Ships under attack in the middle east

Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
Let me explain it



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



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





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

It's really not that complicated

That doesn't explain point 4.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
That doesn't explain point 4.

Yes it does, it's not my fault if you're too retarded to comprehend the actual wording of the article and that schedule 4 is referring specifically to the points above it in said article

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

The strait is the entire strait, it ends when it's no longer a strait and is the Med or the Atlantic

Can't believe I have to draw it in glorified crayon for you to show you a rough approximation of where it begins and ends

AjTjk3I.jpg

edit* found actual sea charts

PJPGCM5.jpg

Strait is the purple box but I'd imagine it does extend further out depending on the traffic
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
No...it doesn't.

Refer to article 42, section 1c and then section 4...

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

:confused:

The **** are you smoking ?

If you mean D

(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

Yeah, they weren't planning on loading or unloading anything in the strait, so it doesn't apply dumbass
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
I thought I was pretty clear! Where does it say they have to unload it within the straight?

The header text of section 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:

No mention of unloading in the straight.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
I thought I was pretty clear! Where does it say they have to unload it within the straight?

The header text of section 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:

No mention of unloading in the straight.

sigh, it's in reference to actions WITHIN the strait, NOT at the final destination

it even tells you

relating to transit passage through straits

I'm not going to explain to you any further, if you don't understand it now, you're never going to understand it
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
Except I've clearly written where it states transit through.

And it's clearly written that what you're thinking is wrong and I've explained as clearly as possible why you are wrong in your assumption

If you can't understand the concept, well that ain't my problem, I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with you as you're either too thick, trolling or both
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
And it's clearly written that what you're thinking is wrong and I've explained as clearly as possible why you are wrong in your assumption

If you can't understand the concept, well that ain't my problem, I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this with you as you're either too thick, trolling or both

How can it unload in the straight if it's just transiting through?
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,299
So if they went North/NE out of the straight they will be in Gibraltan waters and it can legally be ceased, which is likely what happened. They derped out.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Can't believe I have to draw it in glorified crayon for you to show you a rough approximation of where it begins and ends

You don't your crayon drawing adds nothing here and is irrelevant.

edit* found actual sea charts

PJPGCM5.jpg

Strait is the purple box but I'd imagine it does extend further out depending on the traffic

Well it is rather fundamental because if you’re referring to this rule as applying to the purple box that it seems to be where the territorial waters of Spain and Morocco are adjacent to each other. Again the ship was stopped in Gibraltar’s territorial waters so your right of transit would appear to be a red herring.

for example:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=auImDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA545&lpg=PA545&dq=iran+ship+gibraltar+right+of+transit&source=bl&ots=k_cSWT9bXS&sig=ACfU3U0sZnmqQd45sUu1AD9tJabEsyfwaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZoL7F7KDjAhXUSBUIHcbmCYoQ6AEwCXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=iran ship gibraltar right of transit&f=false

Lg6D4hw.png

^^^Only mentions two countries, that makes sense as the whole point of having this law of transit is to deal with situations where there are no international waters to cross through i.e. where the territorial waters of two nations are exactly adjacent - that, as per the map you posted previous occurs between the waters of Spain and Morocco.

I've pointed out a few times that the ship was stopped in Gibraltar's waters and questioned where this law of transit applies as that seems to be rather fundamental to your point. It doesn't appear to apply in this case as far as I can tell, you certainly haven't shown that it does, if anything (and just basing this on what you've claimed re: the map you produced above) you've undermined your own argument.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
I've pointed out a few times that the ship was stopped in Gibraltar's waters and questions where this law of transit applies as that seems to be rather fundamental to your point. It doesn't appear to apply in this case as far as I can tell, you certainly haven't shown that it does, if anything (and just basing this on what you've claimed re: the map you produced above) you've undermined your own argument.

It makes a difference if the ship willingly docked in Gibraltar or was forced

If the latter are we now going to say it's okay for Iran to force shipping in the Hormuz strait into Iranian docks to be boarded ?

^^^Only mentions two countries, that makes sense as the whole point of having this law of transit is to deal with situations where there are no international waters to cross through i.e. where the territorial waters of two nations are exactly adjacent - that, as per the map you posted previous occurs between the waters of Spain and Morocco.

