4 ms·
The national waters are a few hundred nautical miles wide, they do not cover all of the sea. I guess international waters is where the incidents happen.
by BrandoElFollito 2y ago
The national waters are a few hundred nautical miles wide, they do not cover all of the sea. I guess international waters is where the incidents happen.
- Symbiote 2y agoThe territorial sea is 12nmi (22km) from the coast. Even where this covers the whole distance (e.g. Denmark and Sweden) foreign ships still have the right to pass through. You are thinking of the EEZ, exclusive economic zone, but that's only the rights for fishing and mining and so on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
- mcv 2y agoYeah, but ships can't get to the center of the Baltic without passing through the national waters of Denmark, Finland or Estonia. Current treaties allow all ships through those waters, but if that access is abused for sabotage, maybe it's time to revisit the treaties.
- cocodill 2y agoBe careful what you wish for. Blocking the waterways would provide Russia with a legitimate reason for war or at least lead to a resolution of the blockade with force. That is insane. Nobody even considered that during the Cold War. If the damage to the cables wasn't an accident, the damage was pretty minor. This is in no way comparable to the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which was certainly not an accident.
- jajko 2y ago[flagged]
- cocodill 2y agoIt's a common misconception that they don't care about legitimacy. I believe this is what is delaying any negotiations to end the conflict. Just as ridiculous is the story of the conquest, the one my teachers used to scare me with in school, and my parents their teachers, and probably my grandparents their teachers too.
- Hamuko 2y agoWhat legitimate reason they had in Ukraine?
- wasmitnetzen 2y agoThe Cold War was, well, cold. The war in Ukraine isn't.
- cocodill 2y agoMay be, but Ukraine does not control the straits, is not a member of the European Union, and is not yet the 51st US state. Other European countries are unfortunately or fortunately only in a state of cold war for the time being.
- rightbyte 2y agoI don't think we could comment on HN if that was not the case.
- mcv 2y agoI'm not sure legitimacy matters here. Their war in Ukraine is not legitimate, but that's not stopping them. And a legitimate reason to attack a NATO country does not mean they will. Keep in mind that Russia has also blocked sea traffic to and from Ukraine. And it is kinda weird to sanction a country because of its illegitimate war, while still letting their ships through your waters. And it's not like Russia has no other access to the sea.
- belorn 2y agoThe rights that UN provide for international waters is under the condition that nations, for which the ship flags under, protects undersea cables (among other things). International waters are not a free-for-all space where anything goes.
- BrandoElFollito 2y agoWould you know if, when the conditions are not respected, the owner of the cables could actively counter the activities? It would be a ship of a country vs a ship of another country on international waters. (I am wondering about that in the context of the international law.)
- nradov 2y agoWell that's more of a political question. Nothing in the treaty explicitly states what a nation can do if another nation's merchant vessel appears to be intentionally damaging property. So then it becomes a matter of whether they want to escalate the situation, or pursue an international legal case, or retaliate clandestinely, or some other option.