Bilateral and inter-national law, details of proposal

In my system "international law" means something different then what
that term is being used for by the capitalist media. In my system
it is literally about the legal status of activities that occur
in the space between nations ("inter" means "between"), typically
activities of individuals, subjects of some nation. In the current
capitalist model the word seems to refer to in part common humanitarian
standards, and an overarching system of treaties and supra-national
bodies denying nations their sovereignty and therefore comprising more
and more a one world state or continent wide states. "Inter national
law" here means exactly what it says: laws between the nations, in
the space *between* the nations: the ocean and outer space.

My proposal says something along the lines of "in international
territory, the laws hold that are more or less the law of all
nations." That is certainly practical to some degree, because virtually
all nations resist such acts as murder and theft, making them illegal
in international territory also. The punishment can also be easily
discerned: the average of the world its legal positions.

Within that model, one can also quite easily prosecute criminal
activity in international waters even if they do conform to the
international standard: if two persons looking to commit a criminal
activity in a nation, go into international territory to commit
the act, then expecting to return to that nation, said nation can
quite comfortably issue a law that will make liable such people
on entering the territory of that nation. The power of complete
sovereignty makes that easily possible. The law can for instance be
as specific as needed: "individuals committing an act such and so in
international waters, will be prosecuted for that act and punished
for it so and so." It may add "individuals born in this nation, or
having the nationality of this nation," etc.  The jurisdiction does
not extend into the territorial waters, but the acts cling to the
person what that person enters a nation, if the law of that nation
says so. Wrong ? Merely the freedom of that nation. Don't like it,
then don't go there. There is no higher legal standard then the
political process of that nation.

That can solve the problem of criminals slipping out of territory
and then slipping back in.

Leaves the problem of criminal acts at sea: under what law by whom
to arrest and prosecute them. By sovereignty a nation might issue a
law that "every vessel that enters within 1,000 km from a vessel of
its nationality, will be owned by that nationality." An absurd law,
but they can make it. However, they can not enforce it easily, and
will naturally be hammered for it by other nations - diplomatically
and eventually using force. The practicalities of national law in
international space is limited, but it clearly needs to exist.
Particularly on the widely agreed upon areas of theft, property
destruction, physical abuse and murder.

(Another problem issue is ownership of the resources of the sea, and
how far the national sovereignty reaches into the international area.)

I suppose there is the proximity approach possible, where you look
at the act and to which nation(s) are closest to it. This may yield
a practical law in that international area conforming to a portion
of nearby nations. The benefit is that it is quite easy for people
there to know the law, since it will be exactly the same as a nearby
nation, or nearly the same somewhat impacted by near by nations
who are also quite familiar. Prosecution will also be quite simple,
all being quite well aware of the law in that area (culture), because
naturally the police in the area will mostly and cheapest be from the
nearby nations. Perpetrators and victims are also most likely from the
area. A problem is that with shifting positions the law also shifts,
more to this or that nation. Maybe one nation prohibits the use of
a certain chemical substance, while another does not. Does this mean
one can use it a little when near both countries ?

The unified solution means the nations evaluate their respective laws,
evaluate their similarities and differences, settle on a defined area
that is "the international territory," and fix the law to the average,
agreeing that it is the best they can do.  The benefit is it should
be reasonable clear what the international law is. A problem is that
it might be a relatively big undertaking to establish exactly what
that law should be, and to update it.  Given modern communication
technology it should not be too difficult.  But a problem can be
dissenting nations who refuse to abide by the majority, causing
legal confusion. An in between solution is to divide the world its
international territory in cultural / continental international
territories. This way one only has to get together with a group of
nations to establish the law of a sector of ocean. This would also
create some differences in such law, which is good for diversity
and innovation. If there is a clear boundary from national law to
continental law, there should not be no legal doubts. One would
also prevent the potential creation of something of an singular
international body, having a monopolized ruling over an important
aspect across the world. The cultural area system also allows for the
law to conform to the local culture. One could extend the nation-group
sovereignty over the oceans all the way to the other nation-group
sovereignty, for instance at equal distances from the land/sea shores
(not using ocean bed geographical boundaries, which would create
strange and impractical situations).

One could also decide on a certain distance beyond shore for
nation-grouping for international law giving, beyond which hold yet
different laws.  For instance a far eastern group of nation settles
on law in the western pacific international territory, extending
that law at a defined boundary about 3000 kilometers outward into
the pacific.  For instance the north American nations do the same,
also 3000 kilometers outwards. Then the gap between these legal
boundaries could again be an average of all that law, the average
of the North American nations, the far eastern nations, the eastern
nations, African Nations, and South American nations. I personally
think that would be very cumbersome, a lot of work maybe, and more
legal confusions and boundaries. But it could be done in theory.

The other solution to simply mathematically close up the entire pacific
and other oceans from the boundaries of the participating nations. When
doing that, one could also allow one nation to have an entire slice
of the ocean ruled under its law. That however would mean more legal
border crossings for vessels that may have nothing to do with that
nation. If there is dissent about international laws in an area,
this may fuel some problems.

It may be useful that nations bordering an entire ocean in good
faith group themselves to establish the legal borders to be used,
it may even be one group if all are sufficiently legally the same.
After such large borders are decided, a handful of lines across
the pacific more or less, then the groups could compare their laws
and work out an average, or draft special maritime laws.  It is
obviously useful to harmonize these laws globally somewhat at least
(or completely) in the interest of international movement.

Another solution is to go by the law of the arresting police, by
the law of the perpetrator or the law of the victim, the law of
those people present (most), the law of the vessel(s), the law the
perpetrators where being escorted to, etc.

I realize that there is already something like a maritime law or
de-facto tradition. But I just thought that it would be a good idea to
pull that legal problem out of the shade. Say for instance that sale
of your bodily organs is prohibited in a certain country, that may
very well be for good reasons. Say that it is allowed in another. Then
what is the law in international territory ?  Should everything just
be allowed in international territory, only to be prosecuted once
arriving on land of a nation ? Is only murder and theft prohibited,
if so where is the exact line between what is allowed and what
isn't. If there is a maritime law that is clear and specific enough:
what authority makes it so and how it is changed / updated ?

I assume all these things have perfectly good answers already, but that
doesn't mean the current way of doing it is the only way it could be
done. When the police is patrolling the oceans they need very clear
laws on everything. The oceans are normally not inhabitable by people
and therefore don't belong to any one nation. The same is true of near
orbit and outer space. What authority makes the law on space in space,
property destruction, crime, responsibility for waste and littering
? How is it enforced.

I guess it would be sweet if all nation agreed on pretty much the
same effective laws for the oceans, while maintaining more localized
sovereignty over those laws. That way it is easier on passing
vessels, if the law doesn't change that is easy. On the other hand
the sovereignty does not end up in a dangerous one-world-government
type body. A relative harmony of law, while maintaining a relative
distribution of sovereignty: the potential for diversity and
experimentation being higher, but that reducing the uniformity of
international law. Reducing harmony of international law may be useful
if an experiment ends up successful, after which other areas could
harmonize to the better system also (experimentation is more likely
if sovereignty is more localized: cost is lesser, better chance of
finding like minded experimenters, etc).

One of the ways to reduce legal pressure on vessels, is to allow
them to operate under originating law for a defined distance or
time after leaving the originating sovereignty. Particularly for
trivial on-board legal issues it could mostly be non-consequential.
Maybe some maritime law has made some innovation over another, saying
all vessels must carry such and so emergency beaken or something like
that. Maybe some vessels wishing merely to cross those waters are
not subject to that regulation in their originating and destination
waters. If the traveled through group sovereignty says "vessels may
retain their originating on board rules for 3 month's" then there'd
be no additional problem for the travel through vessels. Different
blocks can in that way always try to ask for leniency in another area
of law. In principle some political/economic pressure could be applied,
costing the other group sovereignty more then they think it is worth.

If the laws end up very different, that in itself can become a
cost factor pushing the system toward harmony. Thus in theory the
system would be a bit dynamic, yet adaptable, and could provide law
enforcement with a clear set of rules that could be relatively easily
adapted by a group of sea bordering nations.

I guess single dissenting nations would be giving up their right to
have a voice in international territory (unless they are extremely
large) in that area, because that might end up presenting too much
of a cost for passing vessels for many of the other nations to be
willing to put up with (thus the other nations could challenge that
sovereignty by using force). All kinds of legal borders across the
oceans is no doubt not what people want. Maybe it is best after all
for all nations to come together and decide on one exact law. It might
depend I guess on the importance of either local ship movements and
international ship movements. If it is all local and short distance,
different areas would be fine and reflect better the local traditions.
If it is mostly long distance, crossing several legal borders would
be burden, particularly if it means really different demands on board.

Personally I'd be wary of one international maritime authority,
because it looks like a one world government, a monopoly.

Earth orbital space is also another interesting theoretical legal
problem, as is the atmosphere and outer space. In theory one might
virtually have to say that outer space is ruled by the average of
all law, because an orbiting element will cross the skies above
many nations.

Maybe a reasonable solution is that all nationalities involved in
the presumed problem will lay their case before a panel of judges
comprised equally out of judges from both countries. Person A says
person B stole something in orbit, then on return a case could be
organized using some judges from country A and B together, maybe on the
territory of a third nation for impartiality. It might be best to use
a higher number then 2 judges, as they otherwise might be too easily
compelled to vote for their own nation to avoid national embarrassment
(rather then enthusiasticly punish the home born criminal).

That mechanism could also be employed perhaps wrt crimes on the oceans:
the varies nations in a group could sustain a maritime court system.
The maritime courts could for example be staffed by judges of foreign
nation origin, thus the courts being in one nation, the judges from a
variety of others from the block, thus creating an amount of mixing
up of the varies nationalities, hopefully creating a semblance of
objectivity. The judges nationalities do not even have to correspond
with the nationalities of the prosecuted person(s), and neither does
the host nation where the trial is being held.