Difference between revisions of "Sea of Juarez Maritime Dispute"

old>ContraViper
(Debate of Results)
 
m (1 revision imported)
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 18:10, 27 October 2019

Sea of Juarez Maritime Dispute

Sea of Juarez. Inyurstan internal waters (dark blue), claimed territorial waters (light blue), traditional 12nm limit (medium blue); Martinez-Canal
Location
Sea of Juarez, Inyursta
Result Complete de-facto and de-jure Inyurstan control of the Sea of Juarez, led to creation of COSTAL Accords, Ausitoria unable to punish or reprimand Inyursta
Belligerents
 Inyursta Ausitoria
Commanders and leaders
Inyursta Admiràle Javier Rèndon N/A
Strength

 Inyursta

- Indeterminate maritime patrols
N/A
Casualties and losses

 Inyursta

None
N/A

The Sea of Juarez Maritime Dispute was a brief incident between La Républica D'Inyursta and Ausitoria. Despite the "non-eventful" nature of the situation, the outcome is considered extremely important for later developments.

Background

Tensions between Inyursta and Ausitoria were raised during the Tarkan-Whiteshore War, in which both nations supported opposite sides and sparked a large debate in the IFC over potential alliance involvement in the conflict. Ausitoria's illegal unilateral expulsion of Inyursta from the IFC also added to the tension.

Things reached a boiling point when another argument over maritime customs and right to passage came up. The Ausitorian regime then claimed they had a right to navigate whichever body of water they choose - including the Sea of Juarez which is widely considered to be Inyurstan internal and territorial waters - based on a select set of maritime convention. Inyursta conversely claimed that they are signatory to no such maritime convention, and therefore not required to open their green-water territories to a nation they see as hostile.

The government of Inyursta subsequently closed the Sea of Juarez to ships bearing the Ausitorian flag or transporting goods to Ausitoria, while the Ausitoria regime claimed they would respond and ensure that a quote "vital sea lane" would remain open.

Climax

The Inyurstan Navy, including by proxy the Inyurstan Coast Guard, then stepped up maritime patrols ready to respond to the threats by the foreign power. Sea traffic was monitored through both ground-based and airborne radar sources, and forces in the vacinity of the Sea of Juarez were placed on high alert in preparations to open or challenge Inyurstan control of the Sea of Juarez; however, Ausitoria would not make good on their threats and effectively abandon their claim to navigation of the Sea of Juarez.

A single freighter registered to a foreign trade partner of Ausitoria was sent to challenge the sea claim via means of offset trade, but it was turned around under threat of being sunk before pushing too deep into the Sea of Juarez.

Inyursta, a medium-sized developing nation, had openly challenged and disregarded the claims of a much larger and self-proclaimed more powerful nation without consequence or reprocussion.

Later Developments

Shortly following the incident - or lack-thereof - Inyursta and its major SACTO ally and regional neighbor Gran Cuscatlan utilized their recently solidified de-facto control of the Sea of Juarez to create the Juarez-Martinez Shipping Route (abbreviated JMSR); a joint-national authority to police, upkeep and collect dues for the sea lane and the Martinez Canal.

Inyursta, under the new leadership of of Président Jean-Baptiste Calderone, soon after drafted the COSTAL Accords which were based largely on their perceived victory in the Sea of Juarez; as well as the general belief that modern area-denial capabilities inherently nullify and render certain international boundaries obsolete.

Debate of Results

While most nations aware of the event subscribe to the view that the situation was an overall victory and positive outcome for Inyursta and its allies; Ausitoria and its allies claim that it was actually a victory for them and a loss for Inyursta. Such critics refer to the situation as "The International Arbitration"; despite the fact it was neither an arbitration nor was Inyursta or any of its private citizens made to pay any amount or form of compensation. Such critics also claim that offset trading routes and continuing to exhaust diplomatic efforts means the conflict is neither resolved nor set in stone.

Meanwhile, the Inyurstan government has refused all diplomatic avenues and expressed its intent to continue this policy unless otherwise forced to resort to diplomacy. Military and geopolitical experts are also immensely sceptial of the claim that alternative trading routes somehow nullify or compensate for failure to open up a vital sea lane. Additionally, it is widely speculated that the money "won" by such an "arbitration" actually originated from Ausitorian sources; meaning that - if true - they had payed themselves with their own money.