Hi, Ed,
I must have missed your original posting. I've been traveling and had to do
some whole-thread deletes...
As you point out: except for off-shore limits, the seas are 'free.' The
off-shore limits are largely of two types: claims of sovereignty, which
typically now are about 12 miles, and claims to economic exploitation (oil,
fisheries, etc.) which range from 200 miles out to continental shelves.
While there have been severe disagreements and even wars at times over the
extent of these claims, the laws pertaining to off-shore limits are one of
several areas in which international law has worked very well, with great
effect on everything from warships and their movements, to fishing fleets,
oil-rigs, pollution control, etc.
Generally, there have been those countries that have pushed for larger
off-shore claims, and those that have opposed them. And, generally, the more
powerful naval countries have pushed for the smaller claims, and the poorer
countries with less naval power for the larger claims. For example, the US
pushed to restrict off-shore sovereignty to 3 miles, and Chile pushed for a
200 mile economic zone.
There are several interesting cases concerning these maritime limits:
1. The Suez Canal. Built by private investment, the world community
immediately upon its completion tried to find ways of laying claims to
rights of passage through the Canal. To back up these claims, the UK, French
and Israelis even in 1956 invaded Egypt to seize the Canal. International
pressure forced their withdrawal. Egypt subsequently and unilaterally
announced a policy of free passage (though fee-based) for countries with
which it is not at war.
2. Panama Canal. Also built by private interests though heavily under the
aggressive military and political dominance of the US, the Panama Canal was
operated (for fees) on the basis of free passage for all but countries with
which we were at war. I do not know whether the treaty that ceded the Canal
to the State of Panama included any limits on Panamanian management or
operational policies on the Canal. Interesting question: I should do a bit
of research.
3. Gulf of Sidra. Claimed by Libya, the international community generally
does not recognize the claim. A few years ago, the US challenged Libya's
claim: US planes ambushed some Libyan fighters. The timing of the US attack
was calculated so as to make the news back in the US. The US claimed
self-defense, but if the Libyan claim to Sidra was legal, than the US
violated Libyan airspace and it was an ambush. If the Libyan claim was
invalid, then the US could assert that it was merely exercising its right to
fly in Sidra airspace (though that does not dispose of the matter of the
ambush itself).
The Gulf of Sidra is one example of many cases involving land-locked
waters: are these subject to the laws of off-shore sovereignty or not. For
example: the Chesapeake Bay is in some places wider than 24 miles: is that
area outside the 12 mile zone that the US asserts to be considered part of
the 'high seas'? Laws of the Seas have suggested not, because the approaches
to the Bay are all less that 24-miles across (the southern approach is about
8-9 miles wide, if memory serves). But what would be the law if the mouth of
the Chesapeake were more than 24 miles wide, as is the case for the
St-Lawrence and many others bodies of water? The Amazon? Thus we get to the
Gulf of Sidra. Libya bounds it on three sides, but it is wide open to the
north and vastly greater that 24 miles. Can Libya claim sovereignty over it?
IMHO, no, but the matter can be and is argued.
The UN has done a good job documenting maritime law and hosting
international discussions on extensions of the law. The resolution of
disputes that arise regarding the application of maritime law is something
the UN is not particularly good at (for the same reasons that it is not
particularly good at resolving any kind of political or military conflict,
as I have explained in earlier emails). Commercial disputes are resolved
pretty effectively in the various international courts.
Maritime Law is one of the great success areas of the world community.
Arising initially from a desire to curb piracy and protect commerce, it has
evolved into an effective and large and generally fair body of law and
practice based upon law, strongly linked to many other vital systems,
including navigational practices, insurance, and seaman protection.
Cheers,
Lawry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard
> Sent: Sat, June 14, 2003 2:49 AM
> To: Ed Weick; Karen Watters Cole; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harry
> Pollard
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Local living economies
>
>
> Ed,
>
> Such a program would be ideal for the UN if it was really a Global
> organization.
>
> But, unfortunately, it hasn't much more than Pomp and Circumstance.
>
> Harry
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Ed wrote:
>
> > > The issue is who owns the seas. I think they belong to the
> people of the
> > > earth, who should manage the catch to make the fishing grounds
> > > self-sustaining. Then there will be no "Tragedy".
> >
> >Harry, the problem is that, except for off-shore limits, the
> people of the
> >earth do own the seas. But the interests of the people are so
> diverse that
> >there is very little possibility of establishing an effective management
> >regime.
> >
> >Ed
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
