emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | reply to insomniac84
Re: Great... Sealand is not a country. It is not recognized as such by any nation and lies within British jurisdiction. The fact that the Brits have left them alone doesn't change the fact that Sealand IS British territory.
But they do have broadband.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox |
|
 BootesPremium
join:2005-01-28
Scarsdale, NY | I don't know if this is accurate, but Wikipedia says, "In 1967–8 Britain's Royal Navy tried to remove Bates. As they entered territorial waters, Bates tried to scare them off by firing warning shots from the former fort. As Bates was a British citizen at the time, he was summoned to court in England following the incident. The court ruled in Bates' favour that Sealand was outside British jurisdiction as it was beyond the three-mile limit of the country's waters." |
|
| reply to emptywig
Sealand is located in international waters and is not British Territory. |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to Bootes
It was outside the British territorial waters. It is inside now, as the boundary was increased from 3 miles to 12 miles several years ago. There is a significant disagreement about where that line should be drawn now and/or whether "Sealand" has a legitimate claim.
Bates and co. have been left alone by the UK mostly because they aren't worth the trouble and aren't bothering anyone but that could change...he's getting old and is no longer in residence, and they had a significant fire on the platform last summer. His kid is in charge of whatever it is they have out there.
"www.havenco.com" and "sealandweb.com" seem to both be operating but neither have been updated for quite awhile. Makes you wonder what the current status of that venture really is.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.
Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus! |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to cafields
said by cafields:Sealand is located in international waters and is not British Territory. No it is currently in British waters. It is allowed to exist because it isn't causing any real problems and no one really wants to deal with it.
Should thepiratebay choose to purchase it, it's continued existence at the location is going to depend entirely on how much of a problem the UK sees them as.
Quite frankly moving the operation to Sealand is probably one of the dumbest things thepiratebay could do.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. |
|
 SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:Bates and co. have been left alone by the UK mostly because they aren't worth the trouble and aren't bothering anyone but that could change...he's getting old and is no longer in residence, and they had a significant fire on the platform last summer. His kid is in charge of whatever it is they have out there. One thing that also must be remembered is that the Germans actually sent an ambassador there sometime in the late 80s/early 90s to secure citizens that Bates was holding on the fort as prisoners for treason. Some experts claim that by sending a representative to Sealand - and not to the UK - to negotiate with Bates, the Germans may have legitimized Sealand's claim as a nation, if not officially then in a de-facto manner.
The Law of the Sea treaty, which extended territorial waters, also makes note of platforms, oil rigs, etc that platforms AFTER the signing of the treaty can not be recognized as sovereign entities. It does not say that existing platforms are included if no claim is made to them. Frankly, the only way anything like this would be settled is in some international forum. Me thinks that both the British and the Germans may have unintentionally legitimized Bates' claim.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca |
|
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | I don't think anyone has unintentionally legitimized anything. If the Chancellor of Germany herself showed up, no one anywhere recognizes a bunch of people living on an old gun platform as an independent nation. The whole idea is a bunch of tomfoolery and humbug that has been given too much weight.
No reasonable, thinking person can honestly believe that any nation anywhere would let a handful of people set up just twelve miles away from shore and declare themselves outside the laws of that nation. There is a difference between indulging the fantasies of a few half-cracked eccentrics, and actually allowing them independence and sovereignty.
Sealand is just a silly fort for grownups. Mom and Dad don't come out there, but they could if they wanted to, and if they tell you to come in and wash up for dinner, you sure as hell better do so.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox |
|
SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | said by emptywig:I don't think anyone has unintentionally legitimized anything. If the Chancellor of Germany herself showed up, no one anywhere recognizes a bunch of people living on an old gun platform as an independent nation. The whole idea is a bunch of tomfoolery and humbug that has been given too much weight. Perhaps you should learn a bit about interntional law before making such claims:
said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand#Legal_status :
In international law, the two most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declarative theories. The constitutive theory was the standard 19th-century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the 20th century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires "diplomatic recognition" or merely "recognition of existence". It is clear that no other state grants Sealand diplomatic recognition, but it has been argued by Bates that negotiations carried out by Germany constituted "recognition of existence". In the declarative theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood, such as those defined by the Montevideo Convention. This asserts that a defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relationships with other sovereign states are the only foundation requirements for a sovereign state. None of these requirements necessarily has to conform to a certain size or standard, but their general characteristics should be taken into account.
On December 6, 2005, The Times claimed that the British government and courts had finally admitted that Sealand "is outside British national territory [...] and not part of the United Kingdom"; however The Times did not elaborate and there has been no confirmation by other sources.
While there is certainly debate on this matter, simply writing it off as non-existent is foolish, as there are a number of arguments and situations that legitimize Mr. Bates' claim.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca |
|
|
|
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | Unless you're an international lawyer, don't be patronizing. We've all read the Wikipedia article,too.
Sealand has no diplomatic relations with anyone. Anywhere. Anyhow. Its in British waters (12 miles). There is no dispute. What you quoted from Wikipedia proves nothing, establishes nothing different. In practice, and in any other way you care to think about it, Sealand is in British waters. Full stop.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox |
|
SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | said by emptywig:Unless you're an international lawyer, don't be patronizing. We've all read the Wikipedia article,too. Sealand has no diplomatic relations with anyone. Anywhere. Anyhow. Its in British waters (12 miles). There is no dispute. What you quoted from Wikipedia proves nothing, establishes nothing different. In practice, and in any other way you care to think about it, Sealand is in British waters. Full stop. So let me get this right, I'm patronizing and have no right to post an opinion on the matter because I'm not a lawyer who specializes in International Law? You might want to actually stop being so arrogant and actually live up to the same standard that you apply to others, or am I missing the fact that you, in fact, have an LLD focusing on International Law and have more understanding on this matter than just being some talking head yapper mouth posting on an Internet forum with nothing more than an opinion? If you are an LLD, credentials, perhaps? Or, just maybe, you should hold others to the same standard you put on yourself and stop being a jackass?
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca |
|
emptywigHuh? What?Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX | Oh please. I'm right. End of story.
Good day.
wig
--
Sometimes a paradox is just a paradox |
|
SnickerdoPremium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON | said by emptywig:Oh please. I'm right. End of story. Good day. wig Hah oh my, what a child you are. Going to stamp your feet and ask for your bottle? There many other actual experts (you know - people who do more than post in a forum like this) who would disagree with you on this issue. If you can't handle debating an issue without taking your ball and going home, just don't bother coming out to play.
--
Bigot - Someone that has won an argument with a Liberal.
Yes, I CanChat. Can You? www.fiberal.ca |
|
