A Letter to the Signatories of the Fair Seas Concordat
To our fellow signatories,
The Fair Seas Concordat is a treaty that is held in the highest of regards across Mundus, it is the point of reference for the laws of the sea and ever since it was created it has been relied upon by the international community to ensure that the rights of all nations are respected and that the seas and oceans of Mundus are kept safe and not used for malicious purposes, it has been used to ensure that the era of might makes right is over and that the size of a nations navy does not grant them carte blanche on the ocean waves, they have responsibilities that they must abide by and there are things they can and cannot do, such things are known to the government of every signatory nation.
The current situation involving Slava Lavosk has created something of an issue for this Treaty, as many nations have correctly stated the proposed blockade by the First Empire of Rokkenjima and the Kingdom of Tytor would deny them several rights and fly in the face of several articles of the Concordat - things such as the right of innocent passage would be violated, the immunity of warships disregarded, the right of visit abused. These are all reasons why the blockade is according to some nations illegal and I agree that as the situation presently stands the Blockade is in my view illegal. However when I look at what Rokkenjima and Tytor propose to do I can see the reasoning behind it given the implications of what Slava Lavosk is engaged in it could be argued as reasonable to take steps to restrict the supply flow of components and other materials associated with Nuclear development into Slava Lavosk.
It should be noted that nowhere in the Fair Seas Concordat does it explicitly state that nations cannot blockade
[1] in fact the mechanism that Rokkenjima and Tytor could use in this matter is found in article 28 of the Commonwealth Treaty where it states:
"Should the General Assembly consider that measures provided for in Article 27 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the Commonwealth Treaty Organisation."However this does present a major issue itself because there is no way anyone can claim that the CTO can be held as representing the views of the entirity of Mundus, the multitude of nations that are prominent on the international stage and not members of the organisation is a long one and include all of the top three of the recent soft/hard power study. By what right should the signatories of this document confer that authority to an organisation that does not represent the majority of us? An organisation that is badly damaged, that lacks credibility and is seen as frankly a joke in some quarters is in no way suitable for that role, however by the letter of the law Rokkenjima and Tytor would be entitled to get a CTO resolution and say their actions were justified, personally I don't think that is at all appropriate considering the status of the CTO this requires clarity not ambiguity.
Therefore I propose a very simple solution to this lack of an underwriter as it were and that is to mirror the institutions enshrined in the Uppsalla Convention. The first would be a Court of Law which would consist of a judge from each signatory state that sits in judgement of those accused of breaching the treaty, when a case came to court it would as per similar organisations be heard by a randomly determined judge chosen from those selected by member states not including the judge from a nation party to the case if there is such a judge. The court would also in my opinion be a much more suitable place to determine the legality and protocols in respect of blockades and I believe the court necessary because it is shocking that in terms of a treaty of the magnitude of the Fair Seas Concordat that there does not exist an independent and binding method of resolving disputes about it.
The second institution I would propose to mirror is the Convention Advisory Committee, in Uppsalla Convention terms this is the investigative body, they investigate the allegations, they decide if there's going to be a prosecution and if there is a prosecution they ensure that the rights of the accused are upheld. It is only natural that we have investigators that are independent of the proposed court to ensure the integrity of the court.
This issue has existed within the Fair Seas Concordat for some time and as recent events on the international stage have highlighted it desperately needs addressing, what I have proposed is a means of dealing with it in a reasonable manner, but it can only work if nations get behind it and even if we don't all agree on the approach to the Slava Lavosk situation we can all surely agree that we cannot have this treaty being interpreted in places where it is not appropriate. I thank you for your time.
Signed
Emperor Peter Azurewind
