Freedom of Navigation Act

[BrumBrum]

Freedom of Navigation Act
Proposed by James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

PREAMBLE
To guarantee the safe passage of ships through natural waterways connecting seas and oceans, as well as to ensure unrestricted free trade and mobility worldwide, it is necessary for the European Union to act and adopt legislation protecting freedom of navigation as an essential part of the global supply chain and trade system.

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.This may be subject to a tax or fee to do so.
Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 12 nautical miles from a state’s coastline n in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
International waters: any mass of water extending up from 12 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.
SECTION II: REGULATIONS
I. Ships of any nature 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. 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.
V. An Observatory of European Navigation shall be established, in order to oversee the proper implementation of this Act.
VI. Nations shall have complete rights over exploitation of the resources within their Territorial Waters, including those under the seabed. Where necessary, states may prohibit makes or models of vessels from transiting territorial waters, where the structure or features of the vessel pose a threat to the wellbeing of the territorial waters. However, if on arrival to such waters a vessel is deemed offensive to the natural wellbeing of the environment, the state will not be permitted to deny entry to the vessel on grounds of environmental safety.
VII. Member States may deny military passage through their territorial waters

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. Where it is suspected that a model of vessel is prohibited for the purposes of undermining the freedom to transit herein guaranteed, the Observatory of European Navigation may issue the defendant state a fine of an amount to be decided at the time of the verdict, and allow the vessel model to transit those territorial waters.

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. Any state found guilty of violating this Act shall be made liable for any economic damages caused as assessed by the European Court of Justice
III. 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 assessed by the European Court of Justice

This situation needs resolving once and for all. This is needed to establish a permanent peace in Europe that is sustainable. I believe we need to establish a consistent legal basis for such matters to the benefit of all Europeans.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[California]

We need something.

[Istkalen]

Debate begins NOW and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 28 January 2023.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[Spain]

Once again, and I think that for the fourth time in my time as Councillor, no.

Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe, you do not seem to get the lesson right and repeat the same mistakes on every exam you take to pass the subject. You are that student that only attends class to make trouble and fail. When you are told about your mistakes, you apologise, your Government apologises, even your country apologises and backs off; you guarantee you will never do it again and you promise the teacher that you will finally pass the subject the next time you try. That day comes, and the loop starts again, you fail. Councillor Roscoe, if there was an award to the worse student of the European Union, you would win it every year.

But the Duchian Councillor is not just that student that keeps failing year after year, he is also a huge hypocrite. He wants to open the seas of everyone else's, but those that are of its nation's interest not to open. The Caspian Treaty is not a European law, yet the Councillor includes it in the act. Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, I use the Caspian Treaty as toilet paper from time to time, nobody but some nations from the Caspian Sea care about it and it will be like that for the years to come. With this act, the United Duchies and its Councillor just want to take advantage of the rest of the region for selfish purposes and give no such access up in their own neighborhood. Let's just take a look at why the Caspian Treaty came to existence: because some nation, the nest of all issues, troubles and drama of the European Union, decided that it was a good idea to build islands nowhere near their coastline to "protect themselves from a incoming threat coming from the Empire of Inimicus". Nowadays, Inimicus nor anyone has attempted to invade this place, the islands are gone, but the paranoia is still there.

Councillor, you have once again wanted to open Pandora's box. I will say it once again: this act will change nothing about how the Kingdom of Spain deals with the Strait of Gibraltar. My own views, but also the views of the Spanish Minister for the Spanish Commonwealth Affairs, Overseas Missions and Territorial Waters, are these. We will not change our ways, our criteria, our tolls if this act passes, no matter who takes us to the European Court of Justice. The Gibraltar Strait Security Agency and the Spanish Navy will still cooperate to collect the tax from ships that must pay when crossing the Strait. Believe me, we are ready for a new scenario if the act passes, we have been preparing for years, and we will not hesitate to apply the new scenario approach if needed. Spain will not allow unallied ships, or non-Mediterranean ships, to go across the Strait of Gibraltar, so forget about the Duchian or the Reitzmic navy (because everyone in this Council knows who UD works for) entering the Mediterranean Sea. Your logic is absurd: you can place a Navy 12NM off anyone's coast, but do not dare to do it on the Caspian for the sake of paranoia and feeling threatened! Ridiculous.

Those who warn about their intentions never lie. The Kingdom of Spain will not support this act, and will not back off from Gibraltar. I hope that you finally listen to these words, and stop opening Pandora's boxes every month.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[California]

I suggest ownership of terretorial water goes out to 12 nautical miles, straits are split equally and tolls be outlawed.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NAp7tRFZq6FpmETQArEbZlTlTuCR7owiRKbvPNaTPxU/edit?usp=sharing

AMENDMENT I
SECTION I

Every member state has a right to own territorial water of up to twelve nautical miles.
This includes inland seas, canals etc.

SECTION II
Straits, as geographic entities, are to be international waters and is not the domain of one nation.

SECTION III
Revenue tolls are prohibited if they are enacted to obstruct access.

[BrumBrum]

The fact is the Caspian Treaty has provisions different from the norms due to quirks in the region such as a 24 nautical miles territorial water provision which is why the that exception is there. There is also the EEZ's of 200 miles and fishing quota and resource extraction being common in the Caspian. However we have put in a motion in the Caspian Council to remove clause IX which would allow military ships to enter anywhere outside the 24nm territorial waters with no permission required as long as you get permission to transit one of the canals. That would ensure equality between this act and the Caspian Treaty. So you should take into account that when voting or having your position on this act. That was a provision which as you know we were not the keenest on at the time but it was the best compromise to prevent a full blown conflict.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Yosai]

I agree my British colleague. We must keep this consistent, 12nm for territorial waters. Straits are split 50/50 and sound tolls are outlawed. Canals however need to be discussed further. If you need to however apply this to every part of the EU then greater detail into the Capsian treaty need to be discussed before anyone can do anything with Section II Article VIII.

[BrumBrum]

I do agree with that compromise however canals as property built by the nations with government or private money should be controlled by the nation-states they are in or are operated by. There are many reasons to deny free transit in that situation for example bio-security hazards , potential oil spills , the ship does not meet environmental regulations for air quality or water pollution or in case of military ships just not wanting a militarised use of the canal. These need to be respected as it would not be right to force nations to allow ships to transit through canals without permission . Rules and standards for canals should be set by the operator of the canal or government of the territory the canal is in. There must also be military transits allowed through straits equally to make sure that nations fulfil defence obligations of their allies in treaties.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[BrumBrum]

I propose the following AMENDMENTS:
Amendment I: Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 12 nautical miles from a state’s coastline n in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
International waters: any mass of water extending up from 12 nautical miles from a state’s coastline.
Amendment II:
Territorial waters: any mass of water, extending up to 24 nautical miles from a state’s coastline in which that state exercises its sovereignty.
International waters: any mass of water extending up from 24 nautical miles from a state’s coastline.

Amendment III:
SECTION II: REGULATIONS
I. Ships of any nature 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. 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.
V. An Observatory of European Navigation shall be established, in order to oversee the proper implementation of this Act.
VI. Nations shall have complete rights over exploitation of the resources within their Territorial Waters, including those under the seabed.
VII. Member States may deny military passage through their territorial waters
VIII. Any provisions in this treaty shall not apply to the Caspian Sea which shall be governed by the Caspian Treaty as long as it continues to exist.

James Mizrachi Roscoe-Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

While the Republic of Istkalen is in support of this act, I have several comments to make:

While I do not know whether the Inelandic Councillor wants to remain connected with these legislative efforts to ensure freedom of navigation on the high seas, I do know that he wrote the full, or at least close to the full, text of this act. I think, then, that it might be appropriate to lend some credit to him.

I also believe that we ought to take into consideration certain points raised in the last debate. Any act of this type should not delineate territorial waters; claims should be left untouched. It should also leave open the possibility of environmental restrictions on navigation, although, if it does so, should explicitly prohibit any sort of duty or nationality-based discrimination.

The act, incidentally, should also apply to all major natural bodies of water, and should not attempt to enshrine in EU law non-EU treaties. No special privilege ought to be shown to any member-state, lest it enable future abuses.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen

[BrumBrum]

I would indeed like to thank right honourable councillor for Ineland for his efforts but was not sure if he would like to be attributed to the renewed effort to get some regulations on this issue. We are working within caspian council to align the treaty with this act in tendem and I would like to thank our Caspian Councillor for that effort there, I did consider including a possibility for environmental restrictions however this could easily be used as an excuse or abused to implement taxes or restrictions by stealth. That is why it wasn't included . We must however designate the standard limit of territorial waters to make an easy reference and consistent standard for all nations.

