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
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.