AHC: No International Waters

I'm not sure where Int'l waters come from, but if WW2 resulted in some big, sloppy, multipolar cold war, i could see the powers laying overlapping claims to the oceans
 
"In 1609, Dutch jurist and philosopher Hugo Grotius wrote what is considered the foundation of the international legal doctrine regarding the seas and oceansMare Liberum, a Latin title that translates to "freedom of the seas". While it is generally assumed that Grotius first propounded the principle of freedom of the seas, countries in the Indian Ocean and other Asian seas accepted the right of unobstructed navigation long before Grotius wrote his De Jure Praedae (On the Law of Spoils) in the year of 1604. Previously, in the 16th century, Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria postulated the idea of freedom of the seas in a more rudimentary fashion under the principles of jus gentium."

It's an old idea. I think you'd need a POD in the 14th or 15th century at least to eliminate it.
 

Delta Force

Banned
There would be practical limits on how far a nation could control it's waters, even today. Ships might also be unable to accurately determine their location, leading to border incidents and skirmishes. Also, if there were no international waters it would be a serious impediment to trade and peaceful military transit.

For practical reasons, this can't really occur.
 
There would be practical limits on how far a nation could control it's waters, even today. Ships might also be unable to accurately determine their location, leading to border incidents and skirmishes. Also, if there were no international waters it would be a serious impediment to trade and peaceful military transit.

For practical reasons, this can't really occur.

I feel that much of the same arguments apply to land borders and while I have no doubt that waterways would have far more fluid borders and far more understanding rules I don't believe that it is an impossibility.

Also look at both Antarctica and the Arctic which have been claimed. The enforceability isn't too relevant.

I like the idea of submarine warfare, especially rogue, forcing the nations to claim water as territory at the behest of commerce.

I'm surprised it was the 17th century I would have expected it to have arisen far earlier and a roman or dark age pod to be required.
 
I believe elimination of the legal status would be plausible under a de jure world government.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
a greater dependence on underwater resource ? cod fisheries, oil drilling, etc at 18th century. Unrestricted Navigation could be had simultaneously with Ocean (and its resource) claimed by seafaring nation, so ship could pass, but fish, drilling and mineral resource is "owned". if British or Dutch depended more on cod fisheries, there might be development where sea could be "owned" while navigation still tolerated.
 
There would be practical limits on how far a nation could control it's waters, even today. Ships might also be unable to accurately determine their location, leading to border incidents and skirmishes. Also, if there were no international waters it would be a serious impediment to trade and peaceful military transit.

For practical reasons, this can't really occur.
No international waters doesn't necessarily imply that the seas must be claimed as territorial waters. Exclusive economic zones spanning through the entire world ocean is however plausible to occur. Trespassing is not an issue with EEZs.

200 nautical miles is for wimps! :) As it is, there are already remote EEZs that are next to impossible to enforce. With world-wide EEZs there would be several more poorly policed zones. There would probably be lenient permits to fish in such zones but illegal (?) fisheries would be a big thing.
 

jahenders

Banned
I don't know that it's possible because many claims would be so hard to maintain and could result in far more wars if nations tried. For instance, Spain (or England, or Portugal, etc) could have said, "We claim the Atlantic as a province of Spain." However, it's so big it would have been impossible to police and if they treated any encroachment as an act of war (like they would if someone landed troops on their coast), they'd be perpetually at war. Imagine too, if India claimed the entire Indian Ocean and the US claimed the entire Pacific.
 
I believe elimination of the legal status would be plausible under a de jure world government.

Could've sworn I put in excluding owg apparently I forgot, but yes that would work

Regarding policing, hello Africa? These issues have historical example in the ridiculous claims Europeans made when exploring the new world and Africa. I do not expect these places to be unbreachable borders like a dmz, just the concept of areas unowned not to appear through into the modern day where policing becomes remarkably easier. Radar etc
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I think chances are there would be vast amount of unclaimed territory, but instead that islands could be used to mark the start and end of the edges of a naval territory. They don't move, so it is easier to follow the delimitations.

So Portugal could in theory lay claim to crazy amounts of ocean based on the Azores - which assists them in patrolling the "borders"
 
I think chances are there would be vast amount of unclaimed territory, but instead that islands could be used to mark the start and end of the edges of a naval territory. They don't move, so it is easier to follow the delimitations.

So Portugal could in theory lay claim to crazy amounts of ocean based on the Azores - which assists them in patrolling the "borders"

That's an idea, some sort of parrellel lines or connect the dots type border.

An ASB could do lots of things to make it work. No seas would be an interesting route.
 
Top