A clarification is needed here. Eliot Richardson's conference on the sea changed the boundary from 3 miles(cannon shot range)to 200 miles, effectively doubling the US area of sovereignty. That's in open waters, adjoining countries split it 1/2 way, correct? This was what my classmate told me, he was a lawyer for Richardson during the conference. Also there is an EEZ (Economic Exclusion Zone) that can be claimed by a country, magnesium nodules on the sea floor, etc......But over-fishing is the real problem here and there are possible solutions...
I'm afraid I don't know how far out the International Waters Zones are, but accept you are probably correct. This does actually give support to Hanks view I think. It becomes pretty arbitrary doesn't it, how far out a country decides it "owns" the waters. Moreover, we should be clear, these decisions aren't made by "countries" ie everyone in them, but by a group of beaurocrats and politicians.
As Hank says, the problem is that there are mixes of good and bad concepts. I have no problem with the concept of a country with access from the sea needing to claim some part of that sea as their own country, largely in the name of self defence. And I must admit, my once held view that all countries should be open to anyone have taken a dive after observing the events in Europe and the UK over the last few years. Give how very different various peoples are, the idea of the sovereign nation state I think is important as a means of self protection from a huge mob of people with vastly different ideas concerning life and liberty to ourselves. And this concept does involve use of a margin of sea. And having said this, given that a margin of sea is considered part of the shore country, then the people of the shore country have a right to prevent any unwanted incursion into it.
be interested if anyone wants to argue a flaw in my argument.