That Platform Yonder

Syndicate replies to “That Platform Yonder” topic Wed, 06/18/2008 - 22:00 — peters

Remember Sealand?

The textbook example of a micronation, along with all doubts and uncertanities, but one with at least some claim to fame, and a shot at real sovereignity. If you've got the money, go ahead and buy it. There probably won't be another such precedent in international law, ever.

Where were we... oh right.

 

If one were to build, or transport a seastead next to it, and connect to the platform, wouldn't the strange status extend to it as well?

Of course would this require the agreement of the ruling family, and delving deep into the legal situation. But think of all the possibilities. The independence has been disputed, but it stood in place for decades without being challenged, and that amounts to something. Building a seastead or a few around it will confer them a semblance of a claim (or at least free publicity). And having another platform within reach is good for both sides of the deal, for economical and many other reasons.

What do you think of this option?

‹ Endless Fresh Water At Sea By Dehumidifiers Those we DONT WANT IN SEA STEADS ›

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/18/2008 - 22:26 — Carl Pålsson

Why would you want to

  • Why would you want to connect a seastead to Sealand? A seastead´s independence can only diminish by locating inside the territorial waters of a country (UK). It shoul locate 200nm off any coast to make the most of it´s possibilities.
  • edit: I think the water around Sealand is very shallow, which would make this a no go for many seastead types.
  • Having said all of the above, I have nothing against Sealand. They appear to have achieved some measure of increased freedom from meddling government meddling, and I wish them all the best. But the concept is radically different from the Seasteading idea: Sealand is fixed on the sea floor, a seastead floats.

 

Thu, 06/19/2008 - 09:33 — Eelco

Territorial waters are only

Territorial waters are only 12nm. 200nm is the exclusive economic zone: aside from making claims to any natural resources located there, you can can basically do everything there.

Sat, 06/21/2008 - 19:51 — Carl Pålsson

Oh, I wasn´t aware of this.

Oh, I wasn´t aware of this. Interesting.

Sealand is closer than 12nm though. more like 5 or 6.

Mon, 06/23/2008 - 13:49 — peters

btw

(When Sealand was founded, territorial waters reached only to 3nm from the coast, they were extended later. Meanwhile there have been several cases where courts ruled the British don't have authority there. Current status: poster child of micronationalism and disputed areas. :) )

Thu, 06/19/2008 - 12:10 — Jesrad

Just for information, and

Just for information, and reinforcing the point above about shallow water: the Channel Sea cannot be traversed by anything with a draft over 24 meters.

Wed, 06/18/2008 - 22:24 — Joep

Nice

I like the idea. I wonder if the territorial "claims" of Seastead (3NM) would be extended if the island got bigger by fixing Seasteads to it. If so, you could enclose the Brittish Isles by creating a string of Seasteads around it and tax them for importing and exporting :)

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the... forbids this

Thu, 06/19/2008 - 07:03 — thebastidge

incrementalism

"Why would you want to connect a seastead to Sealand? A seastead´s independence can only diminish by locating inside the territorial waters of a country "

Incrementalism, that's why.

Thu, 06/19/2008 - 10:59 — peters

Thanks for the replies. Re

Thanks for the replies.

Re vtoldude:

  • the point about Sealand is exactly that it is disputed where it lies
  • the note about shallow water is a good one... good for some seastead types, bad for others
  • yes, it is different from the moving seastead concept. But we should try to explore as many options as possible, and there are some very interesting precedents bound to Sealand. (Note also that no one says a seastead can't be anchored - temporarily or permanently to a spot.)

Re Joep:

  • nice idea, not a chance :)
  • I think the possibility of expanding the 'territory' of Sealand would immediately bring about new disputes. That shouldn't be forgotten as well. Good reminder.

 

And thanks to thebastidge for the short answer. It seems to me that seasteads will have to get recognition from every nook and cranny they can find, and Sealand has been around for forty years. The PR alone should be worth a lot.

Sat, 06/21/2008 - 20:07 — Carl Pålsson

I´ll admit that it could

  • I´ll admit that it could at least be worth a try, if one thinks there are advantages to be had from such location. If the UK government starts to complain the seastead can leave, after all.
  • But it is pretty close to the mainland, and as such I think you can get away with much less fun stuff than farther away on the open seas, the legal technicalities notwithstanding.
  • The PR benefits of cooperation with Sealand is a good point.

 

Tue, 07/22/2008 - 07:10 — NoDachi

 Sadly Sealand is little

 Sadly Sealand is little more than a burnt out wreck. When my last group thought about purchasing it. The costs were astronomical just to get it usable again.  Around $500,000,000 was the starting offer. 

 

Plus Sealand does not have any 'real' sovereign. It's all micronation romance. The Government just turns a blind eye as long as it remains an eccentric family's play thing. The British even drew up plans to seize and demolish the old fort incase they ever wanted to remove it. Such as fears it could be used by 'terrorists' or as a cruise missile platform. 

Wed, 10/22/2008 - 01:39 — Incognitum

Fly the Sealand Flag?

I've heard stories of Sealand issuing passports; does anyone know if ships can sail under a Sealand flag?