Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-225"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20001024.6.2-225"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:translated text
". In my answer I mentioned the sensitivity to this issue in France and Italy which led the two countries to propose that the International Maritime Organisation adopt two resolutions on establishing routes for shipping traffic in the Strait of Bonifacio and requiring vessels entering the strait to identify themselves, which we know goes beyond the terms of civil law. These resolutions were adopted and came into force on 1 December 1998. I should moreover like to point out, however, that there are other constraints upon us. Regarding international traffic in transit, international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, stipulates, subject to certain reservations, that the vessels of all states have the ‘right of innocent passage’ in territorial waters. However, the coastal state may – in accordance with the terms of the Convention and other rules of international law – adopt legislation and regulations on innocent passage in territorial waters that may have a bearing on the following aspects: shipping safety, regulation of shipping traffic, conservation of the coastal state environment, the prevention, reduction and control of pollution. This is what we wanted to do in this context. However, and this is a complete response to your question, any ban on all ships passing through the Strait of Bonifacio would have to be agreed at the international level and be subject to an international convention. Any action by the two governments concerned is therefore limited by this international law."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph