We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Ratification of the The Law of the Sea
Details
Submitted by[?]: Mouvement des Conservateurs
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2156
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the Treaty of the Law of the Sea. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. Colleagues, In order to ratify our international image we may want to adapt our trade zone acc. to international regulations, the law of the sea is a very important one, first of all it has been established since 2094 and the roots of it go back to 2070. Untill today it is still in order and developing. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the The Law of the Sea.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:32:25, December 11, 2005 CET | From |  Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Law of the Sea |
| Message | Signatory nations pledge to respect the following guidelines: * Absolute jurisdiction (Exclusive Economic Zone) of 100km from the shore, where this zone does not overlap with that of another country. * Transient jurisdiction (Transit and Harvesting Zone) of 500km from the shore, where this zone does not overlap with that of another country. * Where zones meet or overlap, the border shall be set at the median (halfway) line between land masses. For neighbouring countries, sea borders should extend perpendicular to the coast. * Prior claims and disputes to be determined by the World Court. * A requirement that internal laws be amended to reflect the agreed-upon rules. |
| Date | 14:54:26, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Law of the Sea |
| Message | Absolutely no. The whole idea of this treaty is absurd. It does not take into consideration the particularities of each country. Why should Rildanor give up what its rightfully his? If there are resources in the sea, we say: ”First come first served”. Should there happen to be a problem then we can always initiate bilateral talks. There are Rildanorian companies that have invested billions so they can drill in some of the areas that would now be under our neighbors’ jurisdiction. Why do you think Rildanor never signed the dam treaty? It never needed it. |
| Date | 16:19:05, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Law of the Sea |
| Message | There is no need to get mutinous. The borders of the sea have never been established by any official neutral body so when it comes to the precise jurisdiction of an economic- or transit zone a non-ratifier of this treaty has no choice but to submit under pressure or protest. If the agreements mentioned in this treaty article are not to ones liking a new treaty already would have been in writing. |
| Date | 21:05:05, December 11, 2005 CET | From | Front Canrillaise | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Law of the Sea |
| Message | Our support is likely, but the URCW poses very important points. However, an international agreement on these maritime boundaries are beneficial to Rildanor so that future conflicts may be avoided regarding who gets to fish/harvest where and who has jurisdiction here or there, etc. |
| Date | 17:41:36, December 12, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Law of the Sea |
| Message | “There is no need to get mutinous.” We don’t understand. “The borders of the sea have never been established by any official neutral body so when it comes to the precise jurisdiction of an economic- or transit zone a non-ratifier of this treaty has no choice but to submit under pressure or protest.” You keep talking about the neutral bodies and stuff what happened to bilateral agreements? Are they so hard to sign these days? In a bilateral agreement if our diplomacy is good we might get more than if we were to accept this treaty. Also signing such a treaty will put Rildanor on a slippery slope, sending a message that international laws are above the laws of RIldanor which we condemn. We don’t care what all the neutral/international bodies say, they have no jurisdiction in RIldanor and this is the way it should remain. |
| Date | 17:54:52, December 12, 2005 CET | From | Mouvement des Conservateurs | To | Debating the Ratification of the The Law of the Sea |
| Message | Colleagues, I. This ratification doesn't involve into Rildanor's jurisdiction, it is a regular agreement between Nations, we think you might be approaching this treaty from a wrong angle, there are no international laws. When a single nation decides to adapt the current seperate treaty and agrees to ratify this with neighbour country, you create two different systems that could easily conflict with each other. If you decide not to ratify a treaty like this, our Nation has no right to claim a certain area at sea when a decision needs to be made, the union with the largest support wins. II. How would you determine our nation's borders at sea? Thats why I talk about a neutral body, the borders haven't been determined and borders can only be established in mutual dialogue with neighbour nations. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 52 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 22 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 11 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato |