Ships under attack in the middle east

[Minusorange]

Yeah that is the one - though there were some yesterday with an overlay of the various territorial waters.

Was the only other image posted, even if they entered Gibraltars territorial seas, it's still not internal waters though and they're still within international strait, so whatever we did to seize it, is very questionable in my opinion

Unless the tanker docked to refuel at Gibraltar which would seem utterly stupid and it's not been reported then I would happily agree what we did was fine as it would then be in internal waters and not subject to the international strait agreement

 

[Dis86]

Do you have a track of the tanker positions handy? yesterday there was several going around which showed its positions relative to the various areas of sea but I didn't take much notice as I was busy and today I can't seem to find them/some have been deleted.

I posted it a few days back with a link to a shipping site. Shows it's previous journey.

 

[dowie]

Detaining a civilian vessel in a state's own territorial waters in order to search it probably isn't against marine law.

However, detaining it indefinitely when it is transporting goods from "other state A" to "other state B" might be.

The United Kingdom is NOT the United Nations; it appears to be a vassal state of the USA

Well good job no one is saying it is detained indefinitely then, the judge has allowed it to be detained for 14 days at the moment.

Likewise surely you mean the UK appears to be a vassal state of the EU? It’s EU sanctions that are being enforced, what does the US have to do with that?

 

[dowie]

EU Sanctions only apply to EU nations, Iran as far as I can see both geographically and politically is not part of the EU and therefore can give 2 fingers to EU sanctions, like they can give 2 fingers to US sanctions, neither are the World Police (UN), neither have any right to force their laws onto other sovereign states not part of their cabal

Gibraltar is part of the EU though, whether Iran is or not isn’t really relevant. The ship was registered in Panama and owned by a company based in Singapore, they’re not part of the EU either.

 

[Minusorange]

Gibraltar is part of the EU though, whether Iran is or not isn’t really relevant. The ship was registered in Panama and owned by a company based in Singapore, they’re not part of the EU either.

It doesn't matter, it's an international strait, I've posted plenty of information that explains this direct from the UN website so you can't get more official than that but people seem to think it's fine to ignore the facts presented because it doesn't suit their narrative of UK being a bastion of good and never doing anything questionable.

 

[dowie]

It doesn't matter, it's an international strait, I've posted plenty of information that explains this direct from the UN website so you can't get more official than that but people seem to think it's fine to ignore the facts presented because it doesn't suit their narrative of UK being a bastion of good and never doing anything questionable.

Where does that apply out of interest, it’s a bit vague? Like do you have a map showing where it is applicable?

For example in the map above does it just apply to the Spanish and Moroccan territorial waters that have to be traversed in order to get between the two bits of international waters?

 

[stockhausen]

Well good job no one is saying it is detained indefinitely then, the judge has allowed it to be detained for 14 days at the moment. . . .

We shall see.

. . . Likewise surely you mean the UK appears to be a vassal state of the EU? It’s EU sanctions that are being enforced, what does the US have to do with that?

Perhaps you are right, perhaps Agent Orange was in no way involved in this action . . . perhaps . . .


ps - can you please change this £9 note for me?

 

[Dis86]

It doesn't matter, it's an international strait, I've posted plenty of information that explains this direct from the UN website so you can't get more official than that but people seem to think it's fine to ignore the facts presented because it doesn't suit their narrative of UK being a bastion of good and never doing anything questionable.

The problem is you don't understand what you've posted. The UK haven't acted against a nation. They've acted against an individual vessel that is in breach of internationally ratified sanctions.

Clause 3 sets forth exceptions, I suggest you read and try to understand them. The laws you've quoted have caveats that you haven't quoted.

 

[Minusorange]

For example in the map above does it just apply to the Spanish and Moroccan territorial waters that have to be traversed in order to get between the two bits of international waters?

Exactly also applies to Gibraltan territorial waters, unless the ship stops in those waters or starts fishing or does research

The problem is you don't understand what you've posted. The UK haven't acted against a nation. They've acted against an individual vessel that is in breach of internationally ratified sanctions.

Clause 3 sets forth exceptions, I suggest you read and try to understand them. The laws you've quoted have caveats that you haven't quoted.

Yes for international laws, EU sanctions are NOT international laws or internationally ratified sanctions under the UN

 

[Dis86]

Article 42 disagrees with you.

 

[dowie]

Exactly also applies to Gibraltan territorial waters, unless the ship stops in those waters or starts fishing or does research

What are you basing that on? Where does it end exactly?

 

[Minusorange]

Article 42 disagrees with you.

Article42


Laws and regulations of States bordering straits

relating to transit passage

1. Subject to the provisions of this section, States bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage through straits, in respect of all or any of the following:

(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41;

(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving effect to applicable international regulations regarding the discharge of oil, oily wastes and other noxious substances in the strait;

(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing, including the stowage of fishing gear;

(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of States bordering straits.

2. Such laws and regulations shall not discriminate in form or in fact among foreign ships or in their application have the practical effect of denying, hampering or impairing the right of transit passage as defined in this section.

3. States bordering straits shall give due publicity to all such laws and regulations.

4. Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations.

5. The flag State of a ship or the State of registry of an aircraft entitled to sovereign immunity which acts in a manner contrary to such laws and regulations or other provisions of this Part shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage which results to States bordering straits.

No it doesn't, you're reading it wrong

What are you basing that on? Where does it end exactly?

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a nation's internal waters include waters on the side of the baseline of a nation's territorial waters that is facing toward the land, except in archipelagic states.[1] It includes waterways such as rivers and canals, and sometimes the water within small bays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters

Internal waters begin and end at the low water mark and encompass all rivers, canals, lakes

The United Kingdom claims 5.6 km (3.5 mi; 3.0 nmi) around Gibraltar on the northern side of the Strait, putting part of it inside British territorial waters. As this is less than the 22.2 km (13.8 mi; 12.0 nmi) maximum, it means, according to the British claim, that part of the Strait lies in international waters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar

 

[Dis86]

How am I reading point 4 wrong?

 

[Nasher]

It sailed all the way round Africa, probably to avoid being stopped at the strait of Hormuz. I bet they tried to refuel at Gibraltar and hoped they wouldn't get noticed.

The RN isn't stupid, I doubt they would allow British marines to take part in something illegal.

 

[Minusorange]

How am I reading point 4 wrong?

Let me explain it

Foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations.

Means that any ships entering the strait will be subject to the laws created in regards to Article 42

Those laws can only be in respect of any or all of the following

(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic, as provided in article 41;

(b) the prevention, reduction and control of pollution, by giving effect to applicable international regulations regarding the discharge of oil, oily wastes and other noxious substances in the strait;

(c) with respect to fishing vessels, the prevention of fishing, including the stowage of fishing gear;

(d) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person in contravention of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of States bordering straits.

Anything else a country/economic area decides as law only applies to citizens of those states/economic area as long as the ship is just passing through the territorial waters

So we cannot impose EU sanctions, EU law or UK law on any ship just passing through the strait as it contravenes the international maritime law on transit passage

Transit passage is a concept of the Law of the Sea, which allows a vessel or aircraft the freedom of navigation or overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of a strait between one part of the high seas or exclusive economic zone and another. The requirement of continuous and expeditious transit does not preclude passage through the strait for the purpose of entering, leaving or returning from a state bordering the strait, subject to the conditions of entry to that state.

Transit passage exists throughout the entire strait, not just the area overlapped by the territorial waters of the coastal nations. The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in such straits and their approaches. Submarines are free to transit international straits submerged since that is their normal mode of operation.[3] Transit passage rights do not extend to any state's internal waters within a strait.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage

It's really not that complicated

 

[dowie]

Internal waters begin and end at the low water mark and encompass all rivers, canals, lakes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar

Right and the ship was stopped in Gibraltar’s waters? What’s the issue?

 

[stockhausen]

Let me explain it . . .

Even with an infinite amount of time, 100 monkeys and 100 typewriters I am not convinced that you will ever manage to convince him

 

[Minusorange]

Right and the ship was stopped in Gibraltar’s waters? What’s the issue?

Because we don't know it was "stopped" in Gibraltar waters, none of the articles actually say whether it was docked in Gibraltar or whether it was just sailing through the straits and forced to divert into Gibraltar

If it was docked at Gibraltar then yes the UK is well within its rights to detain the ship and I don't have any issue with it

But if it was sailing through the strait and we forced it to dock then the UK are ignoring international law and it sets a terrible example to Iran

The fact they're calling it piracy suggests the ship wasn't docked and was sailing through, otherwise they'd look real stupid if it came out the ship was docked & refuelling

 

[dowie]

Because we don't know it was "stopped" in Gibraltar waters, none of the articles actually say whether it was docked in Gibraltar or whether it was just sailing through the straits and forced to divert into Gibraltar

If it was docked at Gibraltar then yes the UK is well within its rights to detain the ship and I don't have any issue with it

But if it was sailing through the strait and we forced it to dock then the UK are ignoring international law and it sets a terrible example to Iran

It wasn’t docked, they boarded it at sea via helicopter and fast boats.

You’ve still not explained this claim re: breaching international law in particular where exactly it applies re the strait and where it ends.

 

[Nasher]

Because we don't know it was "stopped" in Gibraltar waters, none of the articles actually say whether it was docked in Gibraltar or whether it was just sailing through the straits and forced to divert into Gibraltar

If it was docked at Gibraltar then yes the UK is well within its rights to detain the ship and I don't have any issue with it

But if it was sailing through the strait and we forced it to dock then the UK are ignoring international law and it sets a terrible example to Iran

The fact they're calling it piracy suggests the ship wasn't docked and was sailing through, otherwise they'd look real stupid if it came out the ship was docked & refuelling

Iran has been sticking mines on ships docked in Saudi, so I doubt they care much about international laws.