Freedom of Navigation Act
-
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 -
Councillor Miwako, I will not accept any lessons from your country, neither when you come to this chamber to insult two civilizations that have done much more for this Union that your country will do for it. Neither the Duxburian Union or the Kingdom of Spain are medieval or barbaric societies. The Kingdom of Spain, which last score on the European Union democracy index was a 8.83; and I hope to see a formal apology not only to me, but also the Duxburian Union for these insulting affirmations.
Now, how do you expect the Spanish interests, which I am in charge of protecting, to be heard and protected? The answer is simple, you do not want them to be heard because it is not in your interest for them to be heard. This country, which I represent, has offered a thousand times a solution to an open conflict through dialogue, always met with an outright refusal despite continuous concessions. Yosai expects everything to go as it wishes in negotiations in which one side has already made sacrifices, while the other side only wants its will to be the final outcome. But as your country does not want to take it, now it is too late, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Using the European Union to get an imposition on us will not work, and if we wanna play the political implications game, Spain is more than ready to play it.
I would also like to raise awareness on how this act pretends to be implemented. Not a long time ago, I heard some members of the pro-sovereignty political groups to defend "treaty based EU legislation", and this act might be a good one to try if it would work. Councillors, we cannot pretend to impose regulations on our member states' territories while many nations, some of them really important for the Union and its functioning, are against it. That is why I'll be submitting another amendment:
SECTION IV: ENFORCEMENT
I. All member states of the European Union have the right not to follow the provisions in this act, previous notification from their Government within six months time from the approval of the act.
II.All member states of the European UnionOnly member states that decide to follow the provisions in this act are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in six months of time from its approval by the European Council.
II. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable and criminal offense in member states deciding to follow the provisions of this act. Failure of member states deciding to follow the provisions of this act to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
III. Any state deciding to follow the provisions of this act found guilty of violating this Act 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 up to two months.
IV. Any state deciding to follow the provisions of this act 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 from a country deciding to follow the provisions of this act 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.Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Cllr. Tusk, no. Just no. This is a ridiculous game, and I would like it to stop. For one, referring to democracy index means nothing; the most imperialist nation can be a complete democracy, while the most anti-imperialist can be a totalitarian dictatorship. What matters here is not political freedom but how a country behaves on the international stage; the defence of the murder of civilians in the open ocean as a legitimate policy of war, for example, is not a good thing, will never be a good thing, and is a policy that deserves to be criticized in the name of peace and human dignity.
Secondly, your amendment is the equivalent of striking out the whole of this act and replacing it with nothing.
To the United Kingdom - this act does not exclude the creation of economic exclusion zones. They may still exist; all that this requires is freedom of passage. In light of this, I propose the following amendment, to appease the concerns of Cllr. Miliband, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe and...Cllr. Dina, I believe?
AMENDMENT XV
IV. Transit passage of a ship
through territorial watersmay be denied only in the events of illegal resource extraction, military activity, piracy, smuggling, excessive pollution, or a clear violation of European Union law and with the consent of the appropriate national court. The payment of compensation is not to be a legitimate way through which a ship engaging in such activities is able to legally pass through waters.
Iras Tilkanas
COuncil Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I further propose the following amendments:
AMENDMENT XVI
III. Any state found guilty of violating this Act 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 up to two months.
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 causedas 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.
AMENDMENT XVII
- Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through
territorialwatersof a given statefor the sole purpose of continuously navigating between two different parts of the high seas whose connection is unavoidably necessarythrough the territorial waters of a state.
AMENDMENT XVIII
Replace all references to "territorial waters" with "Zone of National Control"
AMENDMENT XIX
Replace all references to "international waters" with "Zone of Undefined Control"*
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen - Transit passage: right to temporarily transit through
-
I would like to propose the following amendments to each section:
Ammendment for Section I:
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.
Merchant or Civilian Ship:A ship without a military purpose or use
Military Ship:A ship who's primary purpose is militaryAmendment for section 2:
SECTION II: REGULATIONS
I. Ships of any nature or are entitled to freely navigate 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 of any ship through international waters or through territorial waters under the right of transit passage.
IV.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.Countries may deny transit to any ship through territorial waters and shall maintain full control of territorial waters.
V:Marine Conservation Zones by nations may be set up within waters up to 210 miles from shore that are not a straits or any analogous natural waterway connecting two or more masses of international water. In these areas ship size, fuel type and type of ships going through may be regulated with bans allowed on grounds of environmental protection.
VI. Countries may perform a limited number of random searches of ships in anti-piracy operations up to 210 miles from its shore or in approved multi-national anti-piracy operations approved by the Observatory of European Navigation .If there is evidence or intelligence a ship may be complicit in piracy then a warrant may be sought by national authorities and acted upon to search a ship.Authorities must show this warrant and give a clear reason why the ship is being searched. Any nation or groups of nations may request permission for anti-piracy operations from the Observatory of European Navigation
VVII. An Observatory of European Navigation shall be established, in order to oversee the proper implementation of this Act.Amendment for section IV:
SECTION IV: ENFORCEMENT
I. All member states of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in six months of time from its approval by the European Council.
II. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable and criminal offense in member states. Failure of member states to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
III. Any state found guilty of violating this Act 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 up to two months.
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 liable for a share of the economic damages caused
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 , Councillor for United Duchies
-
Councillor Miwako rolled her eyes and sighed "Mr Tusk I don't know what kind of weird conspiracy about my country in your mind you've hatched up. But I can tell you, whatever it is, chances are its not real. Now if you are done with your tantrum, I suggest that you calm down and have some water or something. Now let it be clear because I feel like I have to keep stating this over and over again. We have no issue with the act in its original form. But welcome amendments for those who have specific concerns that leave a gap in addressing the concerns of other states who otherwise would be overlooked."
Councillor Izumi Miwako
Councillor of the Federal Republic of Yosai -
Goodness, no more amendments, please.
David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom -
Councillor Tilkanas, I support those amendments, and would gladly support this bill. However, this debate must resolve the several other issues with the bill before it has my vote.
I will only vote for a bill that is not probable to cause further discord in other regions of the EU.Édutitalle Dína
Councillor for Gadalland and Aspern -
I must once again object to amendment XV which could still potentially leave nations behind straits vulnerable and without ability to get aid from other allies militarily when needed or to conduct legitimate training exercises or help their allies. This is a legitimate concern of our nation and many others and it honestly feels like you are ignoring our needs in this regard to have the ability to get help defending ourselves if needed or to get help dealing with issues in our waters with military if needed.Istkalen may not see this as important being inland but for nations like ours our militaries ability to get to our allies in time of need or our allies to us is essential. I will be submitting a fix to this shortly.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
The current situation, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, would be maintained by my amendments. If yours were to be passed we risk the chance of even more nations refusing to enforce this act, at which point it becomes useless. Under my amendments, opposition would become extremely difficult to justify; it would require openly stating that one has the intention of purposefully and directly attacking civilians as a policy during war, which everyone can recognize as ghoulish.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Madame Speaker, I request a summary of the amendments currently proposed, with the inclusion of which amendments currently conflict with each. I wish to see the comprehensive list so that we as a council may work to eliminate some unnecessary ones and combine them with other amendments before I release my full comments on this act.
Carita Falk
Councillor for the Archrepublic of VayinaodArch-Konsul: Kristian Nylund (Greens)
Ruling Coalition: Greens, Moderates
EU Councillor : Carita Falk (Greens-Independent) -
In light of the increasing complexity of the amendments I ask my first three amendments are are withdrawn from consideration.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillior for United Duchies
-
I withdraw amendment XVI.
A summary of amendments is below.
Amendment 1 - Allows nations full right to regulate transit through their territorial waters, including within straits (conflicts with amendment 8)
Amendment 2 - restricts definition of a strait to bodies of water at least 24 nm wide.
Amendment 3 - permits nations' right to exclusive exploitation within their territorial waters
Amendment 4 - Allows a European agency to delineate territorial waters (conflicts with amendment 14)
Amendment 5 - Restricts the act to apply only to non-military ships (conflicts with amendment 15)
Amendment 6 - Removes suspension from the Council as a punishment for violation of the act
Amendment 7 - Allows nations to establish nature reserves within their EEZs
Amendment 8 - Restricts right of transit to non-territorial waters and within straits (conflicts with amendments 1 and 10)
Amendment 9 - defines marine reserves and EEZs
Amendment 10 - Exempts straits controlled by Spain and the DU from the legislation
Amendment 11 - Makes enforcement of the act optional
Amendment 12 - Redefines "right of transit" to apply only to international waters to align the definition with proposed amendments
Amendment 13 - Renames territorial waters
Amendment 14 - No longer delineates international waters as "international," but instead as areas of contested or undefined control
Amendment 15 - defines civilian and military ships (conflicts with Amendment 5)
Amendment 16 - permits anti-piracy operations, the establishment of nature reserves, under EU oversight
Amendment 17 - reduces economic penalties for violation of the act.Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I propose the following amendment:
AMENDMENT XVIII
SECTION IV: ENFORCEMENT
I. All member states of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in six months of time from its approval by the European Council. Governments which lose a source of revenue as a result of the act's regulations, excluding loss as a result of enforcement rather than changes in policy, will be compensated for this loss on a yearly basis.Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I have quietly and idly watched this entire debate unfold, and I was, until now, quite okay with either scenario of this Act passing or failing. I know this Act will both resolve nothing and will likely not be implemented by those that this Act is not-so-subtly targeting, and will thus amount to nothing in the end anyway. If there is ever to be any sort of Law of the Sea, or in this case, navigation, then it must clearly be done with consensus. There is no consensus here, only further and exacerbated tension. As always, the politicking of Europolis continues to do nothing but exacerbate conflict, while the workers of Europe grit their teeth in the face of such tension, because they know they will pay the ultimate price if things come to war. The last thing the European people need is war, and that is why I simply urge the parties involved in the Strait dispute to come to some sort of agreement instead.
However, I am quite taken aback by Comrade Tilkanas' most recent amendment, which is an unexpected betrayal of the working class people of Europe. It is completely unacceptable to force workers across Europe to pay the price, literally, for the current politics of the Strait dispute. The Comrade's amendment does nothing but simply export the price of the dispute to the rest of the Union, and to the workers of the rest of the Union, who currently have their own struggles against the bourgeoise to contend with. The fact that already-oppressed workers in poorer states such Nofoaga would essentially need to bailout the Reitzmic government for their revenue losses is not just an injustice, but is, quite frankly, evil. The majority of the countries currently being taxed at the Straits are some of Europe's most well-off and developed countries, not to mention that pretty much all of them are extremely decadent capitalist regimes which oppress their workers - and the working class from the rest of Europe, including Europe's poorest regions, will have to pay them compensation! Leave the workers out of this.
I urge Comrade Tilkanas to withdraw her amendment immediately. Should her amendment pass, then I will vote against this Act without hesitation.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista
The Kingdom of Spain
