Freedom of Navigation Act

[BrumBrum]

I wholely support this bill though there are some changes I may suggest regarding miles of territorial waters which maybe should be be set at 12 miles or 24 miles off the coact. There should also be a section stating what happpens in scenarios where the distance halfway is less than the territorial water limit in which case 50/50 sharing of a strait makes sense.I also believe we need specifically to ban taxing ships passing through non-territorial waters explicitly rather than doing so by implying as this could easily be used as a loophole with nations saying its not in the act but overall this is a necessary bill that will bring much important stability, peace and consistent rules across the EU.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Spain]

I request a debate extension.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Istkalen]

There is a week left, Cllr. Tusk. I will consider debate extensions when we get closer to the end of that week; however, I will take this into consideration then.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

I propose the following amendments to this act :
Amendment I:
Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 1012 nautical miles from a state’s coastline, in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
International waters: any mass of water extending up from 10 12 nautical miles from a state’s coastline including any Exclusive Economic Zone.

Amendment II:
III. No state shall unilaterally grant itself the right to deny or limit the passage of any ship through international waters or through territorial waters under the right of transit passage nor impose any customs tax of any kind through international waters.
Amendment III:
I. Ships of any civilian or merchant nature are entitled to freely navigate international waters.
IV. Transit passage of a civilian or merchant ship through territorial waters may be denied only in the event of a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court.

I do think there would be issues with allowing foreign military ships of all nations in territorial waters where it could present a national security threat and its not just about the freedom of navigation but making sure no unfair taxes are imposed outside of territorial waters.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Yosai]

I want to known that we in the Federal Republic of Yosai supports this legislation. But I also support the proposals of my United Duchies colleague.

Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai.

[The United Kingdom]

We fully endorse the United Duchies look.

David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom

[Inimicus]

The Empire of Inimicus stands resolutely against any attempt by outside actors to regulate member states' rights to police their own waters. Not only does this Act tread grossly and insensitively on hotly contested issues in our region, it does so with an inconsiderate blanket approach that does nothing to solve those issues. We will continue to oppose this Act even in amended form.

Nicholas Benfield
Deputy Speaker

[BrumBrum]

I would like to revise amendment III to:
Amendment III:
I. Ships of any nature are entitled to freely navigate international waters.
IV. Transit passage of a civilian or merchant ship through territorial waters may be denied only in the event of a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court.

Or propose this as 4th overiding amendment.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

I'd like to thank the Honourable Councilor for Ineland on this very timely bill. Although I do see some issues regarding this act, I believe the amendments agreed to be proposed by the AEC are enough to fix such issues. With that, the following amendments are proposed:

Amendment IV:
III. No state shall unilaterally grant itself the right to deny or limit the passage of any ship through international waters or through territorial waters under the right of transit passage. may exercise any jurisdiction or impose local regulations over International Waters.
IV. Transit passage of a ship through territorial waters may be denied only in the event of a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court.
IV. Nations shall reserve the right to regulate the transit of any vessel over their territorial waters.

Amendment V:
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS

• Strait: any mass of water connected to the open sea between two large landmasses with no longer than twice the distance of territorial waters as its narrowest width.

SECTION II: REGULATIONS
V. In the situation where territorial claims overlap such as those in straits, the territorial waters will be shrunk and divided equally between the nations laying claim over such narrow body of water.

Amendment VI:
SECTION II: REGULATIONS
VI. Nations shall have complete rights over exploitation of the resources within their Territorial Waters, including those under the seabed.

Amendment VII:
SECTION III: OBSERVATORY OF EUROPEAN NAVIGATION
IV. The Observatory shall serve as the first mediator in case of conflicting claims over territories and the resources within them.
V. The Observatory shall issue a map that details the territorial waters of each nation as prescribed by the provisions of this act.

Now on the comments from the Honourable Councilor for Inimicus, I condemn his opposition to this act. It is clear, that nations who do not support the purposes of regulatory laws like this that are for the mutual benefit of all member-states, have intentions to attempt in establishing a hegemony and continue to bully smaller nations. The fact that the Empire of Inimicus is also involved in the recent incident in Adventuranza proves my assumptions that the Honourable Councilor for Inimicus wants to protect his country's continued aggression and attempt to dominate Europe through any means, regardless if that will involve the use of force or the destruction of other nations that oppose in any way. To this end, I call on all other member-states to step up to bully nations such as those who commit blatant claims that violate the sovereignty of other nations and condemn such actions by supporting this act. That is all for now, thank you.

Dame Yuridiana Yahontova GCC
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Istkalen]

I am opposed to every single proposed amendment. The amendments proposed by Cllr. Yahontov defeat the purpose of the act, and reduce it solely to regulating the grievances of Reitzmag over a very specific issue. The Duchian amendments are unnecessary and in one case may accidentally prevent governments from taking action against ships carrying military equipment - military commerce ships, and again reduce the act to regulating a very specific issue that the Duchian government takes issue with.

Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Yosai]

"I want it on record that the Federal Republic of Yosai has no issue with the act as originally written either."

Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai

[Istkalen]

I propose the following amendment:

AMENDMENT VIII:

SECTION I: DEFINITIONS

• Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through territorial waters of a given state for the sole purpose of continuously navigating between two different parts of the high seas whose connection is unavoidably necessary through the territorial waters of a state.
• Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 10 nautical miles from a state’s coastline, in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
• International waters: any mass of water extending up from 10 nautical miles from a state’s coastline.
• Internal waters: any mass of water located within the contiguous coastline (i.e. some small bays and gulfs, harbours) or completely surrounded by land and fully located within the territorial boundaries of a single state.
• Ship: a shorthand referring to ships of a non-military nature

---

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Duxburian Union]

Most of this act is a complete non-starter with the Union of Duxburian Dominions. The preamble declares the act's goal of forcing "unrestricted free trade and mobility" upon the entire region, shoving aside the wishes, policies, treaties, and laws of various member-states. This makes a complete mockery of "United in Diversity" and sets the act off on the wrong foot right from the beginning.

In section 1, the idea of an inherent "transit passage" right is ridiculous. A ship doesn't have the right to just cruise through Duxburian waters to connect two sides of a journey without its permission any more than a pedestrian has the right to waltz through my house to connect two sidewalks without my permission. If a ship needs to transit a state's territorial waters, it needs to secure consent to do so. If that passage is denied, the ship cannot pass, end of story. Entry without some form of clearance, pre-clearance, standing agreement, treaty rights, etc. is illegal trespass into a state's territory, regardless of whether it occurs on land or at sea.

Likewise, there are limited inherent rights in "international" waters. The lack of possession by a state does not make those waters s safe haven from consequence. If a nation presents itself as a threat, we have every right to prevent that nation's use of whatever waters we can, and that state has the right to deny us that ability, if able. Ability to deny is what gives a state maritime rights to begin with, not pieces of paper in landlocked Europolis. You don't bring paper to a missile fight.

The enforcement section is a section 20 violation of the UDoHR, which supercedes any act of the European Council. No one's right to run for public office may be stripped by a Council act, especially one where the violation has nothing to do with democratic governance. The rest of it comes across as unnecessarily and brutally punitive, akin to some other recent, controversial proposals. Duxburians would prefer if European law enforcement focuses on getting compliance rather than imposing criminal punishment. Punishment by itself, especially when it involves things totally unrelated to the violation like Council voting rights, does not improve compliance, it just pisses a state off. If I violate Council rules, you may totally suspend me. If my nation stops a ship, you're not doing that. It's just not happening.

The amendments just make this act worse - Amendment V is literally a declaration of war. A state that attempts to "shrink" or redefine/reclassify a Duxburian water body will be rejected and their attempt to enforce it will result in the commencement of open hostilities. The amendments actually tell me the point of this act isn't for freedom of navigation, but to grind an axe about a certain strait. The whole thing is a facade for one nation's issues.

War may end up being the only way to avoid the worst parts of the act and still be able to maintain sane border policies. Again, I must warn that any state thinking about exercising many of the "rights" in this act and/or its amendments risks war with the Union of Duxburian Dominions. The Duxburian government makes its red lines clear and will back them with whatever means are necessary.

We oppose the act regardless of amendments.

Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union

[BrumBrum]

The Istkalen amendment would work for us but we do believe as written it leaves wriggle room for unfair trade practises by any nation. While not a hill we would die on we would prefer 12 miles as that is what we claim in our laws which would require change if this was to pass in that aspect. There is also nothing saying what to do in a strait of less than 24 miles as written originally which could open up disputes in that situation as both nations would technically be right to claim 10 miles or 12 miles if amended,This is not about Spain or Innimicus or ECON or Telum but setting an international standard acceptable to all. We cannot abide by it as written which would force allowing military transit through out territorial waters.Some amendments are needed and any of them are acceptable to us.We are not interested in Telum vs ECON but making sure this act covers as many situations as possible and clarifies what to do in cases of where the straits halfway point is less than the 10 or 12 miles potentially stated in the act. I withdraw the original amendment III from consideration.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[BrumBrum]

After hearing the DU's representitives views we propose the following amendment:

IV. Any state found guilty of abusing the situation described in section II (IV) to unlawfully halt free navigation shall be made liable for any economic damages caused as well as have its right to vote in the European Council suspended for a period of one to three months.
V. Any official found guilty of violating this Act or of assisting others in violating this Act shall be imprisoned for a period of six to eighteen months, as well as having its passive suffrage rights suspended for a period of three to six years.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councllor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

As the emissary of the legitimate Son of Heaven, the head of the House of Kareskenet, who rules over all under Heaven from he Fatherland of all peoples, the Magnificent State, Istkalen, I recognize the truth - that all lands and waters, in the end, are again under the rule of the Son of Heaven, our leader of our magnificent state of Istkalen, and therefore that this act is from the beginning invalid.

I therefore reject this act. All lands and waters are, by the ruling of Heaven, under the Son of Heaven; there is no other path forwards other than recognition of this, correct, order.

Under the authority given to me by the Son of Heaven as His emissary to this council of barbarian states, I proclaim that this act is spiritually invalid, and that those who attempt to enforce it, if it is put into place, will be struck down by flames from heaven.

Now, let us return to reality. We can clearly see that the argument I have just presented is completely nonsensical; it is an argument that belongs to the Middle Ages. Divine right is a concept that died long ago, completely rightly, regardless of how important it was, is, to our national culture. Unity cannot tolerate diversity which threatens unity; and the example which I have given, an almost exact quotation, with certain changes to reflect this Council and what it is discussing, from an emissary of some long-ago emperor of my nation, fits almost perfectly as a system of thought which cannot be included into any consideration of diversity. It is an affront to every principle of our modern times, an affront to both diversity and unity in itself.

Why, then, must we tolerate the principle of "might makes right?" It is as medieval a principle as divine right; I would go as far as to say that it is merely a modified version of divine right, but one that effectively places population and resources in the place of whatever entity one chooses to believe in. A state, according to this principle, has the right to do whatever with whatever it can control, up to and including murdering civilians left and right, not even in territorial waters but in the open ocean, because they happen to be on passenger or merchant ships that come from a nation that a government is opposed to. This is barbarism on the same level as the barbarism of divine right.

The European Union is tasked with maintaining human dignity. Indeed, this is the cause of our modern age, even in conflict and war. "Might makes right" is therefore completely incompatible with human dignity, with the modern age, and with the Union itself. In the same way we do not tolerate member-states organizing pogroms under any circumstances, regardless of whether they have been historically engaged in pogroms or have the power to continue their pogroms, we also should not accept this similarly brutal and medieval principle.

Let us stand for some vestige of modernity, please.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

I propose the following addition to the act to protect countries like Nofoagas rights to set restrictions on cruiseships or big ships through the most ecologically sensitive areas:
SECTION II: REGULATIONS
V:Countries may as part of their EEZ zone of international waters set up marine reserves in the most sensitive areas and fish spawning grounds and register them with the EU in order to protect that area from fishing the most environmentally damaging forms of shipping such as big Cruise Ships and ships running the dirtiest bunker fuel in order to protect their countries areas environment. However restrictions must be universal to all countries ships and without prejudice and may not impede the transit through short straits.

I believe this is essential as an amendment as how the act is presently worded may upset countries like Nofoaga if they cannot protect their ecologically sensitive areas and continue their cruise ship ban. They must have the option to do this within their powers.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[BrumBrum]

@Istkalen I have to take issue with the amendment from the right honourable Tilkanas . The amendment combined with the other areas of the act would allow nations to police military ship manoeuvres through international waters. That is not tolerable to United Duchies as a principle . Our military ships should have the right to use international waters.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Military ships do not have the right to transit through international waters; their movement is often an attempt at intimidation or aggression. I see no reason why to extend these rights to such things. .

At the same time, the proposed amendment to exempt Nofoaga uses undefined terms and would let nations restrict ships in general for completely nonsensical reasons; for example, stopping ships from passing through strategic waters using the environment as pretext.

I therefore propose the following amendment:

AMENDMENT XI

I. Ships of any nature are entitled to freely navigate transit international waters.
II. Ships of any nature are entitled to transit through straits or any analogous natural waterway connecting two or more masses of international water under the right of transit passage.
III. No state shall unilaterally grant itself the right to deny or limit the passage transit of any ship through international waters or through territorial waters or through straits or any analogous natural waterway under the right of transit passage.
IV. Transit passage of a ship through territorial waters through international waters or through straits or any analogous natural waterway may be denied only in the event of a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court.

---

This permits states to regulate their territorial waters while maintaining the right of transit through international and strategic waters, without accidentally touching unrelated areas; for example, the right to resource exploitation in international waters, which the current wording could legalize

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

@Istkalen You clearly have no respect for Nofoaga and their goals with the banning of cruise ships from their EEZ. It should be up to nations if they choose to declare sensitive parts of EEZ's marine parks and put up environmental restrictions. On the military ships you are putting a great many countries at risk by not including military ship transit through international waters this may deny allies the ability to support allies for example leaving those behind straits vulnerable to bullying by bigger neighbours for example. I cannot agree with your amendment because it is a risk to many nations national security , military ships not having automatic transit through territorial waters is fair but international waters have always been a neutral space for all vessels including military ships I see no reason this should not remain the case for transit.

Marine parks with restrictions must be legal to protect the most vulnerable areas of our oceans from the effects of big ships like cruise liners or those carrying dangerous cargoes like oil for example.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor of United Duchies