That said, 'international waters' are not the place to build semi-permanent housing. If everyone did that, where/how would ships even operate? How long until Somali pirates show up, murder you, and take all your possessions with no 'government' to protect you? I tend to side with Thailand basically telling them to sod off, just not with the threat of death/imprisonment.
I assume most somali pirates do operate in international waters, which are not officially protected by anyone.
wiki:
> Piracy off the coast of Somalia refers to criminal violence and threats by Somalian pirates in the Gulf of Aden, Guardafui Channel and Somali Sea, in what some say are disputed territorial waters.
- Just cursory skimming of Wikipedia of laws of the sea would be enough to reveal that the place where they build their hut is within region of the sea where Thai government has the final say.
- China recently lost the South China Sea Arbitration where tribunal decided that construction of installations and artificial islands does not give rights to claim any sovereignty. If China can't win a arbitration, neither can some Bitcoin Joe.
- There already exists practical way seasteading outside the government if you have they money. You buy yachts registered in offshore accounts. You can also buy a citizenship for tiny island nations that leave you totally alone. Rich people store their valuables in freeports or in their yachts. There are superyacht art collections that rival big museums floating around the world.
- Another example is floating armouries that private military companies have. They those ships to store military grad weapons.
They are beyond 12 miles, this region is not territorial waters but international. They don't have the final say, except in matters relevant to their customs, commerce and artificial islands. If this was in a sea shared by two nations, i m sure the situation would be a lot more complicated.
Also, this was more a statement rather than a realistic seastead. The cost of the tiny seastead is ~$150000. Hopefully more will follow which will lead to a larger discussion about governmental overreaches.
Nationhood, but really we’re talking about sovereignty, isn’t something you can just declare. It’s something that’s granted by others. Sometimes it’s through agreement. Other times it’s by fear of force.
That’s why I was always skeptical of things such as the Seasteading Institute that wanted to declare a cruise ship a country, and then have the “populace” commute to San Francisco. That plan works, right up until a US Coast Guard cutter pulls up and sends over a boarding party.
The sea floor is littered with this folly.
Republic of Rose Island. Seized the the Italian Finance Police, and sank by the Italian Navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Rose_Island
The Republic of Minerva. A reef island 250 miles from Tonga. Evicted and claimed by the Tongan Navy. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/republic-of-minerva
Sealand. Raided by pirates, but honestly ignored by the U.K.
Putting aside the varying seriousness and motivations of micronation would-be-founders, it’s hard to judge the history of such endeavors[0] as being anything other than failure.
Thailand has signed the UN law of the sea and set its territorial claim at 12 miles, so it knows that its territory ends at 12 miles. They are disrespecting their contract by performing hostile operations in international waters. If anything, the other signatories to UNCLOS should complain.
> The Contiguous Zone is an intermediary zone between the territorial sea and the high seas extending enforcement jurisdiction of the coastal state to a maximum of 24 nautical miles from baselines for the purposes of preventing or punishing violations of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary (and thus residual national security) legislation.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Law-of-the-Sea-Me...
@yongjik: china (the country) has no legal basis to extend its sovereignity there. But i guess it can send a ship and station it there , and the us could not lawfully capture it unless certain conditions were met. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS so this is hypothetical. I am also sure the US and russia are frequent visitors of each other from international waters near Alaska.
Deleted Comment
Repeating "cambridge analytica scandal" will not make it less of a scandal than "obama campaing scandal". And FB already has all the data they need for their dating offering, if anything, they are withholding people from risking exposing these data to other services. What nonsense.