Freedom of Navigation Act
-
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 -
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
-
@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
-
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
navigatetransit 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 thepassagetransit of any ship through international watersor through territorial watersor through straits or any analogous natural waterway under the right of transit passage.
IV. Transit passage of a ship throughterritorial watersthrough 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 -
@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
-
Let us say that there is a nation with an EEZ that extends into a strait; this strait, they claim, is environmentally sensitive, and thus they place a duty on transit, allegedly for upkeep.
Do you agree with this? Because it is the case in the issue of the straits. For the context of this debate, I will not take a side; but legislation should be impartial and should not give exemptions for some which are not extended to all.
My proposal is a compromise which permits nations to regulate their territorial waters. It does not refer to EEZs, which have no legal definition and thus could mean anything, nor does it allow for overextension of power.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
The CCCC has enacted the following rules for our inland waterways, which we find fair.
Beginning 1 December 2022, all CCCC manufactured and registered vessels must be built and maintained in adherence to CCCC Inland Water Maintenance Rules. At the moment this ONLY applies to vessels, not including those for official or military purposes, which are registered and manufactured in Gadalland and Aspern or Nofoaga.
The rules will apply to All EU registered vessels beginning 1 December 2023.
I have attached the current guidelines, coming into effect 1 December 2022, for your reference:
https://nseuropeanunion.com/topic/1235/office-of-the-caribbean-common-community-commission?_=1649356510762These rules apply to any aquatic geographic features which are accessible by sea vessel and terminate inland. For example, rivers.
-
Do not fear, the proposed act does not regulate inland waters. With my amendment, no trrrotorial waters would be regulated.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
You will find that the amendment I proposed does not extend to straits that are narrow if it impedes the transit of a ship through a strait but compromises must be made for smaller nations like Nofoaga. What you are going is telling nations they should not be able to protect the environment but even in straits nations should be allowed to require cleaner fuels for the environments sake. The amendment for marine zones is essential since if it does not have that amendment we risk hurting marine parks Europewide put in place to protect the environment. While freedom of transit is essential it should not come at the cost to the environment.I cannot support your amendment that does not classify the military ships as ships as this would endanger our national security and could lead to us being trapped inside our sea and unable to help allies while other countries are free to help their allies in times of need for instance if piracy situations were to develop. You'll find in my first amendment it mentions exclusive economic zones though if its needed we can add a definition of exclusive economic zones and the distance though that could lead to efforts to constantly repeal the act by nations like the Duxburion Union or even to them leaving the EU entirely. This is a threat that cannot be underestimated.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
In response to the Istkalen councillor about undefined terms I will add a amendment for a definition of an exclusive economic zone and Marine zone
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.
Exclusive Economic Zone:Water outside of the Territorial waters by up to 200 miles or half in the case of the distance being less than 400 Miles where a nation has sole rights to set up Marine Reserves, or on the granting of exploitation licenses for any natural resources below the surface.
Marine Reserve:An area that is ecologically sensitive where a country may restrict fishing rights for part or all of the year and set restrictions on the type of fuels used , type of ships allowed though and size of ships allowed through the Marine Reserve for all or part of the year.James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
-
Mrs Speaker, given the level of hostility in what should be, in my view, a civilised debate, even involving threats of military action to oppose what is simply a legislative proposal instead of engaging in constructive dialogue to solve possible issues with the proposed drafting as it stands, I will not be taking part in further debate on this proposal. Thus I will leave the premises of the Council until it is time to vote on any amendments and on the legislative proposal itself.
Prince Charles Évere-Dancourt
Councillor for InelandThe Councillor stood up and walked towards the exit door to return to his office while unlocking his phone to make some calls.
-
Dear colleagues, I am afraid the Kingdom of Spain is and will remain opposed to this act, no matter how many amendments are passed. During the previous days, the Spanish Government and myself have been thinking about what the best stance was when it came to this act. While I do not doubt the good faith of the Inelandic Councillor, it comes to our attention that some nations will just support it because of geostrategic and political reasons against a country, the Kingdom of Spain, that is not doing anything illegal. Coincidentally, those nations are all members of the European Coalition of Nations.
The concerns arisen by my colleagues from the Empire of Inimicus and the Union of Duxburian Dominions have to be taken into account, but before I get to each Councillor’s statements, some of them are “amazing”; I would like to comment on the bill, warning beforehand the chamber twice: if this act passes, you can take for granted that the European Union’s relationship with Spain will be worsened, and second, if it passes, you will not only be attacking our sovereignty, but as the Duxburian Councillor said, supporting a war declaration on Spain.
This act does not only attempt to “quietly” get rid of the Spanish Straits taxing, which will never disappear, but also to solve an open conflict clearly benefiting one side over the other. Thankfully, I am not the only one to realise about this and you will not be able to say I am crazy, mostly thanks to Cllr. Yahontov, who warned us about the real purpose of this act: sabotaging Spanish interests through the Union while getting ECON several advantages. Colleagues, the fact that Reitzmag and their close friends are using a nation which aims to join their alliance to propose an act which would destroy their reputation is alarming, but it gets worse when you realise that they are also trying to use the European Union they are against of, to get their wishes to become true. This act is charged with political reasonings, and the EU as a whole should not allow this to happen.
The bill creates more issues than it solves: it allows ships of any nature to freely navigate wherever, even in our territorial waters; it limits states sovereignty on their waters unless the country which ships are intended to be kicked from our waters is breaking the European law. Waters are not “international”, they are not a domain of everyone, they are just domains of nations until a certain point, and it is on our Governments to choose where their limit is, with responsibility and good behaviour. What the European Council cannot pretend to do, and nor should anyone in Europe, is to attempt to regulate something nobody has complained about for a lot of years until some countries got bothered. And those countries, Councillors, are the ones that today are using this chamber for mere political reasons, trying to get Spain or any country to adopt a certain policy just because someone does not like our policy. Pretty simple: cope with it and negotiate.
I was also forgetting about the many, many violations the act hides: the mentioned UDoHR article 20 violation, suspending voting rights on the European Council and establishing new crimes all around the European Union. If this all the act has to offer, believe me, we are more than ready to not comply with it, as taking it to the European Court of Justice would be enough to scrap it. The act needs heavy amending, but at this point it would be better if it is withdrawn and it never comes back around here. In just a few days, it has managed to get the Duxburian Union and Spain to feel this is a declaration of war, it is trying to impose a solution on a conflict without the agreement from both parties and meanwhile, others reveal the real reasoning of this act. I have a question for the Inelandic Councillor: did we really need this proposal? Or was it a prerequisite from (Tusk goes silent and points to Yahontov, intending it to mean Reitzmag) to enter an alliance that has been previously mentioned? Now I understand why not many join it.
Moving on, I hope the honourable Speaker allows me to go intervention by intervention, or at least, through those that I have found pretty interesting. Let me start with the Duchian Councillor, who would like to make everyone happy and submits quite a few amendments without even consulting the nations he is trying to please: Nofoaga or the Duxburian Union are two perfect examples of his pleasing policies. Mr. Roscoe, you are the Duchain Councillor, not the Nofoagan Councillor, that is Ms. Muzhare! Let other countries submit their own amendments, it is not that difficult. The Sertian councillor already raised awareness, let the CCCC councillors, for the love of God, submit their amendments as they will. I am pretty sure that, if they needed someone, they would call someone. Also, you target Spain with your amendments, because geopolitics first, then the Union. That is the principle you have, and that you actually share with Cllr. Yahontov.
Speaking of whom, her turn arrived! To make things way easier and try to turn Europe into a peaceful place, the Reitzmic Councillor, who recently became some sort of puppet or grey blob due to her inability to do something without the AEC authorisation, goes full “beast mode” and tries to help their friends on the other side of the Adventuranza Strait (at least she got something right!) calling Spain and Inimicus aggressive, bully nations. Ms. Yahontov, when on earth did you think that was a great idea? Your amendments are awful, and they just show what Reitzmag wants: if this act already might be made in Reitzmag, now you want to do it more Reitzmic. The whole bill just needs a passport, and that’s it, you have got a new citizen: The Freedom of Navigation Bill Grey Blob citizen. I would sign a request to make that happen if someone ever proposed it on the Internet.
I have taken some hours of my time to write up some amendments, just in case the Council decided to shoot itself in its feet and passed this madness. Nevertheless, even if it was amended, count Spain to be on the list of nations against it. This is my amendment:
Amendment I
SECTION II - REGULATIONS
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 unless the straits they are transiting through are compiled in Section III.
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.
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. An Observatory of European Navigation shall be established, in order to oversee the proper implementation of this Act.SECTION III: EXEMPTIONS
I. The Strait of Adventuranza, which boundaries are defined in Addendum I, is exempted from complying with Section I and Section II, Article II of this text.
II. The Strait of Gibraltar, whose boundaries are defined in Addendum I, is exempted from complying with Section I and Section II, Article II, of this text.
III. The Strait of Varia, whose boundaries are defined in Addendum I, is exempted from complying with Section I and Section II, Article II, of this text.
IV. These exemptions do not impact civilian transit from states bordering these areas that may not be subject to any taxation or restriction on their civilian transit.[Sections III & IV renamed to Sections IV and V]
ADDENDUM I
I. The Strait of Gibraltar has the following boundaries:
II. The Strait of Adventuranza has the following boundaries:
III. The Strait of Varia has the following boundaries:
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Cllr. Tusk, Cllr. Greene, please, if you may, direct yourselves to the Council time-out corner. Threats of war over legislation are not a part of regular, civil, discourse.
It is incidentally somewhat odd that your amendment exempts every single strait in the European Union, removing that clause would have accomplished the same.
Iras TIlkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, saying that supporting this act is equal to supporting a war declaration on the Kingdom of Spain is not a threat of war, but rather an observation. The same goes with the Duxburian Councillor, who has given her opinion on what this act means to her.
And under my intepretation, the amendment I have registered does not exempt every single Strait in the European Union, just those compiled in Section III. But, I now would like to ask you, how would you write it?
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I will concede that there are straits other than these, but these are perhaps the most strategic, and coincidentally those controlled by Spain and the DU.
Secondly, you are saying that, if this act is passed, Spain, and the Duxburian Union, will themselves engage in war. It is the choice of both the Kingdom of Spain and the Duxburian Union to view this act as war or not; clearly, both governments have the decision to view it as such, a decision that is a threat, regardless of whatever it is called.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Mr. Speaker, this act goes against the interest of Spain and therefore, I will do whatever to protect my country's straits. The same happens with the Duxburian Strait of Varia, which I have talked about with my partner from the Duxburian Union recently.
If this act passed, Spain would consider that Europe would be supporting a declaration of war towards Spain, not that Spain will enter war with the rest of Europe. And I assume Cllr. Greene might be meaning the same. To my point of view, it would be stupid for us to provoke a regional war, nor it is in our plans.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I am, as I have said numerous times, a woman, a cis woman at that.
Secondly, if Spain will not act on a declaration of war, what is the meaning of the declaration? If Spain has no intention of retaliation, then this is empty rhetoric.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
"Well this is revealing. A nation possibly 2 nations threatening war over placing rules over the medieval principle of might makes right. I ask all of you is this the type of Europe we want to continue to live in? The notion of threatening war or considering placing rules of navigating seas, defining international waters and trying to come to a resolution that benefits all members of the union rather than a few and resolve some issues over claims made with arbitrary reasons that make no sense is something we should seek to resolve peacefully by civilised means. If a nation or its leaders cannot do that and resort to war threats as a way to resolve issues just by the sheer virtue of might, can we really call them civilised?
I will leave it for everyone else to decide. Now many of my colleagues have tried to come up with resolutions to benefit all and not themselves. But to threaten such amendments and legal arguments that they don't agree with as an act of war? Well that says more about the nation and its leaders than it does on those who actually try to help the situation. Now I again want it on record that the Yosainese government doesn't take issue with the act in its original form, we also support such amendments that cover bases and fill gaps where some countries feel that their concerns may have been missed or overlooked. It's that simple."
Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai -
As a predominantly seafaring people, the concern of the Customary Logistics Council lies in the capacity of our Caribbean Maritime Service, which serves to protect our mariners from piracy and natural threats. It seems, due to this bill, that pirates would have an easier time claiming victims if the CMS can only act after there is a clear violation of European Law.
It is not just a question of fairness, in the case of straits, but also a question of maintaining security and eliminating unnecessary risk.
Whilst I understand it may help ensure fairness in the cases of nations which rely less on seafaring itself, please consider the needs of all EU nations. Gadalland and Aspern did not join the EU to be ignored. -
The United Kingdom believes in economic exclusion zones. As such, we are unclear how we feel about this
David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom
The Kingdom of Spain
