4 ms·

Really? I must have forgotten that part of the story. I do remember them being taken to court and the UK court saying it had no jurisdiction over Sealand. Wha

Really? I must have forgotten that part of the story. I do remember them being taken to court and the UK court saying it had no jurisdiction over Sealand. What I found now: Shortly after this declaration, Sealand faced its first test of sovereignty when the Royal Navy approached the structure to evict the Sealanders. Convinced of his sovereignty, Bates fired a series of defensive warning shots at the ships to protect the structure and was subsequently summoned into British court on criminal charges for his actions.1 l Arguing that the British court lacked jurisdiction over Sealand, Bates was successful in having the charges against him dropped." This victory reinforced Sealand's claim of sovereignty.

yetanotherloser 4y ago
Sealand is absolutely nuts and pretty dodgy but something about it is admirable anyway. I really ought to sail over there and salute them.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  As a heads-up, they're not there year-round as the water level rises within the structure.
  - yetanotherloser 4y ago
    I think they're mostly based down a back street in Southend, aren't they?
    - yetanotherloser 4y ago
      My mistake. Leigh on Sea. Apologies to the Leigh on Sea folk I have inadvertently wronged here :-D
d1sxeyes 4y ago
The ruling closes with the following remarks: > Parliament has no doubt the power to make it an offense for a British subject to have a firearm with intent to endanger life in Istanbul or Buenos Aires, or where have you, but I do not think it has done so. The Firearm Act of 1937 seems to me to be clearly an Act intended to operate only within the ordinary territorial limits and also no doubt on British ships. Breaches of its provisions, even by British subjects, outside those limits are not in my judgment intended to be cogniable by the British Court. The court was not specifically saying that it had no jurisdiction over Sealand, more that British laws normally only apply within 3nm of the coast (at the time, this is now extended to 12nm) and on British ships unless otherwise specifically stated. As Sealand was more than 3nm of the coast, and there was no specific provision that the law under which the guy was charged should apply outside the normal territorial limits of the UK. It's part of the normal checks and balances system in the UK that the judiciary hold the legislature accountable for what they actually write, not what they intend. It was a loophole which has since been closed by extending the territorial waters of the UK, rather than a recognition of Sealand as a sovereign nation.
- knorker 4y ago
  > It was a loophole which has since been closed by extending the territorial waters of the UK Maybe. The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in the Sahara desert. So it was not counted as British land, nor a British ship. That's interesting. The extension of territorial waters explicitly cannot do so to aquire more land. E.g. if Sealand had been a natural Island then unambigiously this 3->12nm extension would NOT make it British. So the ruling said that it's not a ship. And it's not British land. If it's "land" at all then it did not become British land by the territorial extension. But I also agree: It did not recognize sovereignity. It narrowed down the options in the future for courts (or parliament) justifying why it's not sovereign, though. Though of course parliament could decree that the moon is green and sealand is British, and for the latter no other country would care. And that's really all that matters.
  - srmarm 4y ago
    > The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in the Sahara desert. I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. For example as a British citizen you can be prosecuted in the UK for abusing a minor in any country - the jurisdiction is over you as a British citizen. However this isn't the case with isn't a feature of the The Firearm Act of 1937 which I guess only applies on British land and ships. I take that to mean that the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law.
    - knorker 4y ago
      > I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. I'm just pointing out that because parliament cannot be bound this means that anything and everything can become law. So pointing out that it could become law by act of parliament to apply to British subjects anywhere doesn't mean much, because anything could be, British subjects involved or not. This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution. For the question of "is it British land" this is just "well, what is a country?", and comes down to "is it recognized as such by other nations?". But nobody cares, so this will probably never be settled, and more likely end is that it falls apart by natural forces before it's settled in law. It's just not worth bothering parliament with this. Unless the "sovereign" state of Sealand decides to lease out some of its land to the Russian military. Very quickly this will be settled, in the UK's favour. Settled legally? Well… by whose law? > the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law. Right. As written it seems that the law did not apply.

yetanotherloser 4y ago

Sealand is absolutely nuts and pretty dodgy but something about it is admirable anyway. I really ought to sail over there and salute them.

hammyhavoc 4y ago
As a heads-up, they're not there year-round as the water level rises within the structure.
- yetanotherloser 4y ago
  I think they're mostly based down a back street in Southend, aren't they?
  - yetanotherloser 4y ago
    My mistake. Leigh on Sea. Apologies to the Leigh on Sea folk I have inadvertently wronged here :-D

d1sxeyes 4y ago

The ruling closes with the following remarks: > Parliament has no doubt the power to make it an offense for a British subject to have a firearm with intent to endanger life in Istanbul or Buenos Aires, or where have you, but I do not think it has done so. The Firearm Act of 1937 seems to me to be clearly an Act intended to operate only within the ordinary territorial limits and also no doubt on British ships. Breaches of its provisions, even by British subjects, outside those limits are not in my judgment intended to be cogniable by the British Court. The court was not specifically saying that it had no jurisdiction over Sealand, more that British laws normally only apply within 3nm of the coast (at the time, this is now extended to 12nm) and on British ships unless otherwise specifically stated. As Sealand was more than 3nm of the coast, and there was no specific provision that the law under which the guy was charged should apply outside the normal territorial limits of the UK. It's part of the normal checks and balances system in the UK that the judiciary hold the legislature accountable for what they actually write, not what they intend. It was a loophole which has since been closed by extending the territorial waters of the UK, rather than a recognition of Sealand as a sovereign nation.

knorker 4y ago
> It was a loophole which has since been closed by extending the territorial waters of the UK Maybe. The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in the Sahara desert. So it was not counted as British land, nor a British ship. That's interesting. The extension of territorial waters explicitly cannot do so to aquire more land. E.g. if Sealand had been a natural Island then unambigiously this 3->12nm extension would NOT make it British. So the ruling said that it's not a ship. And it's not British land. If it's "land" at all then it did not become British land by the territorial extension. But I also agree: It did not recognize sovereignity. It narrowed down the options in the future for courts (or parliament) justifying why it's not sovereign, though. Though of course parliament could decree that the moon is green and sealand is British, and for the latter no other country would care. And that's really all that matters.
- srmarm 4y ago
  > The first part sounds a bit British nationalistic "parliament cannot be bound", and could indeed make laws about the minimum amount of snow that must fall in the Sahara desert. I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. For example as a British citizen you can be prosecuted in the UK for abusing a minor in any country - the jurisdiction is over you as a British citizen. However this isn't the case with isn't a feature of the The Firearm Act of 1937 which I guess only applies on British land and ships. I take that to mean that the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law.
  - knorker 4y ago
    > I read it slightly differently, they're saying a law could apply to a British subject overseas. Perfectly reasonable way to read it, and maybe even how it's intended. I'm just pointing out that because parliament cannot be bound this means that anything and everything can become law. So pointing out that it could become law by act of parliament to apply to British subjects anywhere doesn't mean much, because anything could be, British subjects involved or not. This is as opposed to e.g. the US, where ordinary laws are actually bound by a constitution. For the question of "is it British land" this is just "well, what is a country?", and comes down to "is it recognized as such by other nations?". But nobody cares, so this will probably never be settled, and more likely end is that it falls apart by natural forces before it's settled in law. It's just not worth bothering parliament with this. Unless the "sovereign" state of Sealand decides to lease out some of its land to the Russian military. Very quickly this will be settled, in the UK's favour. Settled legally? Well… by whose law? > the judge didn't feel that Sealand counted as British land or a British Shop and that the law didn't apply to British subjects overseas so in this case the crime was outside the scope of the law. Right. As written it seems that the law did not apply.