I... don't even know where to begin.
This definition is ambiguous. What's a "non military craft"? Do civilian ships contracted for military service count as vessels? How about impressed civilian ships? How about
civilian ships transporting military goods? Also, this entire proposal minus clause 2 deals with just vessels, not merchant vessels. Why the distinction?
First, this clause specifies
merchant vessels, terminology that isn't used anywhere else in the proposal for... some reason. Second, any vessel "who" wishes to travel? This is basic proofreading. Third, what does this even mean? The wording suggests that any merchant vessel "who wishes" to travel in international waters must be documented and licensed. This is at odds with the rest of the proposal, especially clause 4, which pretty clearly makes out registration to be an optional process. An alternative interpretation (which is at odds with the wording of the clause) suggests that the registry must be open to any merchant vessel. In which case... okay, but the clause becomes completely redundant, and mildly contradicts its own subclause. Fourth, what if there's already a registry that fills this role? Fifth, what does "document and license" even mean here? What licenses? What documentation? It's never brought up again. This is either clumsiness or words for the sake of words. Also note that this clause doesn't actually mention registration.
Well isn't that a blank check. This subclause allows any barriers to registration that member nations can cook up. It allows for corrupt rules and processes for maintaining registration as well as gaining it in the first place. Also, why does this clause talk about registration when its parent clause talks about documentation and licensing? Simply sloppy.
Why is "Ship Register" capitalized here and nowhere else? What does "with the authority of the registering nation" mean? "[A]nd upon the completion of the registration process by both parties"- aka the process solely up to member nations with no regulation.
The formatting's a mess. The subject here isn't even the WA, since there's a period at the end of clause 1. This clause doesn't actually specify that "register" applies to the ship register. Also, you would need to register the vessel in a new registry to complete this transfer of jurisdiction. You can't transfer jurisdiction without transferring to another registry. This raises another problem: what if a vessel isn't travelling internationally anymore? What if a vessel's in a member's territorial waters? The proposal implies that the vessel would remain under the jurisdiction of whatever nation it's registered with. Why should a foreign nation be charged with enforcement of my nation's "regulations" in my nation's territorial waters?
Here's where we get to the really bad stuff. This section doesn't even use the defined term of "vessel"- it uses "ship". What's a ship? Why is this section establishing ships as being under the jurisdiction of potentially multiple members? What does "in major part" mean? What does "substantially controlled" mean? If you love proposals that use "reasonable," you'll love this.
Subclause 1 refers to the impounding of vessels. Subclause 2 refers to the impounding of ships. Impounding is also a terrible one-size-fits-all solution. What if a ship is found to not meet construction regulations? Does it get impounded indefinitely by a member? What if the vessel's leaking chemicals in violation of regulations? Subclause 2 is utterly pointless. Extradition is a process carried out by request from one state to another for perpetrators of crimes. "[Per] extant" renders this subclause entirely subservient to prior WA law. Subclause 3... what exactly is a military non military craft? Clause 1's definition of "vessel" still applies here. This also isn't what "construe" means.
Hard against.
