Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Kaddafi
Message-ID: <1531@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-May-86 13:25:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.1531
Posted: Thu May  8 13:25:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 11-May-86 00:33:31 EDT
References: <2545@decwrl.DEC.COM> <1953@sequent.UUCP> <278@cad.UUCP>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
Lines: 31

In article <278@cad.UUCP> hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab) writes:
[quoting another posting]
>>  Not true. Without the twelve mile limit many important waters become 
>> closed. Waters such as the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and the English
>> Channel would cease to be freely navigable if surrounding countries
>> decided to claim a wider coastal authority.
>
>Wrong Mr. Godfrey. The straits of Hormuz (entrance to the Persian
>Gulf) and Bab el-Mandeb (entrance to the Red Sea) have widths of
>less than 24 nautical miles (including mid-channel islands) and 
>are therefore entirely owned by the adjacent states: Iran and Oman
>control Hormuz; Yemen and Djibouti control Bab el-Mandeb. They
>allow commercial shipping, but could technically block them in case
>of war.

Close, but not entirely correct.  Straits are a special case in
international law and nations are obligated to allow free peaceful
navigation through them, of both warships and merchant vessels.  This
does not apply in wartime, but for that matter it is legal in war to
deny an enemy's navigation rights on the high seas (the Atlantic Ocean,
for instance, which to my knowledge no one has claimed -- yet :-).

By the way, the US claims only a three-mile territorial limit for
itself, but recognises a 12-mile limit for nations asserting one.  It's
hard to be more reasonable than that, but there's just no pleasing some
people...
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary