Borders, units, neutral territory and . . .

[Xanthippe]

Can anybody advise me if it is possible to alter the game so that for a unit to enter another unit's territory without a right of passage agreement would effectively be a declaration of war ?

I just find it ridiculous that civilisation a at one end of a land mass can declare war on another at the other end of the same land mass and then proceed to cross the territory of maybe three or four neutral civ's (taking years to do it) in order to attack !

This would have two effects:

First, it would make the kind of ludicrous war above impossible.

Second it would mean that civilisations wouldn't find it so easy to cross other civ's territory to found new cities beyond. This would mean that civ's that got boxed in would have to either negotiate right of passage orresort to war sooner !

I would also want to make territory only extend over coastal water, not sea. That way it would still be possible for civ's to expand provided they did so by sea.

[self biased]

i know. i always find it irritating that other civs will walk all over your territory, but one of your workers in theirs will make them weary...

[Random Passerby]

The Crusades, anyone? My geography is a bit fuzzy, but I don't quite seem to recall France sharing a border with the Holy Land.

[KaiserIsak]

They were allied with the Byzantines and with the emperor.

Maybe alliances automaticly should give you a right of passage agrement.

[Xanthippe]

Also preventing military units from entering another civ's territory without either a right of passage agreement (which I agree ought to be automatically included in a military alliance*), or the act of entering that civ's territory constituting a declaration of war, would to a limited extent represent the logistical / supply problems (impossibility ?) of using a neutral civ's territory without their consent.

I also think that it should be impossible to stack large numbers of units in terrain that produces little or no food until at least the industrial age !

*I have on at least one occasion agreed to a military alliance in return for technology or lots of gold, but then not contributed even one unit to the war effort and haven't agreed to a right of passage either. I found it quite amusing to watch my 'allies' units 'crawl' across my territory, fight an inconclusive war and then crawl back, while I raced on to a cultural victory !

[NeOmega]

Dont mean to one up you, but I had a very fun game as the greeks where I let about four nations meet about dead center in the middle of my nation with cavalry and riflemen. Anytime one looked like they were about to lose I'd give them a right of passage to help boost their strength.

[Patroklos]

I don't think there is any way to change how the borders work. I agree that borders should only extend over coastal squars, but then the whale food bonus would be useless because a square needs to be in the city radius to use.

[Zurai]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't think there is any way to change how the borders work. I agree that borders should only extend over coastal squars, but then the whale food bonus would be useless because a square needs to be in the city radius to use.

Just set whales to coastal. There's nothing un-realistic about it (heck, you can see whales from shore in many, many, many places in the world) and the occasional times you get them in freshwater lakes, you can just abstract them as large sturgeon or similar fish.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I don't think there is any way to change how the borders work. I agree that borders should only extend over coastal squars, but then the whale food bonus would be useless because a square needs to be in the city radius to use.

All maritime nations currently have a 200 mile limit offshore, provided there's enough room. That's a UN regulation. I'd say that's way more than just their coastline.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

hahaha- no they don't- in fact the only country to demand such a huge maritime zone of control is the USA- all other countries have a UN regulated 3 miles (I am not certain if its 3 or something around that- with a single number) zone of maritime control over coastal waters- if we all had 200 miles we'd have to leave the planet in search of new oceans

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
hahaha- no they don't- in fact the only country to demand such a huge maritime zone of control is the USA- all other countries have a UN regulated 3 miles (I am not certain if its 3 or something around that- with a single number) zone of maritime control over coastal waters- if we all had 200 miles we'd have to leave the planet in search of new oceans

From the UN web site:

Territorial seas:

 Coastal States have sovereignty over their territorial seas, which they can establish up to a limit of 12 nautical miles. Foreign vessels are allowed “innocent passage” through those waters.

Exclusive economic zones:

 Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for the use of living and non-living natural resources. (Ninety per cent of the world’s fisheries fall within coastal State jurisdictions.)
 Coastal States are responsible for managing living resources and for protecting the marine environment.

Continental shelf:

 Coastal states have sovereign rights over their continental shelf, their national area of the seabed, for exploring and exploiting its non-living resources. The shelf extends at least 200 nautical miles from the shore. States may claim more under certain circumstances.
 Where the shelf extends beyond 200 miles, coastal States are to share with the international community part of the revenue they may derive from those resources

Here's the link if you'd like to look it up yourself:

Law of the Sea site

PS Maybe next time you might want to do a bit of research before you end up making yourself look like an idiot. It took me all of 10 minutes to find the information.

Here's a link to the actual convention:

Law of Sea Convention

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

Thank you for the idiot . While I definitly think I should do so before overconfidently stating something without explicit scientific or otherwise attained secondary data I do not believe I deserve your insults.

The 200 Nautical Seamiles are for seabed exploration, explotation of the continental shelf, an "exclusive economic zone " and protection of marine life- exactly what has that to do with Zone of Control ? These are NOT (I repeat NOT) national BORDERS -and should not be seen as such (hello Canada- still sinking Spanish trawlers?)!

The answer is: Nothing- especially in Civ3 Maritime ressources cannot be exploited and maritime borders are a hindrance since no ships of other countries are allowed to enter it without causing weariness (thus I conclude they are meant as national borders in the first place) I thought this was the original question in this thread!

- As to the "zone of control" (ok- so Souvereignity is 12 Nautical miles not 3- big deal). I cannot be asked to ressearch every little detail- my point was that a country does not control this area but is allowed to "manage" it (usually in partnership with its neighbouring countries in the region !!! Just think about the North sea and how many Nation drill for Oil there-). It is a joint economic zone- nothing to do with a country's souvereignity over this zone, rather than accountability for it (as your ressearch has shown anyway).

But the fact remains- in the game the idea is that your shores and immideate coastal waters are part of your National Territory- NOT an area you can send your crab-fishing factory-ships to somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
Thank you for the idiot . While I definitly think I should do so before overconfidently stating something without explicit scientific or otherwise attained secondary data I do not believe I deserve your insults.

Laughing at a statement someone makes is not an insult?

The 200 Nautical Seamiles are for seabed exploration, explotation of the continental shelf, an "exclusive economic zone " and protection of marine life- exactly what has that to do with Zone of Control ? These are NOT (I repeat NOT) national BORDERS -and should not be seen as such (hello Canada- still sinking Spanish trawlers?)!

The wording reads "sovereign rights". By legal definition, that would make the 200 mile limit a national border.

I cannot be asked to ressearch every little detail- my point was that a country does not control this area but is allowed to "manage" it (usually in partnership with its neighbouring countries in the region !!! Just think about the North sea and how many Nation drill for Oil there-).
It is a joint economic zone- nothing to do with a country's souvereignity over this zone, rather than accountability for it (as your ressearch has shown anyway).

Just think of the Spanish trawlers we kicked out of our waters with the blessing of the UN. That area is ours to do with as we please, and other nations must abide by our regulations or be forced to leave. Or be fired upon if we so choose. How is that any different from a national border? Again quoting the convention:

Article 58

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

In other words, the 200 mile limit is under the direct jurisdiction of the coastal state and other nations must adhere to it's laws while in that territory. Making the area a defacto national boundary. I don't see how else it can possibly be interpreted.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

ok- whatever, I still consider being called an "idiot" to be an insult. And apparently you have no real idea about politics and the controversy that the word "sovereignty" brings about. "Sovereign rights" for explotation of living and non-living ressources, etc does by far NOT equal the political terminus "Sovereignty" (aka. a State's legitimate rule over a certain territory and the power to excercise control over the citizens and institutions within its borders). I have studied politics for a couple of years and as such I should have known better when posting earlier on- so I made a mistake- that does not mean that you are right about what you claim. There is more than just finding raw data and using it as backup, the next step is to put it into context and to convert the data retrieved into useful information.

Let me put it this way: We are talking "Economic Sovereignty", not "National Sovereignty"... The example of Canada and the "Cod War" is not applicable to most other cases- just imagine a German Frigate sinking a foreign (whatever- Phillipino) ship in the North Sea for reason X - it would be within the 200 mile zone. The German ship would have the right to be there and the foreign vessel too- however Germany has no policing rights in these waters- namely because the north sea is not German territory- no matter if it is within these 200 miles. Besides- other country's shores are close, and their area of influence will overlapp with that of Germany- so how is it explainable that you are claiming that these 200 miles are one countries national borders if mor that one country share these? It just does not work. Germany and other countries have the right over non-regional state's vessels (etc) to exploit this area- not to police it- what some countries (namely the USA) are doing is very different from that- the US claim these 200 miles for their national border which is somehow "questionable. They claim that they have the right to claim it since they need this belt as a security zone... anyways- what the US does is at times not so very- humm- according to the plan.

Now we have both mentioned Canada- Canada (I take it you are Canadian? touché ? )- Canada was in fact not allowed to use force against the Spanish vessels- these had been there due to the European Union's "Zone of Sovereignty Rights". This was of course source for Canadian Anger, especially since Spain has the largest fishing fleet in Europe and the Spanish fisherman had not yet reached their own EU quota- so they went into the ovelapping zone between Canada and the EU, since they actually had the right to go there and fish in the EU 'zone'. The reason the UN supported Canada- and not the EU is because the Spaniards were overfishing the agreed quota between Canada and Britain by far. Spain claimed to be in Europan "administered" waters while Canada also has the right to exploit ressources and wildlife within this 200 mile-zone, yet I repeat that it has no policing territory over foreign vessels outside of its 12 mile sea-borders- it is allowed to protect its resources in these "International Waters" though (hence the name of "International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)". It is a term of International Law- not of National Law. Canada has signed International and Multinational treaties with other States- its geographic position is also something unique and strengthens your case when arguing that in this case Canada really acted as if the 200 miles are its bordes. Nonetheless, this fact does not change the reality that Cnada has been conceeded authority over the resources and shipping regulations in this zone- yet is not, for instance, allowed to make arrests or the like yet to protect its property (in this case the fish stock).

I hope this makes my point a bit clearer...

---
Edit: Just found this as a good example of how certain Super Powers bend the rules...

"SAN DIEGO, Dec. 3 -- The crew of the San Diego-based Coast Guard cutter Hamilton seized 36 bales of cocaine and recovered five suspected smugglers from the go-fast vessel Nazareno 250 miles south of the Mexico-Guatemala border in the eastern Pacific Ocean Nov. 21." US COAST GUARD

... 250 Miles... of Mexico/Guatemala :S US Coast Guard- something seems to be out of order with the formentioned measurements... could it be that these "Sovereinty Rights" mean something completely different from what is claimed to be National Borders- because last time I checked the USA were nowhere close to this place.

Some more info on the procedures of the Hamburg (Germany) based United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
Seerecht.org
ITLOS

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

Anyways- this is a controversial subject that will see movement still in the international arena China and Taiwan, as well as Russia, Japan and China, (North and South Korea also) are similarly in continous disputes over what is what: Interantional Waters, or legitimate zone of influence... - of course, every time China moves a Navy vessel close to the ROC it is greeted by the Taiwanese Navy on full allert

---

What would be usefull would be the possibility to build offshore plattform outside of the marine border limit in the game- and to get an extension of your territory waters where you can drill oil (etc) but also other ship can pass your waters- these ships would then (after you build this structure- i.e. a "sea colony") not anymore be able to build their own colonies but only allowed to pass the zone without causing wearieness...

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
ok- whatever, I still consider being called an "idiot" to be an insult.

I consider having my statements ridiculed to be an insult, so I guess we're even.

Besides- other country's shores are close, and their area of influence will overlapp with that of Germany- so how is it explainable that you are claiming that these 200 miles are one countries national borders if mor that one country share these?

Well of course in the case of the North Sea there has to be some sort of compromise made. The 200 mile limit would extend from a number of countries in the area. Which is why they no doubt have made treaties with each other, rather than go to war.

If we can impound a foreign vessel, in this case a Spanish fish factory, then deport the crew, how is that any different from having "National Sovereignty" over those waters. What exactly is your criteria? We told the Spanish to leave, the UN backed us up. It certainly indicates to me that those are our waters.

Granted I'm not a lawyer, but I fail to see the distinction.

Canada was in fact not allowed to use force against the Spanish vessels-

We were prepared to use whatever means necessary in order to make our claim. We even reinforced our fleet when we heard that Spain was sending out a warship. Those Spanish sailors are just fortunate that we're a peaceful country, and prefer to take issues to a court of law.

Nonetheless, this fact does not change the reality that Cnada has been conceeded authority over the resources and shipping regulations in this zone- yet is not, for instance, allowed to make arrests or the like yet to protect its property (in this case the fish stock).

Sorry but we did. As I mentioned, a ship was impounded and it's crew deported to Spain. And with international approval no less.

And like I said, I'm no lawyer so there's no doubt some subtlety I'm missing. But it seems to me that for all intensive purposes, those 200 miles belong to the coastal nation, not the international community. Whether it's economic or national sovereignty, the end result remains the same. If we don't want someone in our waters, we can tell them to leave. And they will have to go or face the consequences.

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

okidoke- lets call it even

yup, definitly Canada did what it did- and I never understood how or why (well it was defending its resources and the Spanish ships did not cease their activities in these waters, despite the fact that they should have as long as the matter was under dispute)- anyways it's exactly such cases which keep international politics entertaining (and I am thankfully no lawyer either) So we won't have to figure out how, why and under what circumstances certain things are permissible in one ocasion, while at other times and places this does not apply, hehe. Its like the US bombing a neutral country (without an UN mandate as seems to be in fashion lately)- imagine the case where Mexico drops a few over Texas

I can only imagine that multinational treaties and international corporate law somehow regulate purchases within the 200 mile-zone. In theory any property of a legal entity/corporation within this area would thus fall under the laws of the country in which the legal entity/corporation is registered. This would be the reason why the points are split between "Exclusive economic zones" and "Territorial Seas" as stated in the UN supported international agreements.

There is something similar in practice in the Caspian Sea at the moment: Two new Oil fields have been found there off the coast of Arerbajan and Turkmenistan. Now the previous arrangement were all based on the idea of the Caspian being a Sea. So, every country had its 12 mile boder limit plus the explotation rights- apparently the country which is the closest got priority over the others (this would be an explanation why Canada has undisputedly more of a stake in its fishing grounds than Spain ). Now, in the Caspian the Iranies are patroling south of these new finds within their 200 mile zone and do not allow anybody to actually make probes their (or build a rigg)- they are even questioning the common believe that the Caspian is truelly a sea- they say it is a lake... and this would mean that the entire water area would be split according to the coastal % of each state- and Iran would therefor gain legal and unique access to the otherwise disputed oil fields (if the Caspian "Sea" is really a lake then they are likely to get away with that and in fact incorporate large parts of the Caspian into its national territory). The problem is that the treaties between Iran and the USSR are not up-to -date anymore and the small former Soviet republics have no concrete treaties with Iran that would regulate such a find within the shared economic zone. And since Russia is far and has no chance of getting hold of the oild through international maritime regulation Iran is the runner up at the time.

Judging from this example I believe that while there seems to be a basic charter supported by the UN, most states need to come to their own agreements via uni- and multilatteral (spelling?) treaties. In the Case Canada vs. Spain a new quota was established for EU vessels (other that British ones). I find this subject to be very interesting, while I really wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those that have to go through all the paperwork to establish how everything clings together.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~kryopak/OilGasNews.htm Unfortunatly the article I read on this in German- if there is anybody here interested in this (it's really good and gives a good insight on the power-plays in the "Oil" region)

[W.I.N.T.E.R]

"Der Kampf ums Kaspisch Öl

(Here is the article row- for some strange reason it starts with chapter 8 and then goes down to 1 )

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
okidoke- lets call it even

Judging from this example I believe that while there seems to be a basic charter supported by the UN, most states need to come to their own agreements via uni- and multilatteral (spelling?) treaties. In the Case Canada vs. Spain a new quota was established for EU vessels (other that British ones). I find this subject to be very interesting, while I really wouldn't want to be in the shoes of those that have to go through all the paperwork to establish how everything clings together.

By necessity, any such maritime laws have to be flexible and open to negotiation. There's another problem area in the South China Sea as well. The Law of the Sea accord was obviously designed as a guideline for disputes, but the underlying concept was to give each coastal nation as much sovereignty as possible.

In a situation like Canada and the US, that 200 mile zone can clearly be considered a national boundary. At least until you reach the Caribbean area. In our case, our actions set a precedent for international law, which I think is one reason why the Spanish didn't stop their activities. They wanted to test the provisions of the treaty, to find out just where line was to be drawn. I suspect they didn't like the outcome much.

[Willem]

Originally posted by W.I.N.T.E.R
Unfortunatly the article I read on this in German- if there is anybody here interested in this (it's really good and gives a good insight on the power-plays in the "Oil" region)

There's a lot of concern from environmentalists about this region as well. Apparently this oil is under high pressure and heat in a geologically unstable area. They're saying that if the oil companies pump it out as quickly as they want to, there'll be some serious consequences. They're suggesting removal of it at a fraction of the quantities the oil companies want.

[Tattila the Hun]

Pump up the oil and US east coast submerges? A new target for arab terrorist, after all, they should know their oil. A bit out of league of Al-quaeidea (sp?), hmmm?

Is it BTW east coast?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Pump up the oil and US east coast submerges? A new target for arab terrorist, after all, they should know their oil. A bit out of league of Al-quaeidea (sp?), hmmm?

Is it BTW east coast?

The Caspian Sea is no where near the US, it's in Asia in that area where all the countries names end in "stan".

[Tattila the Hun]

Is it near Canada then?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Is it near Canada then?

Man do you need to look at an atlas!! Or else stop listening to Pat Robertson. And no we don't live in igloos and drive dog sleds here in Canada.

He mentioned that Iran has a claim on the oil there, how's that for a clue. That's the country right beside Iraq. Canada's directly north of the US, all the way across in fact. No where's close to the Caspian Sea, in fact it's on the other side of the world.

[TacticalGrace]

Willem,

your chain!

it's just been yanked!

[Willem]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
Willem,

your chain!

it's just been yanked!

Maybe, maybe not. I've come across so much misinformation regarding Canada, especially from our neighbours south of the border, that it wouldn't surprise me if he was for real.

We're the Rodney Dangerfield of the international community I guess.

[Patroklos]

I like Canada, just not Canadians

j/k

[Willem]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I like Canada, just not Canadians

j/k

Well we aren't to fond of you Yanks at the moment either.

[alva]

Well we aren't to fond of you Yanks at the moment either.

You are sometimes ???!!!

[Willem]

Originally posted by alva


You are sometimes ???!!!

It depends alot on who's running the show.