WI: No Freedom of the Seas

MSZ

Banned
The principle of oceans being international waters and sea travel being free for every state, as well as it being disallowed for oceanic/sea waters to be annexed is strongly established and universally accepted. However it hasn't been legaly sanctioned by international law for a very long time, nor was it taken for granted: indeed Roman Law concidered seas to be annexable (mare nostrum) and one aspect of the English - Spanish naval competition in the XVI - XVII century was over this issue. The Spanish supported the mare nostrum concept, the English opposed it and fought against it. Even today seas aren't completly free, with some areas going beyond traditional 12 nautilic miles territorial waters being considered as those (Russia and the White Sea for example)

So what if the freedom of the seas principle is not established? Perhaps Spain wins the competition with England, Grotiuses works don't become as popular as OTL, or Roman Law is introduced to Europe more strictly, perhaps some time during the enlightment (the enlighted ones looked towards the antique times and Roman Law as inspiration). How would that affect international relation, trade, law?
 

Spengler

Banned
It really exists because one really can't enforce a claim to large body of water like an ocean, especially before the invention of the airplane.
 
Decades ago, Iceland tried to unilaterally annex ocean beyond its territorial waters, and then proclaimed that only Icelandic fishermen could fish for Cod there. When the Icelandic Coast Guard began enforcing it against British trawlers, the Royal Navy stepped in, and there were a couple of serious confrontations, including rammings. It was known as the "Cod Wars", and there were three "wars" total, taking place in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Iceland ultimately won when it threatened to close down a NATO base, and the British Cod fishing fleet went into decline.
 
It really exists because one really can't enforce a claim to large body of water like an ocean, especially before the invention of the airplane.

Correct; one cannot truly occupy a body of water in the same manner as an area of land, and that is what would have been needed prior to aircraft and radar to enforce such a claim. The Romans were able to because they controlled all entrances to the Mediterranean; once they lost that control they lost the ability to enforce that claim.

Freedom of the seas, as we interpret it today, means that all nations have the right to have their vessels transit international waters. Which means the North Koreans could sail their ships to within 200 nm of Britain, or the US, in theory. Not prudent, perhaps, but legal.

If such were not the case then transit might be restricted in many different ways; limited to unarmed vessels, or solely licensed vessels, or limited to vessels of a certain size or type (no whalers in our ocean!). Enforcement might also take different forms; seizure of offending vessels, passengers, or cargo, levying of fines, retaliatory incursions, economic sanctions, and so on. But transit would be permitted in some form for vessels conveying products needed by the nation claiming sovereignty, since no nation is truly self-sufficient.
 
Top