Japan's Maritime Zones....

Mr. Valentines Day

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 5:14pm

There may be good points in here and maybe bad points. There may be silly points and maybe questionable points. There may be reasonable points and unreasonable points. There may be unnecessary points that should be removed and there may be points that you can come up with that could be added to all this. There maybe spelling errors and there may be wrong use of English and maybe the article layout is not correct at certain points.

Going through all that stuff was going to take too much time, so I rushed a bit through certain parts, especially at the end. I probably should have thrown it out months ago for trimming away the unnecessary and add additional ideas that others can come up with.

Quoted

Japan's Maritime Zones
1a - There are three maritime zones around Japan: the Territorial Waters Zone, the Contiguous Zone and the Economic Control Zone.

I think that this is fairly obvious as the establishment of these zones has been mentioned before in 1940. I changed the "Exclusive Economic Zone" to "Economic Control Zone" though that still might not be the proper name for what I have in mind...

Quoted

1b - To determine its own limits properly, Japan shall always assume that other nations have similar zones, even if they never made such claims.

That seems to be the fair thing to do (though due to their actions, I could have made China the exception). This is especially important with the countries around Japan. It is not like Japan looks at the Philippines who only use the 3 mile limit and then draw the limits of Japan's zones right up to the max toward the Philippines.

Quoted

2a - Japan has ownership of or authority over all the waters within the boundaries of the Japanese maritime zones.

Not sure if this would be correct and make the the Contiguous Zone and the Economic Control Zone more like Japan's Territorial Waters Zone than they should be.

Quoted

2b - The Empire of Japan has no ownership of any vessel within any of the Maritime Zones.
2c - Ownership of a vessel belongs to the owner that the ship is registered to, whether the owner is a person, a company, an organization or a nation.
2d - The Empire of Japan has no authority over any vessel within any of the Maritime Zones except for enforcing the rules and regulations for safety at sea within any of the Maritime Zones.

Added for some extra points with these to make sure that 2a is not going to be interpreted by anyone in some way that Japan considers owning all foreign vessels within its zones or have any kind of authority over them (except telling the ships where to go and how to go there from a safety POV) due to my crappy English wording.

Quoted

2e - Exceptions to Article 2b and Article 2d are those vessels that are registered as belonging to the Empire of Japan.

Not sure whether this is the right way of putting it, but the idea with the Japanese vessels is that this does not include ships owned by a Japanese person, company or organization (except when it is tied to the Government). Perhaps "Government of Japan" is better? Or is there something else that could be used to clarify it?

Quoted

3a - The captain assigned to a vessel is the person who has authority over the vessel unless stated otherwise by the owner of the vessel.

Should be obvious filler.

Quoted

3b - The captain assigned to a vessel is the person who is responsible for the safety and actions of the vessel and its crew unless stated otherwise by the owner of the vessel or when a pilot is present.

I think that the pilot bit is different. IIRC in OTL the captain is the one to blame if the pilot screws up.

Quoted

4a - When in any of Japan's maritime zones, all foreign military vessels are forbidden to fire, discharge or launch any kind of weapons other than salute guns except at the designated firing ranges.

To avoid any international incidents being started in any of Japan's zones.

Quoted

4b - For safety reasons, any kind of aircraft launched from military vessels is considered a weapon.

No need for some hot-shot idiot in a plane to endanger civilian aircraft and Japanese military aircraft though it is more a matter to avoid something like the New Guinea Incident from a military POV.

Quoted

4c - When in any of Japan's maritime zones, all foreign military vessels can request the Imperial Japanese Navy to make use of any of their firing ranges if they wish to.

Just in case a foreign warship needs to get rid of some aggression. Seems unlikely but still...

Quoted

Territorial Waters Zone
5a - In general, the limit of Japan's territorial waters is 12 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.

This would be the coast line as given on official maps, so I doubt that would be high-tide or low-tide.

Quoted

5b - When the Japanese territorial waters overlap the territorial waters of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the territorial waters.

Explanation of how 1b affects the Territorial Waters Zone.

Quoted

5c - The waters between the islands of Japan are designated as "Archipelagic Waters" and considered to be part of the Territorial Waters Zone.

The wording of this should probably be changed or something needs to be added to clarify this bit. The idea is that Japan does not consider all the waters between Iwo Jima and Okinawa for example to be "Archipelagic Waters", but it will consider the waters between Okinawa and Miyakojima for example to be "Archipelagic Waters".

Quoted

6 - Inside the Territorial Waters Zone, the Empire of Japan has control and ownership of all economic resources.

Added this when I was working on some Economic Control Zone stuff. Not sure if it would be stating the obvious.

Quoted

7a - Civilian vessels from all nations are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters.

Obviously. Japan is not trying to limit maritime movements.

Quoted

7b - Military vessels from nations with ports on the Sea of Japan and the Sea of Okhotsk are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters.

So that would be Chosen and Russia.

Quoted

7c - Military vessels from India, the Philippines, Pacifica and Persia are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters.

Should be obvious who.

Quoted

7d - Military vessels from nations with ports in the East of Southeast Asia regions are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters after notifying the government of Japan either through their ambassador in Japan or through the Japanese ambassador in their nation.

So if I am correct, that would be Britain, the Netherlands, France/Indochina, Siam and Cambodia. Considering its location relative to the Asian continent, I think that Australia would probably be included as well.

Quoted

7e - Military vessels from all other nations require permission to be able to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters from the Government of Japan. Permission is obtained either through their ambassador in Japan or the Japanese ambassador in their nation.

So all other nations.

Quoted

7f - In general, the Government of Japan will always grant permission to a nation asking for permission for their military vessels to pass freely though Japan's territorial waters.

In other words, (decent) freedom of the seas within all Japan's Maritime Zones.

It should be noted that 7b-f can be used as OOC guidelines. If you want a ship of your nation to move through Japan's Territorial Waters Zone, just check 7b-7e (and the Ban List as well in case your nation has been naughty) to see if I expect you to send me a pm regarding this and if I am in what way (just letting me know (7d) or asking me permission (7e)).

... except when you want to cause any kind of mischief anywhere around Japan in which case I expect to see a pm of course.

Quoted

7g - When in Japan's territorial waters, it is expected that the main battery of all foreign military vessels are turned away from Japanese land whenever it is visible except when in straits or canals or where ever land is visible on both sides.

Don't want the peasants people living along the coast to become nervous with guns aimed in their direction.

Quoted

8 - Nations or military vessels from nations that have misbehaved themselves internationally or caused an international incident will be denied permission to enter Japan's territorial waters as through their actions they have proven that they cannot be trusted to abide to the Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones and behave themselves within Japan's Maritime Zones.

Now I could have applied that Ban to all three zones, but I think that that would have been a little bit extreme even if it is the "right" thing to do from a Japanese POV.

Quoted

Territorial Waters Zone Ban List
9a - Chinese military vessels are currently banned from Japanese territorial waters due to multiple international incidents they caused, the most recent ones being the Normandie Transport Incident, the murder of the Normandie's pilot, Capitaine Nguyen Loc, and the Dong Fa 37 Spy Incident. Reevaluation of China's behavior and status will be held on July 9, 1950.

China is fairly obvious. It has turned into quite a troublesome nation in these last years. I was considering the line of "many international incidents (too many to list)" in this article but decided to keep it a bit simpler and probably less rude.

The date listed is 48 months after the conviction of the crew of the Dong Fa 37 on July 9, 1946.

Quoted

9b - German military vessels are currently banned from Japanese territorial waters due to the New Guinea Incident. Reevaluation of Germany's behavior and status will be held on January 1, 1948.

The German presence is probably a bit more controversial (deliberate as things cannot be all perfect). To me I cannot (and should not) use OOC knowledge to influence this IC matter. To Japan, this was an incident where the Germans said they did not fly into Australian airspace and Australia said the Germans did fly into Australian airspace. Now I think that neither side would have proper or conclusive evidence to proof that they are right, so even though Australia is wrong and Germany is right, Japan would most likely side with Australia as they are the locals rather than the Germans who are thousands of miles away from where the incident took place and sticking their nose where it does not belong.

Unfortunately DF hasn't been around in ages, so I can't really do what came to mind while I was creating these points. The idea was to ask Australian for a special flight in the area to determine the visibility of the area and to determine whether the Germans could have seen things from international airspace or if they they had to be in Australian airspace. Now the results could have been made more dubious by having the Australians manipulate things, but this aspect would have to be discussed in a three-way manner of course (me-DF-Bruce).

The date listed is 24 months after Australia's Overflight Protest on January 1, 1946. Not 100% if that would be proper compared to the duration of China's ban and what they did compared to what the Germans did. Maybe it should be shorter, although it could be used to make things a bit more questionable.

Additional nations will be added below 9b. If I had done this all in 1940, it is possible that Canada would have been on the list due to a certain incident (would depend on the date) but now in 1947, many years have passed and the Canadians have behaved themselves, not causing any incidents, during those years.

Quoted

Contiguous Zone
10a - In general, the limit of Japan's Contiguous Zone is 42 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.

Same as 5a.

Quoted

10b - When the Japanese Contiguous Zone overlaps the Contiguous Zone of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the two Contiguous Zones.
10c - No Contiguous Zone exists when Japan's Territorial Waters Zone touches the Territorial Waters Zone of another nation.

Explanation of how 1b affects the Contiguous Zone.

Quoted

11 - Inside the Contiguous Zone, the Empire of Japan will exert control for the purpose of preventing or punishing violations of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.

IIRC OTL Contiguous Zone description.

Quoted

12 - Inside the Contiguous Zone, the Empire of Japan has control and ownership of all economic resources.

Same as 6.

Quoted

13 - Vessels from all nations are allowed to freely pass through Japan's Contiguous Zone.

So it does not matter whether the vessel is military or civilian or whether the nation is on the Ban List or not.

Quoted

14a - Vessels within the Contiguous Zone can expect inspections for the purpose of prevention of above mentioned violations by officials of the Law and Customs Agency who are assisted by the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency.
14b - Inspections will be done while a vessel targeted for inspection is on the move to minimize any delays in the journey of the vessel.
14c - The crew and passengers of a vessel targeted for inspection are requested to cooperate with officials of the Law and Customs Agency.
14d - Officials of the Law and Customs Agency are required to work as efficiently as possible and keep the disturbance to the operations of a vessel targeted for inspection to an absolute minimum, especially those operations that may create dangerous situations when disturbed.
14e - Officials of the Law and Customs Agency are required to complete their work and be off a vessel targeted for inspection before it reaches the limits of Japan's territorial waters, preferably sooner.
15a - As the authoritative figure of a vessel targeted for inspection, the captain has full rights to deny the officials of the Law and Customs Agency access to his vessel for inspection when his vessel is within Japan's Contiguous Zone.
15b - The captain of vessel targeted for inspection who has opted to deny the officials of the Law and Customs Agency access to his vessel should be aware that the inspection will be performed within Japan's territorial waters in any of the designated bays along the coast of Japan.
15c - When the inspection is going to be performed within Japan's territorial waters, the vessel is required to come to a full stop during the inspection of the vessel by the officials of the Law and Customs Agency.
15d - When the inspection is going to be performed within Japan's territorial waters, the vessel is not allowed to move any further until the inspection of the vessel is completed and the officials of the Law and Customs Agency have left the ship.
15e - When the inspection is going to be performed within Japan's territorial waters, the Empire of Japan cannot be held responsible for financial damages as a result of delays caused by stopping the vessel and the inspection.

These point may be more questionable than others (as other nations will not recognize Contiguous Zones and therefore consider these Japanese actions to happen in international waters), but I would think that occasional random inspections would be carried out by nations in territorial waters anyway so why not make them less troublesome? With this I was thinking about reducing the impact such inspections would have on a ship's journey, keeping delays to an absolute minimum due to the 30nm size of the Contiguous Zone (a ship traveling at 15 knots would take 4 hours to cross the Zone) and the fact that the ship does not have to come to a complete stop.

Also as indicated the captain has the option to refuse so it is not like Japan will be forcing a ship to cooperate with an inspection within the Contiguous Zone. I think that, unless vessels from certain dubious nations are involved or if there is a conflict in the region, such inspections would be quite rare, though as the helicopter becomes more evolved, these inspections might become a bit less rare.

Quoted

Economic Control Zone
16a - In general, the limit of Japan's Economic Control Zone is 292 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.

Same as 5a.

Quoted

16b - When the Japanese Economic Control Zone overlaps the Economic Control Zone of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the two Economic Control Zones.
16c - No Economic Control Zone exists when Japan's Territorial Waters Zone touches the Territorial Waters Zone of another nation.
16d - No Economic Control Zone exists when Japan's Contiguous Zone touches the Contiguous Zone of another nation.

Explanation of how 1b affects the Economic Control Zone.

Quoted

17 - Inside the Economic Control Zone, the Empire of Japan has control of all economic resources.

Control =/= own.

Quoted

18a - Nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions have access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.
18b - In the interest of the local economies and trade and commerce, vessels from nations outside the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions have no access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.
18c - Nations outside the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions who wish to get economic resources from Japan's Economic Control Zone can buy them either directly from Japan or any of the nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that acquire economic resources from Japan's Economic Control Zone

So that would be Chosen, Russia, the Philippines, Pacifica, Britain, Netherlands, France/Indochina, Siam and Cambodia if I am right.

Quoted

19 - There is no limit to the amount of an economic resource that can be obtained.

Now this is something that could change in the future when everyone starts worrying about the limits of the natural resources, but not now so it might look a bit silly for the late 1940s.

Article 20 was about registry and permits, but I decided to kick that one out as the permits were not really permits and the registry was about data of the ships entering the zones which would be available from up-to-date Maritime information books and magazines.

Quoted

21 - Nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that have misbehaved themselves internationally or caused an international incident will be denied access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.

Same as 8.

Quoted

Economic Control Zone Ban List
22a - China is currently banned from accessing economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone for multiple international incidents, the most recent ones being the Normandie Transport Incident, the murder of the Normandie's pilot, Capitaine Nguyen Loc, and the Dong Fa 37 Spy Incident. Reevaluation of China's behavior and status will be held on July 9, 1948.

Same as 9A.

Additional nations will be added below 22a.

Quoted

Requirements of vessels wishing to enter Japan's Maritime Zones
23 - Surface radar and direct communications radio are recommended.

Not sure what the proper way is to describe communications radio where you talk to others rather than using Morse code. Stuff that could be made mandatory in the distant future though.

Quoted

24a - Radio receiver capable of receiving weather reports from Japan's Central Meteorological Observatory is mandatory.
24b - Radio receivers are available at Japanese ports for ships unable to obtain radio receivers in their land of origin or to replace damaged radio receivers free of charge.
25a - Signal lamp is mandatory.
25b - Signal lamps are available at Japanese ports for ships unable to obtain the proper equipment in their land of origin or to replace damaged lights free of charge.
26a - Mandatory lighting on vessels. One white at stern, one white masthead, two white forward side of bridge, one red left, one green right.
26b - Lights are available at Japanese ports for ships unable to obtain the proper equipment in their land of origin or need to replace damaged lights free of charge.

All to make it safer for a vessel within Japan's Maritime Zones. Probably influenced a bit by seeing the Volksempfänger in a museum.

Quoted

27 - For easy identification purposes, name and/or number of the vessels must be clearly marked on the vessel at the following locations: bow (both sides), stern (directed aft), front of bridge.

Regardless of the poor shape the rest of the ship's paint job is in, the name painted on those locations must always be readable from a large distance. This way, patrol aircraft can identify the vessel from a distance in order to keep track of their location without having to bother the vessel too much. Should a vessel run into trouble and be able to broadcast its name but not its location, the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency will at least have a reasonable idea in which area to look for that vessel.

Quoted

Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones
28 - All vessels moving through any of the Japanese Maritime Zones are expected to abide to the Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones.

Read: "we do not want any ships colliding with other ships"

Quoted

29 - When in a strait or a Canal, vessels must keep left at all times.
30 - Passing will take place starboard-to-starboard. Vessels heading in opposing direction will pass each other on the green light side.
31 - Overtaking will take place on the port side. Vessels heading in the same direction will overtake each other on the red light side.

IIRC from what I read, there were no set rules yet back then, so I did the "keep left" idea based on 2 things: 1) When in Japan, you drive on the left side so Japan might as well apply this to ships as well. 2) The carrier's island is on the starboard side (Japan does not have any carriers here with the island on the port side and I don't think any of the other Wesworld nations have such carriers either) so a carrier will have a better and unhindered view of a ship heading in the opposite direction when passing starboard to starboard.

While not put here, I was thinking of having a few designated passage ways between the Ryukyu and Kuril islands listed here, keeping other openings closed to maritime traffic (as not to scare/bother/endanger the locals and ferries and stuff).

Quoted

Marine salvaging within Japan's Maritime Zones
32 - Vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones will come under the protection of the Empire of Japan.
33 - Vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones will not be considered to be economic resources.
34 - Ownership of vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones will remain with the nation, company, organization or person that the vessel belonged to.
35a - Salvage of vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones can only be done by the rightful owners or by a 3rd party that has received permission from the owners to salvage the lost vessel.
35b - Salvage of vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones by a 3rd party can only begin after the Empire of Japan has verified that the 3rd party in question has indeed permission from the rightful owners to salvage the vessel.
35c - Illegal salvagers will be arrested and, if the owners wish to prosecute the illegal salvagers, they will be tried either in Japan or in the nation of the owners.

Some random stuff I decided to add in more recently. I was wondering if I should add something here to indicate that all vessels lost in an area where they endanger the navigation of other vessels as well as abandoned vessels must be recovered and recovered as quickly as possible by the owners. Maybe something to add that it is not mandatory to recover a vessel should it be lost in a location where it is no navigational hazard and possibility to limit salvage to cargo of such a vessel if it is reachable

Quoted

Law and Japan's Maritime Zones
36 - It is illegal to smuggle either whole or parts of weapons, drugs, humans, poisonous gasses and other dangerous goods into Japan.
37 - Criminals smuggling illegal goods can be apprehended in any of Japan's Maritime Zones and will be tried in Japan.
38a - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions can, when notifying Japan, apprehend criminals or vessels used for criminal activities within any of Japan's Maritime Zones.
38b - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions can ask the Imperial Japanese Navy and/or the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency to assist in apprehending criminals or vessels used for criminal activities within any of Japan's Maritime Zones.
38c - Even with assistance from the Imperial Japanese Navy and/or the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency, the final arrest of criminals or the crew of vessels used for criminal activities should always be carried out by crew members of the vessel(s) of the nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that was/were chasing the criminals or vessel used for criminal activities.
38d - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions are, when notifying Japan, allowed to ignore Article 4a and fire, discharge or launch any kind of weapons at criminals or vessels used for criminal activities within any of Japan's Maritime Zones.
38e - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions should try to limit the firing, discharging or launching of any kind of weapons so that the criminals or vessels used for criminal activities are stopped or disabled.
38f - Killing criminals and/or sinking vessels used for criminal activities should only be used as a last resort.
38g - Criminals or the crew of a vessel used for criminal activities will be tried in the nation to which the chasing vessel(s) belong to.
39 - Any vessel within Japan's Maritime Zones that engages in the act of piracy will be attacked and sunk.

Perhaps some more questionable stuff, most of it added more recently. The main idea is that none of the Japanese Maritime Zones, not even the Territorial Waters Zone, should be safe havens for criminals. I hope 36 reads as I hope it should be read...

Quoted

Calamity at Sea
40a - The Birkenhead Drill is law and is applied to all Japanese Maritime Zones.
40b - The Birkenhead Drill shall also include the injured and the elderly.

... a.k.a "women and children first"... + the injured and the elderly. No real idea how to enforce it and punish those who disregard this.

Quoted

41a - With passenger ships, the crew abandons ship after the passengers have abandoned ship.
41b - With passenger ships, military personnel traveling as passengers will abandon ship after the passengers but prior to the crew.
41c - Exception to 41a are crew members assigned to man the lifeboats meant to bring the passengers to safety.
41d - The captain of a vessel either goes down with his ship or is the last person to abandon the ship.
41e - With passenger ships, female crew, injured crew and elderly crew shall abandon ship after female passengers, injured passengers and elderly passengers but before male passengers.
41f - A female captain abandons ships as per Article 41e. The highest ranking male officer shall then assume the role of captain.

Bit of an abandon ship order explanation. Highest ranking male officer includes those of the military branch traveling as passenger aboard the ship. If for example Admiral Yamamoto was traveling on a passenger ship as passenger and the captain is female, he'd be screwed. Same goes for General Tojo.

Quoted

Collisions within Japan's Maritime Zones
42 - The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels is enforced within all of Japan's Maritime Zones.
43 - Vessels barred from entering any of Japan's Maritime Zones and who decide to enter any of Japan's Maritime Zones anyway will always be held accountable when involved in a collision, even if the other vessel is at fault.

Not quite correct right now I realize. 43 should be about military vessels from nations on the Ban List in Japan's Territorial Waters Zone. After all they are allowed in the other two maritime zones.

Quoted

Port visits
44a - When a pilot is present, he becomes the person who is responsible for the safety of the vessel and its crew and the actions of the vessel.
44b - Once a pilot leaves the ship, the responsible for the safety of the vessel and its crew and the actions of the vessel will return to the captain of the vessel.
44c - At all times, the captain of the vessel will remain responsible for the actions of the crew, regardless of the presence of a pilot or not.
45 - Visitors to Japanese ports need to have their papers ready for inspection by officials of the Law and Customs Agency when leaving the ship.
46 - Small donation to the Orphans of the Sea Organization is appreciated but not mandatory when visiting a port in Japan.

Some more random stuff. The idea of the Orphans of the Sea Organization is to financially support the widows of members of merchant ships (regardless of nationality) who lost their lives within any of the Japanese Maritime Zones to raise their child(ren).

Quoted

Pacific Maritime Safety Agency and Law and Customs Agency
47 - The Pacific Maritime Safety Agency is responsible for maritime patrols, search and rescue, hydrographic and oceanographic surveying and maritime traffic management within all of Japan's Maritime Zones.
48 - The Law and Customs Agency is responsible for law and order, customs, and inspections within Japan's Maritime Zones.
49 - Officials from the Law and Customs Agency at sea will always operate from vessels of the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency.

Some random explanations regarding the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency and Law and Customs Agency...

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

2

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 5:29pm

Allow me to make something very obvious before you seek to make this canon.

1 - As a player to do not accept any attempt to unilaterally extend Japanese territorial waters beyond the conventional three-mile limit.
2 - The question of demarcation of sea zones should be jointly discussed if they are to be applicable in this game
3- There are no period historical precedents for the proposals brought forward save reversion to the Seventeenth Century

I do not care how you weasel-word the proposal. My position is NO.

I particularly dislike that you feel the need to single out Germany for special treatment just because you - the player - do not appreciate German vessels being in your half of the world. We still wait for the rumored Japanese Atlantic Fleet to show up.

You've reached the point where you are making this personal, and I do not appreciate it.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

3

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 6:50pm

I'm going need to think through a detailed response, but I will offer my initial feedback.

In character and out, none of my nations would have a dreadful problem with 95% of the points listed here, aside from the fact that this is being done unilaterally, rather than by mutually-agreed treaty. If you bring this before the League of Nations as a treaty proposal for the various world powers to agree to / join in, then my countries would at least give the matter serious consideration.

Go to the top of the page

thesmilingassassin

The Chosen One

Posts: 13,513

4

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 10:54pm

I've already read maybe a third of the post and I already can see some potential issues, 4B for example would prevent rescue aircraft from participating in rescues severely limiting response time and putting lives at risk. Also the Ban list is basically set at the whim of Japan and as such there is no real guarantee that particular rule cannot be abused, more so with a 12 mile limit. There are also other potential issues but I'll save comments for when I've finished reading the post tonight after work.

Go to the top of the page

The Rock Doctor

Old-School Heel

Posts: 5,310

5

Tuesday, March 15th 2016, 11:18pm

It was too Wall of Text-y. A clean copy without the commentary might be easier to read.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

6

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 2:37am

Quoted

Allow me to make something very obvious before you seek to make this canon.

The only thing canon right now is the existence of those zones and their limits. Those have been established in the 1940 news more than 5 years ago. Right now IC those zone are lawless zones and I am trying to get something that looks right in wording that is going to be applied to those zones before making it the official contents of those documents mentioned in the news.

Quoted

1 - As a player to do not accept any attempt to unilaterally extend Japanese territorial waters beyond the conventional three-mile limit.
2 - The question of demarcation of sea zones should be jointly discussed if they are to be applicable in this game
3- There are no period historical precedents for the proposals brought forward save reversion to the Seventeenth Century

The way I see it as a player is that Japan has nothing to do with laws, rules and regulations set up or followed by other nations and those other nations cannot enforce their laws, rules and regulations upon Japan or any other sovereign nation that has nothing to do with those laws, rules and regulations. Japan never signed anything or agreed to anything so there is nothing to stop Japan from doing that. Also Japan is not the only nation that has limits beyond the 3-mile limit, but apparently it is okay for those players/nations to do it but not for me/Japan.

Now Japan could have been limited by treaty in 1940 and this stuff would never have come up if those talks regarding the Territorial Waters succeeded but those failed and the main opposer to that was Germany (so from Japan's POV, Germany is the cause that those talks failed though OOC we're all probably to blame for letting it fizzle out). Japan's Maritime Zones stuff came into existence as a result of those failed talks and that was back in 1940.

Quoted

I particularly dislike that you feel the need to single out Germany for special treatment just because you - the player - do not appreciate German vessels being in your half of the world.

Maybe caused by the fact that I tend to use IC opinions and views in OOC situations which is something that I should not be doing. I apologize for not clearly keeping those separate when posting OOC stuff.

My OOC view is that it is not a matter of not appreciate German vessels being in your half of the world (it actually helped me with coming up with an article or two for the news). It's more of a "I don't get it" when looking at it IC. Sure there is the alliance, but why can't France send those ships to the SE Asia region and have German ships replace those departing French ships in the Atlantic/Mediterranean? Why is it necessary for Germany to send its ships to SE Asia considering their presence in the past? Does France not have the confidence to do it themselves and with their SAER allies? Does Germany doubt the abilities of France to do it themselves and with their SAER allies? Isn't SAER not enough to cause tensions in the region?

There are no good reasons for the German ships to be in SE Asia and Pacific region therefore Pacifica (as well as Japan) must see this movement as a threat to its independence no matter what Germany says. I know that as a player that that is not your intention and that there is absolutely no threat at all to Pacifica but am sure that you would agree that we cannot have Pacifica officials saying "Don't worry about those German ships in the region! BruceDuncan, who controls Germany, told us that those ships are no threat to our independence so we can sleep soundly now!" and accept the German presence without any problems or fear.

The thing is that Germany is not getting the "special treatment" in those articles because Japan's opinion (or mine). The only reason they get it is because the official complaint put forward by Australia at the League of Nations because of what happened with New Guinea Incident. If it had been another nation, the same would have happened (well, except Russia).

Did Japan cause this incident? No. Did I cause this incident? No. Did Germany cause this incident? Yes. Did you cause this incident? I am sure that it was not your intention for it to become the incident it has become, but unfortunately DF jumped on that bit the way he did so it is now what it is.

Now should I completely ignore this incident just because you as a player dislike that I as Japan singles out Germany for special treatment as a result of an incident that the Germans caused?

Quoted

We still wait for the rumored Japanese Atlantic Fleet to show up.

Well, people can wait for that for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time as it was never my intention to send the Japanese Atlantic Fleet into the Atlantic...

... but now that you mentioned the Japanese Atlantic Fleet, maybe you or someone else can help me with that because I cannot remember where I got the idea from. IIRC I ran across something somewhere, either US Navy or US Army, about (a) ghost fleet(s) or (a) ghost division(s) created in order to confuse the enemy by making them think it was real... That is what I originally had in mind with the Japanese Atlantic Fleet: a fleet that only exists on paper. The Appearance of the German ships gave me the idea of working it out a bit more to have real ships assigned to that fleet and operate together but in the end "hide" in the Pacific somewhere (as far as that is possible with numerous ships) rather than actually venture into the Atlantic.

Quoted

You've reached the point where you are making this personal, and I do not appreciate it.

If I was making it personal with you, I would also be aiming it at Yugoslavia and especially the Philippines (due to their proximity to Japan). Japan has absolutely no problems with Yugoslavia and actually considers the Philippines to be very good neighbours and friends because of them being former allies. These are my OOC opinions as well when looking at Yugoslavia and the Philippines. Japan would probably even jump in to aid the Philippines should it be attacked by another nation even though the Philippines is no longer a part of SATSUMA. I even indicated OOC that a few Japanese dredges could be used by the Philippines for their expansion efforts of Itu Aba Island.

You on the other hand seem to let Japan's negativity towards Germany flow into the Filipino attitude and have the Philippines consider and treat Japan as a potential enemy. You even go as far as to think that the Philippines has no ability at all to influence Japan on a diplomatic level and assume that Germany does while in (Wesworld) reality it is the other way around. Where diplomatically Germany would most certainly fail, the Philippines would most likely succeed without any problems... and the dredges? Never heard anything about that. Not even a "Don't worry. The Philippines have that already covered."

Quoted

In character and out, none of my nations would have a dreadful problem with 95% of the points listed here, aside from the fact that this is being done unilaterally, rather than by mutually-agreed treaty.

None?!? 95%?!? Dang! I must be doing something wrong then.

The unilateral aspect is an issue since nations won't like that much as it is only slightly different from the "laws, rules and regulations" bit I mentioned above. On the other hand, those nations could look at what it does, whether it works or not when it comes to navigation, safety and regulations. If it works nations could look closer at it to see if this could be made to work internationally. If it fails then the nations are free to laugh at the silly Japanese who thought they could come up with something special and get it to work.

Quoted

If you bring this before the League of Nations as a treaty proposal for the various world powers to agree to / join in, then my countries would at least give the matter serious consideration.

The problem is that the baseline of this comes forth from the Irish proposal (which, even though undated, would probably have taken place late 1939/early 1940). IC Japan had no problem with it and would have signed it and I got the impression that except for Germany the other nations looked at it favorably as well... yet those talks ended up going nowhere and it resulted in nothing. Now that you mentioned that, I have this feeling that Wesworld history will just repeat itself with a similar proposal + some extras.

Quoted

4B for example would prevent rescue aircraft from participating in rescues severely limiting response time and putting lives at risk.

How would this hinder the operations of the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency? Their planes are not operating from ships and it is not as if they only have 1 patrol aircraft patrolling all three Maritime Zones or 1 rescue plan available for all three Maritime Zones.

Still, it is a good point you bring up and maybe an idea to make an exception for such situations. On the other hand, how many ships are there with aircraft (and enough of them) that have the ability to pull several dozens let alone hundreds of survivors out of danger and fly them to safety? I don't think helicopters are quite there yet to do that stuff. What kind of rescue aircraft were you thinking of that need to be launched from ships?

Quoted

Also the Ban list is basically set at the whim of Japan and as such there is no real guarantee that particular rule cannot be abused, more so with a 12 mile limit.

I would think that from a Japanese POV it is dishonorable to abuse that so you will never see a "We don't like you, Nation X, so we put you on the Ban List" being used as excuse. It should be noted that Japan was not involved in any way with the Normandie Transport Incident, the murder of Capitain Nguyen Loc, the Dong Fa 37 Spy Incident or the New Guinea Incident which were used as reason...

... Of course that does not mean that you should change your IC opinion of the Ban List just because I told you that.

Quoted

There are also other potential issues but I'll save comments for when I've finished reading the post tonight after work.

Yes, sorry about the length and some of the nonsense in there...

Quoted

It was too Wall of Text-y. A clean copy without the commentary might be easier to read.

I think it will only make it slightly less Wall of Text-y though... Still I will edit it in the first post in a moment...

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

7

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 2:41am

Hmm... better not make that first post an even bigger wall of text...

For Rocky (and others who want to see only the articles) as it was prior to adding comments:

Quoted

Japan's Maritime Zones
1a - There are three maritime zones around Japan: the Territorial Waters Zone, the Contiguous Zone and the Economic Control Zone.
1b - To determine its own limits properly, Japan shall always assume that other nations have similar zones, even if they never made such claims.
2a - Japan has ownership of or authority over all the waters within the boundaries of the Japanese maritime zones.
2b - The Empire of Japan has no ownership of any vessel within any of the Maritime Zones.
2c - Ownership of a vessel belongs to the owner that the ship is registered to, whether the owner is a person, a company, an organization or a nation.
2d - The Empire of Japan has no authority over any vessel within any of the Maritime Zones except for enforcing the rules and regulations for safety at sea within any of the Maritime Zones.
2e - Exceptions to Article 2b and Article 2d are those vessels that are registered as belonging to the Empire of Japan.
3a - The captain assigned to a vessel is the person who has authority over the vessel unless stated otherwise by the owner of the vessel.
3b - The captain assigned to a vessel is the person who is responsible for the safety and actions of the vessel and its crew unless stated otherwise by the owner of the vessel or when a pilot is present.
4a - When in any of Japan's maritime zones, all foreign military vessels are forbidden to fire, discharge or launch any kind of weapons other than salute guns except at the designated firing ranges.
4b - For safety reasons, any kind of aircraft launched from military vessels is considered a weapon.
4c - When in any of Japan's maritime zones, all foreign military vessels can request the Imperial Japanese Navy to make use of any of their firing ranges if they wish to.

Territorial Waters Zone
5a - In general, the limit of Japan's territorial waters is 12 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.
5b - When the Japanese territorial waters overlap the territorial waters of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the territorial waters.
5c - The waters between the islands of Japan are designated as "Archipelagic Waters" and considered to be part of the Territorial Waters Zone.
6 - Inside the Territorial Waters Zone, the Empire of Japan has control and ownership of all economic resources.
7a - Civilian vessels from all nations are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters.
7b - Military vessels from nations with ports on the Sea of Japan and the Sea of Okhotsk are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters.
7c - Military vessels from India, the Philippines, Pacifica and Persia are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters.
7d - Military vessels from nations with ports in the East of Southeast Asia regions are allowed to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters after notifying the government of Japan either through their ambassador in Japan or through the Japanese ambassador in their nation.
7e - Military vessels from all other nations require permission to be able to freely pass through Japan's territorial waters from the Government of Japan. Permission is obtained either through their ambassador in Japan or the Japanese ambassador in their nation.
7f - In general, the Government of Japan will always grant permission to a nation asking for permission for their military vessels to pass freely though Japan's territorial waters.
7g - When in Japan's territorial waters, it is expected that the main battery of all foreign military vessels are turned away from Japanese land whenever it is visible except when in straits or canals or where ever land is visible on both sides.
8 - Nations or military vessels vessels from nations that have misbehaved themselves internationally or caused an international incident will be denied permission to enter Japan's territorial waters as through their actions they have proven that they cannot be trusted to abide to the Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones and behave themselves within Japan's Maritime Zones.

Territorial Waters Zone Ban List
9a - Chinese military vessels are currently banned from Japanese territorial waters due to multiple international incidents they caused, the most recent ones being the Normandie Transport Incident, the murder of the Normandie's pilot, Capitaine Nguyen Loc, and the Dong Fa 37 Spy Incident. Reevaluation of China's behavior and status will be held on July 9, 1950. (*)
9b - German military vessels are currently banned from Japanese territorial waters due to the New Guinea Incident. Reevaluation of Germany's behavior and status will be held on January 1, 1948. (**)

Contiguous Zone
10a - In general, the limit of Japan's Contiguous Zone is 42 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.
10b - When the Japanese Contiguous Zone overlaps the Contiguous Zone of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the two Contiguous Zones.
10c - No Contiguous Zone exists when Japan's Territorial Waters Zone touches the Territorial Waters Zone of another nation.
11 - Inside the Contiguous Zone, the Empire of Japan will exert control for the purpose of preventing or punishing violations of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
12 - Inside the Contiguous Zone, the Empire of Japan has control and ownership of all economic resources.
13 - Vessels from all nations are allowed to freely pass through Japan's Contiguous Zone.
14a - Vessels within the Contiguous Zone can expect inspections for the purpose of prevention of above mentioned violations by officials of the Law and Customs Agency who are assisted by the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency.
14b - Inspections will be done while a vessel targeted for inspection is on the move to minimize any delays in the journey of the vessel.
14c - The crew and passengers of a vessel targeted for inspection are requested to cooperate with officials of the Law and Customs Agency.
14d - Officials of the Law and Customs Agency are required to work as efficiently as possible and keep the disturbance to the operations of a vessel targeted for inspection to an absolute minimum, especially those operations that may create dangerous situations when disturbed.
14e - Officials of the Law and Customs Agency are required to complete their work and be off a vessel targeted for inspection before it reaches the limits of Japan's territorial waters, preferably sooner.
15a - As the authoritative figure of a vessel targeted for inspection, the captain has full rights to deny the officials of the Law and Customs Agency access to his vessel for inspection when his vessel is within Japan's Contiguous Zone.
15b - The captain of vessel targeted for inspection who has opted to deny the officials of the Law and Customs Agency access to his vessel should be aware that the inspection will be performed within Japan's territorial waters in any of the designated bays along the coast of Japan.
15c - When the inspection is going to be performed within Japan's territorial waters, the vessel is required to come to a full stop during the inspection of the vessel by the officials of the Law and Customs Agency.
15d - When the inspection is going to be performed within Japan's territorial waters, the vessel is not allowed to move any further until the inspection of the vessel is completed and the officials of the Law and Customs Agency have left the ship.
15e - When the inspection is going to be performed within Japan's territorial waters, the Empire of Japan cannot be held responsible for financial damages as a result of delays caused by stopping the vessel and the inspection.

Economic Control Zone
16a - In general, the limit of Japan's Economic Control Zone is 292 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.
16b - When the Japanese Economic Control Zone overlaps the Economic Control Zone of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the two Economic Control Zones.
16c - No Economic Control Zone exists when Japan's Territorial Waters Zone touches the Territorial Waters Zone of another nation.
16d - No Economic Control Zone exists when Japan's Contiguous Zone touches the Contiguous Zone of another nation.
17 - Inside the Economic Control Zone, the Empire of Japan has control of all economic resources.
18a - Nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions have access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.
18b - In the interest of the local economies and trade and commerce, vessels from nations outside the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions have no access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.
18c - Nations outside the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions who wish to get economic resources from Japan's Economic Control Zone can buy them either directly from Japan or any of the nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that acquire economic resources from Japan's Economic Control Zone
19 - There is no limit to the amount of an economic resource that can be obtained. (***)
20 - N/A
21 - Nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that have misbehaved themselves internationally or caused an international incident will be denied access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.

Economic Control Zone Ban List
22a - China is currently banned from accessing economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone for multiple international incidents, the most recent ones being the Normandie Transport Incident, the murder of the Normandie's pilot, Capitaine Nguyen Loc, and the Dong Fa 37 Spy Incident. Reevaluation of China's behavior and status will be held on July 9, 1948. (*)

Requirements of vessels wishing to enter Japan's Maritime Zones
23 - Surface radar and direct communications radio are recommended.
24a - Radio receiver capable of receiving weather reports from Japan's Central Meteorological Observatory is mandatory.
24b - Radio receivers are available at Japanese ports for ships unable to obtain radio receivers in their land of origin or to replace damaged radio receivers free of charge.
25a - Signal lamp is mandatory.
25b - Signal lamps are available at Japanese ports for ships unable to obtain the proper equipment in their land of origin or to replace damaged lights free of charge.
26a - Mandatory lighting on vessels. One white at stern, one white masthead, two white forward side of bridge, one red left, one green right.
26b - Lights are available at Japanese ports for ships unable to obtain the proper equipment in their land of origin or need to replace damaged lights free of charge.
27 - For easy identification purposes, name and/or number of the vessels must be clearly marked on the vessel at the following locations: bow (both sides), stern (directed aft), front of bridge.

Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones
28 - All vessels moving through any of the Japanese Maritime Zones are expected to abide to the Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones.
29 - When in a strait or a Canal, all vessels must keep left at all times.
30 - Passing will take place starboard-to-starboard. Vessels heading in opposing direction will pass each other on the green light side. (****)
31 - Overtaking will take place on the port side. Vessels heading in the same direction will overtake each other on the red light side.

Marine salvaging within Japan's Maritime Zones
32 - Vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones will come under the protection of the Empire of Japan.
33 - Vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones will not be considered to be economic resources.
34 - Ownership of vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones will remain with the nation, company, organization or person that the vessel belonged to.
35a - Salvage of vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones can only be done by the rightful owners or by a 3rd party that has received permission from the owners to salvage the lost vessel.
35b - Salvage of vessels lost or abandoned within any of Japan's Maritime Zones by a 3rd party can only begin after the Empire of Japan has verified that the 3rd party in question has indeed permission from the rightful owners to salvage the vessel.
35c - Illegal salvagers will be arrested and, if the owners wish to prosecute the illegal salvagers, they will be tried either in Japan or in the nation of the owners.

Law and Japan's Maritime Zones
36 - It is illegal to smuggle either whole or parts of weapons, drugs, humans, poisonous gasses and other dangerous goods into Japan.
37 - Criminals smuggling illegal goods can be apprehended in any of Japan's Maritime Zones and will be tried in Japan.
38a - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions can, when notifying Japan, apprehend criminals or vessels used for criminal activities within any of Japan's Maritime Zones. (*****)
38b - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions can ask the Imperial Japanese Navy and/or the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency to assist in apprehending criminals or vessels used for criminal activities within any of Japan's Maritime Zones.
38c - Even with assistance from the Imperial Japanese Navy and/or the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency, the final arrest of criminals or the crew of vessels used for criminal activities should always be carried out by crew members of the vessel(s) of the nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that was/were chasing the criminals or vessel used for criminal activities.
38d - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions are, when notifying Japan, allowed to ignore Article 4a and fire, discharge or launch any kind of weapons at criminals or vessels used for criminal activities within any of Japan's Maritime Zones.
38e - A vessel or vessels of a nation in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions should try to limit the firing, discharging or launching of any kind of weapons so that the criminals or vessels used for criminal activities are stopped or disabled.
38f - Killing criminals and/or sinking vessels used for criminal activities should only be used as a last resort.
38g - Criminals or the crew of a vessel used for criminal activities will be tried in the nation to which the chasing vessel(s) belong to.
39 - Any vessel within Japan's Maritime Zones that engages in the act of piracy will be attacked and sunk.

Calamity at Sea
40a - The Birkenhead Drill is law and is applied to all Japanese Maritime Zones.
40b - The Birkenhead Drill shall also include the injured and the elderly.
41a - With passenger ships, the crew abandons ship after the passengers have abandoned ship.
41b - With passenger ships, military personnel travelling as passengers will abandon ship after the passengers but prior to the crew.
41c - Exception to 41a are crew members assigned to man the lifeboats meant to bring the passengers to safety.
41d - The captain of a vessel either goes down with his ship or is the last person to abandon the ship.
41e - With passenger ships, female crew, injured crew and elderly crew shall abandon ship after female passengers, injured passengers and elderly passengers but before male passengers.
41f - A female captain abandons ships as per Article 41d. The highest ranking male officer shall then assume the role of captain.

Collisions within Japan's Maritime Zones
42 - The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels is enforced within all of Japan's Maritime Zones.
43 - Vessels barred from entering any of Japan's Maritime Zones and who decide to enter any of Japan's Maritime Zones anyway will always be held accountable when involved in a collision, even if the other vessel is at fault.

Port visits
44a - When a pilot is present, he becomes the person who is responsible for the safety of the vessel and its crew and the actions of the vessel.
44b - Once a pilot leaves the ship, the responsible for the safety of the vessel and its crew and the actions of the vessel will return to the captain of the vessel.
44c - At all times, the captain of the vessel will remain responsible for the actions of the crew, regardless of the presence of a pilot or not.
45 - Visitors to Japanese ports need to have their papers ready for inspection by officials of the Law and Customs Agency when leaving the ship.
46 - Small donation to the Orphans of the Sea Organization is appreciated but not mandatory when visiting a port in Japan.

Pacific Maritime Safety Agency and Law and Customs Agency
47 - The Pacific Maritime Safety Agency is responsible for maritime patrols, search and rescue, hydrographic and oceanographic surveying and maritime traffic management within all of Japan's Maritime Zones.
48 - The Law and Customs Agency is responsible for law and order, customs, and inspections within Japan's Maritime Zones.
49 - Officials from the Law and Customs Agency at sea will always operate from vessels of the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency.

OOC:
(*) Date is 48 months after the conviction of the crew of the Dong Fa 37 on July 9, 1946.
(**) Date is 24 months after Australia's Overflight Protest on January 1, 1946.
(***) It could be decided in the future that a limit on an economic resource is required but right now I doubt anyone on Earth is worrying too much about limited resources.
(****) This will ensure that Aircraft Carriers will always have a good view of passing vessels heading in opposing direction.
(*****) Meaning that none of the Japanese Zones, not even the Territorial Waters Zone, is a safe haven for criminals.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

8

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 4:28am

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Also Japan is not the only nation that has limits beyond the 3-mile limit, but apparently it is okay for those players/nations to do it but not for me/Japan.

The only nation that comes to mind is China, and to the best of my knowledge, no other nation has accepted their claims. France has, on previous occasions, placed submarines offshore within the 11-mile and outside the 3-mile limit. It was never done in an in-your-face fashion, but it was done.

I'd forgot about the discussion I started as Ireland way back when. Going have to read over that thread again.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

9

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 4:55am

Quoted

The only nation that comes to mind is China, and to the best of my knowledge, no other nation has accepted their claims. France has, on previous occasions, placed submarines offshore within the 11-mile and outside the 3-mile limit. It was never done in an in-your-face fashion, but it was done.

Well, looking at the Territorial Waters thread, you did mention...

Quoted

(I think most people claim a 12-mile zone at this time, but perhaps we should put it into writing?)

... back then at the very beginning which actually suggests more nations claiming territorial waters greater than the 3 mile limit that I can remember...

I believe that China pushed its limits out because Russia did it before them. The Philippines had greater limits as well and I think there may have been a couple more nations. Now with the Philippines it changed as a result of the war, but as far as I know none of the other nations changed anything about their claimed limits. And as mentioned it was post Ireland proposal that Japan decided to set its limits.

Quoted

I'd forgot about the discussion I started as Ireland way back when. Going have to read over that thread again.

You probably already found it Brock, but for those who read this stuff here and want to check it out: http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?pag…d&threadID=8664 so there is no need for them to try and find it.

Go to the top of the page

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

10

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 9:00am

First i have to say, Roo you really have too much time !!! It will take hours until I have read it completely and especially understood it.

by the way .... a map where all zones are shown will be very helpful.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

11

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 3:21pm

Quoted

First i have to say, Roo you really have too much time !!!

Actually this was all put together in a ~7 month period. You make it sound like I did this in less than a week.

Quoted

It will take hours until I have read it completely and especially understood it.

Yes, sorry for making you waste your precious time.

Quoted

by the way .... a map where all zones are shown will be very helpful.

I'll be honest, I have looked at that in the beginning and thought "That's impossible for me." I'll take another look at it, but especially everything that's projected towards the Philippines, China, Chosen and Russia I would have to figure out dot by dot. I can't just draw a line and say "that's it." That's not accurate.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

12

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 3:39pm

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

The only nation that comes to mind is China, and to the best of my knowledge, no other nation has accepted their claims. France has, on previous occasions, placed submarines offshore within the 11-mile and outside the 3-mile limit. It was never done in an in-your-face fashion, but it was done.

Well, looking at the Territorial Waters thread, you did mention...

Quoted

(I think most people claim a 12-mile zone at this time, but perhaps we should put it into writing?)

... back then at the very beginning which actually suggests more nations claiming territorial waters greater than the 3 mile limit that I can remember...

Yes, the impression I had back then was that everyone claimed a twelve-mile limit. Once the discussion got underway, I realized the three-mile limit was more historical and widespread.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

I believe that China pushed its limits out because Russia did it before them. The Philippines had greater limits as well and I think there may have been a couple more nations.

I had to take a deeper look into that, since I didn't remember anything to that effect. I did see two posts where Perdedor claimed that Russia expanded its sea claims to 11 miles in 1921... but after a search I cannot find any post by AdmK that says that, either in 1921 or at any other point. Since there's no evidence to the contrary, I'm operating under the assumption that the internationally-recognized three mile limit is still in place. If anyone spots anything to the contrary, I'll re-evaluate that position.

My memory (which is admittedly unreliable) is that I had Ireland bring up the issue in the League because Perdedor was questioning me about it with his Filipino hat on; I'm pretty sure Japan and China had already raised the issue by that point, and I was merely seeking a universal agreement by the player base.

Go to the top of the page

parador

Sage

Posts: 3,829

13

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 4:26pm

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Actually this was all put together in a ~7 month period. You make it sound like I did this in less than a week.

Sorry, I did not mean to offend you. I meant my statement rather than a sign of respect for your work.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Yes, sorry for making you waste your precious time.

Now remains for me nothing else than to read everything and to fight through all paragraphs.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

I'll be honest, I have looked at that in the beginning and thought "That's impossible for me." I'll take another look at it, but especially everything that's projected towards the Philippines, China, Chosen and Russia I would have to figure out dot by dot. I can't just draw a line and say "that's it." That's not accurate.

Ironic mode on So may be it will be easier for Japan to reduce all zones to a 12 mile zone, this you can draw - perhaps.

Ironic mode off

For an exact map you are surely absolutely right, but for a rough quick and dirty map, to have with one view the problematical zones (collision with zones of other countries) in focus - it would be very helpful.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

14

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 5:54pm

Quoted

Sorry, I did not mean to offend you. I meant my statement rather than a sign of respect for your work.

I do not take it as an offense. Not at all. But you make it look like it is some huge accomplishment. I'm pretty sure guys like Brock and Bruce would be able to create something similar that is much better + a bunch more points in a month or so (and that is taking RL into account).

Quoted

Ironic mode on So may be it will be easier for Japan to reduce all zones to a 12 mile zone, this you can draw - perhaps. Ironic mode off

Ironic mode on Maybe I should draw the limits of Japan's territorial waters right up to the coastlines of China.

Ironic mode off

Quoted

For an exact map you are surely absolutely right, but for a rough quick and dirty map, to have with one view the problematical zones (collision with zones of other countries) in focus - it would be very helpful.

The other countries are exactly the problem as I would have to work in a similar way from their coastlines. Another thing is what map to use. I can't use our map since that one is deformed in the corners. The best option would be to use Google maps and use print screen to grab a number of pieces and put them together in MSPaint, but in order to see many of the smaller islands I need to make the map HUGE in order to know where they are...

Go to the top of the page

Hood

Ugly Aircraft, Inc

Posts: 8,155

15

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 9:09pm

Here are my thoughts.

The first point hinges on whether we, as a playerbase, accept the concept or not. It seems the 3 mile rule is still the standard beyond a few possible cases beyond that.
There is great advantage to go to 12 miles perhaps, an acceptance of this zoning concept must result in copies everywhere. IC Japan assumes this and OOC Walter must assume this too. Whether the results would be beneficial is open to question.

Bruce earlier dismissed this out of hand and refuses to accept it. I'm not sure we can dismiss the fact if it exists as news. If I say in my news "on May 14 the M24 motorway from East Cheam to Orbiston Parva opened" that is accepted as fact, its in the news and there is no IC or OOC reason to disbelieve it. We can't write Walter's proposal off as unexisting, it opens a can of worm as to what news we accept or not and whether we have to approve all ideas by committee.
This is not to say this does not affect the entire playerbase because it does.

Is there scope to reach an international LoN agreement for all nations? Perhaps, but we lack enough players to decide that.
The stumbling blocks are:
a) Do we agree 12 mile territorial limits for all
b) Do we agree economic zones for all
Without these decisions I can't see the playerbase accepting such unilateral moves by Japan IC even if OOC we say, "sure do whatever be we'll ignore it".

More detailed notes:

Quoted

1b - To determine its own limits properly, Japan shall always assume that other nations have similar zones, even if they never made such claims.

Some realpolitik here but the assumptions both IC and OOC may be incorrect. It would be safe to assume that as soon as Japan's zones were ratified that neighbours would seek equal zones.

Quoted

2a - Japan has ownership of or authority over all the waters within the boundaries of the Japanese maritime zones.

This does sound like extension of territorial waters to me. Seems to conflict with 2b, 2c and 2d.

Quoted

2e - Exceptions to Article 2b and Article 2d are those vessels that are registered as belonging to the Empire of Japan.

The best to clarify would be by port of registration. All vessels registered on the Japanese register and those with home port registrations.

Quoted

4b - For safety reasons, any kind of aircraft launched from military vessels is considered a weapon.

Seems overkill to me, obvious military reasons behind this.

Quoted

5a - In general, the limit of Japan's territorial waters is 12 nautical miles measured from Japan's coastal line.

I'm easy with this, but only if 12 miles is applied to all nations.

Quoted

5b - When the Japanese territorial waters overlap the territorial waters of another nation, a boundary will be drawn up halfway between Japan and the other nation as outer limit of the territorial waters.

Fair enough.

Quoted

7g - When in Japan's territorial waters, it is expected that the main battery of all foreign military vessels are turned away from Japanese land whenever it is visible except when in straits or canals or where ever land is visible on both sides.

Probably not necessary.

Quoted

8 - Nations or military vessels from nations that have misbehaved themselves internationally or caused an international incident will be denied permission to enter Japan's territorial waters as through their actions they have proven that they cannot be trusted to abide to the Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones and behave themselves within Japan's Maritime Zones.

Its a thin smokescreen for denying access on false pretexts. What misbehaviour or kinds of international incident? Marine, land? Where, locally or 5,000 miles away? Too vague. However not sure what real effect this would have as its military vessels within 12 miles and does not effect merchant traffic.

Quoted

Territorial Waters Zone Ban List
9a - Chinese military vessels are currently banned...
9b - German military vessels are currently banned...

Again, evidence of smokescreen, what did these events have to do with Japan or maritime safety? What's the context for Japan in connection with territorial waters?

Quoted

11 - Inside the Contiguous Zone, the Empire of Japan will exert control for the purpose of preventing or punishing violations of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.

The question is why? What does Japan gain in most of these cases that enforcement at 12 miles would not offer?

Quoted

15a - As the authoritative figure of a vessel targeted for inspection, the captain has full rights to deny the officials of the Law and Customs Agency access to his vessel for inspection when his vessel is within Japan's Contiguous Zone.

So why bother with all this text? If no-one abides or recognises this then most of this is meaningless.

Quoted

17 - Inside the Economic Control Zone, the Empire of Japan has control of all economic resources.

Seems a big (underwater) land grab to me. If everyone gets the same privileges then maybe I'd back this. Everyone local has free access so that's good but Japan is making a profit on all this.

Quoted

21 - Nations in the East Asia and Southeast Asia regions that have misbehaved themselves internationally or caused an international incident will be denied access to the economic resources within Japan's Economic Control Zone.

Denying trade, one could argue who looses more? Japan or the banned nation? Again wooly about international incidents, what type? Affecting who?

Quoted

28 - All vessels moving through any of the Japanese Maritime Zones are expected to abide to the Navigational Rules of Japan's Maritime Zones.[\Quote]
I'd rather follow international laws of navigation (which these probably mostly are). Don't like good seamanship being dressed up as nationalistic codes.
If they don't exist in WW then I say we should get some international rules that apply worldwide pronto.

Quoted

Calamity at Sea
40a - The Birkenhead Drill is law and is applied to all Japanese Maritime Zones.
40b - The Birkenhead Drill shall also include the injured and the elderly.

I'd rather save all souls aboard vessels.

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

16

Wednesday, March 16th 2016, 10:08pm

Quoted from "Hood"

Bruce earlier dismissed this out of hand and refuses to accept it. I'm not sure we can dismiss the fact if it exists as news. If I say in my news "on May 14 the M24 motorway from East Cheam to Orbiston Parva opened" that is accepted as fact, its in the news and there is no IC or OOC reason to disbelieve it. We can't write Walter's proposal off as unexisting, it opens a can of worm as to what news we accept or not and whether we have to approve all ideas by committee.
This is not to say this does not affect the entire playerbase because it does.

Since you brought this up...

This is a point which I think the moderators need to discuss and decide. It's always been the objective to allow players full control of what takes place within their nation's borders, regardless of whether or not we agree or disagree with what goes on. We've only intervened in a few specific cases where things were getting particularly out-of-control. However, this issue is challenging the whole concept of where the nation's border (at sea) actually IS - and that is both an in-character and out-of-character problem. Frankly, I don't believe that Bruce is trying to say that Walter's proposal does not exist; I certainly do not read it that way. I see it as out-of-character opposition to the player expanding their out-of-character authority to set rules.

To argue to the absurd, here - if we accept Japan's increased territorial claim, then another player could use that logic to lay claim to a 2,000 mile limit, an infinite and exclusive economic zone, and ban all foreign ships from entering it. This differs from the Japanese claims as outlined above only in degree, not in kind.

My guiding principle here is that, whatever the rule, it has to be applied fairly and equally across the entire playerbase. Ergo, my current position as a moderator is that, regardless of what sea boundary a nation claims, the player's authority stops at their land border and the three-mile line: that's what is most commonly accepted by the player-base as a whole. Any sea claims beyond that point are to be viewed solely as an 'in character' claim. That gives everyone the same privileges and rights, and doesn't give any one nation preference over another. If that changes, I feel it ought to be by the universal agreement of the player base as a whole, rather than as a grab by a single individual. In other words, the rules for Walter need to be the same as the rules for Bruce and the rules for Hood and the rules for Brock. That's why I've been hinting so often for Japan to take this to the League as a proposal, rather than declaring it unilaterally.

Go to the top of the page

Rooijen10

Mr. Valentines Day

Posts: 9,644

17

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 2:08am

Quoted

There is great advantage to go to 12 miles perhaps, an acceptance of this zoning concept must result in copies everywhere. IC Japan assumes this and OOC Walter must assume this too. Whether the results would be beneficial is open to question.

My feelings from the talks back then is that Germany barely has any coastline and no matter what, Germany would not get the advantage of more water around its lands like for example Britain, Japan or the US and that would have been their motive to object to the increase. If Germany can't get an advantage with those limits then no one can. It may not have been Bruce's intention, but that is how the German situation and its refusal to accept it comes over to me.

To me, both IC and OOC, the 3 mile limit is completely outdated. Hell, it is even "miles" and not "nautical miles". That is how outdated and useless it is and in these *ahem* modern times of the 1940s it is completely unacceptable (but that is of course my/Japan's opinion).

Quoted

Bruce earlier dismissed this out of hand and refuses to accept it. I'm not sure we can dismiss the fact if it exists as news. If I say in my news "on May 14 the M24 motorway from East Cheam to Orbiston Parva opened" that is accepted as fact, its in the news and there is no IC or OOC reason to disbelieve it. We can't write Walter's proposal off as unexisting, it opens a can of worm as to what news we accept or not and whether we have to approve all ideas by committee.

The news is here: http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?page=Thread&postID=106763#post106763

Now three nations objected to it (three of how many?), but at no time back in 2011 did anyone object to this move OOC (or any of the other increased claims) and now all of a sudden Bruce has a problem with it and dismisses it and refuses to accept it as a player? I feel that you should have brought it up back then. Right now it has been part of Wesworld history for almost 7 years.

Quoted

This does sound like extension of territorial waters to me. Seems to conflict with 2b, 2c and 2d.

Well, to me vessel =/= waters but if that is the case then I would need to work on those points to make that not the case.

Quoted

The best to clarify would be by port of registration. All vessels registered on the Japanese register and those with home port registrations.

As I said in the explanation post "this does not include ships owned by a Japanese person, company or organization (except when it is tied to the Government). etc." I would think that with what you said those ships would be included while that is not the intention.

Quoted

Seems overkill to me, obvious military reasons behind this.

As I said in the explanation post, "it is more a matter to avoid something like the New Guinea Incident from a military POV".

Quoted

Probably not necessary.

"Show some respect, you *bleep*ing *bleep*s!! You are a *bleep*ing guest within these *bleep*ing zones and there is absolutely no *bleep*ing reason for you to scare the *bleep*ing locals!!"

Yes, it is probably useless...

Quoted

Its a thin smokescreen for denying access on false pretexts.

If anything is false then it would be coming from a nation falsely accusing another nation for an incident and the accused cannot proof their innocense. Using the New Guinea Incident as example, if Australia were to use false evidence to proof Germany flew into Australian airspace. Like I mentioned in the explanation post, "things cannot be all perfect" so this is a flawed aspect of the documents.

Quoted

What misbehaviour or kinds of international incident? Marine, land? Where, locally or 5,000 miles away? Too vague.

It is vague, yes. Not to mention there is always the possibility that OOC I may miss an incident in the news. Still it would be mainly based on stuff brought to the attention of the LoN like the New Guinea Incident was. China is a bit different. Nations can't do much with the LoN with any incident involving China since China is no longer a member. The same is true for India.

Quoted

However not sure what real effect this would have as its military vessels within 12 miles and does not effect merchant traffic.

Not much. Except for the regular movement of Russian vessels, other foreign warships moving through the area would be less frequent.

Quoted

Again, evidence of smokescreen, what did these events have to do with Japan or maritime safety? What's the context for Japan in connection with territorial waters?

It is more a case of foreign ships being guests in Japan's zones. Naturally Japan should treat those ships as guests but it does expect those ships to behave as guests. If a nation causes an incident, can Japan trust ships from that nation to behave as guests? Can Japan trust ships from that nation to follow the rules and not create a dangerous situation at sea? (OOC: probably yes, IC: No)

Quoted

The question is why? What does Japan gain in most of these cases that enforcement at 12 miles would not offer?

Because a ship takes longer to move across the Contiguous Zone than it would crossing the Territorial Waters Zone. More time to inspect and less stress when the ships are in motion. Keep unwanted stuff further away from Japan.

Quoted

So why bother with all this text? If no-one abides or recognises this then most of this is meaningless.

Sure it is possible that no one recognizes this, but look at it from a different perspective. Instead of reading that as "captain has right to deny them access", read it as "we give you the option to do this as quickly as possible without any delays or extremely limited delays." Put yourself into the position of the captain. What would you rather do? Have the officials of the Law and Customs Agency aboard to do their duty when entering the Contiguous Zone and have them off before reaching the Territorial Waters Zone or be escorted to a designated bay for a thorough inspection when entering the Territorial Waters Zone and arrive maybe up to a day later at your destination. Time is money. You're going to be inspected anyway.

Naturally an inspection while the ship moves will be subject to time constraints and it will have an influence on the quality of the control. A ship at 15 knots will take 2 hours to cross the Contiguous Zone so the officials will have to do their stuff in less than 2 hours. The stationary inspection is going to be much more strict and time consuming.

Quoted

Seems a big (underwater) land grab to me.

Yes, I know. At 250nm wide, it is a lot more than the OTL 200nm. I can't remember why I did that though. Maybe because I like 4x25 and added a 0 after 25.

Quoted

If everyone gets the same privileges then maybe I'd back this. Everyone local has free access so that's good but Japan is making a profit on all this.

In what way is this profitable to Japan? I can tell you that in the beginning a permit was required and Japan would be getting money from that. Then it changed to something that is more a proof of registration that was free and finally I removed it. For example, a Filipino fishing vessel that goes into Japan's ECZ will get its fish and head back to the Philippines to sell its catch there. So how is Japan making a profit from that? Sure Japan will get a profit when it catches the fish and sells it to Chilean or South African markets, but Japan gets nothing if another East or Southeast Asian nation gets that fish. All profits are for that nation.

Quoted

Denying trade, one could argue who looses more? Japan or the banned nation?

You mentioning this makes me think that you consider everything within the limits of the Economic Control Zone to be included, including land. I'm looking at that zone as existing between 42nm and 292nm from Japan's coast line. Ports do not fall under that zone (or at least that is not the intention).

So the only nation being denied trade is the banned nation as it cannot get to the economic resources themselves and sell it on. As mentioned above, Japan gains nothing from another nation getting economic resources from the Economic Control Zone.

Quoted

If they don't exist in WW then I say we should get some international rules that apply worldwide pronto.

I could be wrong but IIRC I ran across something somewhere that indicated that it wasn't put on paper till the 50s or 60s or so as to how to pass a ship which was also when the red and green light on a ship to indicate which side is which when traveling in the dark was made mandatory.

Quoted

I'd rather save all souls aboard vessels.

Doesn't change the fact that women and children should be the first to abandon ship even if there are enough lifeboats to save all souls aboard. If there are not enough lifeboats for some reason, I am sure that men will have a much easier time getting in to the flying boats of the Pacific Maritime Safety Agency than women, children, the injured and the elderly.

Quoted

However, this issue is challenging the whole concept of where the nation's border (at sea) actually IS - and that is both an in-character and out-of-character problem

If it is an OOC problem, why was it not brought up when the very first nation did it? Why was it not brought up when the second nation did it or the third? Why was it not brought up when Japan did it back in 1940/2011? There never was an OOC problem and only now it is being made an OOC problem.

Quoted

That's why I've been hinting so often for Japan to take this to the League as a proposal, rather than declaring it unilaterally.

If the Irish proposal fails, why should a similar Japanese one suddenly succeed?

Still thinking about the Irish proposal, what was the reason it failed anyway? Did it need to be unanimous IC or was it not necessary and we wrongfully assumed that it needed to be unanimous IC?

Go to the top of the page

Brockpaine

The Shadow

Posts: 15,109

18

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 2:50am

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Quoted

However, this issue is challenging the whole concept of where the nation's border (at sea) actually IS - and that is both an in-character and out-of-character problem

If it is an OOC problem, why was it not brought up when the very first nation did it? Why was it not brought up when the second nation did it or the third? Why was it not brought up when Japan did it back in 1940/2011? There never was an OOC problem and only now it is being made an OOC problem.

There is both an IC and OOC component. Since you're not backing off on the IC component, that triggers the issue with the OOC side of things. You're the one who keep bringing this topic up and getting in people's faces about it, which is why Bruce feels you're targeting him. And that's why you're getting the flak. Conversely, Parador has not gotten in people's faces about China's territorial waters claim... and so while people may disagree with China's move, nobody's shooting flak at Parador for it.

As I said above, if you want to continue with this course in-character, I am not going to stop you. I'm just reminding you that:
- This sim's rules are set by general consensus.
- My understanding is that the consensus is still with the three-mile limit. (If this is not the case, I need to hear what everyone else has to say.)

Therefore, if you claim all these zones and stuff, you can do that in-character; but you need to recognize that your authority as a player is still going to end at the three-mile limit, until such a time as the majority consensus changes.

I believe Bruce is stating his absolute opposition to changing that consensus, and I believe you're misquoting him to claim otherwise.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

To me, both IC and OOC, the 3 mile limit is completely outdated. Hell, it is even "miles" and not "nautical miles". That is how outdated and useless it is and in these *ahem* modern times of the 1940s it is completely unacceptable (but that is of course my/Japan's opinion).

I don't disagree, but I think you went about trying to change it all wrong.

Quoted from "Rooijen10"

Still thinking about the Irish proposal, what was the reason it failed anyway? Did it need to be unanimous IC or was it not necessary and we wrongfully assumed that it needed to be unanimous IC?

Not really sure. *shrugs*

Go to the top of the page

BruceDuncan

Ex chaos ordo

Posts: 12,916

19

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 4:06am

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

As I said above, if you want to continue with this course in-character, I am not going to stop you. I'm just reminding you that:
- This sim's rules are set by general consensus.
- My understanding is that the consensus is still with the three-mile limit. (If this is not the case, I need to hear what everyone else has to say.)

Therefore, if you claim all these zones and stuff, you can do that in-character; but you need to recognize that your authority as a player is still going to end at the three-mile limit, until such a time as the majority consensus changes.

I believe Bruce is stating his absolute opposition to changing that consensus, and I believe you're misquoting him to claim otherwise.

To clarify:

As far back as 1940, when China and the Philippines (under Perdy) proclaimed twelve mile limits in their news, Germany, I/C, announced it would not recognize them. When Japan, on several subsequent occasions, proclaimed such limits as well as the establishment of exclusive zones, Germany, I/C, announced it would not recognize them. A formal note was sent, I/C, to Japan and to Pacifica, recording Germany's non-recognition of their claims.

However, the message that began this thread in "The Meeting Place" I see as an out-of-character proposal to change our rules - which I answered out of character - that as player I oppose any rules change that would give to any player nation the ability to control wide swaths of the open ocean, particularly to "ban" any particular nation from sailing there.

I hope this clarifies my I/C versus OOC positions.

Go to the top of the page

ShinRa_Inc

Mad Scientist at Work

Posts: 4,307

20

Thursday, March 17th 2016, 4:36am

so, having briefly skimmed this giant wall of text....

IC - The Dominion of Canada continues to reject and will ignore any Japanese claims to territory beyond the internationally recognized 3 mile limits. Any attempts to harass or board Canadian or Commonwealth flagged vessels in international waters (as internationally recognized per above) are at the perpetrator's own risk.

OOC -
This infodump may be new, but the gist of this has been around for a while, and Canada has already tested these claims and found them wanting when they sent an oceanographic expedition to the Marianas, well within these claimed zones, which to my knowledge was never challenged. Furthermore, we have precedent from when China backed down on it's attempts to expand it's territorial claims when they were challenged by Canada in the Hong Kong area.

Mod hat -
Japan can issue whatever declarations it wants IC, but it is our player's choices whether or not to accept them, either individually, or in some manner of consensus. To the best of my knowledge, player sovereignty over their territory is within the long-established 3 mile limit, and any expansion of that would require playerbase consensus, and moderator approval.

Go to the top of the page