Talk:Territorial waters

Requirement for source citations

While very interesting and informative, this article suffers from a total lack of cited sources for the may assertions of fact made within it.Moryak (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Help

At United States, we say that the Territorial waters of the United States border the Bahamas and Russia. Since territorial waters extend 12 miles from a nations coast, and since the bodies of water separating the US from each of those countries seem to be bigger than 24 miles, I am uncertain of this claims veracity. However, it is possible there is some little bitty island that does not appear on my maps, which would push out the limit. Can anyone find worthwhile sources? Johntex 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The minimum separation between US and Bahamian low water marks is about 46 nautical miles between Miami Beach and Bimini, due east. Assuming that the Bahamas has claimed a contiguous zone of an addtional 12 nautical miles beyond its 12 nautical mile territorial waters just as the US has, then their combined 'territorial waters' would indeed touch. The minimum separation between Russia and the US is only about two nautical miles between Big and Little Diomede Islands midway between the 'tips' of their continental shores. In both cases, Article 15 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (the article's external link) states that when the coasts of countries are opposite each other, the median line between each nation's baselines is the limit of their respective territorial waters, unless they agree otherwise. — Joe Kress 18:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Straits between parts of the same nation

When a strait of water separates two parts of a sovereign nation, is it internal waters, territorial waters or international waters, for example the North Channel (British Isles) or the Bass Strait? JAJ 03:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

According to part 3 of the Law of the Sea, transit passage through a strait can be prevented if there is an alternate passage from high seas to high seas around it. This would apply to the Bass Strait. Part 4 allows an archipelagic state to enclose water with straight lines up to 125 nautical miles in length, which is adequate to enclose the North Channel. — Joe Kress 08:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image

I am removing the image "Zonmar-en.svg" because it is wrong. It does not show any bump or seaward deviation of either territorial waters or the contiguous zone around the island. The internal waters shown are suspiciously wide, about three nautical miles, on the left and right sides of the image. The baseline should be at mean low water mark there, which at this scale cannot be distinguished from permanently exposed land unless there are exceptionally wide mud flats adjacent to 'shore'. The slight indentation to the left of the island does not meet the semicircle requirement for a bay, so the baseline follows its low water mark. Two straight baselines should enclose the channel between the island and the mainland, which is a 'bay' with two entrances. The mainland has natural headlands but the island does not, thus the baselines should touch the island at points nearly tangential to the seaward side of the island. The 'bay' thus enclosed has a water area that is close to the area of a semicircle whose diameter equals the sum of the two baselines. The resulting baselines will both be at an angle of about 45°, toward the lower left and right. The only internal waters on the image should be the channel between these 45° baselines. — Joe Kress 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contiguous Zone

It is stated in the article that the contiguous zone is, "up to an additional 24−N nautical miles beyond the territorial sea" (emphasis added). This is incorrect; the zone is a maximum of 24 nautical miles from the coastal states baselines (defined generally as the low tide water mark). The article implies a maximum 12 nautical mile territorial sea plus a possible 24 nautical mile contiguous zone resulting in a 36 mile zone. In reality, it is a maximum 12 mile nautical territorial sea plus a maximum 12 nautical mile contiguous zone, resulting in a 24 mile zone. See Article 33(2) of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.240.109 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You have ignored the N is "24−N"! It is defined immediately after your partial quote: "Control over a contiguous zone, up to an additional 24−N nautical miles beyond the territorial sea, where the territorial sea is N nautical miles wide, N≤12, ..." So if a nation claims a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, it can only claim a 24−12 = 12 nm contiguous zone beyond it. But if a nation claims only a 6 nm territorial sea, as do the Dominican Republic, Greece, and Turkey, it can still claim an additional 24−6 = 18 nm contiguous zone beyond its territorial waters. Furthermore, 33(1) states, "In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, ..." Thus the contiguous zone, as its name implies, does not include any territorial waters claimed by a nation, but is an additional zone beyond those territorial waters. Both I and the editor who added 24−N agree here. The Oxford English Dictionary defines contiguous as "touching, in contact, adjoining. Foll. by to", which also implies that the items are distinct. Nevertheless, the announcement wherein the United States claimed its contiguous zone (cited in the article) took some liberty here: It "extends the U.S. 'contiguous zone' from 12 to 24 miles" (implying that the contiguous zone includes territorial waters), but in the next paragraph states "Under international law, a nation can claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and a contiguous zone extending an additional 12 miles." (implying that the contiguous zone does not include territorial waters). — Joe Kress 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem might be the unnecessarily mathematical description "up to an additional 24−N nautical miles beyond the territorial sea, where the territorial sea is N nautical miles wide, N≤12". If you were just skimming over the article, it would be easy to misread that the 24-N as 24N (i.e. 24 nautical miles). Unless anyone objects, I'll change this to a more plain-English description, such as "A Contiguous Zone extends from the limit of the territorial sea, up to a distance of 24 nautical miles from the baseline", possibly also adding "In cases where the country in question has claimed less than 12nm for its territorial waters, its contiguous zone may therefore be more than 12nm wide".

Unless it has already been added (and I have just missed it), it needs to be mentioned that when territorial/contiguous zones belonging to different countries intersect, then the median line is taken as the boundary. Wardog 13:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to your first suggestion for a plain English description in place of the mathematical description. A median line between neighboring countries for territorial waters probably should be added, noting that the countries can agree otherwise as allowed in Article 15. But no such median line is mentioned in the Law of the Sea for a contiguous zone, so it cannot be mentioned here. No such median line exists for exclusive economic zones (Art.74), continental shelves (Art. 83), or enclosed or semi-enclosed seas (Art. 123)—only a treaty or a court can determine the demarcation between countries for those areas. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just "Territorial waters"

This article contains a lot more than just info about territorial waters (i.e. a lot about contiguous zones, EEZs, baselines, etc). Indeed, it contains more about some of those subjects than their own articles do. I suggest much of this article should be either transfered to those others, or into a new "maritime boundaries" article.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Wardog 12:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised that "contiguous zone" redirects here. If it is intentional that one article should be covering both things, should not the title be changed to reflect that? Wardog 12:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your renaming suggestion would violate the official Wikipedia policy on naming conventions, which requires that the article's name "should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". People know about "territorial waters" but not "maritime boundaries". Furthermore, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Thus although we make a distinction between territorial waters, contiguous zones, exclusive economic zones, etc., the general reader does not. Just note that the news about Ireland's claim to its continental shelf called it an extension of Ireland's "territorial waters". For the same reason, all of these similar subjects should be discussed here and not in separate articles. Wikipedia specifies that redirects be identified within the target article by making the redirect name bold, which is what this article does—the name of the article does not need to include both items. Anyway, this is covered by the name "territorial waters" as for as the general reader is concerned. — Joe Kress (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken (I wasn't aware of that particular policy). However, it still remains that the article is titled "territorial waters", leads by defining them using the technical definition ("Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles (but possibly less, at the coastal country's discretion) from the mean low water mark of a littoral state that is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state"), and then spends the next paragraph discussing actual "territorial waters". There is nothing in the lead to indicate that the article discusses a more general concept of "territorial waters", until you actually get to them. Furthermore, there is more about baselines in this article than in the baseline article itself.

