Talk:Territorial waters

message: 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)
thread_title: Requirement for source citations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Straits between parts of the same nation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question - Nautical miles exact but kilometres not exact 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency re Iran 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've changed it according to the documents mentioned above. --Archer90 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  extended boundaries Anguilla, Virgin Islands 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ecuador revised its claim to 12 NM when it ratified UNCLOS in 2012: . The World Factbook is out of date. GeoEvan (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial waters Ecuador and Republic of the Congo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  South China Sea disputes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Coastal waters" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]