Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty:The basis For Malawi Claims

[Consigliere]

Labda mimi sikuelewa, majadiliano pale siyo ya Tanzania na Malawi! Ni majadiliano ya powers za kikoloni I.e Uingereza na Ujerumani

Na bado tunajiita nchi huru wakati suala la mipaka hatuna uwezo wa kulitatua? Nilidhani mara baada ya uhuru mikataba yote ya aina ile ilitakiwa kuwa reviewed ili kuihamishia nguvu na umiliki wake kwa nchi husika!!!
Kuna legal challenge kubwa hapo na itabidi wakoloni nao (German and British) waitwe katika shauri hili kama mashaihidi muhimu, maana ndiyo walio turithisha huu mkataba, nchi na mipaka.

 

[Azipa]

Labda mimi sikuelewa, majadiliano pale siyo ya Tanzania na Malawi! Ni majadiliano ya powers za kikoloni I.e Uingereza na Ujerumani

Kwa ushauri tu, hiyo hiyo Heligoland Treaty uliyoibandika hapo ungesoma Article VI ndio ungeelewa dai la Tanzania.

Na vipi ikitokea upande mmoja ukakataa kufanya majadiliano baada ya kuamini wana haki zote?

 

[Azipa]

Labda mimi sikuelewa, majadiliano pale siyo ya Tanzania na Malawi! Ni majadiliano ya powers za kikoloni I.e Uingereza na Ujerumani

Kwa ushauri tu, hiyo hiyo Heligoland Treaty uliyoibandika hapo ungesoma Article VI ndio ungeelewa dai la Tanzania.

Na vipi ikitokea upande mmoja ukakataa kufanya majadiliano baada ya kuamini wana haki zote?

 

[Mpita Njia]

Kwa ushauri tu, hiyo hiyo Heligoland Treaty uliyoibandika hapo ungesoma Article VI ndio ungeelewa dai la Tanzania.

Je, Sheba, kuna ushahidi wowote kuonyesha kuwa local authorities walifanya hayo marekebisho? Tanzania inaweza kuwa inabisha kutokana na uzoefu wa miaka mingi kuwampaka ni kati ya ziwa wakati available documents state otherwise

 

[Azipa]

Na bado tunajiita nchi huru wakati suala la mipaka hatuna uwezo wa kulitatua? Nilidhani mara baada ya uhuru mikataba yote ya aina ile ilitakiwa kuwa reviewed ili kuihamishia nguvu na umiliki wake kwa nchi husika!!!
Kuna legal challenge kubwa hapo na itabidi wakoloni nao (German and British) waitwe katika shauri hili kama mashaihidi muhimu, maana ndiyo walio turithisha huu mkataba, nchi na mipaka.

Hilo haliwezi kutokea. AU/OAU charter inazitaka nchi wanachama ziheshimu mipaka ya wakoloni. Au mkuu unataka tuandike upya historia?

 

[bdo]

Siyo sisi tunaokurupuka kusema kuwa ziwa ni letu. labda wewe ndie ulie kurupuka kusema kuwa ziwa ni letu.kinachoelezwa hapa ni kwamba mpaka uko katikati ya ziwa upande mmoja uko tz na upande mwingine uko malawi.labda km kuna masilahi unayo yapata ndio maana unasema hivyo.km unaona malawi kufanya utafiti wa mafuta na gesi siyo tatizo kwa vile watz hatujakatazwa kutumia ziwa hilo utambuwe kuwa kinachofuata baadae ni kupigwa marufuku kabisa kutumia ziwahilo km hatutalivalia njuga jambo hili.

Hapo kwenye red: hakuna maslahi kabisa, na issue ya mpaka sisi Tz tunajua upo katikati, ila kwa Wamalawi mpaka upo mwisho wa ziwa..kwa mkataba wa kuanzisha OAU ni kwamba: Kila nchi iheshimu mipaka iliyoachwa na wakoloni, na kwa kesi hiyo - Mpaka ulikuwa ni maji na si katikati ya maji ya ziwa Nyasa

 

[Consigliere]

Hilo haliwezi kutokea. AU/OAU charter inazitaka nchi wanachama ziheshimu mipaka ya wakoloni. Au mkuu unataka tuandike upya historia?

Ukiisoma vizuri hii traety ilikuwa inaanisha mipaka na Himaya za wakoloni hao wawili na si mipaka ya nchi (Kama tulizo nazo sasa)....anatajwa mkoloni halafu inaelezewa mipaka yake ambapo alama za mipaka mingi zimefuata natural features ambazo zimetajwa kwa majina e.g. Kilimanjaro, Islands, Lakes, rivers, territories etc.

Haitajwi Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda wala Tanganyika, bali wametajwa Sultan, German and British.
Hapo huoni hata hilo azimio la AU kuzitaka nchi kuheshimu mipaka iliyowekwa na wakoloni inakuwa ngumu?

 

[bdo]

Asante sana Richard kwa kuona mapungufu hayo: halafu angalie kwa kina uone kuwa:

1. Kifungu cha VI kinasena juwa marekebisho ya mipaka hiyo yanaweza kufanyika baina ya mamlaka za pande mbili ili kukidhi local requirements, yaani mktaba haukuwa binding; Local requirements zilizoko hapa ni ile International Common Law kuhusu mipaka ya majini baina ya nchi mbili.
2. Mkataba huo hauonyesha kuwa mpaka wa Malawi, ambayo ilikuwa ni sehemu ya British Central Africa wakati huo, ni upi; hakuna reference yoyote inayoonyesha kuwa ziwa lile litamilikiwa na nani. Ukifuata mojawapo ya masharti ya uongereza kuhusu mkataba ule lengo lilikuwa ni kuzuia Ujerumani isiende magharibi ya ziwa lile, kwa hiyo inawezekana Ziwa halikuwa limegawiwa nchi nyingine yoyote yaani lilikuwa ni la pande zote mbili.
3. Ile sheria (Amri ya mfalme wa uingereza) iliyotolewa August 11 1902 ya kuunda rasmi kwa mamlaka ya kutawala Britsih Central Africa ilieleza wazi kuwa mipaka ya Britsih Central Afrika itaishia magharibi mwa ziwa Nyasa; kwa hiyo utaona kuwa ziwa lile lilibaki halimilikiwi na nchi yoyote.

Nimeiweka hapa ile amri ya Mfalme wa Uingereza, angalia kipengele cha 1 kinavyofafanua mipaka ya Malawi inaishia West of Lake Nyasa. Kwa hiyo Nikupateje unakosea sana kufikiri kuwa hatuna haki na maji yale; mkataba wa heligo haukuwa umeseama maji yale yatakuwa ya nani.


Wote mnaootetea madai ya Malawi someni hiyo hilo tamko la Mfalme la tarehe 11 August 1902 niliyowawekea hapo. Azipa, bdo, Mngendalyasota, na wenzenu ambao hamjafuatlia jambo hili kwa kirefu nadhani hili litawafumbua macho.


NIMEKOPI KIFUNGU HICHO:

1. This Order may be cited as " the British Central Africa Order in Council, 1902."
The limits of this Order are the territories of Africa situate to the west and south of Lake
Nyassa, and bounded by North-Eastern Rhodesia, German East Africa, and the Portuguese territories.
The said territories are in this Order referred, to as " British Central Africa " and " the Protectorate."

Mkuu Kichuguu na wengine: sio kwamba tunakuwa sio wazalendo, ila hata mimi ninaumia kwa maana viongozi wetu hawatuambii ukweli wa mambo ulivyo. Nimepitia attachment yako, hio order uliyoweka hapo haiongelei kabisa hio issue ya Malawi na Tz na hasa mpaka (kati ya TZ na Malawi) isipokuwa mfalme alikuwa anaelezea mipaka ya eneo lake katika Afrika ya Kati, na akimaanisha nchi za "zambia, Malawi na Zimbabwe".

Pia angalia, hilo tamko limetoka mwaka 1902 wakati Afrika ilishagawanywa - angalia mipaka ya Anglo-Germany Treaty of July 1, 1890 ambayo ndio mipaka original ya mkoloni (kulingana na makubaliano ya OAU - kuwa kila nchi itaheshimu mipaka yake kama ilivyoachwa na wakoloni), kitu ambacho Wamalawi wanakubaliana nacho na wako confident wanafanya reference.

Hebu nipe mtazamo wako kuhusu:

"The Malawi–Tanzania border case is linked to the spurious demarcation of the border around Lake Nyasa, which was created by the Anglo-Germany Treaty of July 1, 1890:

To the south by the line that starts on the coast of the northern border of Mozambique Province and follows the course of the Rovuma River to the point where the Messinge flows into the Rovuma. From here the line runs westward on the parallel of latitude to the shore of Lake Nyasa. Turning north, it continues along the eastern, northern, and western shores of the lake until it reaches the northern bank of the mouth of the Songwe River.​

Tanzania recognizes the potential threat of the border described above, and they have officially requested that their Malawian counterparts share the lake's resources. In addition, Tanzania proposed that the official boundary between the countries should follow the median line in Lake Nyasa. Malawi President Kamuzu Banda did not respond favorably to these requests:

"We will never recognize or accept this claim: we will never agree to the suggestion or proposal. The Lake has always belonged to Malawi….Everyone knew Nyerere as a coward and communist inspired jellyfish: We know while pretending to be a staunch supporter of the OAU, Nyerere is the worst agitator and betrayer of the cause for which the Organization was formulated. History, geography or even ethnical knowledge will convince Nyerere that four districts to the South of Tanganyika belong to us by nature. It is only that we respect the feasible unification of Mother Africa that we do not claim these districts. All that we are doing is setting [sic] historical truth"​

Pitia hii Link hapa chini kwa msaada zaidi, hii ni paper ambayo alifanya Mtz mwenzetu kanali nadhani ni JWTZ, ameweka bayana kila kitu na kwa mimi namuona kama yupo neutral zaidi ingawa anakubalina kuwa mpaka haupo katikati ya maji, nadhani unatuonea mie na wenzangu (azipa, [Mngendalyasote, Mngendalyasota na nikupateje ) ila hii link itakuwa imemsaidia na Richard: .


Mimi nadhani tujiulize kwanini Nyerere alimpika mkwala Banda na sisi kufundishwa na kukaririshwa kuwa mpaka upo katikati ya ziwa na si pepembeni ya mashariki ya ziwa? Kitu ambacho hata Mbunge aliyeuliza swali kuhusu kwa nini Malawi wanafanya utafiti wa mafuta eneo letu kinyume cha utaratibu?

"Ms Ngoye had charged that the Malawian tourists and fishing boats have been trespassing on Tanzanian territorial waters.... will Tanzanians around Lake Nyasa's shores have the right to fish or engage in other productive activities on the lake, without being intimidated," she had told the Tanzanian parliament, demanding an explanation from the government on the status of the border between Tanzania and Malawi."​

​

http://http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/theses/2011/June/11Jun_Msafiri.pdf

 

[Kichuguu]

Mkuu Kichuguu na wengine: sio kwamba tunakuwa sio wazalendo, ila hata mimi ninaumia kwa maana viongozi wetu hawatuambii ukweli wa mambo ulivyo. Nimepitia attachment yako, hio order uliyoweka hapo haiongelei kabisa hio issue ya Malawi na Tz na hasa mpaka (kati ya TZ na Malawi) isipokuwa mfalme alikuwa anaelezea mipaka ya eneo lake katika Afrika ya Kati, na akimaanisha nchi za "zambia, Malawi na Zimbabwe"..........

Basi hukuelewa maana ya hiyo order ya 1902, na labda pia hujasoma kwa makini ile treaty ya 1890. Kulimit influence ya Ujerumani mashariki mwa ziwa kulikuwa hakuna maana kuipa ziwa hilo kwa himaya ya Uingereza (ambayo ndiyo iliyoishia kutoa Malawi ya leo); treaty haikusema kuwa Ziwa litakuwa mali ya uingereza bali wasliema ujerumani itaishia ukiongoni mashariki.

Ile order ya mfalme ndiyo iliyokuja kutangaza mipaka ya himaya ya uingereza kuwa linaanzia magharibi ya ziwa.

Kwa hiyo ziwa halikuwa limegawiwa kwa nchi yoyote; kuna sehemu kadhaa za afrika ambazo hazikugawiwa kwa taifa lolote na mojawapo ya maenneo hayo ni hilo ziwa.

 

[bdo]

Basi hukuelewa maana ya hiyo order ya 1902, na labda pia hujasoma kwa makini ile treaty ya 1890. Kulimit influence ya Ujerumani mashariki mwa ziwa kulikuwa hakuna maana kuipa ziwa hilo kwa himaya ya Uingereza (ambayo ndiyo iliyoishia kutoa Malawi ya leo); treaty haikusema kuwa Ziwa litakuwa mali ya uingereza bali wasliema ujerumani itaishia ukiongoni mashariki. Ile order ya mfalme ndiyo iliyokuja kutangaza mipaka ya himaya ya uingereza kuwa linaanzia magharibi ya ziwa. Kwa hiyo ziwa halikuwa limegawiwa kwa nchi yoyote; kuna sehemu kadhaa za afrika ambazo hazikugawiwa kwa taifa lolote na mojawapo ya maenneo hayo ni hilo ziwa.

Tusibiri tuone

 

[Kichuguu]

Tusibiri tuone

Itategemea ni akina nani wataiwakilisha Tanzania katika mzozo huo kwani tuna bahati mbaya ya kuwa na viongozi wasiojua wanafanya nini. Wanaweza kushindwa kabisa kuelewa mantiki iliyoko kwenye documents hizo mbili na kuishia kuwapa Malawi ushindi kwa kutumia document ya kwanza tu tena kwa kuilewa nusu nusu kama wewe unavyoona. Ningekuwa mimi ni mmoja wao basi swala hili lingeisha kabla halijaaza kujadiliwa.

Wewe fuata historia halisi kuhusu mipaka ya nchi hizo mbili; usiwe divereted kwenye yatokanayo na mijadala mbalimbali kuhusu mpaka huo.

Nina documents nyingi sana kuhusiana na huu mpaka. Zote zinaonyesha kuwa Uingereza na Ujerumani hawakuwa na interest na ziwa lile; ndiyo maana kwa muda wote lilikuwa linatumiwa na pande zote mbili mpaka wakati wa vita ya kwanza ndipo Uingereza ilipoamua kusegeza mpaka wake kinyemela hadi kufikia mpaka wa Ujerumani. Chif Mhaiki alikuwa anajua hilo wazi wazi, ila ile hope ya pan Africanisms ya Nyerere ndiyo maana hakutaka kulifuatilia kabla ya uhuru akiamini kuwa kama waafrioka watalimaliza kirahisi tu.

 

[bdo]

Itategemea ni akina nani wataiwakilisha Tanzania katika mzozo huo kwani tuna bahati mbaya ya kuwa na viongozi wasiojua wanafanya nini. Wanaweza kushindwa kabisa kuelewa mantiki iliyoko kwenye documents hizo mbili na kuishia kuwapa Malawi ushindi kwa kutumia document ya kwanza tu tena kwa kuilewa nusu nusu kama wewe unavyoona. Ningekuwa mimi ni mmoja wao basi swala hili lingeisha kabla halijaaza kujadiliwa.

Hapo kwenye blue, Si kweli kabisa, ur certainly wrong hata kama angekuja Nyerere mwenyewe, huyo aliyeandika ile Order 1902, watachemsha the valid document ni Agro-Germany Treaty 1890, hiyo order was just Tangazo la serikali ya Mwingireza kuelezea mipaka ya koloni lake na ndio maana halikuongelea issue ya mpaka wa TZ na Malawi kuwa ni katikati ya ziwa maana mipaka ilikuwa settled na Agro-Germany Treaty 1890, na hata OAU imeridhia wakati inaanzishwa, and nilivyosema tusubiri tuone ni kwa namna gani tutaabika na Obvious facts

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

Acha porojo za google earth na treaty za wakoloni uchwara.

UN Convention ya 1982 inasemaje kuhusu mipaka ya majini!??

 

[Kibanga Ampiga Mkoloni]

[h=1]United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[/h] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For maritime law in general, see Admiralty law.

Logo of the Convention
Signed	December 10, 1982
Location	Montego Bay, Jamaica
Effective	November 16, 1994[SUP][1][/SUP]
Condition	60 ratifications
Parties	162[SUP][2][/SUP]
Depositary	Secretary-general of the United Nations
Languages	Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea at Wikisource
v t e

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place from 1973 through 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to sign the treaty.[SUP][1][/SUP] To date, 162 countries and the European Community have joined in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.
While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (the latter being established by the UN Convention).

[h=2]Contents[/h] 1 Historical background 2 UNCLOS I 3 UNCLOS II 4 UNCLOS III 5 Part XI and the 1994 Agreement 6 Signature and ratification 6.1 LOST in space 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[h=2]Historical background[/h] The UNCLOS replaces the older and weaker 'freedom of the seas' concept, dating from the 17th century: national rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually three nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius van Bynkershoek. All waters beyond national boundaries were considered international waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare liberum principle promulgated by Grotius).
In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to extend national claims: to include mineral resources, to protect fish stocks, and to provide the means to enforce pollution controls. (The League of Nations called a 1930 conference at The Hague, but no agreements resulted.) Using the customary international law principle of a nation's right to protect its natural resources, President Truman in 1945 extended United States control to all the natural resources of its continental shelf. Other nations were quick to follow suit. Between 1946 and 1950, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador extended their rights to a distance of 200 nautical miles to cover their Humboldt Current fishing grounds. Other nations extended their territorial seas to 12 nautical miles.
By 1967, only 25 nations still used the old three-mile limit, while 66 nations had set a 12-mile territorial limit and eight had set a 200-mile limit. As of May 28, 2008, only two countries still use the three-mile limit: Jordan and Palau.[SUP][3][/SUP] That limit is also used in certain Australian islands, an area of Belize, some Japanese straits, certain areas of Papua New Guinea, and a few British Overseas Territories, such as Anguilla.
[h=2]UNCLOS I[/h] In 1956, the United Nations held its first Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS I) at Geneva, Switzerland. UNCLOS I resulted in four treaties concluded in 1958:

• Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, entry into force: 10 September 1964
• Convention on the Continental Shelf, entry into force: 10 June 1964
• Convention on the High Seas, entry into force: 30 September 1962
• Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, entry into force: 20 March 1966

Although UNCLOS I was considered a success, it left open the important issue of breadth of territorial waters.
[h=2]UNCLOS II[/h] In 1960, the United Nations held the second Conference on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS II"); however, the six-week Geneva conference did not result in any new agreements. Generally speaking, developing nations and third world countries participated only as clients, allies, or dependents of United States or the Soviet Union, with no significant voice of their own.
[h=2]UNCLOS III[/h]
Sea areas in international rights


The issue of varying claims of territorial waters was raised in the UN in 1967 by Arvid Pardo, of Malta, and in 1973 the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was convened in New York. In an attempt to reduce the possibility of groups of nation-states dominating the negotiations, the conference used a consensus process rather than majority vote. With more than 160 nations participating, the conference lasted until 1982. The resulting convention came into force on November 16, 1994, one year after the sixtieth state, Guyana, ratified the treaty.
The convention introduced a number of provisions. The most significant issues covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of disputes.
The convention set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows:
Internal watersCovers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.Territorial watersOut to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.Archipelagic watersThe convention set the definition of Archipelagic States in Part IV, which also defines how the state can draw its territorial borders. A baseline is drawn between the outermost points of the outermost islands, subject to these points being sufficiently close to one another. All waters inside this baseline are designated Archipelagic Waters. The state has full sovereignty over these waters (like internal waters), but foreign vessels have right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters (like territorial waters).Contiguous zoneBeyond the 12 nautical mile limit, there is a further 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline limit, the contiguous zone, in which a state can continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution, if the infringement started within the state's territory or territorial waters, or if this infringement is about to occur within the state's territory or territorial waters.[SUP][4][/SUP] This makes the contiguous zone a hot pursuit area.Exclusive economic zones (EEZs)These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources. In casual use, the term may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf. The EEZs were introduced to halt the increasingly heated clashes over fishing rights, although oil was also becoming important. The success of an offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico in 1947 was soon repeated elsewhere in the world, and by 1970 it was technically feasible to operate in waters 4000 metres deep. Foreign nations have the freedom of navigation and overflight, subject to the regulation of the coastal states. Foreign states may also lay submarine pipes and cables.Continental shelfThe continental shelf is defined as the natural prolongation of the land territory to the continental margin’s outer edge, or 200 nautical miles from the coastal state’s baseline, whichever is greater. A state’s continental shelf may exceed 200 nautical miles until the natural prolongation ends. However, it may never exceed 350 nautical miles (650 kilometres; 400 miles) from the baseline; or it may never exceed 100 nautical miles (190 kilometres; 120 miles) beyond the 2,500 meter isobath (the line connecting the depth of 2,500 meters). Coastal states have the right to harvest mineral and non-living material in the subsoil of its continental shelf, to the exclusion of others. Coastal states also have exclusive control over living resources "attached" to the continental shelf, but not to creatures living in the water column beyond the exclusive economic zone. Aside from its provisions defining ocean boundaries, the convention establishes general obligations for safeguarding the marine environment and protecting freedom of scientific research on the high seas, and also creates an innovative legal regime for controlling mineral resource exploitation in deep seabed areas beyond national jurisdiction, through an International Seabed Authority and the Common heritage of mankind principle.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states.
[h=2]Part XI and the 1994 Agreement[/h] Part XI of the Convention provides for a regime relating to minerals on the seabed outside any state's territorial waters or EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones). It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty.
The United States objected to the provisions of Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests. Due to Part XI, the United States refused to ratify the UNCLOS, although it expressed agreement with the remaining provisions of the Convention.
From 1983 to 1990, the United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law, while attempting to establish an alternative regime for exploitation of the minerals of the deep seabed. An agreement was made with other seabed mining nations and licenses were granted to four international consortia. Concurrently, the Preparatory Commission was established to prepare for the eventual coming into force of the Convention-recognized claims by applicants, sponsored by signatories of the Convention. Overlaps between the two groups were resolved, but a decline in the demand for minerals from the seabed made the seabed regime significantly less relevant. In addition, the decline of Socialism and the fall of Communism in the late 1980s had removed much of the support for some of the more contentious Part XI provisions.
In 1990, consultations were begun between signatories and non-signatories (including the United States) over the possibility of modifying the Convention to allow the industrialized countries to join the Convention. The resulting 1994 Agreement on Implementation was adopted as a binding international Convention. It mandated that key articles, including those on limitation of seabed production and mandatory technology transfer, would not be applied, that the United States, if it became a member, would be guaranteed a seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority, and finally, that voting would be done in groups, with each group able to block decisions on substantive matters. The 1994 Agreement also established a Finance Committee that would originate the financial decisions of the Authority, to which the largest donors would automatically be members and in which decisions would be made by consensus.
On February 1, 2011, the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an advisory opinion concerning the legal responsibilities and obligations of States Parties to the Convention with respect to the sponsorship of activities in the Area in accordance with Part XI of the Convention and the 1994 Agreement.[SUP][6][/SUP] The advisory opinion was issued in response to a formal request made by the International Seabed Authority following two prior applications the Authority's Legal and Technical Commission had received from the Republics of Nauru and Tonga regarding proposed activities (a plan of work to explore for polymetallic nodules) to be undertaken in the Area by two State-sponsored contractors (Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (sponsored by the Republic of Nauru) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd. (sponsored by the Kingdom of Tonga). The advisory opinion set forth the international legal responsibilities and obligations of Sponsoring States AND the Authority to ensure that sponsored activities do not harm the marine environment, consistent with the applicable provisions of UNCLOS Part XI, Authority regulations, ITLOS case law, other international environmental treaties, and Principle 15 of the UN Rio Declaration.[SUP][7][/SUP]
[h=2]Signature and ratification[/h] The convention was opened for signature on December 10, 1982 and entered into force on November 16, 1994 upon deposition of the 60th instrument of ratification.[SUP][1][/SUP] The convention is ratified by 162 states (including the Cook Islands and Niue) and the European Union.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Countries that have signed, but not ratified(16) Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Iran, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Niger, Rwanda, Swaziland, United Arab Emirates.Countries that have not signed(18) Andorra, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, South Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (and excluding the states with limited recognition). Although the United States helped shape the Convention and its subsequent revisions, and though it signed the 1994 Agreement on Implementation, it has not signed the Convention.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]
On July 16, 2012, the U.S. Senate had 34 Republican Senators who have indicated their intention to vote against ratification of the Treaty if it comes to a vote. Since at least 2/3 of the 100 member Senate (at least 67 Senators) are required to ratify a treaty, consideration of the treaty was deferred again. [SUP][11][/SUP]
[h=3]LOST in space[/h] Some American commentators, including former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have warned that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty might lead to its taxing authority being extended to cover the astronomical resources of outer space.[SUP][12][/SUP]

 

[Mahesabu]

reminds me of the book titled "THE GREAT PONDS"

 

[Kichuguu]

hapo kwenye blue, Si kweli kabisa, ur certainly wrong hata kama angekuja Nyerere mwenyewe, huyo aliyeandika ile Order 1902, watachemsha the valid document ni Agro-Germany Treaty 1890, hiyo order was just Tangazo la serikali ya Mwingireza kuelezea mipaka ya koloni lake na ndio maana halikuongelea issue ya mpaka wa TZ na Malawi kuwa ni katikati ya ziwa maana mipaka ilikuwa settled na Agro-Germany Treaty 1890, na hata OAU imeridhia wakati inaanzishwa, and nilivyosema tusubiri tuone ni kwa namna gani tutaabika na Obvious facts

Hapana, hiyo ni order ya mfalme wa uingereza akitangaza mipaka ya himaya yake; utatakiwa uprove kuwa zaidi ya himaya za uingereza na himaya ya ujerumani kulikuwa na himaya nyingine hapo katikati ya ziwa ambayo baadaye iliungana na himaya ya uingereza kuwa malawi. Na kwa kufanya hivyo tutahitaji kuijua himaya hiyo ilikuwa ipi. Kumbuka kuwa chini ya hiyo order mfalme aliteua gavana na kumtuma kwenda kutawala himaya hiyo, na chini ya amri hiyo, Gavana huyo hakuwa na mamlaka ya kutawala eno la ziwa. Soma tena kwa makini utaona wazi kuwa treaty ya 1890 haikutangaza mipaka wa British Central Africa, bali ilitangaza mipaka wa German East Africa tu. treaty ile ilikwenda mbali zaidi kutamka mipaka ya uingereza kaskazini mwa German East africa kwa vile ndiko kulikokuwa kumefanyika mabadiliko, kutokana na eneo la Witu kuhamia mikononi mwao kutoka mikononi mwa wajerumani. Kwa kusini mwa africa himaya yao haikuwa imebadilika kwa hiyo haikuwa affected na ile treaty. Sasa ukishaelewa hivyo, ndipo unapojiuliza maswali mawili:

(a) je eneo ambalo lilikuwa nje ya himaya ua ujerumani lilikuwa ni la uingereza automatically (hiyo ndiyo logic ambayo wewe na wamalawi mnatumia). Unfortunately hakuna ushahidi wowote kuonyesha hivyo. In fact ushahidi unapinga logic hiyo, kwani chini ya mgawanyo wa Berlin Conference wa 1884, eneo lote la Ziwa Nyasa, Ziwa Tanganyika, Mto Zambezi, Mto Niger, na Mto Congo, yalikuwa hayakumilikiwa na nchi yoyote kwa vile yalikuwa designated kuwa ni free trade areas; iwapo treaty ingetaka kuweka ziwa lile mikononi mwa waingereza ingeonyesha hivyo kama ilivyofanya kwa eneo la Witu, au ilivyogawanya ziwa Tanganyika

(b) Sasa basi mpaka halisi wa uingereza kwenye lile ziwa ulikuwa ulikuwa ni upi? ndipo unaposoma tena hiyo amri ya mfalme ya mwaka 1902, au rudi kwenye ramani ya berlin conference ya 1884.

 

[chilubi]

Lets prepare for war! The army wawe standby for any offense.... What goes around comes back around. Mnawapokonya zanzibar haki yao sasa zamu ya tanganyika imefika! Na yule mama alivokia na sapoti ya western nations, duh! Pana khatari tanzania ikaambulia patupu!!!

 

[chilubi]

Lakini na tanganyika nayo ni *****, inakuake ziwa la Tanganyika lipigwe pasu (nusu) nusu tanganyika nusu wengine wakati ziwa ni la tanganyika?? Mamaaaa

 

[Ukwaju]

Kwa wanaowalaumu kina Nitakupataje na na wengine kuwa si wazalendo hamuwatendei haki na kwa taarifa bdo hiyo link yako ya http://http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/...un_Msafiri.pdf haifunguki ila nimepata mwanga kutoka kwa Kibanga ampiga Mkoloni km kweli tutafuata hiyo United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea inaweza saidia au tukawasaidia watawala wetu maana Mh, Samweli Sitta na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa serikali Mh. Werema wakubali wasikubali wamechemsha katika hili na hata tukipelekwa Mahakama yoyote ya Kimataifa au ya mwanzo hapa kijijini kwetu kwa ushahidi huu nilioukuta ni kwamba Tanzania tutashindwa labda ubabe wa kivita. Mimi nashauri tukae mezani hili ziwa Nyasa bado ni la WamalawiNimejaribu kusearch kwa kutumia Satelite katika Google earth na kuZoom hadi mwisho nimeambulia kuogopa nii aibuhebu Bofya hapa Malawi Map: Central — Southern | Malawi Google Satellite Maps au angalia tena hizi ramani za Google Satelite za majuzi au leo leo

 

[Kichuguu]

Kwa wanaowalaumu kina Nitakupataje na na wengine kuwa si wazalendo hamuwatendei haki na kwa taarifa bdo hiyo link yako ya http://http://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/...un_Msafiri.pdf haifunguki ila nimepata mwanga kutoka kwa Kibanga ampiga Mkoloni km kweli tutafuata hiyo United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea inaweza saidia au tukawasaidia watawala wetu maana Mh, Samweli Sitta na Mwanasheria Mkuu wa serikali Mh. Werema wakubali wasikubali wamechemsha katika hili na hata tukipelekwa Mahakama yoyote ya Kimataifa au ya mwanzo hapa kijijini kwetu kwa ushahidi huu nilioukuta ni kwamba Tanzania tutashindwa labda ubabe wa kivita. Mimi nashauri tukae mezani hili ziwa Nyasa bado ni la WamalawiNimejaribu kusearch kwa kutumia Satelite katika Google earth na kuZoom hadi mwisho nimeambulia kuogopa nii aibuhebu Bofya hapa Malawi Map: Central — Southern | Malawi Google Satellite Maps au angalia tena hizi ramani za Google Satelite za majuzi au leo leo

Hujatafuta mpaka wa Malawi bali umetafuta mpaka wa Tanzania kihistoria. Mpaka wa Tanzania kihistoria siyo siyo mpaka wa malawi; mpaka wao ni magharibi ya ziwa kama ambavyo mpaka wa tanzania kihistoria ni mashariki ya ziwa. Tafuta ile attachamnet ya 1902 niliyoweka ambamo mfalame wa uingereza alipotangza mipaka ya himaya yake.

Thesis ya Colonel Msafiri siyo authoritative document kuhusu jambo hili. Na hizo ramani za "majuzi" za google hazifuati mpaka halisi; na ramani ambazo hazijathibitishwa na mamlaka yoyote. Huwezi kutumia ramani za google kama uthibitisho wa madai ya Malawi.