It now becomes apparent that both, a countries existence and the government or state of whose jurisdiction it is under, or whose government or state operates in the countries jurisdiction, amount to just fictions. Those who reside in such a country are subject to its jurisdiction. This is because such a country and its rules exist only on paper as a ‘definition’ to be agreed to. As a consequence, anything that emanates from such a countries jurisdiction, must be taken as a choice to either ‘contract’ with it or not. As would also be the case were you to be presented with what effectively would be ‘a presentation of an offer to contract defined on paper’ to join the jurisdiction of any other corporate body with an employee policy for its workers or agents, and where also that policy could alter during your tenure as an employee. Government or State being in the same position as such a corporate body making presentments to contract as its ‘business’, must be necessarily in that same position, in order for there not to be slavery, for all men are born with ‘freewill’ to make choices in their own lives as they so wish and see fit, in so far as they cause no harm or injury to others. Taken in this light, it can be seen that this ‘fictional construct of a country’ clearly is not a place where people exist. Therefore, people have to be convinced, without fully being made aware of the true nature of what is going on, into accepting contracts under the jurisdiction of a countries government or state. Such contracts attach when you admit to being in the jurisdiction of a governments or states country in which they operate. Admission of being in a countries jurisdiction is made when you choose to use the name given in the governments birth-certificate document that mimics your own name. These names are employee legal titles of the government and are owned by the government because they have a government agents signature on them. Using birth certificate title names, places you in a position of being a government agent or worker agreeing to the jurisdiction and therefore the contractual terms of any legislative, regulatory or policy document of government, whether it be central or local government. Such names are subject to a host of legislative liabilities, whether they be traffic fines, licenses, taxes etc., and are also subject to accepting being controlled and made to pay for some spurious requirement in their everyday fictional world by the other agents of government agencies who work for government in the jurisdiction of their fictional country. With regards to generating revenue to pay for the artificial national debt to the banks, government will and does ply for trade, or generates business or revenue, by finding someone to admit to being the governments birth certificate name which is under the jurisdiction of the country in which the government operates that name, since it is owned by government in that jurisdiction. Admitting to using the government birth certificate title, puts you in the jurisdiction of the fictional country the government operates in and having to accept any liabilities that attach to that titles use. You literally become an employee of a vast fictional corporation, with its fictional country, subject to its many fictional franchises variously known as, municipal authorities, local or regional authorities, judicial authorities, provinces, states, nation and so on. As an employee you are to follow company policy, unless of course you quit. You are to be liable for breaking company policy, unless of course you quit. From this it can be clearly seen that statutes and any other public regulations are company policy and only apply to those who admit to being government agents or employees. The other documented fictional legal title in place of the government birth certificate, which you could instead use, to contract through to other fictions that ‘can not see’ the real world outside their jurisdictional fictional world, and which is a document that also lies outside of the jurisdiction of a fictional country and government, is your ‘LIVE’ birth certificate title. That simply would mean the name on your LIVE birth certificate. This ‘particular name’ would be truly outside of the jurisdiction of a fictional country and government, since it would be without a government agents signature. This use of a fictional legal title is necessary to be able to do business with other fictions, because fictions cannot speak to ‘reality’ only to other fictions; just in the same way as ‘ghosts’ cannot speak to a man, since they occupy ‘a different world’ than a man’s. To obtain a clearer grasp of the concepts involved, see the links to the heading ‘Your Role and Standing’ to be found towards the bottom of the article, ‘POLAND A CASE IN POINT’.
Were people not willing to contract or do business with government, they would need to ensure that their standing with government would be understood not to be in its jurisdiction or its jurisdictional territory. This would allow them to maintain a jurisdiction outside of a countries jurisdiction. An example of people describing where they are to be found, or not admitting of government jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction of an instrument or agency of State, would be to use ‘negative averments’ in the form of questions that place the burden of proof of evidence on government and their agents. This is done in order that the burden of having to prove a negative, which is impossible, is firmly placed where it belongs; on those attempting to meddle in your private affairs. An example of people having to prove the impossible or a negative question is, ‘prove that you did not make x amount of income on such and such a tax year’. Well, you cannot prove a negative. How on earth are you supposed to prove you didn’t do something when you just didn’t do something. Where on earth are you supposed to get concrete evidence to show that something was not done. Evidence can obviously be made available by you for something that was done, but, for something that was not done!…well, that is next to impossible. Rather than fall for this ploy of questioning, it is better that you use the same questioning approach and ask the ‘meddler’ a question that can be used in the form of a negative averment to rebut their intrusions into your private affairs, for example, ‘can you provide any facts or factual evidence or anyone as a witness with first hand knowledge to say, that I am a tax-payer with income that is taxable’. In this way, the burden of proof lies firmly with them.
