I must say I'm glad to see that the arguments in this discussion are becoming more reasoned and differentiated. Hopefully, this will allow us to come to a consensus. 
If we want to charge France with violating UNCLOS (specifically Article 116) by inhibiting Eutopian citizens from taking advantage of the rights established by that Convention, we need some evidence to support that charge. Otherwise, taking France to court in this matter will do nothing but further damage our reputation in the international community. *If* we can demonstrate, for example, that France's police actions and arrests target specifically Eutopian citizens, we'd have a prima facie case against them (at least to my mind).
]
In terms of UNCLOS, I think we should ascertain which (if any) of the fishing grounds in question fall within Eutopia's exclusive economic zone or, alternatively, belong to our continental shelf. This would be useful not only for determining whether we have additional diplomatic leverage in the current situation, but also for future renegotiations of NAFA.
I agree that the failure of French authorities to (a) enforce the duty to render assistance and (b) fully investigate the incident with the purpose of punishing the perpetrators gives us a strong legal case against France. However, if we take France to court, my preference would be to combine all potential charges into one suit, rather than bringing different suits - hence, I believe we should await France's reaction to our renewed diplomatic efforts in the piracy matter, as well as the result of investigations in the "inhibition" matter. *If* the French are willing to talk, one would hope that they would also reconsider their stance in the collision incident. If they fail to respond, we can take them to court in the collision, piracy and inhibition matters in a combined suit.
) as a first step, to be followed by legal action against France as a second step if talks fail.
More or less.
This may be a minor issue, but I'd say that the potential violations of sovereignty and violation of international law are two different issues. It seems clear that France has not in fact violated our sovereignty (e.g. by making military incursions or pursuing police action in our territorial waters). The question that remains is whether France has violated extant international law.
Indeed; I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that the relevant treaty is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (which, it seems, replaced the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resource of the High Seas).
If we want to charge France with violating UNCLOS (specifically Article 116) by inhibiting Eutopian citizens from taking advantage of the rights established by that Convention, we need some evidence to support that charge. Otherwise, taking France to court in this matter will do nothing but further damage our reputation in the international community. *If* we can demonstrate, for example, that France's police actions and arrests target specifically Eutopian citizens, we'd have a prima facie case against them (at least to my mind).
[OOC: For what it's worth, I think your assumptions are quite reasonable.
]Yes, the NAFA has expired. [OOC: check the timelines in the Newslink thread.]
In terms of UNCLOS, I think we should ascertain which (if any) of the fishing grounds in question fall within Eutopia's exclusive economic zone or, alternatively, belong to our continental shelf. This would be useful not only for determining whether we have additional diplomatic leverage in the current situation, but also for future renegotiations of NAFA.
Agreed. Unfortunately, discussion so far has centred on the incidents of alleged piracy and arrests by the French of Eutopian citizens, not on the death of Eutopian citizens in the incident you refer to.
I agree that the failure of French authorities to (a) enforce the duty to render assistance and (b) fully investigate the incident with the purpose of punishing the perpetrators gives us a strong legal case against France. However, if we take France to court, my preference would be to combine all potential charges into one suit, rather than bringing different suits - hence, I believe we should await France's reaction to our renewed diplomatic efforts in the piracy matter, as well as the result of investigations in the "inhibition" matter. *If* the French are willing to talk, one would hope that they would also reconsider their stance in the collision incident. If they fail to respond, we can take them to court in the collision, piracy and inhibition matters in a combined suit.
And we have exactly zero evidence that France failed to follow those procedures. That said, I find your remarks on burden of proof most instructive.
I'll accept that, although I'd appreciate it if you could refer us to the relevant treaty provisions or legal conventions. Once again, the proper course of action to my mind is to renew talks with France in order to establish whether it does indeed have grounds for holding our citizens and effect the release of our citizens if it doesn't. If talks fail, the proper course of action is to take France to court - not to impose drastic economic sanctions on the country.
Diplomatic action (in contrast to sanctions) being what I've been suggesting all along. Or, more precisely, (a) diplomatic action combined with (b) police action (now ordered by the President) and (c) legal research (to strengthen our position; a goal that your contributions have advanced greatly
) as a first step, to be followed by legal action against France as a second step if talks fail.
