| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
I'm not sure this is 'a position'. It has applied to every international strait for a coupla hundred years, bar none.
|
Its a general rule.
| As I understand it, Turkey as a signatory of the 1936 Montreux Straits Convention was acting in accordance with its provisions. |
Its an exception.
The whole twenty-four miles is international waters and territorial water. |
Zones should not in law, be both international and territorial at the same time. That would be nonsense. If it were ever so, its a recipe for a dispute.......
Historically there have been arguments over what are territorial waters and what was the "High Sea."
States wanted to extend their authority from land towards the open sea. How much should they be allowed to do so?
Wiley would argue that the "cannon-shot rule" is the historical legal principle that established how far a nation’s sovereignty extends into the sea. Coined in the 17th century by Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek, the idea was a very sensible one that a country could claim jurisdiction over coastal waters as far as a land-based cannon could fire.
Terrae potestas finitur, ubi finitur armorum.........
Its simple and obvious.
Who could disagree?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees. The way it is is the way it is. All these things have been worked out to the nth degree, have worked well enough for n zillion years, so getting anyone--whether they're Wiley or Iran--to change it is going to take n trillion trillion ergs of effort just to get it onto the agenda.
Might is right of course but that's a different question.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Peter Pincher was sent to jail.
His wife had seen no wrong,
And so between them both, you see,
This left a mighty pong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Might is right of course but that's a different question. |
The good folks who came up with UNCLOS, in their wisdom tried to carefully balance the sovereignty and security interests of coastal States with the principle of freedom of navigation enjoyed by the international community.
In their minds the territorial sea, adjacent to the coast, was to be extended, the coastal state exercises sovereignty in a manner similar to its sovereignty over land territory. This sovereignty extends not only to the waters themselves but to the seabed and the airspace above. Under international law, the maximum breadth of the territorial sea was extended to twelve nautical miles.
In short "the rule of canon" can be imagined to extend 12 miles.
Inside 12 miles you are subject to the coastal states sovereignty. If you tried to fish, or experimentally drill or sail in unannouced a warship, to this area, really nasty things will happen.....
Foreign ships do not have freedom of navigation, in these territrial waters, they have a restricted right. The right of innocent passage
To Wiley (and Iran?) this is the way it has always been........
All these things have been worked out to the nth degree, have worked well enough for n zillion years, so getting anyone--whether they're Wiley or Iran--to change it is going to take n trillion trillion ergs of effort just to get it onto the agenda.
|
What has chaged is the 3 miles has changed to 12
| The good folks who came up with UNCLOS, in their wisdom tried to carefully balance the sovereignty and security interests of coastal States with the principle of freedom of navigation enjoyed by the international community. |
The net result was that in areas under 24 nautical wide, there are different legal interpretations, but many folks have signed up, or partially signed up (but not ratified) as they were keen to get the additional soveregnty and, hello, it was everybodies trading interest to get along, and make sure it worked.....
The only problem was that if it didnt....."The rule of cannon" would be back in play.......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Darling, there's a mobile home parked outside.
I know, I just bought it.
From Exchange and Mart?
No, it's brand new. Top o' the line.
Goodness. Where did you get the money?
I got a big bonus this year, I meant to tell you.
That's all very well but won't people's tongues wag?
We'll say it's for your mum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Might is right of course but that's a different question.
The good folks who came up with UNCLOS, in their wisdom tried to carefully balance the sovereignty and security interests of coastal States with the principle of freedom of navigation enjoyed by the international community. |
OK
| In their minds the territorial sea, adjacent to the coast, was to be extended, the coastal state exercises sovereignty in a manner similar to its sovereignty over land territory. This sovereignty extends not only to the waters themselves but to the seabed and the airspace above. Under international law, the maximum breadth of the territorial sea was extended to twelve nautical miles. In short the rule of canon was extended to 12 miles. |
OK
| Inside 12 miles you are subject to the coastal states sovereignty. If you tried to fish, or experimentally drill or sail in unannouced a warship, to this area really nasty things will happen..... |
OK
| Foreign ships do not have freedom of navigation, in these territrial waters, they have a restricted right. The right of innocent passage |
OK
| To Wiley (and Iran?) this is the way it has always been........ |
To me too.
All these things have been worked out to the nth degree, have worked well enough for n zillion years, so getting anyone--whether they're Wiley or Iran--to change it is going to take n trillion trillion ergs of effort just to get it onto the agenda.
What has chaged is the 3 miles has changed to 12 |
You said.
| The good folks who came up with UNCLOS, in their wisdom tried to carefully balance the sovereignty and security interests of coastal States with the principle of freedom of navigation enjoyed by the international community. |
You said.
| The net result was that in areas under 24 nautical wide, there are different legal interpretations, but many folks have signed up, or partially signed up (but not ratified) as they were keen to get the additional soveregnty and, hello, it was everybodies trading interest to get along, and make sure it worked..... |
OK
| The only problem was that if it didnt....."The rule of cannon" would be back in play....... |
You haven't said why. Perhaps it might assist if I explained 'innocent passage'. This does not refer to the difference between merchant ships and warships, both have the right of unrestricted passage (unless there are international agreements to the contrary).
It refers to whether they--both merchant ships and warships--are in some sort of conflict situation with the country whose territorial waters are being traversed. Then it would be part of that conflict and subject, however theoretically, to the Rules of War. As before.
What third parties do in this situation would be up to them not UNCLOS though they usually witter on about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
This will be seen as an extraordinary isolated episode, personal failing.
In fact it was a variant on the age old teleevangelist scam/fake preacher scam, where beleivers finance a second coming.
Folks thought they were donatining to a safe ring fenced fund to secure a second indyref (coming), which was never going to be called, because the money in this fund, had disapeared.
The official explanation was that it was woven through the SNP's party account, which party members and officials, wanted to beleive.... their party (church) was benefitting even if the second ref was not happening now, it would surely happen in the future.
The future was of course destined to last longer than they ever hoped....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Oddly, it was a victimless crime. All the people who contributed their pennies got the thrill of helping to guide the destiny of their nation and then the bonus of outraged indignation when it was found not to have.
Also the whole thing was paid for when the mobile home was sold to the Edinburgh Museum of the Living Arts for (it is said) a seven figure sum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
In part the genius of this scheme was to deflect folks from what was happening by announcing increased party membership numbers (beleivers).
At he time of the Murrells resignations 30,000 members (beleivers) had suddenly gone missing.
Politicians and papers' thought this was to do with politics, an attempt to influence the leadership race, with false votes.
But the truth was more mundane, by announcing increased SNP numbers, the hope was, to boost the call for another indyref, so as to get more donations in.
White collar criminals tend to think their crimes are victimless, or see the beleivers as desrving to lose their donations. It often starts small builds incrementally, and then gets way out of control.......
Nicola might not have knowledge of what was happeming, she is certainly innocent until otherwise.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Everybody is always complaining about governments having 'no coherent plan'. Tony Blair was at it yesterday, accusing the present Labour government of lacking one.
What nobody ever does--at least in my hearing--is say what a coherent plan is. Except when they are criticising, say, Margaret Thatcher or Adolf Hitler, but they don't call it a coherent plan in that case.
Nor do they say why it is necessary. After all, the vast majority of any government's energies has to be devoted to simple administration. Wouldn't it be OK if a party devoted all its energies to getting that right? The state we're in, this should positively consume any government. Unless that would that count as a coherent plan.
But Tony Blair should know what he's talking about, averred Victoria Derbyshire, he won three elections. Ah, the penny has dropped. He had a coherent plan for winning elections. Leastways I didn't spot any others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The one thing Andy Burnham and Wes Streeting agree on is that Tony Blair didn't mention inequality and the one thing driving the populist vote is concerns over inequality. Nick Watt, Newsnight. |
This sums up the futility of it all. 'Concerns over inequality' is code for 'keep piling money into the welfare budget'. That is the one thing driving the Labour Party vote for Leader. The further left you are, the more money should be piled in. Practically willy-nilly. On anything else you couldn't drive a Miliband Brothers wedge between the candidates.
I can assure Andy and Wes (and Nick if he believes it) that the one thing the Red Wall (or however you characterise the 'populist vote') does not care about is putting more money into welfare. They hate it. Whether it is foreign migrants or domestic shirkers, they want rid of them not encourage more of them.
But imagine if a modern day election-winning machine like Tony Blair was standing this time around. He'd get millions of votes by stealing Farage's clothes but null points in a Labour Leadership election. They hate him!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Just because Trump is constantly using the machinery of government to vexatiously persecute his enemies does not mean this latest one is a vexatious persecution.
It refers to the celebrated 'he groped me in the changing room of a New York departmental store' we discussed here at the time, wondering if $88 million was entirely in line with the harm complained of by the plaintiff. It's all blown up now because of this:
Counsel: Did anyone aid you in the bringing of this action?
Jean Carroll: No.
Counsel: Can we cross-examine the witness about this, your honour? It goes to credibility.
Judge: No, you may not.
| It later emerged that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses. |
Ya gotta admit it is something.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Counsel: Did anyone aid you in the bringing of this action?
Jean Carroll: No.
Counsel: Can we cross-examine the witness about this, your honour? It goes to credibility.
Judge: No, you may not.
| It later emerged that billionaire Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses. |
Ya gotta admit it is something. |
Not if was declared before the trial, to the judge, as it was, and Trumps team were informed as they were, and in fact they were allowed to take a further deposition.
The point is that it was sorted before the trial took place, and the judge is of course, entitled to a view if it was relevant to the credibility of Carroll.
It really doesnt seem like a lot, if they brought it to the judges attention themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Some of this is disputed. Also, as I understand it, the matter was discussed only at the second trial--the one for defamation--not at the original trial i.e. did he dunnit?
I'm not defending the use of federal machinery to pursue an octogenarian for being economical with a small truth in a long-ago civil trial, only saying this has sturdier legs than accusing an ex-Attorney-General of treason for taking a photo of an image in the sand recommending it is time the president left office. Et al.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Everybody is always complaining about governments having 'no coherent plan'. Tony Blair was at it yesterday, accusing the present Labour government of lacking one.
What nobody ever does--at least in my hearing--is say what a coherent plan is. Except when they are criticising, say, Margaret Thatcher or Adolf Hitler, but they don't call it a coherent plan in that case.
Nor do they say why it is necessary. After all, the vast majority of any government's energies has to be devoted to simple administration. Wouldn't it be OK if a party devoted all its energies to getting that right? The state we're in, this should positively consume any government. Unless that would that count as a coherent plan.
But Tony Blair should know what he's talking about, averred Victoria Derbyshire, he won three elections. Ah, the penny has dropped. He had a coherent plan for winning elections. Leastways I didn't spot any others. |
Am I the only one that thought Tony might have had a number of worthwhile points, even a plan.
AI will be the way forward. It will lead to huge gains in both productivity and quality.
Why shouldnt he boldly base his vision and plan around this.
Nobody else, gambling their coin on the AI boom.
Must just be me.........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
