3 ms·

So, renege on the Copenhagen Convention of 1857 and make the Danish straits no longer international waters?

GafsRT 2y ago
If 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 ago
  Difference is, Trump's just shooting off his mouth. It's not a real threat to the EU. Russia is.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    Trump 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 ago
    That 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 ago
  The 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...
adrr 2y ago
UNCLOS allows countries to regulate travel through territorial waters for national security concerns.
- eesmith 2y ago
  The US and Denmark are both signatory to a similar convention to the Copenhagen Convention of 1857, says the latter's Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... says the US isn't signatory to UNCLOS. My reading of article 19 of UNCLOS says Denmark and/or Sweden can't place a new universal insurance requirement for innocent passage, because it is not on the list of activities which are "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State." Article 235 says there can be 'procedures for payment of adequate compensation, such as compulsory insurance or compensation funds' for 'the protection and preservation of the marine environment' but that's the only mention of insurance I see. I don't think an insurance company would pay out for deliberate acts of sabotage. It's all to easy to set up an insurance company which would go bankrupt in that case, requiring oversight. Clearly of Denmark were to set up the only insurance company which could meet all the criteria, then we are back to having Sound Dues.

If 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 ago
Difference is, Trump's just shooting off his mouth. It's not a real threat to the EU. Russia is.
- kergonath 2y ago
  Trump 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 ago
  That 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 ago
The 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...

adrr 2y ago

UNCLOS allows countries to regulate travel through territorial waters for national security concerns.

eesmith 2y ago
The US and Denmark are both signatory to a similar convention to the Copenhagen Convention of 1857, says the latter's Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... says the US isn't signatory to UNCLOS. My reading of article 19 of UNCLOS says Denmark and/or Sweden can't place a new universal insurance requirement for innocent passage, because it is not on the list of activities which are "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State." Article 235 says there can be 'procedures for payment of adequate compensation, such as compulsory insurance or compensation funds' for 'the protection and preservation of the marine environment' but that's the only mention of insurance I see. I don't think an insurance company would pay out for deliberate acts of sabotage. It's all to easy to set up an insurance company which would go bankrupt in that case, requiring oversight. Clearly of Denmark were to set up the only insurance company which could meet all the criteria, then we are back to having Sound Dues.