Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
Quoted
Ah, it is good to see that the Russian Federation has achieved through diplomacy all that generations of Romanovs had failed to achieve by arms.
There is no doubt that this bodes well for the peace of Europe.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
Regardless of all that apply HONG KONG and MACAO are still open ports as written in the beijing convention of 1860.
That's why china gaurantee that the right of innocent / free passage will be kept.
And with all other points we will sure find an agreement.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The Dominion of Canada furthermore will not be a party to any agreement which restricts Canada's rights regulate traffic within it's internal waters.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The fact that China is under the impression that they have an option to gaurantee or forbid passage of any Commonwealth traffic (Be it their definition of 'innocent' or not) to and from Hong Kong is the root of Canadian concerns in that regard. Such matters are soley the purview of the British government, represented by the Governor of Hong Kong.
This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "parador" (Dec 8th 2010, 10:29pm)
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As I read/understand it, Territorial waters includes coastal and internal waters.
Quoted
Internal waters:
1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State.
Quoted
Normal baseline:
Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.
Quoted
Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil
- 1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.
- 2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.
- 3. The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.
Quoted
Canada has no modifications to suggest at this time, as there does not seem to be a sufficiently compelling benefit in this proposal to offset the complications and inevitable territorial clashes such an extension would generate.
Quoted
Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'd like to note that unless Canada has previously claimed more than the currently-accepted three mile limit, then two of the three major routes of the Northwest Passage are navigable in their full length using international waters, and would thus have to be recognized as international straits. One of those passages would still be open if Canada claimed a 12-mile limit, in fact (though it is the least viable of the three routes) and Canada's historical arguments for its claim of the Northwest Passage as 'internal waters" are based on the 1982 text of the UNCLOS. So currently, we must regard the Northwest Passage as an international strait; and Canada's claims on the Northwest Passage can be based solely on Canada's ability and willingness to prevent international navigation of the Northwest Passage.
[SIZE=1](Sorry mate, but without UNCLOS, there's no international legal basis for Canada to claim the Northwest Passage as internal waters.)[/SIZE]
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for the rest, you seem to be equating Territorial Waters with Territorial Sea, which are not the same thing.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Canada considers said waters sovereign Canadian territory, and will not be party to any agreement that limits it's ability to govern and administrate them.
Quoted
Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
In short, Canada views a treaty at this time time that attempts to set world-wide standards will be counter productive. The matter is better settled directly between any powers with conflicting claims.
Beyond that....it's the 40s, not the 80s. Canada's satisfied with whatever it can enforce and get away with, as you put it. And I don't think any 1930s power would sit well with anything short of "It's my territory, I do what I want with it" rather than the language you lifted from UNCLOS which garuntees foreign ships rights within my borders. Whether the rights are reasonable or in line with what Canada (or any other power) would guarantee on it's own is not relevant; I don't feel the powers of this era would cede it's right to make that decision on their own to another power (or body of powers) in such a broad, sweeping manner.
If you want to broach an agreement regarding standards and practices regarding conduct in undisputedly international waters, that seems more in the purview and mindset of this body, and timeframe. If you want, as part of those discussions, or on it's own, formalize a nation's ability to claim 3, 5, or 12 miles, the discussion needs to be limited to that. Canada is ambivilent on the number, as it regards the waters within the Arctic Archipelago as internal, sovereign Canadian territory. Any attempt to adjust or formalize 3-12 mile claims means lengthy and likely contentious negotiations with Nordmark regarding Vinland, something Canada feels isn't worth the aggrevation at this juncture.
However, what goes on in any given nation's recognized territory is their own business. And, as stated above, disputes are best handled in a more specific and localized manner.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
And by the way ... if i take a look at the map .... it looks like Hong Kong and Macao are enclaves in chinese territory. China extends his hand for new negotiations with Great Britain, to find a suitable solution for both nations. For, as Canada has said it correctly, it is a matter between Great Britain and China and it is not a matter for the Commonwealth.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:
China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.
Even if China does not have the authority, we can guarantee the freedom of the traffic now and for the future.
This is our way to show the world that China is a peace-loving nation.
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Quoted
China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.
The Mexican Delegate is wondering how the above can be interpreted as an insult. There might have been insults traded but not the above...
Quoted
Originally posted by Desertfox
Quoted
China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.
The Mexican Delegate is wondering how the above can be interpreted as an insult. There might have been insults traded but not the above...
Quoted
So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
Sometimes it seems to me, that the Canadian representative only understand what he wants. He makes no attempt to understand his counterpart.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
If something is unclear in his eyes, then he screamed out loud and hides behind the Commonwealth rather than to investigate what's his counterpart really means with his statement.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
By the way, that was the real reason why the negotiations between Great Britain and China have failed, they were poisoned by Canada.
Quoted
Originally posted by parador
So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH