One-on-One: Primo de Aguilar

CS: Thank you for sitting down with us, Primo. It’s hard to believe it’s been nearly 4 years since we last talked! A lot has happened in that time, but perhaps nothing more significant than the end of Alexandria, your long-time micronational home where you were a fixture of political and national life. Would you tell us about how you learned of its fate and your initial reaction to the news?

PdA: My initial reaction was shock, followed by sadness. I suppose since one puts a lot of effort and emotion to a character (at least I do; I suppose I am living vicariously through my characters) I went through a sense of what it feels to be suddenly stateless.

CS: Now, just over six months later, with the shock well settled, are you disappointed with how things worked out in Alexandria? What would you change if you had the time back?

PdA: I like continuity and closure in my narratives. It was sad to see Alexandria go, what with its history and culture and semi-stable postmodern urban constitutional monarchy with a pan-European flavor. There was a point when things were starting to get a little too predictable, though. I liked how the parties and personalities developed. Losing the First Consulship was expected, but I also got the feeling that Primo would have tried another final run (or a last gasp) for the office before finally retiring from public life. He’s had an amazing run from backbencher to First Consul.

CS: When Alexandria ended, you became a refugee of sorts and landed on the shores of Constancia where you’ve taken a leading role in its government and development. What drew you to that micronation?

PdA: It looked interesting and seemed to have a lot of areas where development could occur.

CS: What areas for development particularly interested you?

PdA: Constancia didn’t have a very detailed history – that was something I wanted to try my hand with, not to mention the fact that just about everything in Constancia could have used further detailing. There were some fascinating questions that could produce far more fascinating answers: why settle in the middle of Eura, for example; what were their cultural influences that remained to the present day, how did previous nation-states influence the evolution of the Free and Associative Kingdom?

CS: I think its safe to say that despite the Alexandria stressor, you and Edgard remain as close as friends as ever. I understand that you’re participating in his latest micronation, Caputia, as the Minister of Reconstruction and Infrastructure, under the moniker of Gerhardt Seydlitz. Would you tell us more about what you hope to accomplish in Caputia?

PdA: Well, there is the part of fixing the administrative and economic structure through legislation, and with the ruined cities, there is something of a sandbox to play with. I view this as a lens of seeing how differing personalities and factions can attempt to come together after a civil war to rebuild and form cohesive policy, it’s having a front seat to seeing how interpersonal dynamics play out into sociopolitical outcomes. Remember that this is a country struggling to pull itself together after a civil war, with all the pressures that brings. Can Seydlitz get things done while in office, or will his youth and relative inexperience be his downfall amidst the fickle attention span of the Parliament and public? We’ll see how that goes.

CS: While Caputia is not the successor state to Alexandria, I can’t help but feel the Alexandrian “vibe” in its structure and operation whenever I visit the forums. Is there a sense of “this is our chance to fix what went wrong in Alexandria” amongst the participants?

PdA: It’s entirely possible; let’s not forget that there is still a substantial in-game Alexandrian diaspora which may be an in-game factor, but I don’t necessarily agree with the premise that Caputia is Alexandria 2.0. There may be similarities, but they have separate histories and influences that lead both nations to separate paths.

CS: Can you provide an example of the differing histories/influences behind Caputia v. Alexandria?

PdA: Alexandria had a very (primarily Western) European flavor – Franco-Belgian-German – with the attendant love for French-style socialism and hard-right nationalism (Alexandria’s had governments of both extremes). Alexandria better exemplifies the Septum Juncta in Uno principle: Individuals identify more as Alexandrian first, and regional or provincial second, with the monarch not just as the head of state, but the continuing personification of the Empire.

Caputia doesn’t have a specific reference, although it could be vaguely similar to Europe. Whether the existing “moderate” administration, or government of national unity will soon split into various ideological parties still remains to be seen. Both countries have had very bloody civil wars, but in Caputia, I see individuals identifying first with their regions or provinces or even cities, and as subjects of Caputia, second. I foresee that the abrupt demise of the crown (death spare the Queen!) without clear issue or a generally-accepted heir would lead to the immediate fragmentation of this latest national experiment. The existing Queen is essentially a compromise candidate, after all, the sole Caputian whom the disparate warring factions hate the least. It’ll probably take a generation to bury the blood-feud enmities, or it may only cause these deep-seated grudges to fester. Only time will tell!

CS: You’re a busy man on the intermicronational stage these days as well in your role as the Secretary-General of the Micras Treaty Organization, which has suffered from spurts of inactivity over the last year. Can you explain for our readers how you see the Organization remaining relevant in the community?

PdA: The General Treaty requires an overhaul, what with most business focused on admittance of members. It also exercises very little power over its members, which essentially makes it a global, somewhat exclusive, debate club and YAMO. An organization is only as strong and as relevant as its members want it to be.

CS: Are there any personal reflections and wisdom on your last four years in micronationalism that you’d like to share with our readers?

PdA: It’s a hobby, it helps pass the time, it enables people to come together to co-create interesting things, whether it be narratives or govsims, or to express personal frustrations with national policies. Some have fantasy sports leagues, this is fantasy statecraft. It is also a good entry-level for those interested in real-world political or governance work, although on a considerably smaller scale.

From a civics perspective, it is a great educator, because ultimately, the fate of the country rests on you, its citizen (or subject). Your participation and contributions, as well as engagement with others, determines and reflects the strength and vibrancy of the nation.

One-on-One: Primo de Aguilar

One-on-One: Jack de Montfort

For our readers who are unfamiliar with you, would you introduce yourself and perhaps provide us with a bit of a history of your participation in micronationalism and what it is you currently do in the community?

Of course. As many of you probably know, I’m a Dutch micronationalist who has been active in the Micras sector for some time now. My first encounter with micronations was an article about Sealand, I believe that I was twelve years old at the time. I was intrigued by this interesting project and it didn’t take long before I started my own micronation: Castrigia.

During this time I explored the micronational world, which was slightly different from what it is now. One of the more substantial things during that time was my discovery of the Kingdom of Batavia, of which I briefly became a citizen, and the Dutch Sector. Unfortunately I then made the decision to take a more secessionist path. During this time I got in contact with the ‘famous’ micronationalists, who were featured in the lovely Lonely Planet guide to micronations, and some lesser known secessionist nations such as Flanderensis, which then had just been founded.

When I was about 16, I quit micronations entirely. My interest in the hobby had declined and I had other things to do with my life. I was a secondary school student after all. So, I took a micronational hiatus from 2009 and 2012. I didn’t intent to return to micronations at all then. However, in 2012 I decided to take a look at the Batavian forums to see what was going on there. Obviously a lot had changed, Batavia had become inactive and Jonas, whom I knew from my brief period of Batavian citizenship, was now part of the Empire of Jingdao and South Batavia. I decided to join this micronation and had quite an amusing time there, developing the autonomous region of Calbion.

One of the most important things in becoming a micronationalist again, and deciding to be a part of the Micras sector, was the IRC. Nowadays it isn’t as active as it used to be, but back then it was very much alive. Because of the people I met at the IRC (mostly fellow Bastionados), I joined other nations. Most importantly Elwynn, that was still independent then. Shireroth followed, and so did many other nations. I was involved in Maraguo, a Batavia revival, and quite a few of my own projects such as the Brettish Isles, Tyrenia and Arasha.

Nowadays I’m mostly active in Shireroth and the Brettish Isles. I’ve been granted the honour to be Kaiser of Shireroth and that is an important part of my micronational life now, but I reckon that there will be some questions about that later ….

There will be! But first, you’re the founder of the Brettish Isles, a Micras micronation that is active within the Bastion Union group. What was your motivation for creating this Victorian-themed micronation and what were your goals for the Isles when you set out? Have these goals been met, in your opinion?

Some of you may know that I have a strong interest in the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. It’s something I’ve been interested in since I read ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ at age 7 or 8. For me, reading the stories and surrounding literature, but also collecting Sherlockiana, is quite an interesting past time. It was only a matter of time, really, before these two interests would come together. I decided to give the ‘Victorian England’ thing a go. I created a map, featuring place names from the Holmes stories, and left plenty of references to the world of Holmes in the nation.

I didn’t have any goals beforehand at all, nor did I have any expectations. My micronational philosophy is that this is first and foremost a hobby. When you feel like doing something, when you want to explore something in micronations, you should do it. We’re in this hobby voluntary and exploring new settings and developing new projects is what micronationalism is also about. So, I didn’t expect this nation to exist much longer than other projects of mine. It did, though. As it happens, more micronationalists have an interest in Victoriana and have since joined the nation. Some of our initial citizens have since left, which is of course fine, and we now have a core group of four citizens.

The Brettish Isles have had a difficult history. Periods of activity were followed by larger periods of inactivity, but we have always managed to stay alive. During the summer of last year, we really had a period of complete inactivity. I didn’t think that the nation would exist much longer. Towards the end of the year, I had drawn up a plan to ‘safe’ the project and to transfer it into a sort of one-man nation; however, it turned out that some Brettish citizens were still interested in the project. We then discussed what route we would take with the nation and this ended with us deciding to continue the project with Lord Amherst becoming Lord Protector.

The Isles appeared to be at risk of political instability in recent weeks, with less-than-enthusiastic interest from citizens to vie for the position of Lord Protector (head of government). The resulting discussion provoked a debate about the need for reforms, with you specifically suggesting Charter and territorial reforms. Would you briefly outline your desired reforms and explain how these would benefit the Isles?

Basically, the Charter reforms that were discussed proved to be a bit far-fetched. I think that, in our attempt to create a Victorianesque nation, we aimed too high and our perception of what would in reality be possible became clouded. That’s why the recent discussions are necessary.

We need to get to a system that enables us to keep a nation with a political structure that fits our culture, but is also realistic and something that can be handled by the current active group of citizens. I am glad that my fellow Bretts agreed with me on this and it looks like we have reached a consensus so that we are on the way to making our political system truly functional again.

To summarise what we are getting at: Parliament has been very important in our nation, and should remain a very visible institution; however, we are looking to create a government with large executive power. This government, comprising the Lord Protector, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State, will be able to rule the nation without necessary lengthy debates in Parliament. Of course we will keep Parliament and we still try to have some trias politica there, but we need to figure out how Parliament will function and how it will be elected, which is what is under discussion now.

Basically, the benefit to us is that, when these reforms are passed, we will be able to effectively and efficiently govern a nation with a small group of people, something that fits the needs of our time.

Congratulations on your assumption of the Shirithian throne as Kaiser last week following the abdication of Ric Lyon (Kaiser Ayreon III). What are your immediate plans for your Kaisership? Will your reign be defined by a steadying sailing of the Shireroth ship of state, or can we expect to see some relatively “revolutionary” reforms proposed?

Thank you, I am honoured that I have been granted this honour. I stand in a long tradition of Kaisers, some successful and some less successful.

I have to admit that in the past, I have never been interested in the position and even now I think that the actual power of the Kaiser might be a bit overrated. After all, a Kaiser might have some decree power but the Landsraad is still the voice of the citizens, and history has taught us that a Kaiser should always be concerned with the wants of the people. I also think that a micronational power, even as strong as the Imperial Office, is not strong enough to really solve the crucial problems of our age. We see inactivity, disinterest and paranoid protectionism at the moment, which are challenges that need to be solved on an out-of-character level. Having ‘Kaiser’ in front of your name doesn’t change anything then.

As for my rule, I think that I had a bit of a slow start. Perhaps people would have suspected highly controversial decrees or appointments, but I have decided not to do that. I’m not saying that I won’t be issuing decrees that might have some real impact in the future, but for the time being, I’m keeping a steady profile. The primary reason for this is that I have had enough controversy surrounding my decisions in the recent past and that I don’t want to raise tensions higher than they already are.

The most important thing for us as a nation at the moment is the new Charter. I’m very glad that some prominent and respected figures in our community have dedicated their time to writing a very sound proposal. I will oversee the implementation of this Charter, which I hope will have unanimous support of the Landsraad as well.

As for the continuation of policy, I, of course, will continue the good policies set by my predecessor. It is my intent, however, not to continue with the budget as set by the last Kaiser. I believe a nation needs fiscal conservatism. We shouldn’t be spending a lot of money on salaries for government officials, such as myself, who are already wealthy. Instead, we should look to more innovative and effective ways to spend our money. Although I’m sceptical of the actual usefulness of the SCUE, I’m sure that we can do something better than pumping money around.

You caused some controversy when, as Steward of Shireroth, you ordered the direct rule of the Imperial State of Neridia and the dismissal of Janus Eadric as its Prince. The result was his emigration from Shireroth and the eventual dissolution of Neridia by the Landsraad. What caused you to make that fateful decision and, looking back a month later, what are your thoughts in “hindsight” about how the episode unfolded?

My personal opinion is that controversy, although it is always important in micronations as a means to keeping things active and keeping people awake, also can have some unfortunate consequences. Especially with the controversy sparked by my decisions as Steward, we have seen these possible negative outcomes.

Although I am still firmly standing behind my actions, I deeply regret the departure of Janus Eadric as a direct result of my decisions. I realise now that I have made a communicative error here that has probably been crucial in his decision. I firmly believe in taking responsibility, and once I had made this decision, in conclave with then-Kaiser Ayreon, I have stood for it. I do hope that Mr. Eadric and I will find a way to put this unfortunate incident behind us in the future and that we might see a reconciliation.

I do want to protest against the way I was then described, and still am described, by my political opponents. They want to make it seem like I deliberately wanted to fight Janus Eadric, or that I was ruthless by choice, simply because of out-of-character issues. Of course this is blatantly ridiculous. I have always liked Mr. Eadric on a personal level, which makes this case so delicate for me, and if I had known that this would have been the outcome, I might have acted differently. However, I have made a decision. I still don’t think it was a wrong decision and I will stand by my choices and my assessment of the situation.

You were a vocal opponent of former SCUE Administrator Pallisico Sinclair’s attempt to impose a supranational inactivity tax on the memberstates of that organization as a means of promoting trade. Why did you oppose this measure and what alternative means, in your opinion, can achieve the same ends that Sinclair was seeking?

I don’t know if I really care that much about what Sinclair wanted. If people don’t want to trade, but still want to have an account at the SCUE, why not let them? I don’t see the need for the measures that were illegally imposed, and rightly rejected afterwards.

Clearly, the SCUE should only do one thing: serve nations that want to have access to a place with fictional money. Whatever they do with the money afterwards is their problem, not that of the SCUE. The SCUE is not a bank; at least, it shouldn’t be. It’s just a platform that gives a nation the opportunity to participate in a unified fictional economic system, which is a good thing in my opinion.

I think that Sinclair of course did have a point, although the way he went about it was absolutely wrong. There is a problem with intermicronational trading; however, I think the reason for it is simply to be found in the way the market works, or doesn’t work. All markets revolve about supply and demand. It is obvious that the demand is very limited in micronations, since we are a hobby that relies on fiction. There is nothing to be bought that one would need in order to be an active micronationalist. Then there is also a problem on the supply side. It’s really a downward spiral. People realise that it’s not really worth spending time on supplies to sell, since the only thing they will get in return is SCUE, which is basically worthless.

The one who figures out how to change this, will rightfully deserve the Andreas Award. He/She will finally have made micronational economics relevant.

Between the SCUE and the MTO, there’s been a small revival, activity-wise, of these core intermicronational organizations of the Micras community. Is there anything in particular you’d suggest to these organizations that might help them avoid alienating memberstates and thus remain relevant?

I don’t know how relevant these organisations are, especially the MTO. The Brettish Isles aren’t even a member and I have never had the feeling that we are missing out on something. The SCUE of course has relevance, which I basically indicated when I answered your previous question.

I was involved in the creation of one micronational organisation, the Committee for Micronational Progress (CMP). This was an idea that originated with Benkern, which he mentioned during a meetup in London. The basic idea was that the CMP would be mostly out-of-character and would be an actual institution to decide on necessary international issues that cannot adequately or efficiently be handled on a state level – things such as inactivity, but also RecWars. It would also serve as a platform, where new ideas and storylines could be discussed. I supported this idea, but unfortunately it lead to nothing – its sub-forum is now archived and I don’t really hear anyone talking about it.

So, I fear I will have to remain sceptic on these kinds of organisations.

In general, do you think there any hope that any intermicronational organization can avoid becoming a “YAMO” long-term? What would you suggest to a new organization on how to succeed?

Basically, I don’t. There are enough organisations at the moment, I don’t see what could be created that has both relevance and also brings something new to this hobby. A new organisation should only be started when it is really original and innovative. Otherwise, don’t waste your time on it.

Any final thoughts?

Yes, I do wish to say something to all micronationalists, and especially those associated with the Bastion sector. There is a distinct sense of bitterness that has creeped into our hobby. Of course some bitterness is inherent to forums in general and micronations in particular, but it has gone too far. Only today, I was personally attacked in a rather vicious way by a former citizen of Shireroth. I must say that I have also responded to him in an angered way, so I will include myself in this problem I’m describing.

A couple of years ago, when Babkha did something outrageous, or when the Emperor of Jingdao said something ridiculous, even when Kaisers got poisoned and cities got bombed with cabbage, it was all in good spirit. We had fun. We had a platform for friendly conflict that allowed us to expand on cultural, military and historical aspects of our respective nations. Shireroth then was a nation that was much less stamped by paranoia and bitterness than it is today. It’s easy to point fingers, and of course I have a clear opinion on where things went out of hand, but that’s not the point I want to make now.

I fear that there is not that much reason for excitement anymore nowadays. We seem to be too afraid to do something controversial, to say something outrageous or to drop a bombshell (literally or figuratively). There is good reason to be: people have reacted overly emotional and way too personal. There is less room for friendly banter and innocent teasing anymore. Everything is taken too seriously, sceptically and regarded as personal. It’s this mind-set that needs to change.

I believe that this is the core problem with the Bastion Union at the moment and that all other problems such as inactivity are only mere indicators this issue. We need to remind ourselves that we once started out in this hobby because we wanted to have fun, because we wanted to express our creativity and because we wanted to meet an international group of like-minded people to create a very special and unique community. That should still be our objective, every time when we log in to the forums. If that’s the general vibe in micronations, we have found the way up.

One-on-One: Jack de Montfort

Leadership change in Micras institutions

HUB.MN – On the heels of recent leadership resignations in two of its pre-eminent intermicronational organizations, the Micras community has conducted elections that may serve to bring in a new era.

The recent revival of the Micras Treaty Organization led to the adoption of an amendment to its charter treaty allowing for the designation of a permanent Deputy-Secretary. That adoption also provided Secretary-General Nathan Waffel-Paine, who had held position since November 2012, an out as he announced his resignation on March 11.

Voting to replace Waffel-Paine began on March 23, with Alexandrian delegate Primo de Aguilar and Gong Federation delegate Jezza Rasmus vying to gain the Secretary-Generalship. With voting scheduled to end in just over 48 hours, Aguilar has garnered four of the seven votes cast by delegates.

A historic, and sometimes militant, rivalry between Alexandria and the Gong Federation’s predecessor state of Jingdao aside, both individuals hope to return the Organization to the relevance it enjoyed from 2011 to 2013. That renewed relevance is sorely needed in the view of some, as the Micras community has become more starkly defined by divide between the Bastion Union and non-Bastion Union micronations.

Meanwhile, the Standardised Currency and Unified Economy organization also passed through a leadership change. Administrator Pallisico Sinclair, who found himself embroiled in controversy for pursuing what many considered to be an activist agenda, resigned in frustration on March 13.

The ensuing election for a new Administrator saw long-time Micran economists Giles Melang and Liam Sinclair face-off for the position though their individual policy platforms had more in common than not. Ultimately, with the conclusion of the three-day election yesterday, Liam Sinclair had gained seven of the nine delegate votes cast to become the third Administrator since the founding of the organization in 2009.

Of immediate concern to the new Administrator is a promised review of the SCUE Treaty wording to resolve diverging interpretations that underpinned much of the angst that ultimately led to Pallisico Sinclair’s shortened administration. Liam Sinclair is expected to release more details on his administration’s plans in the coming days.

Leadership change in Micras institutions

Need for micronational economies debated

BASTION UNION (CS) | A recent spat between Thadeus Melanje and the Bastion Union administration concerning the fate of the common economics forum has spurred debate about the place of economics within the Simulationist community. Continue reading “Need for micronational economies debated”

Need for micronational economies debated

MTO subject of reform proposal

BASTION UNION (CS) – For the first time in its two-year history, the Micras Treaty Organization, which is the primary intermicronational governmental organization for that community, is the subject of reform as it seeks to return to relevance following a lacklustre year to date. Continue reading “MTO subject of reform proposal”

MTO subject of reform proposal

Annual FNORD award recipients announced

HUB.MN (CS) – A yearly tradition for the Simulationist Community dating back to 2002 continued this week as the recipients of the eleventh annual FNORD Awards, recognizing excellence in 2012, were revealed in a ceremony mastered by Elijah Ayreon yesterday at the communal Hub.mn forums.

Among the honours up for grabs this year, the two most sought-after and prestigious awards, the Liam conToketi Award for Most Promising New Micronationalist and the Odlum Award for Overall Achievement, were bestowed upon Arne Govaerts and Craitman Pellegrino, respectively. Ayreon praised Govaerts for his enthusiasm which has catapulted him to being an integral part of the community and “an important plater in our geopolitics, culture and development.” Ayreon equally praised Pellegrino, calling him the “personification of the Micronational Cartography Society,” and crediting his leadership of that organization with keeping the community united.

The Kingdom of New Victoria was named the most promising new micronation this year, being credited with becoming one of the most populous micronations in the community despite being barely six months in existence, although it was cheekily noted by one observer that prior to the announcement of the FNORDs, the Kingdom’s website had suddenly disappeared, perhaps indicating that the micronation had folded.

A FNORD Medal from 2010. While traditionally virtual awards, real medals were pressed and distributed in 2009 and 201.
A FNORD Medal from 2010. While traditionally virtual awards, real medals were pressed and distributed in 2009 and 201.

The Iain Jacobson Award for Excellence in the Field of Journalism was a joint affair this year, with both the Batavian Post and the Coprieta Standard receiving the award. The Batavian Post had criticized individuals for nominating it for the Award, charging that “any judge who votes for us … is a clown who makes a mockery of journalism.” The Post however underestimated its role in keeping the community informed on current events through its lighthearted and engaging parody-based approach to reporting. The Coprieta Standard, in its third year of reporting, had the honour of receiving its third Iain Jacobson Award.

Mira Raynora received the Erik Mortis Award for Leadership, being credited with reforming the constitutional law of Shireroth during her kaisership of that micronation, in the process “winning the hearts of both traditionalists and reformists, imperialists and democrats,” according to Ayreon. In a similar leadership-oriented category, the Charles Beard Award for Conflict Resolution went to the Micras Treaty Organization (MTO) for its guiding role in developing the MTO Treaty on the Law of the Seas, which resolved a range of outstanding disagreements on the interpretation of the Micras world map, while helping diffuse the immediate Barbary Straits conflict.

The ceremony again this year included the awarding of several honours in the field of the Arts. The Jeremy Bellamy Award for Literature went to Gerk ronAnaglea (Analis) and Vilhelm Benkern (The Coronation of Yardistanislaus). Benkern also received the Liam Sinclair Award for Micronational History for his chronicles of Mar Sara. The Empire of Jingdao and South Batavia rounded out the field, having bestowed upon it the Bill Dusch Award for Cultural Development.

The Minecraft-based Meekras world-building exercise received the Rebecca Panks Award for the Graphic Artz, despite being nominated only for the Josh Coales Award Best New Idea. The Coales Award subsequently was not handed out this year as a result of the decision by the Judges to switch the Meekras nomination to the graphic arts category. The Andreas the Wise Award for Economics similarly was not awarded this year.

Finally, in a perhaps tongue-in-cheek move, Giles Melang was honoured for his perseverance in the face of failure, with Ayreon quipping that his “stubbornness is an example for us all.”

Correction: 2013-01-12 12:50 MST: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that the Andreas the Wise Award for Economics received no nominations. Giles Melang was in fact nominated for the Award.

Annual FNORD award recipients announced

Law of Seas Conference closes with tentative Agreement

BASTION UNION (CS) – Following a month of discussion, the special conference held by the Micras Treaty Organization in an effort to develop a Law of the Seas convention following hostilities between the Alexandria and Batavië in August has concluded today with a tentative treaty text being brought forward to the Organization’s General Assembly.

The agreed draft text for the intermicronational treaty developed by the conference participants will provide a Micras micronation with territorial waters extending 24 kilometres from its coastline, as well as a “reserve zone”, akin to the macronational Exclusive Economic Zone, extending 360 kilometres from its coastline. The text provides various stipulations on how the two zones will be established in special circumstances, such as in the case where a micronation has offshore islands or overlapping jurisdictions with a neighbour. It further identifies a number of bodies of water that will be considered international waters, free of territorial claim.

Addressing the topic of innocent passage through territorial waters that played a prominent role in the dispute between Alexandria and Batavië, the draft text will require signatories to permit such passage, on the condition that “it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.” The text goes on to define an exhaustive thirteen scenarios in which innocent passage would be considered prejudicial.

The General Assembly debate on the text is scheduled to conclude with a vote on adoption on October 8.

Law of Seas Conference closes with tentative Agreement