Tarkinnia

Something has been chewing at me about international waters. When I think of the concept, I think of open waters and "no other side" for at least several hundred nautical miles. These are bays, passes, straits, and more confined spaces. I do not think of that as "international."

I will take two hats here, because the question is both a map fact and a separate opinion.

Cartographer Hat: The Lafleure–Dixiecratia pinch measures in the mid-60s to mid-70s of statute miles on the official map. Seventy-five is a fair high-end rounding. Unfortunately, it is not a surveyor’s figure. Azgaar does not lock a waterline to the foot and any measurement requires quite literally measuring pixels. 65-75 is 100% certain however. If each coast took 36 miles, two belts would overlap on most of that range. At the high-end 75-mile reading you get only a sliver in the middle. It's worth noting the Me-Contested pinch and the Ordinatia-Ibandigo pinch is close to the same distance.

President Hat: That is why I would rather write a rule that does not depend on winning the last five miles.

Each nation gets the same coastal distance. Thirty, 36, or 40 can all be discussed. Where two belts would meet, overlap, or leave only a sliver, through traffic keeps a reserved lane wide enough for ordinary two-way passage. Ten miles is the figure I have in mind. That lane, although shared soverign territory between two nations, cannot carry a general transit tax. The rest of each belt stays sovereign to the individual. Facing states can use it for ports, pilots, and services, and they can consider other fees there so long as those fees apply equally.

That keeps coastal sovereignty. It avoids a fight over whether the pass is 65 or 75. And it keeps a natural gap from becoming a closed tariff just because two shores sit across it.

Imporantly, any rule should also survive the map. Tummin has final authority over the official map. If land is added later(real possibility that is for Tummin's decision if growth necessitates), or the scale is revised, we should not have to invent a new theory of every pass. A standard belt from each coast, and a reserved open lane where belts meet, does that. New shores would get the same treatment. They would not get a special right to close a gap they did not build.

Even if we write this down, it is a baseline, not a ban on story. A Barbary state can still exist. The RPGA already lets a nation defy an RP rule and take the consequences. What I do not want, and I doubt any of us want, is making Barbary the accepted path for every nation on every narrow pass.

If the Senate has the power to declare it 75 miles, let's include that in any bill/resolution.

I would support a 36/36/3 split and legislate it just as with the Sarpy Isle Development Zone.

I can support a 36-mile coastal belt and a 3 mile reserved mid-strip of free navigation.

If the Senate wants to agree that this pinch is 75 miles, I can live with that. I have already said 75 is the higher end of a reasonable range and was the first number I worked with as well, it's certainly a reasonable distance. I think I've spelled out the Azgaar limitations as Cartographer enough as I wanted to be ethical and honest with it. As Cartographer I would be comfortable using 75 as the declared width for this statute, and marking it on the official map. I would use the same method on the other listed pinches, including Ordinatia–Ibandigo.

Ideally - The mid-strip has to be reserved first. No general transit tax on that lane. Three miles is tight, but workable. Five would be better if the chamber will give it.

I'm a fan of that being the rule for all the listed confined passes, not a one-pass copy of the Sarpy zone. Ibandigo-Ordinatia and the Sarpy pass are about the same width, I think this could fix future debates

TLDR: I'm for it, with some small notes about making it universal in application and recognizing our two narrower passages as 75 miles wide as is reasonable per the map.

Albertexa wrote:

Lafleure, I'd like to see a bill before the end of this term.

I agree. I would like to again, see a compromise between both sides that we can all be happy with. I don’t really have a hard stance on this legislation outside of wanting it to be somewhat realistic and fair all around. I’m still working with the President as well to get a better understanding on what an end bill looks like on his end and then moving forward to see what Senator Lafleure’s end bill looks like.

I remain confident that we can continue working toward a compromise and legislation that serves all Nations fairly. And thank you to all who have been involved in this process up to this point. We still have a lot of work to do, but we’re getting closer to a solution.