3 ms·
Require ships entering Baltic to be insured for damage to underwater infrastructure. Blockade all the other ships. Insurers will figure out who is trustworthy
by ajuc 2y ago
Require ships entering Baltic to be insured for damage to underwater infrastructure. Blockade all the other ships.
Insurers will figure out who is trustworthy enough.
- echoangle 2y agoIs that something a country is actually allowed to do? Isn’t that international water?
- armcat 2y agoLot of shipping lanes in the baltic are international waters, but to get into baltic, you have to pass through Danish waters.
- echoangle 2y agoLooks like they signed the right to inspect ships passing the straight away though, if I’m understanding this correctly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Convention_of_1857 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Convention_of_1857
- armcat 2y agoMaritime law is definitely not my forte, but I think the convention was related to the tolls imposed to pass through these waters (Sweden's Gota Kanal was built to bypass this). It's also related to "innocent passage", which may not be so innocent in this case. Either way, there are probably provisions here for Denmark to close this off, as ultimately they are Danish waters.
- dzhiurgis 2y agoNow make inspection queue 3 years long.
- belorn 2y agoThere are some wriggle room here. The rights provided by the UN do have conditions, like protection of undersea cables. If a country do not enforce such protection, they could in theory loose the right associated with international waters. Insurance requirements could in this theory be used to codify compliance with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
- alkonaut 2y agoDenmark can put some constraints for ships passing the straits. They are danish water. So the Baltic is special in that you can’t reach it on international water. Similar to the Black Sea. But these restrictions are codified in existing agreements so I don’t think Denmark could easily and unilaterally change them to include more conditions. But they could start enforcing ships following the existing requirements for environmental safety and insurance. It would make life pretty difficult for those shipping oil past the sanctions in rusty single hull tankers.
- eesmith 2y agoSo, renege on the Copenhagen Convention of 1857 and make the Danish straits no longer international waters?
- GafsRT 2y agoIf Trump goes through with his Greenland annexation Denmark might want to block US vessels. It is a pity that the EU would have to fight a two front war against Russia and the US after the US has started the eastern front part (as acknowledged by Trump himself).
- bilbo0s 2y agoDifference is, Trump's just shooting off his mouth. It's not a real threat to the EU. Russia is.
- kergonath 2y agoTrump is definitely not "just shooting off his mouth" and is dead serious. Whether he’ll do it is another question, but a lot of damage is already done. In the long term, the US have a lot of potential to be very damaging as well. Europe is between a rock and a hard place and its prosperity will depend on the risk assessments that were made in the recent past and that are being made now.
- eesmith 2y agoThat may be your mantra so you can get to sleep, but even if true, Becket's murder reminds us that underlings may consider them orders.
- eesmith 2y agoThe Copenhagen Convention of 1857 does not include warships. The Danish Royal Ordinance of 27 Feb 1976, amended in 1999 by the Ordinance Governing the Admission of Foreign Warships and Military Aircraft to Danish Territory in Time of Peace, only allows passage during times of peace, and is specific that "Other vessels which are owned or used by a foreign State and which are not employed exclusively for commercial purposes shall be equated with foreign warships in the application of the provisions of this Ordinance." Quoting https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/DNK_1999_Ordinance.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES...