WesWorld

Actually, there is a 29 mile gap between the Chinese mainland to the east of Hong Kong and Danang Dao to the South. So even without a 12 mile counter claim, the British would have a huge 5 mile opening to the east to get through comfortably.

Australia was considering not supporting it, just to spite Bahrat, until we noticed what would happen to the Torres Strait...

Walter has a good point.
Since it covers an international view and applies to all nations Britain backs the move.

Argentina says yes just because it can't think why it should say no. Anyhow it counters those moves by SAE to claim more waters during the crisis that led to the SA War.
Paraguay of course still claims legitimate access to the Atlantic down the Rio Parana as historical.

The Dominion of Canada will not be party to any agreement that restricts it's rights to administer and control it's territory, including but not limited to it's maritime holdings.

(As I read it, the Irish modification gives transit and other rights to /all/ territorial waters, including coastal and internal waters, rather than the UNCLOS limitation of those rights to territorial seas. Canada is historically touchy about anyone trying to muscle their way into the arctic, and would be more protective of it's rights there due to the WW work on making the Northwest Passage viable. Given recent events, Canada is also reticent to agree to anything that does not explicitly garuntee unfettered rights of access to and from Hong Kong and other Commonwealth territory, regardless of coastal proximity)

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The Dominion of Canada will not be party to any agreement that restricts it's rights to administer and control it's territory, including but not limited to it's maritime holdings.

(As I read it, the Irish modification gives transit and other rights to /all/ territorial waters, including coastal and internal waters, rather than the UNCLOS limitation of those rights to territorial seas. Canada is historically touchy about anyone trying to muscle their way into the arctic, and would be more protective of it's rights there due to the WW work on making the Northwest Passage viable. Given recent events, Canada is also reticent to agree to anything that does not explicitly garuntee unfettered rights of access to and from Hong Kong and other Commonwealth territory, regardless of coastal proximity)

If British agree to the territorial waters agreement the point in regard to Hong Kong is moot. Hong Kong is British territory, not Commowealth, historically and IIRC in WW also.

Having carefully considered the proposals brought forth by all parties, I regret to announce that the German Government does not support the formal extension of territorial waters to a limit of twelve miles nor the declaration of territorial seas defined by such extended limits.

Such extensions would, in far too many cases, render what have heretofore been international waters, open to all nations, into territorial waters subject to the enforcement at whim. There are far too many international straits passage of which would now fall to exclusive, or conflicting, jurisdictions.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Having carefully considered the proposals brought forth by all parties, I regret to announce that the German Government does not support the formal extension of territorial waters to a limit of twelve miles nor the declaration of territorial seas defined by such extended limits.

Such extensions would, in far too many cases, render what have heretofore been international waters, open to all nations, into territorial waters subject to the enforcement at whim. There are far too many international straits passage of which would now fall to exclusive, or conflicting, jurisdictions.

OOC: Like the Torres Strait for example. Or the Baltic Sea. I think there is not a legal way to stop it if a nation decides to go to the 12 mile limit. Russia in WW was the first one in 1921 and seems to be accepted. IIRC the Dutch also are already on the twelve mile limit, but I'm not sure if is the Netherlands and DEI or just the DEI. Philippines just announced they are going to the 12 mile limit and neighbors agreed to it. So IMHO Germany is in a disadvantage if they are only claiming a three mile limit due to their biggest neighbors already claiming it. But I don't dictate German policy, just an opinion. but I understand your reasoning for your decision.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Having carefully considered the proposals brought forth by all parties, I regret to announce that the German Government does not support the formal extension of territorial waters to a limit of twelve miles nor the declaration of territorial seas defined by such extended limits.

OOC: ...I think there is not a legal way to stop it if a nation decides to go to the 12 mile limit. Russia in WW was the first one in 1921 and seems to be accepted.

OOC - Yes there is a legal way - and we are discussing it right now. Should the League vote down a twelve mile limit, those nations who chose to enforce a twelve mile limit would be on the wrong side of the law.

The Strait of Gibralter is 8 miles wide. With twelve mile limits, whose territorial waters will it be? Has a convention been negotiated to provide for free passage? Not in Wesworld. What about the Dover Strait/Pas de Calais? It is 21 miles wide - with twelve mile limits you have overlapping jurisdictions, enough to cause all sorts of issues. And I think no nation in Wesworld would look favorably upon a nation attempting to fortify the Straits of Hormuz.

The Convention of Copenhagen ensures the international status of the entire Danish Sound, and treats those waters as International Waters open to all nations. The Baltic is not a mare clausum .

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
If British agree to the territorial waters agreement the point in regard to Hong Kong is moot. Hong Kong is British territory, not Commowealth, historically and IIRC in WW also.

Your opinion is noted (Matters concerning the Commonwealth are generally carried out in consultation with the Dominions, however).
Canada's position remains unchanged.

Canada, likewise, concurs with the German concern regarding matters of conflicting or overlapping zones.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Having carefully considered the proposals brought forth by all parties, I regret to announce that the German Government does not support the formal extension of territorial waters to a limit of twelve miles nor the declaration of territorial seas defined by such extended limits.

OOC: ...I think there is not a legal way to stop it if a nation decides to go to the 12 mile limit. Russia in WW was the first one in 1921 and seems to be accepted.

OOC - Yes there is a legal way - and we are discussing it right now. Should the League vote down a twelve mile limit, those nations who chose to enforce a twelve mile limit would be on the wrong side of the law.

The Strait of Gibralter is 8 miles wide. With twelve mile limits, whose territorial waters will it be? Has a convention been negotiated to provide for free passage? Not in Wesworld. What about the Dover Strait/Pas de Calais? It is 21 miles wide - with twelve mile limits you have overlapping jurisdictions, enough to cause all sorts of issues. And I think no nation in Wesworld would look favorably upon a nation attempting to fortify the Straits of Hormuz.

The Convention of Copenhagen ensures the international status of the entire Danish Sound, and treats those waters as International Waters open to all nations. The Baltic is not a mare clausum .

OOC: Good to know and I'm agreeable to deal as always. That's exactly what I did with Philippines. Negotiated with my neighbors the overlapping areas before implementation of the new limit. The rules presented IMHO cover the guidelines of navegation after overlapping issues have resolved. And I would leave the overlapping problems to bilateral treaties or League arbitration.

In regard the Strait of Hormuz is already fortified since my predecessor with nobody raising an eyebrow and IIRC correctly British have done the same on their side of the Straits. That is why I presented a solution to eliminate concerns in regard to the Straits. Fortifications are a given. So the problem here is how to erase prior events in WW. IIRC there even a couple of 12" turrets in some fo the Persian islands facing the Strait. I donated them as Philippines to prior to taking over Persia.

Regardless of all that apply HONG KONG and MACAO are still open ports as written in the beijing convention of 1860.

That's why china gaurantee that the right of innocent / free passage will be kept.

And with all other points we will sure find an agreement.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
OOC: Good to know and I'm agreeable to deal as always. That's exactly what I did with Philippines. Negotiated with my neighbors the overlapping areas before implementation of the new limit. The rules presented IMHO cover the guidelines of navegation after overlapping issues have resolved. And I would leave the overlapping problems to bilateral treaties or League arbitration.

Turkey and Byzantium would veiw the sea of Marmara as a shared mare clausum, though I haven't as yet writen a treaty to represent that.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
In regard the Strait of Hormuz is already fortified since my predecessor with nobody raising an eyebrow and IIRC correctly British have done the same on their side of the Straits. That is why I presented a solution to eliminate concerns in regard to the Straits. Fortifications are a given. So the problem here is how to erase prior events in WW. IIRC there even a couple of 12" turrets in some fo the Persian islands facing the Strait. I donated them as Philippines to prior to taking over Persia.

Keep in mind though, at the time Persia was fortifying the straights, no one was really interested in the various NPC players there, the disinterest is mostly OOC. Things since then have changed somewhat with more nations taking a dim view on India's actions in the region and subsequently having a renewed interest in affairs in that region.

Quoted

Turkey and Byzantium would veiw the sea of Marmara as a shared mare clausum, though I haven't as yet writen a treaty to represent that.

This is quite the case. In Wesworld there is no Montreaux Convention - though perhaps there should be. Historically Russia has always sought access to the Straits, and its view would be interesting.

But even OOC no reaction at the time equals tacit agreement or at least in SIM. Plus the British stated in the 1936 Persian news that indeed the Straits are under British guns. The construction of Persian fortifications was around that same period. So the world will respond to events four years after their occurrence?

Persia brought the comment forward to try to reach an agreement to keep the Straits open because with a new limit claims would be overlapping. Fortifications , both British and Persian, are located inside their 3 mile limits on both sides of the Strait since the middle of the 1930's in WW. if no deal is reached Is fine for Persia to keep the status quo in the region in regard to fortifications and I guess could built more. Not the intent of Persia but have to respond to threats somehow and with no guarantees for free navigation we have to protect the Straits. Example the 381mm guns in the Sea of Marmara.

Due to their very close relations with the Byzanitne government.

the Byzantines appreciate the money when Russia refits ships in their yards, as well as the 6 quad 381mm turrets, plus smaller guns, Russia gave them to strengthen their security.

Quoted

Originally posted by AdmKuznetsov
Due to their very close relations with the Byzanitne government.

the Byzantines appreciate the money when Russia refits ships in their yards, as well as the 6 quad 381mm turrets, plus smaller guns, Russia gave them to strengthen their security.

Ah, it is good to see that the Russian Federation has achieved through diplomacy all that generations of Romanovs had failed to achieve by arms.

There is no doubt that this bodes well for the peace of Europe.

Quoted

But even OOC no reaction at the time equals tacit agreement or at least in SIM. Plus the British stated in the 1936 Persian news that indeed the Straits are under British guns. The construction of Persian fortifications was around that same period. So the world will respond to events four years after their occurrence?

That would depend whether either Persia attempted to close the straits to other nations. I do believe that should Persia attempt to restrict access to and through the straits of Hormuz it would see a response from the world.

Well the easiest thing is to say all waters less than 36 miles across are divided into equal shares; Nation A/ International/ Nation B just like the recent Anglo-Filipino agreement.

The Channel islands might pose a problem but I've no beef with 3 miles around them. I'm sure compromise can solve all the problems. Denmark's islands might pose a problem I guess with access to/from the Baltic.

I don't see any unsolvable issue over the Hormuz Straits. Shore batteries are shore batteries for coastal protection no matter how big your territorial waters are.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan

Quoted

But even OOC no reaction at the time equals tacit agreement or at least in SIM. Plus the British stated in the 1936 Persian news that indeed the Straits are under British guns. The construction of Persian fortifications was around that same period. So the world will respond to events four years after their occurrence?

That would depend whether either Persia attempted to close the straits to other nations. I do believe that should Persia attempt to restrict access to and through the straits of Hormuz it would see a response from the world.

True. But my intent was to discuss how to fix the overlapping issues this treaty could cause and indicated the existance of foritifications are in place already for imformation purposes. My intentf or the Straits is more like agreements to limit the fortifications on the region to the current levels with no further construction allowed and something similar to the deal reached the Philippines reached with the British in regard to the Straits. For example in the Straits the limits will increase to seven miles for both sides with a seven mile corridor of free sea for commerce.

Of course in character I guess the British would be the one offering something similar to the Persians

Hood: You're too fast for me.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Denmark's islands might pose a problem I guess with access to/from the Baltic.

Well, that was settled by the afore-mentioned Copenhagen Convention. Let's just retain that status quo.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Well the easiest thing is to say all waters less than 36 miles across are divided into equal shares; Nation A/ International/ Nation B just like the recent Anglo-Filipino agreement.

Good enough for me.