AHC: No International Waters

Pretty simple wherever you are on the sea you're in someone's claimed waters.

This can still allow for disputed waters claimed by multiple nations or cooperative waters like say the Channel where two nations control the waters together.

Of course for most of the world your chance of being caught flaunting laws are very slim but not none
 
Pretty simple wherever you are on the sea you're in someone's claimed waters.

This can still allow for disputed waters claimed by multiple nations or cooperative waters like say the Channel where two nations control the waters together.

Of course for most of the world your chance of being caught flaunting laws are very slim but not none
Could you give an example of what sort of dynamic might lead to such a thing? Obviously any maniacal autocrat (or vainglorious republic for that matter) can go around making grandiose claims, but why should it become the norm for enemy, or rival, powers to recognize each other's claims?

In comparison consider the Age of Exploration practice of European nations to "claim" islands and coastlines their navigators "discovered." If a French explorer claimed an island, would the British ignore this, put in their own claim and name, and would possession of the island in a later era be a simple matter of who got there first with the most force--or did claims turn out to have legal force and effectiveness? Why would they? How could they?

Often enough, one European power would violate another's claim to be sure. The question is, why were they ever respected, and I think the answer is that in many cases a region would be thinly held by a handful of Europeans, but there was broad room for both to profit if they stayed out of each other's way, whereas if they were constantly plotting to seize each other's bases the whole margin for profit would be eaten up in fortification attempts. It mades some sense, some of the time, to concede that some rival power did indeed have possession of some colonial land if at the same time that dangerous rival would similarly concede your own possession of your colonial outposts. The European system of claiming lands for this or that kingdom was an extension of this logic, in water where the rival assets fluctuated between a handful of ships and absolute zero. What good would it do a captain like Cook to "discover" and claim an island when it will all be ignored the second he sails away? Without some agreement that what is mapped is claimed, unknown waters like the Pacific would be near perfect anarchies.

To an extent too, the power that first discovers a land has an inherent advantage after all--they were the first Europeans to get there and survive to tell the tale back in Europe, implying a second and Nth ship from the same home port could get there just as well, while it is up in the air whether some rival European power could find and supply that same base.

Now I ask you to provide some kind of reasoning that provides a basis for the collective network of European seafaring nations to come to agreement that all waters of all the world all belong to some shore-bound power, and on what basis to partition them?

It should be noted that OTL, it was commonly recognized that a nation had coastal waters--and these were held to be the very limited band in which land-based power multiplied the grip on generic sea power. For instance through the 19th century it was held to be "within cannon shot" which is to say within range of possible cannon-armed fortresses on land, which would tip the balance in a battle obviously. Such national waters were obviously extremely short range.

You will of course find historic OTL precedent for sweeping claims of vast areas of ocean exclusive to one power. By encircling the entire Mediterranean with land power, the Romans were effectively able to claim the Med as "Mare Nostrum." Portugal and Spain were able for a while to claim, among themselves and European powers compelled or with an interest to honor papal decree, the majority of the Earth's waters as belonging to them. Of course these claims had meaning only as far as either kingdom could project power, and mainly versus other European powers, as long as they could control the routes to the distant seas claimed. By the early 17th century powers such as the Dutch East India Company could defy either kingdom with near impunity and the evolution of the doctrine that nations could claim control only over that portion of ocean they could effectively control, practically interpreted as the then prevailing range of cannon fire--3 nautical miles. Since then the majority of states have shifted to a 12 NM territorial claim, with a few claiming more and with wider zones over which nations are held to be entitled to control of limited categories--the USA claims the right to regulate the resources found on our continental shelf which extends in some cases beyond even the 200 mile economic interest zone widely recognized.

So there are two opportunities I suppose to get the entire World ocean under some flag or other:

1) Triumphant early maritime empire claiming the whole damn world. You might note that even Portugal and Spain lacked quite the chutzpah to claim the traditionally freely navigated waters around Europe itself, leaving those to be quarreled over by powers like Denmark and England...but one supposes that had the Hapsburg system evolved to go from strength to strength they would gradually crush rival European bases, secure monopoly relations with non-European powers, and by and by having made good their claims to utterly control their "outer" seas, they (presumably at some point irrevocably merged into one system) could backfile as it were and seize control of the Med and Atlantic waters as well. Technically meets your spec--all waters in the world belong to one monarch.

2) long after Grotius's Mare Liberum principles are broadly established and the principle of nations claiming only what is within land artillery range widely accepted, changed conditions lead to a total partitioning of the world.

Say we have a situation not unlike the outcome of WWII OTL, but without as severe a threat of an immediate WWIII following and with a more cynical partitioning of the world into spheres of interest. Actually Winston Churchill had a model of the post-war world regime along such lines; USA, British Empire, Soviet Union and I forget if there would have been a fourth power at all would between them divide the world into spheres of influence, and govern with little oversight from the others within that sphere, and the powers would confer to arrive at joint global policy together. In such a scheme, each hegemonic power would in effect claim the formerly international waters as its own to police and regulate.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Short of one super-power controlling all the world's oceans, you might see several great powers agreeing to divide the oceans between themselves. A plausible motivation could be to ensure that there is always a competent authority to lay down the law. Provided that the powers drawing up this plan can agree on provisions to grant each other unmolested passage, it could be set up quite easily-- given the right situation (several powers being in a position to force the matter together, and liking each other well enough to actually do it).
 
Now I ask you to provide some kind of reasoning that provides a basis for the collective network of European seafaring nations to come to agreement that all waters of all the world all belong to some shore-bound power, and on what basis to partition them?

I'm not sure you understand what a challenge is. The purpose of the thread is because I am clueless as to such an accomplishment, or indeed whether it's possible beyond a one world government.

