While the floating incubator will be in international waters, it's still within the U.S.'s exclusive economic zone. Is there legal precedent that travelling to a floating platform in the U.S.'s EEZ count as an "exit" for visa purposes?
The map in the article suggests that the ferries will go to/from Half Moon Bay. But Half Moon Bay is not a Port of Entry. Is the expectation that the U.S. government will set up HMB as a Port of Entry? And if it doesn't, is this project still practical if the ferries are required to travel to San Francisco?
If the U.S. decides to bar someone on the platform from entry, doesn't that mean that person is stuck on the platform? How else would someone get from the platform to, say, the U.K., without going through a U.S. airport?
It's actually within the contiguous zone, which offers even more regulatory abilities by the coastal state. The ship could just sail outside of the contiguous zone, but would still be within the EEZ. In that case, the issue becomes more tricky.
Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] provides states with sovereign rights to exploit the resources contained within the EEG. If Blueseed wants to connect to undersea cables (or provide another mainland direct link), the ships become artificial islands because of the connection to the seabed. Because the provisions of Art. 60 of UNCLOS apply mutatis mantandis to artificial islands, it might not matter whether the start-up is an Art. 56 installation or a ship exercising its "high seas" freedoms. This protection extends to up to 200 nautical miles from the coast, so to be "truly" free, you'd have to go past the EEZ and likely operate an offshore airport for ferrying your employees.
As for the point of entry issues, I'm afraid I don't know anything about that. They'd likely be rendered moot by the need for an airport, though.
That's an extremely good point that I really should have mentioned, since some of the United States' issues with it pertain to the exclusive economic zone. Although a non-issue when dealing with the contiguous zone, moving a ship/artificial island outside of the contiguous zone may implicate it. I'll have to look some more into the United States' stance on Articles 56 and 60, which deal with the EEZ and artificial islands, respectively.
Comments
Some questions:
While the floating incubator will be in international waters, it's still within the U.S.'s exclusive economic zone. Is there legal precedent that travelling to a floating platform in the U.S.'s EEZ count as an "exit" for visa purposes?
The map in the article suggests that the ferries will go to/from Half Moon Bay. But Half Moon Bay is not a Port of Entry. Is the expectation that the U.S. government will set up HMB as a Port of Entry? And if it doesn't, is this project still practical if the ferries are required to travel to San Francisco?
If the U.S. decides to bar someone on the platform from entry, doesn't that mean that person is stuck on the platform? How else would someone get from the platform to, say, the U.K., without going through a U.S. airport?
It's actually within the contiguous zone, which offers even more regulatory abilities by the coastal state. The ship could just sail outside of the contiguous zone, but would still be within the EEZ. In that case, the issue becomes more tricky.
Article 56 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] provides states with sovereign rights to exploit the resources contained within the EEG. If Blueseed wants to connect to undersea cables (or provide another mainland direct link), the ships become artificial islands because of the connection to the seabed. Because the provisions of Art. 60 of UNCLOS apply mutatis mantandis to artificial islands, it might not matter whether the start-up is an Art. 56 installation or a ship exercising its "high seas" freedoms. This protection extends to up to 200 nautical miles from the coast, so to be "truly" free, you'd have to go past the EEZ and likely operate an offshore airport for ferrying your employees.
As for the point of entry issues, I'm afraid I don't know anything about that. They'd likely be rendered moot by the need for an airport, though.
Keep in mind that the United States, while observing UNCLOS in many of its particulars, has not ratified it.
That's an extremely good point that I really should have mentioned, since some of the United States' issues with it pertain to the exclusive economic zone. Although a non-issue when dealing with the contiguous zone, moving a ship/artificial island outside of the contiguous zone may implicate it. I'll have to look some more into the United States' stance on Articles 56 and 60, which deal with the EEZ and artificial islands, respectively.