5 ms·
Thailand, that is not how the contiguous zone is supposed to work. Sovereign territory stops at the 12 NM limit. The contiguous zone extends up to 12 NM beyon
by logfromblammo 8y ago
Thailand, that is not how the contiguous zone is supposed to work.
Sovereign territory stops at the 12 NM limit. The contiguous zone extends up to 12 NM beyond that, for the purposes of enforcing sovereign powers within the territorial zone.
A permanently stationed vessel at 14 NM from shore cannot violate sovereignty, because sovereignty does not exist there, and to claim such is to violate the Law of the Sea Treaty. And to violate the Law of the Sea Treaty is to invite Chinese, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and Burmese fishermen to scoop out everything in your 200 NM EEZ and take it home.
- throwaway2048 8y agoThe question, as always is, who is going to stop them? "international law" exists only up until the point that nations respect it. I doubt any other nations are going to launch a formal complaint on the couple's behalf.
- weaklearner 8y agoat least one is an american national. I'd support the united states sanctioning the ever living hell out of the Thai government if they executed an american national for building a buoy.
- _bxg1 8y agoThis. The appropriate response is "Nah, you can't do that, please leave and we're going to tear that thing down." Construing it as a threat to the country's sovereignty is lunacy.
- weaklearner 8y agoprecisely.
- bruceb 8y agoHe isn't ever being put to death or life imprisonment. He may get deported.
- gnopgnip 8y agoIf they had a US documented ship, the US navy or coast guard potentially.
- CydeWeys 8y agoWhy should the US step in to defend sea-steaders who are claiming they are free of the sovereignty of all governments? I don't want my tax money being wasted on that. Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest.
- mschuster91 8y ago> Defend US interests, sure, but this isn't a US interest. One of the two is a US citizen, and usually nation states are bound to protect the rights of their citizens abroad.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoEven citizens who have decided that they want to deliberately live outside the sovereignty of any government?
- hollerith 8y agoIf the citizen has been charged with a felony in an American court, should the US State Department in your opinion help him?
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago??? You're going to have to explain what you mean a bit more. I'm not getting the relevance at all.
- hollerith 8y agoIt might be relevant because good government agencies rely on formal processes and are suspicious of simple arguments like "well, there are signs that the citizen in trouble is skeptical of the very idea of national sovereignty, so why should the US, a sovereign nation, lift a finger to help him?" This goes under the general heading of "rule of law", as opposed to rule of the whims of individual officials. In other words, US citizens travelling the world would prefer to know before they get into trouble overseas which behaviors their State Department considers so egregious as to disqualify them for the help that citizens can usually expect. Ergo, the State Department probably publishes a list of such behaviors or situations. I am asking you whether if it were your job to specify such a list, would having felony charges pending in a "US-based" (i.e., state or federal) court be on the list?
- gpm 8y ago> who is going to stop them? GP addresses this - China et al. Well not exactly stop, but take advantage of Taiwan violating the treaty for their own benefit. I think it's a pretty plausible consequence of doing this.