I suggest at the very least, the lead to this article is changed to make clear that "territorial waters" has both a specific, legal meaning, as well as a more general, popularly-understood meaning (internal waters + territorial waters + contiguous zone + EEZ + continental shelf). The concept and definition of the baseline also needs to be better described, although IMO that should be in its own article rather than here. We would also need to make sure that we don't duplicate (here or elsewhere) too much of what is already in the UNCLOS article. Wardog (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the informal use of territorial waters, which includes all areas defined in the Law of the Sea, should be mentioned at the head of this article. Some editors think that anything that can be discussed must have its own article, even if it is only one sentence. I disagree, believing it is better to discuss everything in one article. Only if that single article becomes too large (defined by Wikipedia as 32 KB) should subsections be split off. Thus the baseline (sea) article should redirect here, especially since all areas defined in LOS depend on it. Thanks for mentioning the UNCLOS article, which I had ignored. That article basically discusses the history of UNCLOS. Only a minimal amount of technical info is included, so it is independent of the technical articles. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of misinformation here. First, Territorial waters is not equal to Territorial sea. The latter is a technical term refering to a portion of the Maritime zone provided for in the UNCLOS while the former is an informal term used to describe all waters deemed part of the territory of a state (internal waters+territorial sea+contiguous zone+EEZ+Extended Continental Shelf). Second, since this article talks about the Territorial waters and not Territorial sea, the preliminary, introductory paragraph/s should not use the legal definition provided in UNCLOS (12 Nautical miles...etc) as that definition is describing the Territorial sea, not the Territorial waters. Third, I agree that the title of this article is appropriate, in that Territorial waters covers all of those waters/sea mentioned in UNCLOS. However, these waters/seas are officially called "Maritime Zones" in the UNCLOS, and I believe it is worthwhile to include that term, at least in the preliminary paragraph, if not in the main title. Finally, baseline is important in determining and measuring the areas covered by (especially the length and breath) the maritime zones. That's why, it is important that that is included in this article. To avoid it becoming irrelevant, the Title or the preliminary paragraph should mention the term Maritime zone and the UNCLOS. — Danryan132 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find the term 'maritime zone' in the convention text. Also I wondered why this broader meaning should have precedence over the narrower one: in the first dozens of Google hits, almost all use territorial waters as another expression for territorial sea. Bever (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Question - Nautical miles exact but kilometres not exact

Throughout this article, distances measured in nautical miles are exact legal definitions, while those in kilometres are approximate conversions that are not stated in any law or treaty.

I thought a nautical mile was specified as exactly 1852 m - is this not formally stated in any law or treaty? Or is this just referring to the fact that the km figures are rounded off? --Random832 (contribs) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither the rounded conversions in kilometres within this article nor exact conversions in metres are stated in any law or treaty related to the Law of the Sea. That is, distances in laws or treaties related to the Law of the Sea are only stated in nautical miles—no conversion into any other unit of measure is contained within the law or treaty. The exact conversion of 1852 metres was defined in 1929 by an international conference, but had to be separately accepted by each individual nation by law. The United States did not legally accept that conversion until 1954. It is possible that there are some nations that still have not accepted it. Consequently, limits in treaties between nations can only be specified in nautical miles, the unit that has been used historically. The kilometers given in this article are for convenience only—they have no legal authority. — Joe Kress (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency re Iran

Iran is listed as both claiming and not claiming a contiguous zone in the article. Do we know which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.134.234 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

extended boundaries Anguilla, Virgin Islands

Do the territorial waters from Anguilla and Virgin Islands extend 12 nautical miles from the baseline? Wikipedia says 3 nm.

"This Order extends the boundaries of the British Overseas Territory of Anguilla so as to include, as territorial sea, the sea within twelve nautical miles of the baselines of Anguilla, together with its seabed and subsoil, and makes other provisions in this connection" Anguilla: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2916/pdfs/uksi_20072916_en.pdf Virgin Islands: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2141/pdfs/uksi_20072141_en.pdf

I've found those documents here: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/GBR.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer90 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it according to the documents mentioned above. --Archer90 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Territorial waters Ecuador and Republic of the Congo

Ecuador claims 200 nautical miles territorial waters and the Republic of the Congo claims 12 nautical miles territorial waters according to this document (as at 15 July 2011): http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf

Congo signed UNCLOS in 2008. No good source found yet. CIA World Factbook states out that Congo has 200 nautical miles territorial sea in contrast of the UN table which says 12 nautical miles: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cf.html For Ecuador the CIA World Factbook confirms the 200 nautical miles claim: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ec.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer90 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ecuador revised its claim to 12 NM when it ratified UNCLOS in 2012: [1]. The World Factbook is out of date. GeoEvan (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

South China Sea disputes

Is there some reason not to mention Territorial disputes in the South China Sea in this article - Perhaps in See also ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Coastal waters" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Coastal waters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 31#Coastal waters until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. EMsmile (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)