Freedom of Navigation Act

[Inquista]

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

[Yosai]

This Act is in essence about establishing a rules based framework and preventing states from abusing their position to enforce will on other states based on geography. The Federal Republic of Yosai doesn't believe in taxing by geography or posing any penalties or sanctions on the basis on geography. My state for example can under the principles of state sovereignty can easily preform a blockade between Spanish and DU trade routes withing the Red Strait or force a band on both Spanish and DU goods from trading as my territory is in between both within the strait.

Or we can impose a tax or some kind of tariff of our own, forcing good from the DU and possibly Inimicus to go through the UD. But we decided against that because ewe don't believe in unfairly punishing nations or placing economic limitations simply by virtue of geography. Under the current status quo that is our right that we choose not to exercise under the principle of equal treatment.

What the status quo does is allow states to do whatever they please under the principle of state sovereignty, with no rules in place to prevent such abuses from happening, not just from Yosai, but from other nations with similar positions within the EU, its that simple. To that end, rules have to be established, that is the reason why we are here.

To that end Yosai wishes to for now abstain from the latest amendment proposed from Councillor Tilkanas until we have more information presented to us as to why she proposed this.

[Istkalen]

I withdraw my amendment; I will propose legislation to set up a fund that member-states may apply to for the protection of marine ecology, the reason why all currently existing taxes that would be prohibited by this act are in place.

I would, however, like to ask, generally, whether such a fund would be a suitable solution to the issue.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Yosai]

"We are fine with this. The Federal Republic of Yosai sees no issue with your latest amendment proposal Council Speaker Tilkanas. Marine life gets protected without imposition of arbitrary taxes and it doesn't blow up the EU budget or force poorer states to pay taxes when they shouldn't need to but on a voluntary basis. Simple."

Izumi Miwako
Councillor for the Federal Republic of Yosai

[The United Kingdom]

@Istkalen said in Freedom of Navigation Act:

I withdraw my amendment; I will propose legislation to set up a fund that member-states may apply to for the protection of marine ecology, the reason why all currently existing taxes that would be prohibited by this act are in place.

I would, however, like to ask, generally, whether such a fund would be a suitable solution to the issue.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

We would be pleased.

David Miliband
Councillor of the United Kingdom

[BrumBrum]

Since Spains main concern is loss of revenue for marine conservation of the strait and protection we will vote for the amendment to this act to replace lost taxes with a fund from the EU to protect the marine areas and also propose the following amendment ourselves.

SECTION III: OBSERVATORY OF EUROPEAN NAVIGATION
I. The Observatory of European Navigation (from now on, “the Observatory”) shall be established in the Free City of Europolis to oversee the proper implementation of this Act by issuing annual Freedom of Navigation reports.
II. The Observatory shall be administered by a director, appointed by the Internal Affairs Commissioner.
III. The Observatory shall be requested to issue a report any time a case on the violation of this Act is brought to the European Court of Justice, in order to assist the Court in its deliberation.
IV. The Observation of European Navigation shall pay any nations with Straits or ecologically sensitive areas to manage the safe shipping and protection of the environment of straits. or area of the sea or manage the area with permission of the nation involved or on behalf of the nation. This shall be funded out of the EU budget.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 25 April 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Elthize]

Based on the tension that has brewed over the discussion of this act alone, and the fact that some of my colleagues here have mentioned an all-out war, as well as my personal beliefs on how the European Union should function, I believe that this act is beyond salvation, no matter how many amendments we throw at it. Citing my Inquistan colleague here, an act like this should have consensus, which is something we have failed to achieve as far as I can tell. I suggest this act to be withdrawn completely, and state that I, representing Elthize, will be voting against this bill regardless of any amendments.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[BrumBrum]

The tension and disagreement is the entire reason the act is necessary. There are times when when there is disagreement you need a consistent standard to be made by majority oppinion. Currently as there is no reference it leads to disputes due to the lack of clarity this leads to potential flashpoints in many areas of Europe with risk of conflicts and issues developing. This act would solve that by setting a baseline and also ensure stability of shipping in Europe. I know some will say try bilateral negotations or leave it up to nations to decide between them but look where that gets you . So far within 1 year we've had the Caspian islands crisis and the Spain-Yosai crises with potentially more crises where straits are narrow or where EEZ's meet less that 212 Miles from shore.

The best way to avoid tension in the future is have a standard enshrined that the majority of countries agree on by voting for it. Yes some nations have raised issues but exceptions with amendments these have been solved if they haven't and you have a particular grievance propose and amendment or say what your issue is we are not mind readers. The choice here is between peace and consistent standards or constant risk of conflict and tension and uncertainty , that choice really shouldn't be hard to make. The might makes right approach and have power over what you can defend is a fundamentally unfair approach that is unbecoming in a civilised Europe. All it does is leave nations with weaker militaries at the mercy of strong powers with imperialist ambitions, this is especially dangerous for smaller nations.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Elthize]

My issue is that we're all representing our nations here, voting on behalf of them, and our behaviours are almost always reflective of how our nations act. When at least two of my colleagues mention a possible declaration of war if the bill passes, it would be foolish to think the European Union would fare better than before. The choice is not between peace and tension, in fact, I doubt there is even a choice here. This bill will lead to further tension, full stop. I find any other opinion on this bill to be utopic at best.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize

[Lusitanovetonia]

We have waited to hear all the proposals and issues raised about the law to be voted on. We have noted with concern the tension generated in some cases by disagreement with the draft legislation, but the federal government's position will nevertheless be as follows:

We support the intention of the law to regulate maritime passage and put an end to the various conflicts that have arisen and will arise in this regard, however, we are seriously concerned that this law will serve as an authorisation for any type of ship to enter territorial waters. We therefore support the intention also in Amendment No 5 to exclude military vessels from free passage.

We also understand the dilemma created with regard to rights to exploit territorial waters. We also believe that each state should have the right to permit or prohibit the passage of vessels through its territorial waters on the basis of its own laws and not on the basis of Community laws. However, we agree that no state should prohibit free passage through the straits. We consider ourselves entitled to express an opinion on this matter when our only access to the sea is a navigable river not claimed by any country.

Although this is our humble and inexpert opinion, we would also like to announce that we will follow the debate thoroughly and listen to any allegations or corrections that our colleagues would like to make to this opinion, as our vote on this matter has not been decided yet.

---

Luis Castro
Councilior for the Federal Republic of Lusitania and Vettonia

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended until 23:59 GMT on 28 April 2022.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Inimicus]

With your permission, Madam Speaker, I move we begin voting on Amendments.

There are a whole host of Amendments:

---

Amendment I

Section II (Regulations):

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 II

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 III

Section II (Regulations):

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

---

Amendment IV

Section III (Observatory)

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.

---

Amendment V

Section I (Definitions)

• Ship: a shorthand referring to ships of a non-military nature

---

Amendment VI

Section IV (Enforcement)

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.

---

Amendment VII

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.

---

Amendment VIII

Section II (Regulations)

I. Ships of any nature are entitled to freely navigate transit international waters.

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 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.

---

Amendment IX

Section I (Definitions)

• 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.

---

Amendment X

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.
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.

Renumber V to IV

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.

Renumber Section III to IV to IV and V, respectively

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:

---

Amendment XI

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.

Renumber I to II

II. All member states of the European Union Only 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.

Renumber II to III

III. 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.

Renumber III to IV

IV. 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.

Renumber IV to V

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.

Renumber V to VI

VI. 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.

---

Amendment XII

Section II (Regulations)

IV. Transit passage of a ship through territorial waters may 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.

---

Amendment XIII

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.

---

Amendment XIV

Replace all references to "territorial waters" with "Zone of National Control"

---

Amendment XV

Replace all references to "international waters" with "Zone of Undefined Control"

---

Amendment XVI

Section I (Definitions):

• Merchant or Civilian Ship: A ship without a military purpose or use
• Military Ship: A ship who's primary purpose is military

---

Amendment XVII

Section II (Regulations):

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.

Renumber V to VII

---

Amendment XVIII

Section IV (Enforcement)

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.

---

Amendment XIX

Section III (Observatory)

IV. The Observation of European Navigation shall pay any nations with Straits or ecologically sensitive areas to manage the safe shipping and protection of the environment of straits. or area of the sea or manage the area with permission of the nation involved or on behalf of the nation. This shall be funded out of the EU budget.

---

Councillors, given the complexity of the Amendments before us, I ask for your co-operation and patience should I have summarised or listed any of your proposals incorrectly. Do please let me know if such is the case.

With that, the Empire of Inimicus votes FOR Amendments III, VI, and X, and AGAINST all other Amendments.

Nicholas Benfield
Exhausted Deputy Speaker

[Spain]

Mr. Deputy Speaker, my first amendment seems to have been mixed with another amendment, as well as part of it has not been included. This is the amendment I am referring to :

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

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I vote for amendments I, II, III, IV,, VI, VII,VIII,XI, XII, XIII, XIV,XV, XVI,XVII, XVIII and against all other amendments except IX until it is cleared up.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Inimicus]

Councillors, apologies for the mix-up. The correct listing of amendments has now been updated. I would ask Cllr Mizrachi-Roscoe to review his vote if necessary.

Nicholas Benfield
Amendment-sick Deputy Speaker

[Spain]

I vote FOR Amendments III, X and XI, and AGAINST all other amendments.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[BrumBrum]

On behalf of United Duchies I change the votes to votes for amendments I, II, III, IV,, VI, VII,VIII,IX ,XII, XIII, XIV, XV,XVI, XVII,XVIII and XIX and against all other amendments except until it is cleared up.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Ineland]

Councillor Évere-Dancourt entered back into the room as soon as he was informed that voting had begun.

On behalf of the United Principalities of Ineland, I vote as follows:

Amendment	Vote	Amendment	Vote	Amendment	Vote
I	In favour	VIII	In favour	XV	Against
II	Abstention	IX	Against	XVI	Against
III	In favour	X	Against	XVII	Against
IV	In favour	XI	Against	XVIII	Abstention
V	Abstention	XII	Against	XIX	In favour
VI	Astention	XIII	Against	/	/
VII	In favour	XIV	Against	/	/

*Edited to correct a mistake in the vote of one amendment.

[Elthize]

The State of Elthize votes FOR the first, third, tenth, eleventh, seventeenth and eighteenth amendments and AGAINST the second, fourth, fifth, eighth, fourteenth, fifteenth and nineteenth amendments. It ABSTAINS from voting in amendments not mentioned.

---

Liam Zachary, Councillor for Elthize