European Maritime Standards Act of 2020
-
EUROPEAN MARITIME STANDARDS BILL
Proposed by Coun. Friedrich van Allen (Reitzmag)
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign European member-states,
Dedicated to establish harmony and prevent disputes on our territorial borders,
Conserving the resources within our territorial bounds,
Hereby promulgate this act that establishes the following:
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
I. For the purposes of this act the following specific terms are defined;
- "Area" means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;
- "activities in the Area" means all activities of exploration for, and exploitation of, the resources of the Area;
- "baseline" refers to a line along the coast from which the seaward limits of a state's territorial sea and certain other maritime zones of jurisdiction are to be measured in this act;
ARTICLE II. REGULATIONS
SECTION 1. DEFINITION AND SPECIFICATION OF ZONES
I. Inland Waters are defined as all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline.
II. The Territorial Waters shall extend out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline.
III. The Continental Shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends.
VI. The waters beyond the areas defined above shall be considered International Waters in which all ships from all nations have the right to passage without any limit. No nation or entity will have jurisdiction over these waters and that any entity has the right to conduct research/navigation through the area.SECTION 2. RIGHTS OF ENTITIES WITH REGARDS TO THE ZONES
SUBSECTION A. INTERNAL WATERS
I. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource within this area.
II. Foreign vessels have no right of innocent passage within internal waters.
III. A vessel in the high seas assumes jurisdiction under the internal laws of its flag State.SUBSECTION B. TERRITORIAL WATERS
I. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource.
II. Civilian Vessels shall be given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters.
III. The coastal state may temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of their security.SUBSECTION C. CONTINENTAL SHELF
I. Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others.
II. Coastal states have exclusive control over all living resources.SECTION 3. SPECIAL RIGHTS TO VESSELS/AIRCRAFT
SUBSECTION A. RIGHT TO INNOCENT PASSAGE
I. Innocent passage shall be defined as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state.
II. The following may not be considered innocent activities:- Fishing
- Polluting
- Weapons practice
- Transit of any military vessels
- Spying
- Piracy
III. During the conduct of this right, submarines and other underwater vessels are required to indicate to the proper authorities in the area of their expected transit. They are only required to relay they are an underwater vessel, their nation of origin, and that in case of emergency may need to conduct an emergency surface breach. These vessels are responsible for any damages that may arise from any surface breaching.
SECTION 4. RULES FOR OTHER INSTANCES
SUBSECTION A. ARCHIPELAGIC STATES
I. Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of innocent passage through such designated sea lanes.
II. Archipelagic States shall be responsible for the conservation of the natural resources within its waters.
ARTICLE III. ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 6. IMPLEMENTATION
I. All member states of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in 8 months of time from its approval by the European Council.
II. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable offense in member states. Failure of member states to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice. -
Debate starts NOW and will last until 10:00 GMT on September 11th, 2020.
I support the premise of this act, and depending on how it looks after it has been amended, I may very well likely support it.
For starters, they way you've used your definitions, particularly the word 'area', is very strange. You've laid out a formal definition of the word area in the act, but the ways in which the word is used in the text doesn't at all seem to match or be congruent with that definition. Of those 3 definitions in that definition section, only the word 'baseline' really needs defining anyway. You can just be more specific within the text with the other two. Furthermore, I also think it's strange to have two separate definition sections. You can just fit the definition of baseline into the definition section in Article II and get rid of the rest.
Some of the sentences seem to either be incomplete or totally vague statements, such as Section 2, Subsection A, Clause I. You've simply stated that states are free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Yes, I am pretty sure states can do those things already? I don't understand why we'd want to codify something so obvious. I'm assuming, or rather hoping, that there is more that you meant to add to this sentence?
I strongly dislike the section on landlocked states. I particularly dislike the second clause. I see no reason why landlocled states deserve an "appropriate" part of the "surplus of the living resources" of the "coastal states of the same region or sub-region". Landlocked states don't bear the environmental brunt of having a coast, and the stewardship that is required to protect the living resources within these waters. This is just giving landlocked states freebies to the resources of their neighbours, and they will be allowed to pillage these resources from the commons. In my opinion, this entire section has got to go.
Lastly, I strongly, strongly dislike this unnecessary institution tasked with enforcing this Act. This European Border Regulation Agency will have no serious authority. All the major European states will simply just push this organization to the side. Inquista, for one, will not take such an organization seriously. The only way you could enforce this Act seriously is by taking a state directly to the ECoJ. I see no reason why we can't just get rid of this useless middleman, and allow states to directly take states to the ECoJ for violating this Act. I won't be able to agree to the passage of this Act with this organization in place, because I'm not going to agree to create an institution and bureaucracy that will be ignored by most of the European Union.
These are just my initial thoughts. I will go over this once again and provide a list of amendments if need be. There are also some other silly stuff that needs housekeeping, like Clause I of Section VI. You don't need to state that the Act will be published immediately in the Acquis Communautaire of the European Union, like that is both obvious and legally binding already.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I won't stand and support this act, amended or unammended. And I'm explaining why but before that, I think this is a premise to remove the Sound Taxes and controls Spain has over their both straights, as it disturbs your country Cllr. van Allen. Europe needs freedom and not interventionism.
The act is entirely wrong or useless. There's only a exception, which is Section I, but it would need a lot of clean up to be something I would support. Also, I can predict there will be a lot of conflicts in many seas and Oceans about the Exclusive Economic Zone, and also states shall have the right to expand it if they feel like it. International waters alredy exist in the European Union, and they are those sections of the oceans and seas which are not claimed by anyone. Also, not every European Country recognises water claims, so it might be unlikely that they will do with an act. Also, we need to respect the multiple ways of understanding the territorial waters zone: Some countries just recognise 12 nautical miles, others could recognise 25 and others 50 or more.
On section 2, Coastal states are alredy free to set laws, regulate the use and using resouces in their areas. Clauses 2 and 3 are just crazy, because every vessel crossing through my waters for example shall respect the Spanish laws on maritime conservation, environmental protection... etc. About subsections, B is not fine for me as military ships could go all along our waters with no need of asking for permission, again to benefit yourself or other nations my country or any country could have any conflict with. Subsection C falls in an extreme contradiction with some clauses mentioned before and subsection D will make conflicts appear about those mentiones zones, and same with subsection E.
On Section 3, that also exists as I don't see any European Country avoiding vessels to go through their waters with no conflict between certain nations. This threatens national security despite the act purpose is not to. This is pure interventionism on our borders control and I'm not going to allow such. Every state regulates what they want to do with their airspace, waters and their stuff. I think there's no real motivation of getting a regulation but to get your nation back on their old status by avoiding our measures. Isn't it Cllr. van Allen?
Section 4 is absolutely wrong as it again searches a benefit for your nation and tries to avoid sound taxes in Europe in they way they are actually established. Ans Sections 5 and 6 shall not be taken seriously, as they are a joke to me and I think for more people in this council, at least by now. If someone can give it a better use, then go ahead. Still, amended or not, Spain sides against this act, because it will be biased in any way. If we want to regulate the seas, we need a major agreement led by a neutral person and not a Councillor.
Thank you very much.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Mr. Tusk, I condemn your words regarding my proposal. I can say that, in simple logic, the straits of Adventuranza and Gibraltar are strategic gateways to nations in the Caspian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Lafay Sea, Bastardus Sea, Persian Gulf, and Red Sea. Your country's treatment on the taxes you impose are unfair, and you even regulate whether this or that will be able to pass. Therefore, Gibraltar and Adventuranza must be considered as International Waters to be fair for everybody. You said Europe needs freedom and not intervensionism, but isn't it intervensionism that Spain is doing? That is all I can say for now.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Cllr. van Allen, Europe needs freedom for states to regulate. The taxes are fair, our locks for certain nations which Spain has diplomatic conflicts with are fair. If Mennrimiak did the same, other song would be sang by yourself, but I guess this is the double way of watching Spain and the rest of Europe by Reitzmag. Also, it's not unfair if you look properly. It would be unfair if we were not open to negotiate those taxes. And why would they have to be considered as International Waters if there's no one around and Spain is in change of their maintenance and their protection? We need to recognise those nations that protect our reefs and sea life instead of making them international waters and let them die like many other seas and oceans. And no, Spain is just regulating and protecting its claimed waters and the wildlife over there, and as any other state can do, regulate who can and can't go across our waters.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
"Yeah, this does happen a lot, Hetty. I wouldn't take that much note of it, just play along, read the script the Emperor gave you, and you'll be fine. Let Spain and Reitzmag get at each other's throats, as usual. All right? Augustus out." New Inimician Cllr Tilki entered the Council chamber and began:
"Even though Cllr Van Allen denies that this has anything to do with Spain's introduction of sound taxes, he then proceeds to directly admit that, oh wait, in fact it does have everything to do with it, as, to quote him, these taxes are "unfair". I also cannot help but notice that this Act, which restricts what member states are allowed to do in their own maritime sphere of influence, comes only days after the Imperial Government of Inimicus announced it would blockade any Reitzmic ships from passing through the Persian Gulf if they found a way into it. A coincidence, I'm sure...
"Technically, this Act also requires a huge amount of work. You cannot simply expect nations to be immediately able to abide by this act from the moment of passing. As Speaker Firoux also mentioned, the definitions section also needs a complete overhaul and, importantly, landlocked states should not be awarded a completely vague and unncessary portion of naval resources. A large amount of the Act is also superfluous and seeks to legislate what is already codified in member states' laws and practices.
"When I was an impressionable student at the Academia Inimici, professors would always find a point at which an essay was no longer amendable, but instead either required scrapping or fully rewriting. I feel, sadly, that this proposal is bordering on the latter. It will require a total overhaul for the Empire to be able to even consider supporting it."
Hetty Tilki
Empire of Inimicus -
Pravoslaviya will not allow any new institution to dictate what its borders are, no matter how much it happens to resemble the European Assembly. We are not against a general delineation of territorial waters, or even of EEZs. We have defended our waters in the past, and we are prepared to do so again where necessary. But we will never tolerate being bound by the whims of some tribunal in Europolis if some other country were to try and deprive us of the holy patrimony of the glorious patriots who, over countless generations, have given their lives for God and Pravoslaviya.
There are other problems with this Bill, but I don't see the need to go into them at this point.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
The Union of Duxburian Dominions has an objection list to this legislation far longer than you'd find even in a Reitzmag court case. While we do generally respect coastal state sovereignty over inshore territorial waters, we reject all claims to all other waters of all entities. The Union of Duxburian Dominions is a "you own what you can defend" state and that policy applies to the seas. In practice, those waters are international, as nobody, not even us, is able to permanently possess them.
Our submarines absolutely will not surface in transit anywhere unless so ordered by a treatied ally such as Angleter, under circumstances and in locations when/where such action would be warranted. This is an issue of critical national security.
Along the same line of thought, we aren't interested in giving military vessels and aircraft automatic rights of passage through waters or airspace we control. That is also a critical national security issue.
As for straits, they belong to whoever can possess them, regardless of their width. Nobody has any rights of passage unless secured through demonstration of possession, negotiation, force, or threat of force. A state like Spain is well within its rights to levy tolls on waterways it can possess and maintain possession of.
Landlocked states have no right to our coastal resources, that section is simply ridiculous. If landlocked states want coastal resources, they can trade for them, the same way we must trade for landlocked resources.
We aren't interested in giving up control of our borders to a European regulatory agency. That's also ridiculous. The Union of Duxburian Dominions has the longest set of borders of any currently active EU member state, much of which involve very remote wilderness and require extensive local knowledge to manage and regulate. The EU doesn't stand a chance at accomplishing this successfully.
As in the past, the Union of Duxburian Dominions continues to be willing to back its maritime and navigational policies using military force if necessary. Make sure this is really a hill worth dying on, Duxburians don't bluff. Dangerous times could be on the near horizon.
Wesley Greene
Councillor of the Duxburian Union -
So, I have seen the comments of my colleagues and noticed that some have opposed this and some did not understand some concepts. Now, I'll explain why this is what my bill looked like.
I began work on this maritime law last March this year and made all of this day and night with heavy precision. I had my first version of the bill but it ended up being very messy and very complex. I thought that it would be hard to debate in the council with such a very long text. So, I began work on this second version last June and made an entirely shortened version of my first bill. This is the reason why I ended up accidentally leaving some unnecessary parts. The definitions of terms was a carbon-copy of the ones I used for my first version, and I admit that I forgot to remove it. For the definition and specification of zones, I also made a mistake on the part of the international waters. The correct definition of the zones that I would've published is this:
The international waters was meant to be all body of water outside of the territorial sea.
Mr. Speaker, if you notice in this diagram I made, the internal waters does not only include rivers. Nations will have to draw their baseline that should connect all of their coast. But, the baseline must enclose all of the low waters which includes beaches and etc. Therefore, the internal waters may also include coastal water bodies within the baseline. Internal Waters may include bays and gulfs considering that the narrowest distance between the land enclosing the body of water would not exceed maybe 12nm or so.
I understand that you all did not like the establishment of the EBRA, hence I wish that a proper amendment will be submitted to remove that part. This is same to the landlocked states part and so I wish that part would be removed too by a proper amendment.
Mr. Tusk, you mentioned that there aren't any nations other than Spain that boundaries the straits of Gibraltar and Adventuranza, but if you look properly, The Italian Republic is joining the EU. Meanwhile, the country south of your country is just not a member of the EU. You also said that your country is just protecting the marine life within your claimed waters. But Mr. Tusk, isn't interventionism with the ecosystem removing its balance and equilibrium? Your forceful regulation of who passes and who does not on your claimed areas is very concerning as the trade between the member-states are disturbed by the actions done by your country.
Overall, I'd like to hear more from the others. So, I request an extension of the debate for this act.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I shall extend the debate period until 10:00 GMT on September 13th, 2020.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
Well Cllr. van Allen, I'm really sorry to inform you that Italy is not joining the European Union. And talking about the south of Spain, it's a really sunny place to take a trip. The "country" that is supposed to be there has not given any sign of life in a month and it's heading for 2 months now. So yeah, Spain is absoluety alone in its Straits and we have no neighbours, just Red Croatia but they also don't give sign of life since a while. Also, I said this had something to do with my country and you are really prooving my opinion now so I would like to ask you if you could make, at a point, an act that doesn't try to get Spain do what Reitzmag wants. I also see interests on forbidding Inimicus ' restrictions and any others.
Now, Spain protects the marine life in its claimed waters and I don't see how claiming 12 kilometres in Gibraltar and 20 in Adventuranza is removing its balance and equilibrium. Still, Reitzmag has no proper access to the sea, and the taxes are there to improve conservation. We need to make trade greener too, and I think Spain has proven its trustwothiness. I'll remain opposed to this act.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Mr. Tusk, your country can improve conservation while letting Reitzmic ships to pass through. Does this mean your country is accusing us of destroying the marine life within those waters?
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
Cllr. van Allen, I don't want to enter a circle argument about if the order given by the Spanish Government isn't good for a country that has no access to the Atlantic Ocean because there's no canal or something, and I also think you haven't understand absolutely anything. Every ship when it goes through destroys the marine life and we have report of new types of animals and plants because of the trafiic. Those restrictions you are talking about happened because of the unreasonable move by your government due to our Defensive pact with the Empire of Inimicus. There are no accusations from Spain to countries but ships, maybe because they don't accomplish with the Spanish regulations on our waters.
To avoid that, we also drive inspections on ships and we choose them in a random way, so they don't know when we are looking for their maintenance. If we get any evidence of breaking the regulations, we stop the ship from its departure and we fine them. But no country is guilty of that as they have nothing to see there.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
Now, Mr. Tusk, the Spanish Government and the Reitzmic Government are beginning to de-escalate their measures. But I am not withdrawing this bill. This proves that my main motive is for the fairness to everyone and not to remove the taxes levied in the straits claimed by your country.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag -
I think no one in this Council asked you doing such, but I'm keeping my opinion on this matter and I'll still vote against this bill.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
"I apologize for a lack of input from myself on this act. I do wish to offer some actual amendments since it appears none were officially proposed."
AMENDMENT 1:
ARTICLE III. ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EUROPEAN BORDER REGULATION AGENCYRemove Entire Section
SECTION 6. IMPLEMENTATION
I. This act shall be effective immediately after it is passed in the European Council and published in the Acquis Communautaire of the European Union.
II. All member states of the European Union are required to harmonize their national law(s) with this Act in 8 months of time from its approval by the European Council.
III. Breaches of this Act shall be considered a punishable offense in member states. Failure of member states to enforce this Act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.
AMENDMENT 2:
SECTION 4. RULES FOR OTHER INSTANCES
SUBSECTION A. STRAITS
I. A Strait shall be defined as a narrow body of water that connects to large bodies of water, the narrowest distance between the flanking coastal states must be at most 50 nautical miles (93 kilometres) in order to be considered a strait or the area will be considered a channel instead.
II. If the narrowest point between the coastal states flanking the strait is lower than 12 nautical miles (22km), the strait is thereby declared as a Strait used for International Navigation. These straits shall have shared jurisdiction between the bordering states.
III. If the narrowest point between the coastal states flanking the strait is greater than or equal to 12 nautical miles (22km), the following set of rules shall apply:The Territorial Waters shall extend out to 6 nautical miles (11 kilometres) from the baseline.
The Contiguous Zone may extend up to 6 nautical miles (11km) beyond the 6-nautical-mile (11 km) limit of the territorial sea.
The Exclusive Economic Zone shall extend half the distance of the narrowest point of the strait.
IV. Ships and aircraft of all countries are given the right to transit passage through straits used for international navigation. States bordering the straits may regulate the exercise of this right.
