Talk:Innocent passage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Innocent passage article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Submerged transit

Are submarines permitted to remain submerged during innocent transit? --40.142.140.74 (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Added text. Викидим (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from/to transit passage

Transit passage and innocent passage seem to be two terms discussing the same topic, and cited sources talk about both. "Innocent" is obviously a condition under which transit passage is allowed, but it's not like discussion of innocent passage is separate from discussion of transit passage that isn't innocent, because the point is to explain the rules. I don't care which term is used, but given how short the articles are and that they are talking about the same thing, I think they should be merged. Is "transit passage" the more general term? -- Beland (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the more general term is but there is some indication that the two topics are overlapping enough that they could be covered in the same article... Jorahm (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. These are two completely different regimes. The Transit passage is not "innocent" and can be done for the purpose of waging war, for example, as long as the bordering states are neutral. It allows aircrafts to fly along the route (and be launched from the ships), submarines passing while submerged, etc. We should spell the differences more clearly, not merge the articles. Викидим (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that just mean there are two ways to get transit passage - the general right of innocent passage, and by permission? That would seem to make "transit passage" the more general term. -- Beland (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert (had only read few works while writing the International strait). Still, here is my understanding of transit passage (TP) and innocent passage (IP):

TP was created by the UNCLOS III as a compensation for the lost high seas status of many (about 100) well-used straits when the territorial waters were increased from 3 to 12 miles;
As such TP only applies to straits, while IP is much more broad;
Even as straits go, TP regime requires ability to pass from one high seas area (or EEZ) to another. For example, a "dead-end" strait between high seas and a territorial sea will have IP, not TP regime.

Therefore neither TP or IP is a subset of another: TP gives more rights, IP has greater availability. Викидим (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, many thanks for clarifying. I'll drop the merge tags and add a clarification to the articles. -- Beland (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]