I cannot guarantee the vote in the Caspian Council will remove clause IX to allow military navigation into the Caspian though I understand the Duchies councillors vote there is going to be for it in a spirit of acting in the European interest and as a consolation effort to show good faith, Duchies is acting fully in good faith let us reassure you of that, we do not seek advantage or control of Europe, that is not our way.I'm sure you'll appreciate Caspian Council Affairs are its own.I hope this answers questions or issues people may have, I believe this is necessary for the good of European relations.I would also like to reassure North Diessan and Inimicus we have not intention of allowing any military ships through our canal including Reitzmic ones unless they first allow military ships other than North Diessan ones through their canal. We believe in keeping the two seas affairs seperate as much as practically possible in the interests of European peace.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Sertia]

Gadalland and Aspern has strict environmental compliance standards with regard to our inland waters.
Vessels of Sertian models from 2021 are in compliance, however many vessels from before the, or from other countries, are not.
We would like to still be able to enforce these restrictions which we view to be vital to the quality of life and conservation of natural resources.

Édutitalle Dína

[BrumBrum]

I'd like to ask the representative for Gaddaland to write an amendment that suits them if they want to get their viewpoint across in law. I have been told its not my job to compromise , and legislate for other nations interests too and assume what others want or try to compromise too much . I do agree with marine zones idea however the implementation must be written in such a way it cannot be abused to deny access to ships from straits and other crucial water ways.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies

[Sertia]

Thank you, Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe.
I'd like to propose the following amendment to II.VI, which currently says:
VI. Nations shall have complete rights over exploitation of the resources within their Territorial Waters, including those under the seabed.

My proposed amendment to this clause is:
Where necessary, states may prohibit makes or models of vessels from transiting territorial waters, where the structure or features of the vessel pose a threat to the wellbeing of the territorial waters. However, if on arrival to such waters a vessel is deemed offensive to the natural wellbeing of the environment, the state will not be permitted to deny entry to the vessel on grounds of environmental safety.

Under this amendment, states would be allowed to publish lists of certain vessel models which would not be allowed to pass through their waters for concerns of natural safety. It would not allow arbitrary refusal of entry on these grounds, which would prevent discrimination based on nationality or other factors for which it is not the purpose of this amendment to consider.

Furthermore, I'd like to add the following clause:

Where it is suspected that a model of vessel is prohibited for the purposes of undermining the freedom to transit herein guaranteed, the Observatory of European Navigation may issue the defendant state a fine of an amount to be decided at the time of the verdict, and allow the vessel model to transit those territorial waters.

I welcome any changes to this amendment, but I do believe that the amendment, or a resemblance thereof, is necessary.

[Yosai]

I just have a question for my colleague. " Where necessary, states may prohibit makes or models of vessels from transiting territorial waters, where the structure or features of the vessel pose a threat to the wellbeing of the territorial waters. However, if on arrival to such waters a vessel is deemed offensive to the natural wellbeing of the environment, the state will not be permitted to deny entry to the vessel on grounds of environmental safety."

Is there a criteria for environmental safety or has that not been defined?

[Sertia]

While I am aware that it would be best to define environmental safety, I'm sure we can all appreciate that every region of the EU has distinct needs regarding this. Such is why I have left it undefined. However, this amendment, in conjunction with the clause I've proposed, would allow for strict penalties should this rule be abused, and I hope this encourages states to utilise this rule in the way it is intended.

[Spain]

I request a debate extension.

Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Yosai]

I do agree with my British colleagues Amendments and combine that with the environmental amendments of Ms Dina from Gadalland and Aspern. This can be a good set of amendments that work for all nations involved.

[BrumBrum]

I would like to urge every councillor to vote for ammendment III from myself as part of the compromise to make sure all voices have been listened to. I appologise for my mistake in putting the Caspian exception in and can only say it was for good intentions of not damaging the viability of a key treaty in the Caspian for regulating the waters of the Caspian in terms of exploitation and potentially opening up issues in the Caspian should that treaty fail. We have now managed to find a compromise and agreement from Caspian members to align the Caspian treaty to any EU laws that shall pass within reason. I again appologise for this mistake and the perceived hypocrisy of including this clause. The appearance of hypocrisy is bad enough to warrant an appology buy you must ALL vote for amendment 3 of mine to fix this error in the act. I would particuarly like to appologise to the right honourable councillor for the Duxburian Union who I know was upset at the perceived hypocrisy.

James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies

[Istkalen]

Debate will be extended to 23:59 GMT on 1 February 2023.

Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen