Talk:Total Exclusion Zone

Santa Fe controversy??

When the Argentine submarine ARA Santa Fe was attacked 25th April, it was well outside the MEZ. Why isn't there any "Santa Fe controversy"? ARA General Belgrano and ARA Santa Fe were both World War II veterans, outside the MEZ and attacked after the 23Apr-message but before the TEZ was extended. Even though "only" one sailor died compared to Belgrano's 323 sailors both incidents are similar - on grounds of principle. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You know I've never thought of that. You are of course absolutely correct, I presume it is in part due to the Belgrano "controversy" being picked up by certain opposition politicians, the greater loss of life and the fact that it handed an excuse to Galtieri to "reject" a peace proposal he had no intention of accepting. Justin talk 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see, so it's either people thinking warfare was prohibited outside the MEZ or plain old fashioned anti-Thatcherism. I once read a comment like: "Belgrano would also have been attacked if it was sailing up the River Thames".

BTW, were there any MEZ or TEZ or PEZ surrounding South Georgia? Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware no, the actions on South Georgia were justified by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Justin talk 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You've done a fine job in expanding the article. Readers might however lose the track; perhaps if the article was in chronological order: MEZ - MEZ-2 - TEZ - TEZ-2. I know that it's a tied task since the name of the article is "Total Exclusion Zone". Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The-TEZ-Today

What happened to the TEZ? Was it rescinded after the war? Did it evolve into the Falklands islands natural "borders"? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I not agree with the last change by NE [1], is still works today as a Total Exclusion Zone per Argentine ships and aircraft so its not just an EEZ. You can try to get inside with a AR piper or a sailboat and see what happens.

We can also expand a little the article with the 1991 umbrella which established a huge region 46°S 63°W, 50°S 63°W, 50°S 64°W, 53°S 64°W 53°S 63°W 60°S 63°W, 60°S 20°W, 46°S 20°W, 46°S 63°W [2] in which both parts should notify 25 days early if more than 4 ships/airplanes movements are involved or 2 days early if at least one is involded. --Jor70 (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My (possibly flawed) understanding is that in principle, under UNCLOS, states have to allow passage through their EEZ (provided that ships do not exploit natural resources), and permit innocent passage through their territorial waters. A total exclusion zone would be inconsistent with this aim.

Obviously, though, recent moves by the Argentine government make this more difficult in practice. The British argue that these moves violate UNCLOS in that they restrict the right of innocent passage for Falklands-bound ships through Argentine territorial waters. There is also, I believe, a certain lack of trust on the British side that any Argentine ships in the area are likely to be there innocently.

The TEZ and EEZ borders are defined differently in two ways. First, the EEZ pertaining to the Falklands extends rather further, since the 200 nautical miles is drawn is the coast of the islands rather than the centre of the islands. Second, where the distance between the Falklands coast and the Argentine coast is less than 400 nautical miles, the EEZ stops at a point equidistant between the two - whereas the TEZ did not respect such boundaries.

(This would apply regardless of sovereignty, though obviously the Argentine POV is that the Falklands EEZ is part of the Argentine EEZ. This would render the boundary between the two to be non-existent.)

This reflects the different nature of the two zones: the TEZ was a military construction drawn by one side in a war (in this case to ensure neutral shipping stayed away from the war zone). An EEZ is an economic construction designed to fairly delimit the boundaries within states have the exclusive right to maintain and exploit natural resources. Pfainuk talk 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a minor edit to reflect the difference between the TEZ and EEZ. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

what Pfainuk said is ok but I still not agree with the article changed by NE because there ARE (and were) navigation restrictions before Cristina's decree about limiting ships movements in response to the oil drilling. We should add an aftermath section with: 1982-1991 virtually TEZ, 1991-2009 the Umbrella , 2010 - oil drilling gate . We can also mention some of the encounters which will be easy to find in news archives like [3]. An general explanation of the EEZ like Pfainuk's would be in place too. ok ? --Jor70 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd support something like that, perhaps with a page move to something like: Falkland Islands boundries/borders. Although I believe the term TEZ should strictly apply to 1982 (even if whatever replaced was exactly the same) as this was a military term OR if the "TEZ" was actually in place until 1991 surely there must be some sort of source for this. Without a source I wouldn't want to declare it on Wikipedia. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

nice. I dont have a problem with call it TEZ or not as long as mentioning the restrictions. We must remember there was virtual no relation until Menem goes up and changed the foreign policy in 1989 ( AR leaving the NAM and going pro USA) on the military e.g. the FAA create a new air brigade at Rio Gallegos from 1984 until disbanded in 90s (with magnificents M3CJ ex IAF). Would be great to also add a pre-war period, which frankly I have no idea how work then . --Jor70 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I changed TEZ to EEZ was because the source [4] never mentions "TEZ", only "EEZ". The La Nacion talks about an Argentine ice breaker stopping fishing boats in the EEZ of the Falklands. UK protested, so that's restrictions of Argentine navigation, but I'm pretty sure that the Argentine Coast Guard is restricted in playing police in all non-Argentine EEZs. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Irizar entered the Falklands EEZ and attempted to interfere with fishing in the Falklands EEZ. Argentina has no authority under UNCLOS to do so. A warship has the right of innocent passage, it does not have the right to interfere with commerce. That is no a restriction on Argentine navigation. The TEZ resulted from the Falklands War, the EEZ is a function of UNCLOS, there is no relation between the two. As regards what Jor70 said about a Piper etc, no there is no restriction on that. The only restriction on flights stems from an Argentine refusal to allow commercial charter flights to the Falklands (unless an Argentine carrier), whereas the FIG proposed an Open Skies policy. The only restriction on shipping is Argentine, recent laws requiring a permit. I am going to remove it per WP:BRD. Justin talk 07:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The EEZ has no relation to the TEZ, which was rescinded long ago. And there is nothing to stop you flying over, passing through etc. I would suggest this is removed as unrelated or irrelevant. Justin talk 18:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I recheck this and find two types of "restrictions" : the more obvious will be Argentine trawlers asking for fishing licenses and flights by Argentine airliners (these two would mean recognize the island gov so are self imposed by AR ). The other type of restrictions are mentioned in the 1991 Madrid agreement regarding movement of ships and airplanes which in fact do not prohibit navigation but request a NN days notice depending the number of vessels. This as today, not sources for the 1983-1991 years --Jor70 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fishing licenses are for the exploitation of natural resources, as stipulated by the UNCLOS, they are part of the EEZ. There is actually nothing to stop an Argentine vessel applying for a license, except they are forbidden to by Argentine law. They have no relation to the TEZ, which was a temporary wartime expedient. There is no restriction on Argentine airliners imposed by the FIG or UK Government. The only restriction that does exist is that the Argentine Government has refused to allow charter airlines to use its airspace, insisting only Argentine air lines can run a service; whereas the FIG proposed an Open Skies approach. Restrictions from the Madrid agreement stem from the fact that Argentina refused to declare an end to hostilities. As such they bear no relation to the TEZ. Hence, as restrictions stem from unilateral action by Argentina neither are appropriate to this article. Justin talk 10:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That was what I said. Anyway I still think two lines explaning what happened next would be informative. Im also considering an article about the umbrella --Jor70 (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So?, are we going a add a line how this ended/continued or whatever ? is obviously incomplete in the current form --Jor70 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You could add a line when it ended officially but I for one couldn't tell you when. The edits regarding the EEZ are unacceptable however. BTW the Falklands EEZ is already covered, not sure it needs a separate article. Justin talk 09:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

with correct english what about something like : The TEZ was eliminated at some point after the war and new relaxed regulations about military movements came in place with the 1990 Madrid Agreement (Umbrella formula) but in the practice and as of 2010 the Argentine position of not recognize the Islands goverment led to Argentine civilian aircraft and ships to not enter the Falklands airspace and territorials waters And can you point me out where the EEZ is covered ? The thing we talk here about the differences about argentine airlines, direct flight etc should be mentioned somewhere as is something related to islands-argentina post war relations. --Jor70 (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Jor its linking the TEZ with the EEZ that is the problem; they're not related. The only restrictions that exist stem from Argentina, it has nothing to do with the subject of this article. The EEZ is discussed in this article Exclusive Economic Zone (though I note vandalism has removed the Falklands EEZ). Justin talk 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That article simply wasn't complete: Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands and Cayman Islands were excluded as well as the FI and SGSSI. I have put the values in, and also added a source (which the previous version did not have). Pfainuk talk 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand the problem with my suggestion, I do not mention the EEZ and I clarying self imposed measures! as would be weird to dispute something and at the same time pay a licence for it --Jor70 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)