All this chicanery stems from trying to position people away from the reality of Natural Law Common To All People under which jurisdiction ‘free will’ operates, in so far as it does no injury, into one of positioning people into dependency on a host of ‘fictions’ designed to slowly but surely confiscate true wealth by making people personally and individually liable for ‘make-believe’ transgressions to which no sane man would admit to. To admit to such transgressions would mean that he failed to see, realise, or was not shown the underlying deceit of the true picture the ‘actions’ of history unravel, to finally and clearly reveal the patient designs of those who will enslave you. It all adds up to trying to get you to think that somehow these ‘confiscations’ of your wealth are legitimate. This amounts to simply legitimising theft, using what is a very subtle approach; an approach that convinces its victims of the validity of this ‘absurd’ mechanism of confiscation, knowing that an understanding of this diabolical schemes destructive nature with, as always, the banking system at its helm, is not appreciated. The cruel cosmic joke for its practitioners, is that each of the people become the means to their own destruction and at the same time each of them hand over their property and lands, with the able assistance of government, on a gold platter to these very same practitioners, without ever truly understanding and knowing how all this confiscation of real wealth happened. In this way, you are indeed made helpless from a lack of understanding the underlying hidden theme stripping you of your prosperity and leaving you confused. Worst of all, this cruel joke continues with you left dependent on Impostors of every description for answers and solutions. Impostors who always end up pointing the finger of blame away from the true picture of deceit to ‘some-other’ cause that distracts and evolves into further chaos. Their solutions invariably end with the further stripping of free-will through any suitable rousing -ism that always pronounces the beginnings of yet another tyranny towards degradation and enslavement. Anything to keep you away from understanding the ‘underlying-theme’. Absolutely anything. Your Chaos leads to Their Order.
Fictional nouns are those things that DO NOT EXIST in reality and that we can experience with our bodily senses. They are spoken of as though they have substance but clearly do not, and therefore need first to be described and understood by others before they can be communicated. Real nouns need not be described since they are simply ‘there’ to be immediately understood through man’s bodily senses. For example, ghosts come under the category of fictions, as do corporations, constitutions, association etc, which all only exist on paper and are not admitting of independent reality. They exist in the imaginings of the mind and may ‘mimic the names of things’ in the real world but certainly do not indicate, point to, or allude to real things that ‘exist’. An understanding of them is taught, which is unlike the understanding of real things that self-evidently exist and are perceived with our bodily senses without having to be taught what they are or having to have them described. Therefore, fictional nouns amount to a nonsense if you do not wish to recognise them or contract to them.
MARC STEVENS ADVENTURES IN LEGAL LAND FULL VERSION
How To Find A Company?
D & B – Find A Company
Are Corporations Masquerading as Government in Australia & World Wide?
Somethin’ Funny’s Goin’ On
Which State Are You Presumed To Live In?
Reference Sources To Investigate:
When reading any of this material, always repeatedly ask questions, as you are reading, that are in the nature of – ‘have they mentioned the word ‘land’ at all or spoken of land?’, ‘what land are they speaking of?’, ‘where is this land?’, ‘where do they define this land?’, ‘what does ‘territory’ mean to them?’ etc. DO NOT ASSUME THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ASSUMING TO BE LAND AS ‘YOU’ KNOW AND SEE IT. For example, do not assume that the “Land” they refer to is the land surface, known as top-soil, that you commonly occupy.
united Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A Commentary
Read as follows:
LANDLOCKED STATES – page 393
For the purpose of this Convention,
(a) the term “land-locked State” means any Contracting State which has no sea-coast;
(b) the term “traffic in transit” means the passage of goods including unaccompanied baggage across the territory of a Contracting State between a land-locked State and the sea when the passage is a portion of a complete journey which begins or terminates within the territory of that land-locked State and which includes sea transport directly preceding or following such passage…;
(c) the term “transit State” means any Contracting State with or without a sea-coast, situated between a land-locked State and the sea, through whose territory “traffic in transit” passes;
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Overview and full text
Spatial definition of states
The sovereignty of a state is confined to a defined piece of territory, which is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and is protected by international law from violation by other states. Although frontier disputes do not detract from the sovereignty or independence of a particular state, it is inherent in statehood that there should be a core territory that is subject to the effective control of the authorities of the state. Additional territory may be acquired by states through cession from other states (the Island of Palmas case in 1928); by the occupation of territory that is terra nullius (Latin: “the land of no one”)—i.e., land not under the sovereignty or control of any other state or socially or politically organized grouping; or by prescription, where a state acquires territory through a continued period of uncontested sovereignty.
MARITIME SPACES AND BOUNDARIES
The sovereign territory of a state extends to its recognized land boundaries and to the border of airspace and outer space above them. A state that has a coastal boundary also possesses certain areas of the sea. Sovereignty over bodies of water is regulated by four separate 1958 conventions—the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, the Convention on the High Seas, and the Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas—and by the comprehensive Law of the Sea treaty (1982), which entered into force in 1994.
The territory of states includes internal waters (i.e., harbours, lakes, and rivers that are on the landward side of the baselines from which the territorial sea and other maritime zones are measured), over which the state has full and complete sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction. Through the Law of the Sea treaty and now under customary international law, a state may claim a territorial sea of up to 12 nautical miles from the baselines (essentially the low-water mark around the coasts of the state concerned), though, in cases where a coast is heavily indented, a series of straight baselines from projecting points may be drawn. A state has sovereignty over its territorial seas, but they are subject to the right of innocent passage—i.e., the right of all shipping to pass through the territorial waters of states, provided that the passage is not prejudicial. Examples of prejudicial conduct include the threat or use of force, spying, willful and serious pollution, breaches of customs, sanitary, fiscal, and immigration regulations, and fishing. Coastal states may exercise a limited degree of criminal jurisdiction with regard to foreign ships that are engaged in innocent passage through their territorial seas (e.g., in cases where the consequences of the crime alleged extend to the coastal state or where such measures are necessary for the suppression of the traffic of illicit drugs).
A series of other maritime zones extend beyond territorial seas. A contiguous zone—which must be claimed and, unlike territorial seas, does not exist automatically—allows coastal states to exercise the control necessary to prevent and punish infringements of customs, sanitary, fiscal, and immigration regulations within and beyond its territory or territorial sea. The zone originally extended 12 nautical miles from the baselines but was doubled by the 1982 treaty. The exclusive economic zone developed out of claims to fishing zones. The 1982 treaty allowed states to claim such a zone, extending 200 nautical miles from the baselines, in which they would possess sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage the natural resources of the seas and seabed; to exercise jurisdiction over artificial installations and scientific research; and to protect and preserve the marine environment. The zone was accepted as part of customary international law in the ICJ’s 1985 decision in the dispute between Libya and Malta, which concerned the delimitation of the continental shelf between them.
A state is automatically entitled to exercise sovereign rights to explore and exploit the natural resources in an adjacent continental shelf (i.e., the ledges projecting from the land into and under the sea). The shelf may extend either to the outer edge of the continental margin or to 200 miles from the baselines where the outer edge of the continental margin does not reach that distance. Thus, the continental shelf as a concept in international law becomes a legal fiction where the shelf does not in fact extend as far as 200 miles.
Problems have arisen over the delimitation of the various maritime zones between adjacent and opposing states. International law generally requires equitable resolutions of maritime territorial disputes. Although the definition of equity is unclear, relevant factors include the impact of natural prolongation of the land territory (i.e., the basic principle that the continental shelf is a continuation of the land territory into the sea), proportionality between the length of a disputing party’s coastline and the extent of continental shelf it controls, the principle of equidistance (i.e., a line of equal distance from the two shores in question), and the existence (if any) of islands between the coastlines.
Jurisdiction refers to the power of a state to affect persons, property, and circumstances within its territory. It may be exercised through legislative, executive, or judicial actions. International law particularly addresses questions of criminal law and essentially leaves civil jurisdiction to national control. According to the territorial principle, states have exclusive authority to deal with criminal issues arising within their territories; this principle has been modified to permit officials from one state to act within another state in certain circumstances (e.g., the Channel Tunnel arrangements between the United Kingdom and France and the 1994 peace treaty between Israel and Jordan). The nationality principle permits a country to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any of its nationals accused of criminal offenses in another state. Historically, this principle has been associated more closely with civil-law systems than with common-law ones, though its use in common-law systems increased in the late 20th century (e.g., the adoption in Britain of the War Crimes Act in 1991 and the Sex Offenders Act in 1997). Ships and aircraft have the nationality of the state whose flag they fly or in which they are registered and are subject to its jurisdiction.
The passive personality principle allows states, in limited cases, to claim jurisdiction to try a foreign national for offenses committed abroad that affect its own citizens. This principle has been used by the United States to prosecute terrorists and even to arrest (in 1989–90) the de facto leader of Panama, Manuel Noriega, who was subsequently convicted by an American court of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. The principle appears in a number of conventions, including the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1979), the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (1973), and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). The protective principle, which is included in the hostages and aircraft-hijacking conventions and the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel (1994), can be invoked by a state in cases where an alien has committed an act abroad deemed prejudicial to that state’s interests, as distinct from harming the interests of nationals (the passive personality principle). Finally, the universality principle allows for the assertion of jurisdiction in cases where the alleged crime may be prosecuted by all states (e.g., war crimes, crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity, slavery, and piracy).
Jurisdictional immunity exists in certain contexts. Diplomatic personnel, for example, have immunity from prosecution in the state in which they operate. In the 1960s, however, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations stipulated that the level of immunity varies according to the official’s rank. Immunity is generally more extensive in criminal than in civil matters. A country’s diplomatic mission and archives also are protected. International organizations possess immunity from local jurisdiction in accordance with international conventions (e.g., the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 1946) and agreements signed with the state in which they are based. Certain immunities also extend to the judges of international courts and to visiting armed forces.
States have opted to cooperate in a number of areas beyond merely the allocation and regulation of sovereign rights.
HIGH SEAS AND SEABED
Traditionally, the high seas beyond the territorial waters of states have been regarded as open to all and incapable of appropriation. The definition of the high seas has changed somewhat since the creation of the various maritime zones, so that they now are considered to be those waters not included in the exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, or internal waters of states or in the archipelagic waters of archipelagic states.
The high seas are open to all states, with each state possessing the freedoms of navigation and overflight and the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, to conduct scientific research, and to fish. On ships on the high seas, jurisdiction is exercised by the flag state (i.e., the state whose flag is flown by the particular ship). Nevertheless, warships have the right to board a ship that is suspected of engaging in piracy, the slave trade, or unauthorized broadcasting. There also is a right of “hot pursuit,” provided that the pursuit itself is continuous, onto the high seas from the territorial sea or economic zone of the pursuing state in order to detain a vessel suspected of violating the laws of the coastal state in question.
The international seabed (i.e., the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction), parts of which are believed to be rich in minerals, is not subject to national appropriation and has been designated a “common heritage of mankind” by the Declaration of Principles Governing the Seabed (1970) and the Law of the Sea treaty. Activities in the international seabed, also known as “the Area,” are expected to be carried out in the collective interests of all states, and benefits are expected to be shared equitably.
The leading English-language treatise is Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts, Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed. (1992, reissued 1996). Wide-ranging treatises include D.P. O’Connell, International Law, 2nd ed., 2 vol. (1970); and Charles E. Rousseau, Droit international public, 5 vol. (1970–83). An interesting view of international law on the basis of historical practice is J.H.W. Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective, 12 vol. (1968–98). Other treatises are Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 5th ed. (1998); Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed. (2003); and Dinh Quoc Nguyen (Quoc Dinh Nguyen), Patrick Daillier, and Alain Pellet, Droit international public, 7th ed. (2002). Stimulating introductions are provided by Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (1994, reissued 1998); and Louis Henkin, International Law: Politics and Values (1995). An authoritative view of international law from the Soviet perspective is G.I. Tunkin, Theory of International Law (1974; originally published in Russian, 1970).
Good collections of basic documents include Ian Brownlie (ed.), Basic Documents in International Law, 5th ed. (2002); Malcolm D. Evans, Blackstone’s International Law Documents, 5th ed. (2001); and Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Les Grands Textes de droit international public, 2nd ed. (2000).
Treaties are collected in Clive Parry (ed.), The Consolidated Treaty Series, 231 vol. (1969–81); League of Nations, League of Nations Treaty Series: Publications of Treaties and International Engagements Registered with the Secretariat of the League, 205 vol. (1920–46); United Nations, Treaty Series (1947– ); Manley O. Hudson (ed.), International Legislation: A Collection of Texts of Multipartite International Instruments of General Interest Beginning with the Covenant of the League of Nations, 9 vol. (1931–50, reprinted 1970-72); and M.J. Bowman and D.J. Harris, Multilateral Treaties: Index and Current Status (1984), updated by annual cumulative supplements.
nternational case law can be found in International Court of Justice, Publications (1946); James Brown Scott (ed.), The Hague Court Reports, 2 vol. (1916–32); Vincent Coussirat-Coustère and Pierre Michel Eisemann, Repertory of International Arbitral Jurisprudence (1989–91); Reports of International Arbitral Awards (irregular), published by the United Nations; International Law Reports (annual); and A.M. Stuyt (ed.), Survey of International Arbitrations, 1794–1989, 3rd, updated ed. (1990).
Digests of practice in international law
Digests of state practice include Alexandre-Charles Kiss, Répertoire de la pratique française en matière de droit international public, 7 vol. (1962–72); British Practice in International Law (annual), published by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law; John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law, 8 vol. (1906, reprinted 1970); Green Haywood Hackworth, Digest of International Law, 8 vol. (1940–44, reprinted 1973); Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, 15 vol. (1963–73); Digest of United States Practice in International Law (annual; 1973–1980; resumed publication in 2000); and Marion Lloyd Nash, Cumulative Digest, 1981–88 (1993–95). Surveys of current national practice may be found in most yearbooks and periodicals.
Journals and periodicals
Yearbooks on international law include The British Yearbook of International Law; The Indian Year Book of International Affairs (irregular); The Japanese Annual of International Law; Annuaire Français de droit international; The Canadian Yearbook of International Law; Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International; Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für internationales Recht (1944–90); German Yearbook of International Law; Netherlands Yearbook of International Law; and The Italian Yearbook of International Law.
Useful periodicals include The American Journal of International Law (quarterly); Archiv des Völkerrechts (quarterly); The International and Comparative Law Quarterly; Revue générale de droit international public (quarterly); International Business Law Journal (8/yr.); European Journal of International Law (quarterly); Netherlands International Law Review (3/yr.); Revue belge de droit international (semiannual); and Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (quarterly).
Reference works include Rudolf Berhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 12 vol. (1981–90); Clive Parry et al. (eds.), Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law (1986, reissued 1988); Karl Strupp (ed.), Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts, 2nd ed., edited by Hans-Jürgen Schlochauer et al., 4 vol. (1960–62); Union Académique Internationale, Dictionnaire de la terminologie du droit international (1960); James R. Fox, Dictionary of International and Comparative Law, 2nd ed. (1997); and American Law Institute, Third Restatement of the Law: The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, rev. and enlarged ed., 2 vol. (1987; reissued in 1 vol., 1990).
bY Michael Shaw
Year in Review Links
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Main Entry -state
Part of speech – noun
Definition – government, country
Synonyms – body politic, commonwealth, community, federation, land, nation, republic, sovereignty, territory, union
Main Entry – union
Part of Speech – noun
Definition – merger, joining
Main Entry – affiliation
Part of Speech – noun
Definition – association with an organisation
Country, State, and Nation
Definining an Independent Country
By Matt Rosenberg
Gazetteer of the District of Columbia for 1871-2 (1871)
Development of the District of Columbia .. (1909)