Jump to content

Talk:International waters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UNCLOS III vs. Convention on High Seas

[edit]

it should be kept clear that under the Convention on the High Seas, "international waters" began 12 NM offshore, while under UNCLOS III, "international waters" being 200 nm offshore. This is because UNCLOS III recognizes EEZ where the coastal states have sovereignty over the water column and continental shelf below it. Here's a good slide to use http://image.slidesharecdn.com/japanworkshoplecturescsdispute-150617035532-lva1-app6892/95/japan-workshop-lecture-scs-dispute-69-638.jpg?cb=1434513716 -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.243.61 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

[edit]

This should be clarified:

(e.g., 261 international river basins comprise 45% of the earth's total land area; 70% of the world's 50 large marine ecosystems, where 95% of the world's fish are caught)

The part "where 95% of the world's fish are caught" is mildly confusing, as one might think that 95% of the total fish population in the world is caught. Rather, it should be rewritten to indicate what it really means (that out of all the fish caught in the world, 95% are caught at these combined locations).-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.97.41 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship?

[edit]

Does anyone know how laws regarding citizenship apply to persons born in international waters? Sarge Baldy 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the citizenship of the parents comes into play here. So if a Canadian couple has a kid while on a life raft in the middle of the Atlantic, that kid has Canadian citizenship. If the kid is born to a Canadian and say, a Russian, the kid would get dual citizenship, if such a provision exists between the two countries. --198.53.200.80 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That last comment was me. Sorry. --Phant 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea the nationality of the ship (the flag that was flown on the ship at the time of birth) would come into play. This was actually outlined in British Nationality Law back in the 19th century. This is also true for babies born on an airplane while in the air. --Kvasir (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islands In International Waters

[edit]

There are obviously islands in International Waters that don't belong to any country. Why haven't these been discovered? Zachorious 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- Incorrect, every sizable land above the water level has been found, have you ever heard of satellites? Normally a country will claim it if its profitable, but usually their claimed and sold/bought by private owners. If I'm correct, if a piece of land is unclaimed, or you build your own artificial island in international waters, you can claim it as your own - if its outside a countries borders, you can even found your own nation.

Further to the above comment, every inch of soil, barren rock above water has been claimed. If a volcanic eruption were to occur in international water to form a new island (which is probably the only way new unclaimed land can exist nowadays), you would be able to "discover" it and claim it for your own. Of course some country will come along and say that island is an extension of the continental shelf and dispute it that way. And it will probably win because it has an army. --Kvasir (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of unclaimed territories, most notably a large chunk of Antarctica called Marie Byrd Land. They have been discovered, but no-one is willing to invest in any sort of infrastructure or human presence there to justify the claim. Feyrauth (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Does anyone else think it might be worth mentioning and explaining the frequent use of "international waters" in popular culture? I can definitely imagine people coming to this article with that in mind. I can really only think of one specific example of this occurring, and that was in an episode of The Simpsons. But, I'm certainly not suggesting we attempt to list the occurrences, just perhaps to mention the existence of it. Thoughts? CharacterZero | Speak 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

laws

[edit]

i think someone with knowledge in the field, should enhance this article to include information about crimes commited in international waters. the article shold answer questions like, if i commit a crime in international waters, in which country can i be prosicuted? Janemansfield74 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Something like this would be helpful, I also came to this article to find out about natural resources in international waters. If anyone can explain that would be a great help.Tuwile 11:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vessel in international waters is under the jurisdiction of the flag country. If, say, gambling is illegal in the flag country, gambling is still illegal even in international waters. This is of course circumvented by flying a flag of convenience from a country with more relaxed law. --GSchjetne (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

natural resources from international waters

[edit]

I would suggest any natural resources extraction from international waters should be taxed on behalf of united nations since there is no natural resources is unlimited and inexhaustible. Jackzhp 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica

[edit]

What about waters around Antarctica? I haven't been able to find any info in the Antarctic treaty about its waters and marine resource in it. --Kvasir (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Antarctica under Fauna, the CCAMLR (1980 treaty) regulates Southern Ocean fisheries Hugo999 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some countries claim EEZ around their Antarctic claim; other countries contest that. Eg. Australian Antarctic territorial waters. Feyrauth (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straits

[edit]

The article includes some Straits (egDardanelles) which have been internationalized and regulated by treaty, although that does not make them International waters. But not the Strait of Hormuz or Strait of Malacca? Have added re Arctic disputes but is Libya's claim that Gulf of Sidra is territorial waters resolved or lapsed? Hugo999 (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

[edit]

We have a graphic describing the different types of national waters. It's a pretty good graphic, although I think it's a little confusing. What's missing is a good text description of the same information. --Smack (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible paragraph removed

[edit]

This paragraph is rubbish:

Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state (but this is obsolete as of November 16, 1994[1]), due to cases of piracy and slave trade, any nation can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of hostis humani generis presuming they enter the nation's sovereign waters. Mare liberum still applies to this day as not all nations have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty, yet some nations still abide by the doctrine. Mare Liberum is the 'freedom of the sea,' where all jurisdictions are quashed in modern legal systems except those under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; this will be the case until all nations have signed and ratified the treaty. For these reasons international law is obfuscated.

For several reasons:

  1. the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has little to do with the law of the sea, nor does it have much at all to do with the basis of legal jurisdiction recognized by international law.
  2. UNCLOS has done nothing to change the jurisdiction of flag states over their ships -- see article 92 clause 1: "Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. A ship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry."
  3. "Mare liberum" is simply Latin for "high seas", and the concept of the "high seas" still exists under UNCLOS, see UNCLOS Part VII - HIGH SEAS!
  4. For what reasons is international law "obfuscated"? UNCLOS mostly is a codification of pre-existing customary international law, and even many of its innovations can be argued to have since become customary law (e.g. EEZs), and thus as customary law applying to non-parties.

I am removing this entire paragraph as unsourced, and unintelligble. It all sounds like it is part of some legal conspiracy theory concocted by someone who knows nothing about the topic --SJK (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for doing that. RP459 (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ This being the date that UNCLOS came into force, [1]

general guide

[edit]

Would be nice if some general guidelines where in the article like 20 miles off the cost is often considered international waters. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that maritime boundaries are not that easy, hence the lack of generalization in the article. On thing to note about UNCLOS is that is does not affect existing treaties or agreements...

map

[edit]

Incorrectly shows the US Canada border from the yukon. It goes straight up to the north pole. It also incorrectly shows Canadian internal waters in the arctic archipelago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.149.210 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about [2] if so I think it a map projection issue more than anything else, I cannot identify which projection was used, but it is obliviously one that does not work well at the poles. As for the boundary from the Yukon to the pole, there is a difference between what Canada "claims" and what it is allowed to claim under UNCLOS... RP459 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsatisfactory introduction

[edit]

"The terms international waters or trans-boundary waters apply where any of the following types of bodies of water (or their drainage basins) transcend international boundaries: oceans, large marine ecosystems, enclosed or semi-enclosed regional seas and estuaries, rivers, lakes, groundwater systems (aquifers), and wetlands.[1]"

This introduction is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. (1) It is trying to define two thing ("international water" and "trans-boundary waters"), which are different. (2) "International waters" refers universally to the sea, and not to wetlands or groundwater. (3) Where a river or lake lies in 2 or more countries, the status of that river or lake is a matter for the countries concerned, and not the international community of all countries. (4) What exactly does "transcend" mean anyway, and which of the several meanings of this word is applicable here ? I am not sure if this is even a valid use of the word "transcend", and I doubt that any of you do either! Eregli bob (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most useful part of the whole article is the diagram illustrating the various confusing categories of "territorial waters" and "economic zones", but there is zero mention of these important topics in the text.Eregli bob (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording of the introduction is fairly unhelpful. An ocean "transcends" (or at least includes) every bit of most territorial seas but that doesn't mean that that part of the sea is not part of the country. Clarification highly desirable. Robin Patterson (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Lawrence River

[edit]

Saint Lawrence River - international waterway like the Danube? Its lower reaches seem to be entirely within Canada. See, e.g., Lake Saint Pierre. But ships have a right to sail up it without consulting the Canada Border Services Agency, right? (Not that that body is much help - its website doesn't make it easy to find where the borders or any border control points might be). Robin Patterson (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on International waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International waters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need to delete "Extended Continental Shelf"

[edit]

The section on "International waters agreements" has a diagram that is supposed to show the relationship between territorial waters, EEZs and the continental shelf. There are two major problems with this diagram.

(1) As the Wikipedia article on the continental shelf explains, the coasts of volcanoes do not necessarily have any geological continental shelf. In addition, in oceanic subduction zones along coasts, such as Chile and Peru, the continental shelf is very narrow. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf, in most cases, the geological shelf is less than 200 nautical miles. However, all coastal states do have a legal minimum continental shelf of 200 nm. (http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm) Therefore, the boxes labelled "Continental Shelf surface" (yellow) and "Continental Shelf underground" (green) should be labelled "Legal minimum continental shelf surface" and "Legal minimum continental shelf underground", respectively.

(2) There is no such legal term as an "extended continental shelf". The term is not used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf, but it is used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters#Extended_continental_shelf_claims Unfortunately, this is an out-of-date, stump article. All continental shelves have a legal limit somewhere between the minimum of 200 nm and the maximum of 350 nm. There is a certain amount of popular usage of "extended continental shelf" to describe the situation when governments have applied to have the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf assess and approve the geological data being used to justify a claim for a limit of more than 200 nm. Therefore, the boxes labelled "Extended continental shelf surface" (yellow) and "Extended continental shelf underground" (yellow) should be labelled "Legal limits to the shelf surface, more than 200 nm, recognised by the CLCS" and "Legal limits to the shelf underground, more than 200 nm, recognised by the CLCS". Alternatively, the wording in the diagram could be left unamended and a note added below the diagram explaining "extended continental shelf" is not a legal term.

In addition, this Wikipedia page should also discuss the distinction between the geological and the legal continental shelf. This should include a comment on the role of the CLCS. I have not done this, because I am a novice and I do not understand how to edit the diagram.

Perhaps, one of the Wikpedia editors could respond with advice on how to proceed.PeterPedant (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PeterPedant, I am just looking at what work is needed to improve this article. I am wondering if your comment from three years ago has been addressed? If not, would you be able to make any required changes if this is a topic where you have some good knowledge (I have no expertise in this area)? Are there any particular references that should be cited? EMsmile (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terra nullius

[edit]

The first paragraph defines international waters as Terra nullius, but that article says the term describes territory that can be claimed!

Common_heritage_of_mankind#Law_of_the_Sea_Treaty is more accurate and does mention use in Law of the Sea Treaty. Also relevant: Global public good, Global commons

--JWB (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_waters&oldid=1205103306"