It should be noted that OTL, it was commonly recognized that a nation had coastal waters--and these were held to be the very limited band in which land-based power multiplied the grip on generic sea power. For instance through the 19th century it was held to be "within cannon shot" which is to say within range of possible cannon-armed fortresses on land, which would tip the balance in a battle obviously. Such national waters were obviously extremely short range.

Presumably then such a POD would be in between when cannons were the limit and the introduction of the EEZ of the modern worlds.

You will of course find historic OTL precedent for sweeping claims of vast areas of ocean exclusive to one power. By encircling the entire Mediterranean with land power, the Romans were effectively able to claim the Med as "Mare Nostrum."

Yes this was along the lines of what I was thinking of. Except with the Pacific and Atlantic claimed.

1) Triumphant early maritime empire claiming the whole damn world. You might note that even Portugal and Spain lacked quite the chutzpah to claim the traditionally freely navigated waters around Europe itself, leaving those to be quarreled over by powers like Denmark and England...but one supposes that had the Hapsburg system evolved to go from strength to strength they would gradually crush rival European bases, secure monopoly relations with non-European powers, and by and by having made good their claims to utterly control their "outer" seas, they (presumably at some point irrevocably merged into one system) could backfile as it were and seize control of the Med and Atlantic waters as well. Technically meets your spec--all waters in the world belong to one monarch.

Sure enough and eventually in our future a one world government will have no need for international waters.

2) long after Grotius's Mare Liberum principles are broadly established and the principle of nations claiming only what is within land artillery range widely accepted, changed conditions lead to a total partitioning of the world.

Say we have a situation not unlike the outcome of WWII OTL, but without as severe a threat of an immediate WWIII following and with a more cynical partitioning of the world into spheres of interest. Actually Winston Churchill had a model of the post-war world regime along such lines; USA, British Empire, Soviet Union and I forget if there would have been a fourth power at all would between them divide the world into spheres of influence, and govern with little oversight from the others within that sphere, and the powers would confer to arrive at joint global policy together. In such a scheme, each hegemonic power would in effect claim the formerly international waters as its own to police and regulate.

This seems to me more likely, something like a Berlin Conference but with the oceans and seas are arbitrarily divided up instead of Africa. Obviously in all cases vessels could attempt to not be spotted but the more modern technology creeps forward the harder it is for vessels to sneak through someone's waters.

Edit: I should say that it is not necessary that these laws in these waters be identical to the ones on land or closer to shore, but merely that the laws of those waters are decided by a country or select few of country rather than decided by the UN or someone else that represents the world as it is now.
 
Short of one super-power controlling all the world's oceans, you might see several great powers agreeing to divide the oceans between themselves. A plausible motivation could be to ensure that there is always a competent authority to lay down the law. Provided that the powers drawing up this plan can agree on provisions to grant each other unmolested passage, it could be set up quite easily-- given the right situation (several powers being in a position to force the matter together, and liking each other well enough to actually do it).

Agreed the main limiting factor to this seems to be ability to enforce any such regulations. If other countries don't acknowledge/care about your oceanic claims then vessels can just go through your ocean flaunting your laws and then happily sell in a port unaligned with you.
 
I need to point out that just because you desire something it is not necessarily available! Just putting out a challenge puts a rather limited obligation on the rest of us it seems to me. It often happens that in beginning a response to someone saying what they want is impossible and silly, as I type notions for how to do it start to pop up.

But not in this case. It does not seem reasonable.

1) one big damn global ruling empire is an obvious case but also trivial; I think your challenge clearly demanded a multipolar situation.

2) in a multipolar situation, overall the interests of great powers, particularly great naval powers, will be to favor that at least the majority of waters are free for all to navigate. In OTL history, if you examine the pattern of colonialism, colonies are hopscotched among each other, seized opportunistically. Often a great region to trade with is too large and powerful to be taken wholesale by the first European arrivals, instead several rival powers seek inroads and each find their own ally port, then via proxy wars each try to carve out a wider sphere and exclude the others. By the time a technological situation arises where carving up the blue waters the way Africa was carved up is technically feasible, each major naval power will have developed a scattering of strongly held interests all over the globe that are interwoven with the other great powers' holdings. To partition up the open seas would be to perhaps block enemy threats to some of these holdings--but only by complicating and slowing access to other holdings. Far better for each if each holding can be accessed freely by the most geographically direct route. Does the greatest power wish to seize control of all of it? In effect, Britannia did rule the waves for well over a century. Why then did the British not declare all the formerly open seas British and claim literal and final rule over all? Clearly such a move would have been opposed by a strong coalition of rivals for one thing, but also their allies would have opposed it! Whereas if they held instead to defend the principle that the seas were open to all, they, with the strongest navy, benefited more. At the other end of the scale, the weakest nations that front on the seas can get some use out of world trade if they too have the same legal status as everyone else.

Open seas are a political win win win then.

3) the window of time in which it is technologically possible to hold hard sea borders in the manner that land borders are held is not too wide. Possibly this is not even fully possible even today! I'd say the earliest it could possibly happen would be the later 19th century, and that pushes it. Better to wait until radio communications are well developed, and submarines, and the ability to map out and patrol very deep waters. In short it is pretty recent!

Prior to all this quite modern technology, how could any nation stake out a given chunk of the open sea? Indeed how certain could any patrol ship be of being on their side of the line and not astray in enemy "territory?" What nation could muster enough ship production and devote enough population to crewing ships that do not catch fish or haul useful goods in for trade but merely patrol up and down arbitrary sea borders, looking for interlopers in order to stop them? Far better to concentrate great navies on guarding convoys that have actual value, on protecting home shorelines, or gathering in great armadas to deal decisive blows on the enemy's shipping and shores! Claiming to "own" large bodies of water with arbitrary borders is a fool's errand.
 
Top