Lawry, thank you for this. I guess another case of uncertain maritime limits is the Northwest Passage to which, I believe, Canada lays a claim which may still be open to challenge. I recall the fuss made when the SS Manhattan sailed through the passage some thirty years ago. I also seem to recall that non-Canadian ships must ask Canada's permission before using the passage, but whether this is more a matter of courtesy than established law is something I'm unclear about.
Ed Weick > 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 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
