Somewhat related to this. Can foreign navies, more specifically non-NATO members, transit the English Channel without the permission of the French or British (depending on which side of the channel) governments?
If say a Russian naval vessel was detected in the Channel, would RN or French Navy send someone (either ships, subs, planes or helicopters) to go have a look?
Also, related to this what would be the response if a foreign navy/airforce tested their weapons in the Channel?
Can NATO members enter each other’s waters without permission?
Nations own out to X miles. They have exclusive fishing rights out to Y miles, they own the minerals on the underlying seabed to the end of the continental shelf. Unless they are part of what has always been considered an international strait or bay.
(Cue the Libyans and the Line of Death.)
Then again there is the whole issue of extending land boundaries out to sea. At what angle? What about islands? What is his island in you claimed area?
This is why we have lawyers. Sea-going ones. Argh! Avast your lien! Swab your esstoppal!
IIRC in peacetime, any vessel of any nationality, underway in a safe and law-abiding manner, may transit the Channel in order to get from the North Sea to the Bay of Biscay through the shortest route. France or Britain, in turn, have a right to monitor the movements of any vessel in their maritime jurisdictions, which in much of the Channel cover the whole waterway.
(“Territorial” waters tend to vary in definition; there is an inner zone that is considered as fully under your jurisdiction as your home soil (minimum 3 and most commonly 12 nautical miles), followed by successive zones of lesser authority with the last one being up to 200 miles or the edge of the Continental Shelf, for economic exploitation (mining, fishing) rights. A Maritime Lawyer would be appreciated in giving us the SD)
In peacetime and under normal operational conditions there’d be no reason for a NATO member’s warships or aircraft to enter another’s territorial waters or airspace unannounced.
You rang? Actually, like most working commercial maritime lawyers this sort of stuff is well outside my usual area of practice. Nonetheless.
As **JRDelirious ** said, the area closest to any given nation’s coast is known as its territorial seas. Broadly, a coastal nation’s sovereignty extends to the edge of its territorial sea. Beyond the territorial sea there are further zones over which coastal nations have sequentially diminishing levels of authority.
The English channel (and any number of other straits) are narrow enough that it is entirely the territorial waters of the nations on either side.
However, there is a principle of international law by which international vessels have a right of unimpeded “innocent passage” through territorial waters. The principle is re-enforced by the international “Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone”.
Read Section III of the Convention which is entirely on the subject of innocent passage.
Some highlights
So far so good
Already anyone of sufficient scepticism will be thinking “And WTF does that mean exactly, and who decides?”
So you can stop vessels you think aren’t innocent.
You can’t say “no Russkies allowed” in a blanket fashion.
And even more importantly, you can’t suspend passage in a strait (like the English Channel) on a general basis.
Then finally…
You can’t attack a foreign warship merely for failing to follow regulations, you can only ask them to leave.
So, on the surface, the answer to your first question is “yes, assuming they are acting innocently”. There is no need to ask for permission. However, in reality who is to say what is innocent and what is not? No doubt if a foreign warship really is just steaming from A to B and does so via the Channel they are quite within their rights. If they are just waiting about in the Channel gathering intelligence, they are not. If they “happen” to transit the Channel on a pretext every day, doodling along at half speed, and take the opportunity to observe while they are there, well…
Second question I don’t know, but expect so.
Third question, this wouldn’t be mere “passage” and doesn’t seem to me to be innocent.
Fourth question, don’t know but very much doubt it.
So could the Chinese just place the Olympic torch on a missile boat and sail it through the channel while thumbing there noses at the British and French and claim that they were just innocently defending the touch from protestors? :dubious: