ of the weakest of nations will bring down the entire world upon you: I most certainly wouldnt bet on them allowing for that legal precedent to be set.

    Whatever the laws exactly are doesnt really matter a whole lot, because we dont get to write them. Trying to find a loophole in them will do you little good, because if it threathens the way the pie is sliced, said loophole will be closed anyway.

    My attitude is: keep your fishes, keep your oil, they are all yours, good for you. All i will claim is myself and the fruits of my labor, and ill be fine.

    #7375
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    Ocean and thank for the support! DM8954, here’s how the Oceanic Citizens Republic dealt with your observations:

    I.2.1 The Oceanic Citizens Republic’s Home Territory and Home Territorial Surface is One Square Nautical Mile located at 121.34.00W to 121.35.00W, 10.00.00S to 10.01.00S, within section ‘E’ of the International SeaLand Enterprises (ISLE) claim of September 1975.

    I.2.2 The Oceanic Citizens Republic Extra-Territorial Surface Claims include:

    I.2.2a) The O.C.R. Indian Ocean Territorial Surface at or about 90.30.00E, 30.30.00S;

    I.2.2b) The O.C.R. South Atlantic Territorial Surface at or about 20.30.00W, 30.30.00S;

    I.2.2c) The O.C.R. North Atlantic Territorial Surface at or about 40.30.00W, 30.30.00N;

    I.2.2d) The O.C.R. South Pacific Territorial Surface at or about 125.30.00W, 48.30.00S;

    I.2.2e) The O.C.R. North Pacific Territorial Surface at or about 170.30.00W, 30.30.00N;

    I.2.3 The Oceanic Citizens Republic makes no claims in its Home Territorial Surface or in its Extra-Territorial Surfaces save the right of its Citizen Captains, Subject Citizens and Subjects to peaceably assemble, live and exercise the Rights of Sovereign Government sharing in the common heritage of mankind, the sea.

    I.2.3a) Whereas the Republic exists on Vessels, Ships and Seastations each is the Sovereign Territory of the Republic and is entitled to all the rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges as such.

    VI.2.7 Citizen Captains, Subject Citizens and Subjects, who are citizens or subjects of foreign nations, are obliged to obey the laws of those nations particularly when in their jurisdiction: being a Citizen Captain, Subject Citizen or Subject of this Republic does not in any way remove that obligation.

    How I see this working is this: When beyond the 12nm limit of Macro-nation ‘X’ you hoist up the ensign of the Republic. When You need to put in, haul down and case the ensign of the Republic and hoist up the flag of what ever country you’re ‘really’ a citizen of. When we have 60,000+ Citizen Captains on 60,000 boats, representing as many as a quarter million Subject Citizens and Subjects, either the Republic itself or a group of Citizens would have the resources to build a good sized Seastead to what ever design they or TSI has determined would be ‘best’. Not as a goal in and of itself but as an economic/trading center, a town on the ocean prairie, a free port on the High Seas… Once we’re there and doing it our status as a ‘Nation’ would be a de facto reality!

    #7377
    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    The 12nm/200nm isn’t part of Montevedio, though, is it?

    No, the 12/200 is given to all nations under UNCLOS. I was saying that if you are a nation, as defined by Montevedio, then as a nation you have a right under UNCLOS to the 12/200…regardless of whether you are an island, a continent, or a seastead.

    I can understand wanting to grab everything you’re possibly entitled to.

    It’s not just a wild land grab. The 12nm territorial waters is strictly a security issue. I really don’t want to have a bunch of pirates sitting 500m from my seastead just waiting for me to lower my guard. Even 3nm is too close for comfort. 12nm gives me plenty of time and space to inspect and stop any threat before it becomes severe. The 200nm EEZ is also a buffer of a sort. If I have my wind farm floating a mile or so from my seastead I certainly don’t want some other group building their own farm just upwind from mine…stealing my wind and leaving me powerless. I agree that the 200nm amount is extreme for our needs…which is why a 50nm EEZ seems to me to be a good compromise. That leaves you plenty of space for your fishing vessels, PV or solar thermal energy platforms, wind farms, wave power systems, algae growth platforms…and a decent buffer so nobody messes with your stuff.

    How can a floating, movable, destructable object define a stationary and permenant boundary?

    It can define it as well as a bunch of rocks just punching above the surface of the water can…or a Pacific island that is slowly “sinking” as sea levels rise. Just look at how many border shifts there have been in Central Europe in just the past 2 years. The sinking or destruction of an entire seastead…home to thousands of people…would be a catastrophic event on the order of the recent wars in Russia and the establishment of the new nations of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Land-based nations and borders are far less permanent and static than most people think. Why anyone would use a paper map these days is beyond me.

    That SEAL team could probably tumble the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks I mentioned into the sea, and that would make a HUGE impact on how far into the Atlantic the Brazilian EEZ pushed.

    US (for example) to start mass-producing artificial islands to extend their territorial waters

    I agree that this is an issue, but I don’t think it would be a big one. I am not talking about using an oil rig with a handful of people to establish a 200nm EEZ, or a 1-man nation floating on a sailboat. I am talking about a massive floating island several hundred meters in diameter with hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of permanent inhabitants. There is no economic benefit for the US (or any other nation) to build such a massive structure just to extend it’s EEZ into areas of the ocean that cannot be used for any purpose.

    If the US (or any other nation) wanted to start dumping tons of rock and creating new islands there are dozens of places where they could do it pretty easily. Why don’t they? Because there is no profit to it. Who wants to own 125600 sq nm of barren ocean with a seafloor more than 3000m deep around a pile of rocks out in the middle of the Atlantic? Only people who want to use it to establish new ways of thinking and experiment with new forms of government.

    The only additional rights we’re looking for is the ability to control our own lives on our own seasteads without undue outside interference.

    I don’t think that is possible without a decent territorial border for security and resource buffer to protect our economic development. I don’t think 12/50 is much to ask and would give a nice buffer while only putting a tiny fraction of the high seas under our sovereignty. The 3/0…or 500m/0…is just not enough space to develop.

    only apply to stationary structures.

    I agree completely. All this debate is only for large structures that are permanently fixed in one location. Floating is for boats, and there is already plenty of existing maritime law that covers all that.

    #7385
    Profile photo of DM8954
    DM8954
    Participant

    That is an important distinction. A SFS with a dozen or so people is a vastly different situation than several thousand people. My thinking was along the lines of the first-wave seasteaders, which I thought would probably be Single Family Seasteads or Clubstead sized communities of no more than a couple hundred people. I still have serious doubts about the status of artificial islands in relation to ‘territorial waters’, given the strictly defined bias against artificial islands. Blasting a pile of rocks below the high tide level probably still takes more power and effort than sinking or moving a floating clubstead-size ‘island’, no matter how well you design the steel cables, concrete piers, etc. …obviously without knowing the actual design of such yet. National borders change often enough, sure. Every several years a few readjustments might take place. As you said, it could be more often than I imagine but I’m fairly certain the likelyhood of national boundaries moving hundreds of miles in a matter of hours under the current system isn’t at all likely.

    Calling it a 12nm (or even 6nm as an arbitrary example of a potential compromise) “safety zone” might be preferable to using the traditional terms. While we don’t want to distance ourselves too much from all the rights and priveledges of full statehood, effectively labeling ourselves in some way inferior or less-complete than a land-based nation, we will have to do a certain amount of maneuvering to maximize our chances of success. Directly granting exclusive rights to any resource is an extremely unfavorable precedent for any existing nation(s) to allow to be set. Allowing a vessel (assuming we’re not building a pile of rocks here) governmental autonomy and safe passage or safe immobile existence would be much easier for them to swallow than the beginning of the end of the ‘high seas’ as they exist today, with regard to travel and natural resources.

    As it is now, the early bird gets the worm on the open ocean. Once a ship is harvestng fish or an oil rig has set up shop, most competitors would refrain from foribly “bumping” someone out of the way to take over, they just keep looking or set up shop nearby without a direct conflict, I think. On the other hand, if the exact same activity was going on in similar circimstances but the first vessel declared exclusive rights over the area a major conflic would spring up. Both captains know that it would be pointless to fight over the same school of fish… but declaring ownership sets a dangerous precedent and must be quickly settled. [These examples come exclusively out of my own mind, so maybe I’m wrong on realism of one or both of the examples but I hope you get a clearer picture of what I mean by all this.]

    The right of soverignty over vessels and individuals plus the right to keep outside vessels at a safe distance should give the same level of autonomy without the threat of directly eroding existing authority or setting a bad example (unwanted precedent) for the rest of the world.

    Just for the fun of it and as a reference… here’s some math for you:

    3.04 nautical miles = 3.5 miles = distance to the horizon from a vantage point 8 feet above mean sea level.

    6 nautical miles = 6.9 miles = dist. to horizon from 32 feet A.M.S.L

    11.9 nautical miles = 13.7 miles = D2H from 125ft AMSL

    So, if you are granted a 12nm territory (whatever it may legally labeled in the end), you can sit in a 125 foot crow’s nest with binauculars and you’ll know someone is in your territory if you can see the place where ship meets sea.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 89 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate