Strait crossing fees

[Walter]

It is stated that the Strait of Dover are considered by France and United Norman Kingdom to be soverign waters and backed by international agreement

Maybe historically, but Navalism is a different universe. Japan certainly does not back it.

[Korpen]

It is stated that the Strait of Dover are considered by France and United Norman Kingdom to be soverign waters and backed by international agreement.  Is this correct on both counts?  If true on the later what agreement and date?

The New Swiss have dropped their straight payment idea.  And it appears that France and UNK will allow civilian ships free access to Dover but what of military.  Also anyone else going to try like tactics?  Before Iberia can make a clear statement on this matter Madrid needs to know what the other powers exact policy is, whats out is a little confusing to say the least.

Iberia

The UNK/French claim is not backed by any international agreements whatsoever, they simply decided to levy a toll on that area of the high seas, they have no backing in either agreements or customs.

[maddox]

The UK made the claim, and an overeager French bureaucrat wanted to brownnose, and published the "aknowledgement"

[Desertfox]

The CSA, now and forever, refuses to believe that any nation has the right to impede free trade through international waters. Further, the CSA believes that no nation should be able to lay more than a 3-mile territorial waters claim.

However, if some nation tries to do this and succeeds via military might or threat thereof and later finds the favor returned upon them by another power, the CSA would largely laugh it off as poetic justice.

China did it...hmmm...poetic justice, I like the sound of that...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/John_Williams_The_Imperial_March_from_The_Empire_Strikes_Back.ogg



;D

[Carthaginian]

The CSA, now and forever, refuses to believe that any nation has the right to impede free trade through international waters. Further, the CSA believes that no nation should be able to lay more than a 3-mile territorial waters claim.

However, if some nation tries to do this and succeeds via military might or threat thereof and later finds the favor returned upon them by another power, the CSA would largely laugh it off as poetic justice.

China did it...hmmm...poetic justice, I like the sound of that...

Well, things DO have to be kept reasonable. ;)

If China hurts NS, then NS hurts China back, you've got to realize that it's just nations playing the game. As long as they keep it among themselves and don't let it bleed over into anyone else's business, it's all just part of nation-building. Infringe on each other all you want, but don't bother ships of other nations that use those waters.

Now, if someone suddenly does something that stands to screw the entire world over, they shouldn't be surprised if the entire world reacts. Blocking a busy trade route to all comers and then charging outrageous fees to use it really helps no one, and hurts almost everyone.

It's not a wise move to make.
That's why the CSA supports 3-mile limits on territorial water claims... because it's all fun and games till someone get a heavy gun shell in their eye. ;)

[miketr]

The UNK/French claim is not backed by any international agreements whatsoever, they simply decided to levy a toll on that area of the high seas, they have no backing in either agreements or customs.

Very well.  The stance of Iberia is as follows.

1) It does not consider claim of Soverignty by The United Norman Kingdom and France over the Strait of Dover to be with merit.  As a matter of fact Iberia considerss the claims are on their face ludicrous.  The traditional distance for national waters is 3 miles; Spain claimed 6 miles but other nations did not support that stance.  The shortest distance between shores for the strait of Dover is 20 miles; well outside of either nations waters.

2) If France and the United Norman Kingdom wish to use the above as a standard for control then Iberia has the following stance.  

A) Iberia considers its Territorial Waters to be out a distance of 6 miles.  This is supported by the historic stance of the Kingdom of Spain to which the Empire of Iberia is its legal heir.

B) The straight of Gibralter is 8 miles at its narrowest point.

C) Iberia controls both shores of the Straight of Gibralter.  (OOC The Rock's status doesn't effect this see map of its location and rest of straight plenty of coast http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/spain_rel82.jpg)

D) With the above 3 points in mind Iberia considers the entire straight of Gibralter to be its national waters.

E) All foreign civilian traffic is free to use the above strait;  Iberia reserves the right to change this stance if we so wish.

F) All foreign military traffic can use the above strait subject to Madrid's approval, which is given to all other nations with two exceptions; Iberia reserves the right to change this stance if we so wish.  The two exceptions to the above policy are the United Norman Kingdom and France; the straits are closed to their military traffic effective January 1st 1907.

The Iberian foreign minister strongly suggests that the Governments of France and the United Norman Kingdom... Reconsider their stance on what is international and national waters.

Iberia

[Korpen]

The UNK/French claim is not backed by any international agreements whatsoever, they simply decided to levy a toll on that area of the high seas, they have no backing in either agreements or customs.

Very well.  The stance of Iberia is as follows.

1) It does not consider claim of Soverignty by The United Norman Kingdom and France over the Strait of Dover to be with merit.  As a matter of fact Iberia considerss the claims are on their face ludicrous.  The traditional distance for national waters is 3 miles; Spain claimed 6 miles but other nations did not support that stance.  The shortest distance between shores for the strait of Dover is 20 miles; well outside of either nations waters.

2) If France and the United Norman Kingdom wish to use the above as a standard for control then Iberia has the following stance.  

A) Iberia considers its Territorial Waters to be out a distance of 6 miles.  This is supported by the historic stance of the Kingdom of Spain to which the Empire of Iberia is its legal heir.

B) The straight of Gibralter is 8 miles at its narrowest point.

C) Iberia controls both shores of the Straight of Gibralter.  (OOC The Rock's status doesn't effect this see map of its location and rest of straight plenty of coast http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/spain_rel82.jpg)

D) With the above 3 points in mind Iberia considers the entire straight of Gibralter to be its national waters.

E) All foreign civilian traffic is free to use the above strait;  Iberia reserves the right to change this stance if we so wish.

F) All foreign military traffic can use the above strait subject to Madrid's approval, which is given to all other nations with two exceptions; Iberia reserves the right to change this stance if we so wish.  The two exceptions to the above policy are the United Norman Kingdom and France; the straits are closed to their military traffic effective January 1st 1907.

The Iberian foreign minister strongly suggests that the Governments of France and the United Norman Kingdom... Reconsider their stance on what is international and national waters.

Iberia

Much of this is what the Hague conference is intended to settle (section III in the first draft).
And really i do not think it is a huge problem with territorial water in straits, as along as the nation allow all ships innocent passage.
And as long as nations have the idea about being able to do whatever they want to ships in transit, the Netherlands will never admit any stat sovereign water in straits between high seas.

You can also look in De Telegraaf (in the news section)

[maddox]

I guess it's time to change over duty station of the first and second main battlefleets and their support groups.

[miketr]

I guess it's time to change over duty station of the first and second main battlefleets and their support groups.

Tsk, Tsk, why is a perfectly legal exercise of nations soverign powers to do as it wishes over its own territory a call for threats of force.  Unless the French government thinks the Iberian governments actions are some how unreasonable?  Reasonable countries just as well as reasonable people can work out minor differences.  If Paris would be so good as to explain what it finds objectional and why I assure you that such a statement will be well received by His Imerpial Majesties Government in Madrid.

Iberia

[Korpen]

I guess it's time to change over duty station of the first and second main battlefleets and their support groups.

Tsk, Tsk, why is a perfectly legal exercise of nations soverign powers to do as it wishes over its own territory a call for threats of force.  Unless the French government thinks the Iberian governments actions are some how unreasonable?  Reasonable countries just as well as reasonable people can work out minor differences.  If Paris would be so good as to explain what it finds objectional and why I assure you that such a statement will be well received by His Imerpial Majesties Government in Madrid.

Iberia

Because it is not a perfectly legal exercise of sovereign power, it is an attempt of piracy on the high seas, several countries, the Netherlands among them, do not acknowledge your claim to the straits.

So in effect if you try to enforce such a claim, you will have a war on your hands when you try to block ships in innocent passage.

[Borys]

Ahoj!
Miketr is sinply indulging in the national sport of the Iberian peninsula - bull baiting.
France, in this instance.
Just cry out -
OLE!
Borys

[P3D]

'Today it was the bull who won.'

[Carthaginian]

'Today it was the bull who won.'

Unfortunately, the bull seldom- if ever- really 'wins.'
Winding up as hamburger meat AFTER killing the matador is the same for the bull as winding up hamburger meat WITHOUT killing the matador. Ether way, the bull winds up as dinner. ;)

France and the UNK are trying to do something shady and reacting with shock and anger when the world decides that they don't like it. Furthermore, they wind up reacting in the same manner when someone returns the favor. Since they closed down a major ocean passage generally regarded as international waters down to Spanish warships, Spain did the same to them. The very parties that claimed that such an act was legal are now claiming that it's casus belli, and thus admitting that their actions are the same.

France's reaction drove them straight into the spear that the matador held behind his cloak. Whether or not the bull also skewers the matador, however, remains to be seen.

[Borys]

OLE![/size]

[P3D]

I was quoting a joke.

In a restaurant next to the Arena, the specialty is a dish made from the balls of the bull that was killed in the Arena. One day a frequent patron is appalled by the size of the day's specialty. The waiter answers for the question 'why':
'Today it was the bull who won.'

The problem is that in this case the one who baits the bull is just a child wielding a knife, not a trained matador. And it is not happening in the Arena, but on the range, with a huge, experienced bull who is becoming excited.
Baiting the bull in this context should be considered a stupid thing to do.
It is a very interesting case of precedents that is being settled right now.
France and UK can claim it is a casus belli. Spain can claim similar things too. The question is whether Spain can support its threats.
However. If France continues to cross the straits without Iberia Declaring War on them, the Iberian government will lose much of its authority - a not really wise move considering it is held together in a fragile union, which could just lead to some opportunistic states bordering Brazil utilizing the resulting turmoil.