V. Ships and aircraft of all countries are also given the right of innocent passage through all straits. This right may not be regulated or suspended by the states bordering the strait.SUBSECTION B. LANDLOCKED STATES
I. Land-locked States have the right of access to and from the sea and enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States.
II. Land-locked and geographically disadvantaged States have the right to participate on an equitable basis in exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the EEZ's of coastal States of the same region or sub-region, highly migratory species of fish and marine mammals are accorded special protection.SUBSECTION C. ARCHIPELAGIC STATES
I. Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of innocent passage through such designated sea lanes.
II. Archipelagic States shall be responsible for the conservation of the natural resources within its waters.
AMENDMENT 3:
ARTICLE II. REGULATIONS
SECTION 1. DEFINITION AND SPECIFICATION OF ZONES
I. Inland Waters are defined as all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline.
II. The Territorial Waters shall extend out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline.
III. The Contiguous Zone may extend up to 12 nautical miles (22km) beyond the 12-nautical-mile (22 km) limit of the territorial sea.
IV. The Exclusive Economic Zone shall extend 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline.
V. The Continental Shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin's outer edge, or 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the coastal state's baseline, whichever is greater. A state's continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles (370 km) until the natural prolongation ends.However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500-meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters).
VI. The waters beyond the areas defined above shall be considered International Waters in which all ships from all nations have the right to passage without any limit. No nation or entity will have jurisdiction over these waters and that any entity has the right to conduct research/navigation through the area.SECTION 2. RIGHTS OF ENTITIES WITH REGARDS TO THE ZONES
SUBSECTION A. INTERNAL WATERS
I. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource within this area.
II. Foreign vessels have no right of innocent passage within internal waters.
III. A vessel in the high seas assumes jurisdiction under the internal laws of its flag State.SUBSECTION B. TERRITORIAL WATERS
I. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource.
II. Civilian Vessels shall be given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters., with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters.
III. The coastal state may temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of their security.The duration of the temporary suspension may not be longer than 2 months, any further expansion should be approved by the European Border Regulation Agency.SUBSECTION C. CONTIGUOUS ZONE
I. The coastal state may continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration, and pollution; if the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters.
II. Vessels are given the right of innocent passage in this zone.SUBSECTION D. EXCULSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
I. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources within the area.
II. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight in this zone, subject to the regulation of the coastal states.
III. Foreign states may lay submarine pipes and cables in this area.
IV. The Coastal state may construct artificial islands, installations, and structures within this area. Owners of such artificial features are permitted to establish reasonable safety zones that must require the approval of the European Border Regulatory Agency. Since they are not naturally occurring, artificial features do not create a territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, or continental shelf.
V. All marine scientific research in the EEZ and on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State, but in most cases they are obliged to grant consent to other States when the research is to be conducted for peaceful purposes and fulfils specified criteria.SUBSECTION E. CONTINENTAL SHELF
I. Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others.
II. Coastal states have exclusive control over all living resources"attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone.
III. Coastal states may not apply special regulation to this area.
IV. Coastal States share with the international community part of the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline.
AMENDMENT 4:
SECTION 3. SPECIAL RIGHTS TO VESSELS/AIRCRAFT
SUBSECTION A. RIGHT TO INNOCENT PASSAGE
I. Innocent passage shall be defined as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state.
II. The following may not be considered innocent activities:- Fishing
- Polluting
- Weapons practice
- Transit of any military vessels
- Spying
- Piracy
III. During the conduct of this right, submarines and other underwater vessels are required to
navigate on the surface and to show their flag.to indicate to the proper authorities in the area of their expected transit. They are only required to relay they are an underwater vessel, their nation of origin, and that in case of emergency may need to conduct an emergency surface breach. These vessels are responsible for any damages that may arise from any surface breaching.SUBSECTION B. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION AND OVERFLIGHT
I. Freedom of Navigation and Overflight refers to the rights of vessels/aircraft to navigate/fly through an area without unnecessary delay.
II. During the conduct of this right, the Coastal State may not interfere the right of passage of a vessel or aircraft flying/displaying the flag of a sovereign state.SUBSECTION C. RIGHT TO TRANSIT PASSAGE
I. Transit passage refers to the exercise of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.
II. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a State bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that State. -
The debate period is over. There are four amendments, all proposed by Councillor Falk. All four amendments can be found above. Voting on amendments begins NOW and will last until 22:30 GMT on September 16th, 2020.
I vote FOR all four amendments.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
I vote FOR all the amendments.
Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain -
I vote FOR all amendments.
Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
I vote FOR Amendment III and AGAINST Amendments I, II, and IV.
Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag
The Kingdom of Spain
