Forum Replies Created
January 16, 2014 at 5:02 pm #22659
…or a cement anchor, a buoy and a leaky rowboat.
The idea is that it’s freely open to expansion, from the time of it’s conception onward…those amenities are suggestions and ideas for what would offer a lucrative return to investment, but they’re not necessary for people to take up settlement at sea. At the very least, a mooring field along a major shipping lane is a good, sound start on establishing a permanent settlement at sea. Any services offered which were a viable alternative to hefty port fees and routes through national waters would have to be of benefit, and would give good incentive for the world community at large to support the settlement. The fair weather and novel concept of the community design would be lucrative to drawing tourists, and a floatel could be positioned on-site for under or around one million even, give or take variance on the basis of market availability and range to transport it to the site, at the time of purchase.January 12, 2013 at 3:55 am #21647
Reefs and shallows outside of the EEZs of existing nations have been mentioned…could anyone refer me to some of these areas or their coordinates, for more careful examination? I’ve heard some people speaking of the Saya de Malha banks as being in unprotected territory, but the map I’m looking at shows France and Mauritius have pretty much everything out there annexed.January 10, 2013 at 7:18 am #21630
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.January 9, 2013 at 6:03 pm #21627
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?January 8, 2013 at 7:15 pm #21621
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?