Ships under attack in the middle east

Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,918
Location
Northern England
Your proof ?

Seems a stretch considering how tiny those officially recognised waters are

TAig4pD.gif

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48871462https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48871462

"But when the super-tanker, all 330 metres of it, entered EU waters, specifically Gibraltar waters, the British authorities judged they had no choice but to enforce EU sanctions against Syria which the UK pushed for and strongly supports."


https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-5.2/centery:36.2/zoom:11

You can even track its passage.

From even your own source you can see it cannot enter the Med without passing through EU waters.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,452
And your proof it wasn't is?

I'm not making the claim it was or wasn't, it seems silly it would go to so much trouble of sailing around Africa and not use the Suez canal and then just brazenly sail through the smallest of pockets of water in the area to get captured

So if I get this right, if any ships going to nations Iran doesn't like sail through their part of the strait of Hormuz, it's okay for them to seize the ships because we've (UK/US) have just set the example for it ?

Don't get me wrong though I don't think we or Iran should be seizing ships, I'm just thinking to the future when Iran does it and they will, how we'll look to the world stage being all hypocritical by criticising Iran for actions we ourselves do
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2019
Posts
885
Don't get me wrong though I don't think we or Iran should be seizing ships, I'm just thinking to the future when Iran does it and they will, how we'll look to the world stage being all hypocritical by criticising Iran for actions we ourselves do

I think that everyone would then point to the UN and say it was mandated by them (UK seizing this ship) - if Iran doesnt have that then just plucking out ships from their side of the water will likely get some of those cruise missile shaped presents sent to Irans rulers.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
Or they were hoping to slip by without being targetted because the cargo had been declared as being Iraqi oil. Its final destination was not made clear.

I guess, but still doesnt explain why they'd bother going close by when they could have just gone straight :/
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,918
Location
Northern England
So going back to this



Is not actually true, it seems it was forced into British Territorial Waters and either seized when brought in or seized while in the international strait

Suggest you plot it on the map. It was in British waters. Also worth pointing out that you're wrong on another count - the straight isn't international waters.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,452
I have. Hence why I'm making the claim...

Every point you've tried to make so far has been proven to be wrong. When you gonna give up and just admit you're talking balls about something you have no idea about?

Straits used for international navigation through the territorial sea between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone are subject to the legal regime of transit passage (Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz). The regime of innocent passage applies in straits used for international navigation (1) that connect a part of high seas or an exclusive economic zone with the territorial sea of coastal nation (Strait of Tiran, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Baltiysk) and (2) in straits formed by an island of a state bordering the strait and its mainland if there exists seaward of the island a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics (Strait of Messina, Pentland Firth). There may be no suspension of innocent passage through such straits.

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.

This navigation rule is codified in Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[2] most countries, including the US,[3] accept the customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. This navigation rule took on more importance with UNCLOS III as that convention confirmed the widening of territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles, causing more straits not to have a navigation passage between the territorial waters of the coastal nations.

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[citation needed]. The legal regime of transit passage exists in the most important straits for the international trade exchange and security (Strait of Gibraltar, Dover Strait, Strait of Hormuz, Bab-el-Mandeb, Strait of Malacca).[4]

Transit passage rights do not extend to any state's internal waters within a strait.[1]

I think you're wrong as you're confusing international waters with an international strait, I never mentioned international waters intentionally :)
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,918
Location
Northern England
I think you're wrong as you're confusing international waters with an international strait, I never mentioned international waters intentionally :)

So it seems we're setting a bad example to Iran if all it takes to seize ships in international waters is arbitrary sanctions against x country and partial claim to a strait :)

If we're going to play world police with the USA we should really lead by example, not "do as I say, not what I do"

u wot m8?
 
Back
Top Bottom