maybe this is at the core of it:
Quote:
|
the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.
|
the question of whether this extends to underwater surveillance gear directed at submarines or not is open to question.
one thing that's kinda clear from reading a little about these territorial claims is that they're nebulous, really. they're as legit as enforcement makes them, as porous as non-enforcement allows. and there is a problem in principle with them--something kind of appealing about the ocean not belonging to anyone in particular. the conventions that have been agreed to seem mostly to concern either resources or pollution--and conflicts are hardly new--there have been periods of hostility between the us and canada over fishing rights to george's bank for example.
i still don't understand the stripping down to the underwear though.