SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (273374)2/24/2006 6:01:56 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 1572505
 
Tim, everyone is wrong to you guys. There is no other side, but the American one.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "you guys" but that statement doesn't apply to me.

Even people who do believe that way are right some of the time, so even if it could be shown that I do believe that (and it can't because I don't) that claim would be largely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The territorial limits are pretty established by custom and treaty. It isn't "the American way" but the worlds way, for the most part. The US did not create them or impose them on the rest of the world.

The Third United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III)

"The convention set the limit of territorial waters to 12 nautical miles (22 km), in which area the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. Beyond the 12 nautical mile (22 km) limit there was a further 12 nautical mile (22 km) or 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the territorial sea baselines limit, the "contiguous zone", in which area a state could continue to enforce laws regarding activities such as smuggling or illegal immigration."

en.wikipedia.org