WesWorld

Quoted

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

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

RF government well understand how favorable for Russia their present European position is, and see no point at all in taking risks to improve it.

However, they will take a very dim view of efforts by others to erode it.

Quoted

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

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

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

The fact that China is under the impression that they have an option to gaurantee or forbid passage of any Commonwealth traffic (Be it their definition of 'innocent' or not) to and from Hong Kong is the root of Canadian concerns in that regard. Such matters are soley the purview of the British government, represented by the Governor of Hong Kong.

(And to reiterate, since no one's addressed the matter...)
The Dominion of Canada furthermore will not be a party to any agreement which restricts Canada's rights regulate traffic within it's internal waters.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The Dominion of Canada furthermore will not be a party to any agreement which restricts Canada's rights regulate traffic within it's internal waters.

I don't see how that's relevant to the current discussion. This proposal addresses territorial waters, not internal waters.

Does Canada wish to add a modification to the proposal in order to address their concerns about territorial waters?

As I read/understand it, Territorial waters includes coastal and internal waters, over which Canada sees no reason to cede control of to ambiguous international definitions. And could arguably be applied to the waterways in the Canadian Arctic. (which has been argued OTL, something WW Canada will brook no dispute over at this juncture).

Canada has no modifications to suggest at this time, as there does not seem to be a sufficiently compelling benefit in this proposal to offset the complications and inevitable territorial clashes such an extension would generate.

(Canada would likely also be opposed to any increase of Nordmark's (or France, via St. Pierre & Miquelon) ability to extend territorial waters for fishery purposes, come to think of it)

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
The fact that China is under the impression that they have an option to gaurantee or forbid passage of any Commonwealth traffic (Be it their definition of 'innocent' or not) to and from Hong Kong is the root of Canadian concerns in that regard. Such matters are soley the purview of the British government, represented by the Governor of Hong Kong.

Sometimes it seems to me, that the Canadian representative only understand what he wants. He makes no attempt to understand his counterpart. If something is unclear in his eyes, then he screamed out loud and hides behind the Commonwealth rather than to investigate what's his counterpart really means with his statement.
By the way, that was the real reason why the negotiations between Great Britain and China have failed, they were poisoned by Canada.

So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:

China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.

Even if China does not have the authority, we can guarantee the freedom of the traffic now and for the future.

This is our way to show the world that China is a peace-loving nation.

And by the way ... if i take a look at the map .... it looks like Hong Kong and Macao are enclaves in chinese territory. China extends his hand for new negotiations with Great Britain, to find a suitable solution for both nations. For, as Canada has said it correctly, it is a matter between Great Britain and China and it is not a matter for the Commonwealth.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As I read/understand it, Territorial waters includes coastal and internal waters.

According to UNCLOS:

Quoted

Internal waters:
1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State.

...whereas the territorial sea is outside that baseline.

Quoted

Normal baseline:
Except where otherwise provided in this Convention, the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.

Quoted

Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil
- 1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.
- 2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.
- 3. The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.

----------------------

Quoted

Canada has no modifications to suggest at this time, as there does not seem to be a sufficiently compelling benefit in this proposal to offset the complications and inevitable territorial clashes such an extension would generate.

I'd like to note that unless Canada has previously claimed more than the currently-accepted three mile limit, then two of the three major routes of the Northwest Passage are navigable in their full length using international waters, and would thus have to be recognized as international straits. One of those passages would still be open if Canada claimed a 12-mile limit, in fact (though it is the least viable of the three routes) and Canada's historical arguments for its claim of the Northwest Passage as 'internal waters" are based on the 1982 text of the UNCLOS. So currently, we must regard the Northwest Passage as an international strait; and Canada's claims on the Northwest Passage can be based solely on Canada's ability and willingness to prevent international navigation of the Northwest Passage.

[SIZE=1](Sorry mate, but without UNCLOS, there's no international legal basis for Canada to claim the Northwest Passage as internal waters.)[/SIZE]

in regards to Parador's post

Once again, the Dominion of Canada has been singled out and insulted by a member of this body, it's concerns ridiculed and marginalized.

If such powers, and their duly appointed delegates are incapable of conducting their business here without such targeted affronts and vitriol, the Dominion of Canada will have cause to question the merits of this body.

Exeunt Scruffy the Delegate

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
I'd like to note that unless Canada has previously claimed more than the currently-accepted three mile limit, then two of the three major routes of the Northwest Passage are navigable in their full length using international waters, and would thus have to be recognized as international straits. One of those passages would still be open if Canada claimed a 12-mile limit, in fact (though it is the least viable of the three routes) and Canada's historical arguments for its claim of the Northwest Passage as 'internal waters" are based on the 1982 text of the UNCLOS. So currently, we must regard the Northwest Passage as an international strait; and Canada's claims on the Northwest Passage can be based solely on Canada's ability and willingness to prevent international navigation of the Northwest Passage.

[SIZE=1](Sorry mate, but without UNCLOS, there's no international legal basis for Canada to claim the Northwest Passage as internal waters.)[/SIZE]

Canada's claim of such waters as Internal Waters would be under the same basis as claims to Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes, or any other body of water wider than 3 miles, and surrounded by a nation's territory. Whether anyone else concurs with this claim is a seperate manner; Canada considers said waters sovereign Canadian territory, and will not be party to any agreement that limits it's ability to govern and administrate them.

As for the rest, you seem to be equating Territorial Waters with Territorial Sea, which are not the same thing. Canada asserts it's ability to control and administer any and all of it's territory, including coastal waters, 'territorial seas', or any other established limits of Canadian Sovereignty not affected by existing agreements with speciic powers (such as the treaty(s) regarding the Great Lakes)

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
As for the rest, you seem to be equating Territorial Waters with Territorial Sea, which are not the same thing.

Neither the definition of "territorial sea" nor "internal waters" existed prior to the UNCLOS. There's just the three-mile limit from the baseline, as I understand it; and whatever the coastal state can enforce and get away with.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
Canada considers said waters sovereign Canadian territory, and will not be party to any agreement that limits it's ability to govern and administrate them.

I just tried to offer you the chance to write your own terms for any prospective agreement, and you just refused. You could have defined the debate but declined. Why?

In short, Canada views a treaty at this time time that attempts to set world-wide standards will be counter productive. The matter is better settled directly between any powers with conflicting claims.

Beyond that....it's the 40s, not the 80s. Canada's satisfied with whatever it can enforce and get away with, as you put it. And I don't think any 1930s power would sit well with anything short of "It's my territory, I do what I want with it" rather than the language you lifted from UNCLOS which garuntees foreign ships rights within my borders. Whether the rights are reasonable or in line with what Canada (or any other power) would guarantee on it's own is not relevant; I don't feel the powers of this era would cede it's right to make that decision on their own to another power (or body of powers) in such a broad, sweeping manner.

If you want to broach an agreement regarding standards and practices regarding conduct in undisputedly international waters, that seems more in the purview and mindset of this body, and timeframe. If you want, as part of those discussions, or on it's own, formalize a nation's ability to claim 3, 5, or 12 miles, the discussion needs to be limited to that. Canada is ambivilent on the number, as it regards the waters within the Arctic Archipelago as internal, sovereign Canadian territory. Any attempt to adjust or formalize 3-12 mile claims means lengthy and likely contentious negotiations with Nordmark regarding Vinland, something Canada feels isn't worth the aggrevation at this juncture.

However, what goes on in any given nation's recognized territory is their own business. And, as stated above, disputes are best handled in a more specific and localized manner.

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc
In short, Canada views a treaty at this time time that attempts to set world-wide standards will be counter productive. The matter is better settled directly between any powers with conflicting claims.

Beyond that....it's the 40s, not the 80s. Canada's satisfied with whatever it can enforce and get away with, as you put it. And I don't think any 1930s power would sit well with anything short of "It's my territory, I do what I want with it" rather than the language you lifted from UNCLOS which garuntees foreign ships rights within my borders. Whether the rights are reasonable or in line with what Canada (or any other power) would guarantee on it's own is not relevant; I don't feel the powers of this era would cede it's right to make that decision on their own to another power (or body of powers) in such a broad, sweeping manner.

If you want to broach an agreement regarding standards and practices regarding conduct in undisputedly international waters, that seems more in the purview and mindset of this body, and timeframe. If you want, as part of those discussions, or on it's own, formalize a nation's ability to claim 3, 5, or 12 miles, the discussion needs to be limited to that. Canada is ambivilent on the number, as it regards the waters within the Arctic Archipelago as internal, sovereign Canadian territory. Any attempt to adjust or formalize 3-12 mile claims means lengthy and likely contentious negotiations with Nordmark regarding Vinland, something Canada feels isn't worth the aggrevation at this juncture.

However, what goes on in any given nation's recognized territory is their own business. And, as stated above, disputes are best handled in a more specific and localized manner.

...

You should have used that argument before now, because now I'm not sure I can vote in favor of my own proposal.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
And by the way ... if i take a look at the map .... it looks like Hong Kong and Macao are enclaves in chinese territory. China extends his hand for new negotiations with Great Britain, to find a suitable solution for both nations. For, as Canada has said it correctly, it is a matter between Great Britain and China and it is not a matter for the Commonwealth.

Um IIRC Macao is Iberian?

Quoted

Originally posted by parador



So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:

China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.

Even if China does not have the authority, we can guarantee the freedom of the traffic now and for the future.

This is our way to show the world that China is a peace-loving nation.

The Yugoslav Delegate rises and addresses the chair...

"Mister Chairman, Yugoslavia must object to the insult offered by the Chinese delegate to the Canadian delegate in particular, and to the Canadian people in general, for his unfortunate and ill-timed remarks. His words impugn the letter of the League covenant and the spirit in which we gather here on behalf of our nations. Yugoslavia asks that the chair demand of the Chinese delegate a formal apology to this body for the remarks in question.

Further, we find is curious that a nation which claims not to have right or authority to control or interdict transit in international waters can, in the same breath, undertake to guarantee freedom of navigation in these same waters. If a nation has no claim to rights of jurisdiction, that is the end of the matter. An offer of guarantee of free movement implies that, contrary to it words, a nation harbors pretentions to authority over the waters in question."

Quoted

China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.

The Mexican Delegate is wondering how the above can be interpreted as an insult. There might have been insults traded but not the above...

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.

The Mexican Delegate is wondering how the above can be interpreted as an insult. There might have been insults traded but not the above...

Bruce retained the bolding from Parador's original post.

Of course the mexican Delegate has been drinking too much recently...

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox

Quoted

China has neither the intention nor the right or authority to affect the traffic from and to Hong Kong & Macau in any way.

The Mexican Delegate is wondering how the above can be interpreted as an insult. There might have been insults traded but not the above...

OOC: The Chinese delagate had opened his remark,

Quoted

So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:

The implication being that Canadians - and not just the Canadian delegate - are slow to understand - ie. stupid. Remarks like that don't belong here.

Insults, categorized for clarification.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
Sometimes it seems to me, that the Canadian representative only understand what he wants. He makes no attempt to understand his counterpart.

Canada merely stated it's position on the issue under discussion, and that it saw no benefit in agreeing to the current proposal, and thusly would not be a party to it. China's only response has been to dismiss Canadian concerns as irrelevant, which....doesn't seem very 'understanding' of them.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
If something is unclear in his eyes, then he screamed out loud and hides behind the Commonwealth rather than to investigate what's his counterpart really means with his statement.

Self explanatory, I would think. Also, Canada puts some thought into what it says, because it feels you should say what you mean, and mean what you say. Canada operates under the assumption that statements by other representatives are likewise being made without purposeful obfuscation or intent to mislead.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
By the way, that was the real reason why the negotiations between Great Britain and China have failed, they were poisoned by Canada.

This is another slanderous accusation levied against Canada before this body. And Canada still has recieved no apology or other satisfactory response to the previous unwarranted and wholly inappropriate outbursts directed at them before this body.

Quoted

Originally posted by parador
So here again for the residents of Canada, very slowly and for writing down:

Again, self explanatory, I would hope.

Canada sees no reason to subject itself to this kind of uncivilized treatment on a regular basis.

The Atlantean delegate, like his Yugoslavian counterpart, is appalled at the slander aimed at the government of Canada and more importantly its people.

Latvian Delegate: "What are the provisions for claiming historical seas and or bays as territorial water?" (Latvian Delegate sits back down, wishing he wasn't the one who got the buttend of the senior diplomatic assignments).

The British delegate calls on both his Canadian counterpart and the Chinese delegate to calm down.

If there is a clear direct channel to International waters from Hong Kong, and Macau (becuase we're lloking out for Iberian interests too) then there is no arguement. As the issue stands (if there is no wide enough channel) if such a channel can be created or of China resolutely says it will abide by all of the provisions of this document then we will be happy.

But if China ever breaks these promises and stops legitmiate military traffic on its lawful business then the Crown would be forced to act.


Surely as the Arctic is floating pack ice there is no opposite shore until you reach the Russian Siberian coast. Therefore it couldn't count as an internal sea unless you count the thick icepack as land (ie being firm enough to walk on, build on etc etc) then that might allow such a term to apply. If so then I guess Russia could make such a claim for its own Arctic sealanes along its coast.

Anyway when the Mexican Canal opens what fool ship owner will go via the Arctic unless he has to and if there is sufficent merchant traffic (which I doubt at this time).

I think it best for the local issues to be dealt with locally.