Yes, that was my thought, too, Shapu. That somehow he got the property as a squatter.
Curiousity got the better of me. I found this in wikipedia:
"The Principality of Sealand is a man-made off-shore installation named HM Fort Roughs, a former Maunsell Sea Fort located in the North Sea 10 km (six miles) off the coast of Suffolk, England, as well as territorial waters in a twelve-nautical-mile radius.
Since 1967, the population of Sealand has consisted of the associates and family members of Paddy Roy Bates, a former radio broadcaster and former British Army Major. Critics claim that Roughs Tower has always remained the property of the United Kingdom, a view that is disputed by the Bates family. The population of the facility rarely exceeds ten, and its inhabitable area is 550 m² (5920 square feet).
Sealand's claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are not recognised by any country, yet it is sometimes cited in debates as an interesting case study of how various principles of international law can be applied to a territorial dispute.
HM Fort Roughs, also called Roughs Tower, is one of several World War II installations that were designed by Guy Maunsell and known collectively as His Majesty's Forts or the Maunsell Sea Forts.
It is not an island, but a man-made structure, similar to an oil rig. The purpose of HM Fort Roughs was to guard the port of Harwich, Essex. It was constructed in the United Kingdom, towed into position and deliberately sunk at 51°53′40″N, 1°28′57″E) on Rough Sands - a sandbar located approximately six miles from the coast of Suffolk and eight miles from the coast of Essex, England.
In October 1965 Roy Bates gained control of HM Fort John Knox after winning a physical fight over squatters representing the offshore station called Radio City. He wished to use it for radio broadcasting to the UK mainland.
Roy Bates decided to move his radio equipment from HM Fort John Knox to HM Fort Roughs after he was found guilty in the UK of illegal broadcasting from HM Fort John Knox. However, HM Fort Roughs was occupied by staff representing Ronan O'Rahilly who represented the two Radio Caroline ships which formed a British network. Physical fighting to gain control of HM Fort Roughs lasted until September 1967. Roy Bates and his associates finally physically expelled the existing squatters representing Radio Caroline, and on September 2, 1967, he claimed it as his own.
In 1968 Britain's Royal Navy attempted to evict Roy Bates but was unsuccessful. As they entered territorial waters, Roy of Sealand fired warning shots from the former fort. A judge then ruled in his favour that Sealand was outside British Government control as it was beyond the three-mile limit of the country's waters. In 1974, Roy of Sealand introduced a constitution, which was followed by a flag, a national anthem, a currency and passports. . .
Court rulings in the United States and Germany have found that Sealand has no legal status, indicating that the area is part of the internationally recognised maritime territory of the United Kingdom, and that its supposed territory, HM Fort Roughs, has never ceased to be property of the UK Ministry of Defence.
Sealand's claim (i.e. Paddy Roy Bates and family's claim) is that it is an independent state, based on the following two propositions:
1. When Paddy Roy Bates and his associates occupied Roughs Tower/HM Fort Roughs in 1967 it was located in international waters, outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and all other sovereign states. Sealand claims de jure legitimacy on this basis.
2. The interactions of the UK and German governments with Sealand constitute de facto recognition. Sealand claims de facto legitimacy on this basis.
In international law, the two most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declarative theories of state creation. The constitutive theory was the standard nineteenth century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the twentieth century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires "diplomatic recognition" or merely "recognition of existence". It is clear that no other state grants Sealand diplomatic recognition, but it has been argued by Bates that negotiations carried out by Germany constituted "recognition of existence". In the declarative theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood, such as those defined by the Montevideo Convention. This asserts that a defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relationships with other sovereign states are the only foundation requirements for a sovereign state. None of these requirements necessarily has to conform to a certain size or standard, but their general characteristics should be taken into account.
A similar set of criteria for statehood is found in the European Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. The committee also found that the existence and disappearance of states was a question of fact, while the recognition by other states was purely declaratory.
In 1987 the United Kingdom passed an Act of Parliament to extend its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles (22 km), which it had the legal right to do under international law since 1958. These and subsequent laws have dealt with the construction and legal position of artificial islands. However, as Roughs Tower is actually a sunken ship, some have claimed it is not covered by these rulings.Sealand declared that it, too, was extending its claim of territorial waters to twelve nautical miles at a similar time to the UK.
According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is no transitional law and no possibility to consent to the existence of a construction which was previously approved or built by a neighbouring state. This means that artificial islands may no longer be constructed and then claimed as sovereign states, or as state territories, for the purposes of extension of an exclusive economic zone or of territorial waters.
However, since Roughs Tower is not an artificial island but a sunken ship, it would be necessary for Her Majesty's Crown Estate (which owns the land itself under the tower) to act as the complainant landlord in order to get the wreck removed from its property. If Sealand is a sunken ship rather than an artificial island then no claim to statehood can be made, as a ship cannot constitute the "permanent" territory required for statehood to be established. What is more, military ships and aircraft are the property of the State that commissioned them.
The only prospect for successful assertion of sovereignty would be to show that there was de facto sovereignty prior to 1982.
Although the UK has publicly asserted its authority over Roughs Tower, it appears to be government policy to refrain from comment or action except when forced. British Government documents, now available to the public under the 30-year expiry of confidentiality, show that the UK drafted plans to take the tower by force, but such plans were not implemented by the then Prime Minister due to the potential for loss of life, and the creation of a legal and public relations disaster.
In 1978 a German court ruled that Sealand was not a valid nation: "A man-made artificial platform, such as the so-called Duchy of Sealand, cannot be called either 'a part of the earth's surface' or 'land territory' and only structures which make use of a specific piece of the earth's surface can be recognised as State territory within the meaning of international law." (In re Duchy of Sealand (1978) 80 ILR 683, 685 (Administrative Court of Cologne))
In 1990 a US Administrative Court also ruled that Sealand was not a valid sovereign nation, following evidence from James Murphy of the Department of Trade and Industry. On appeal in 1991 the decision that the state called Sealand does not exist, and has not ever existed, was upheld by a US Federal Court.
On December 6, 2005, The Times claimed that the British government and courts had finally admitted that Sealand "is outside British national territory [...] and not part of the United Kingdom"; however The Times did not elaborate and there has been no confirmation by other sources."
If you care to read the wikipedia article in its entirety, you can find it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand This would make quite an interesting theme for a debate class.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
In... 1990's (?) (if i remember from my history class) he filed a request for his share in the fishing tax. Countries within countries can get a percentage of the tax they get from fishing the waters around the land mass, I dont know why this law exists (if anyone would care to explain) and he was completely ignored (as, after 34 years it'd be billions of dollars) but the guy is very intelligent.