Both the United Kingdom and Spain have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which governs countries' oceanic territorial claims. Both countries made statements regarding Gibraltar in their declarations upon ratification of the Convention. The Spanish statement was:

2. In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable.[38]

The British government responded to the Spanish statement in their own statement:

With regard to point 2 of the declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of Spain, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of Gibraltar, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to Gibraltar. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded point 2 of the Spanish declaration.[39]

However, Articles 309 and 310 of the Convention state that "No reservations or exceptions may be made to this Convention unless expressly permitted by other articles of this Convention", and that if a signatory state makes a declaration upon ratification, that declaration must "not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application" to that state.[40]

The dispute over territorial waters, which was rekindled in 2013 following a fishing dispute[41] seems likely to become more important with the discovery of a British treasure ship, HMS Sussex, and the Black Swan Project controversy.

Questions about the waters have previously been asked in the House of Commons, and answered as follows:

Under international law, States are entitled, but not required, to extend their territorial sea up to a maximum breadth of 12 nautical miles. Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent, the general rule is that neither is entitled, unless they agree otherwise, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line. The UK Government considers that a limit of three nautical miles is sufficient in the case of Gibraltar.

The Government of Gibraltar for its part holds that there is no economic or social need for more than three nautical miles of territorial water.

At the end of 2008, the European Commission included most of the territorial waters that surround Gibraltar under a marine conservation area known as the "Estrecho Oriental" that will be maintained by Spain. The UK initiated legal proceedings with the support of Gibraltar, which were initially rejected by the General Court on procedural grounds. A 2011 appeal was dismissed, again on procedural grounds.[42] The European Court of Justice had again ruled against that appeal in 2012.[43]

There have been disputes concerning Spanish patrol boats inside these claimed territorial waters. In May 2009 there was a number of Spanish incursions into British-claimed waters around Gibraltar, including by a Spanish Navy fisheries protection vessel, leading to intervention by police and a diplomatic protest by the UK.[44][45]

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels passing through the Strait of Gibraltar do so under the regime of transit passage, rather than the more limited innocent passage allowed in most territorial waters.[46][47]

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

7ZWVSQx.jpg

rqogs2u.jpg

Looks to me like they were forced into Gibraltar as previously they were perfectly on course to remain in the strait and head into international waters
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
It makes a difference if the ship willingly docked in Gibraltar or was forced

If the latter are we now going to say it's okay for Iran to force shipping in the Hormuz strait into Iranian docks to be boarded ?

Well firstly the law of transit you mentioned does apply there, secondly Iran doesn't actually recognise it in the first place so often threatens to do things like that or indeed shut down their part of the strait. And nope we're not going to say that is OK.

In this instance though we're talking about a ship that was apparently stopped in Gibraltar's territorial waters, AFAIK the Gibraltarian authorities had every right to do that as the ship was suspected of breaking EU sanctions re: Syria.

Looks to me like they were forced into Gibraltar as previously they were perfectly on course to remain in the strait and head into international waters

The reports are that they were stopped within Gibraltars territorial waters, unless you're going to show anything to the contrary... (some personal guess work by yourself based on an path on the map and a line you've drawn doesn't provide much here) then you've not really got an argument there.

Also, it should be apparent that Spain doesn't recognise Gibraltar's territorial waters so no need to point that out.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444
Well firstly the law of transit you mentioned does apply there

Yes I know it does, I never questioned that

If the latter are we now going to say it's okay for Iran to force shipping in the Hormuz strait into Iranian docks to be boarded

(some personal guess work by yourself based on an path on the map and a line you've drawn doesn't provide much here)

I know you guys like to act dumb, but it doesn't take a genius to see something is odd with the track of the tanker

Also the line drawn, is 3miles to show how far out Gibraltar territorial waters extend

Also if you read my posts I've said if it was legit stopped in Gibraltar, I have no issue with what we did as it doesn't go against international agreements we are supposed to adhere to

Should I start talking in French ? Will you maybe understand better then ? Please tell me what language to speak as English seems completely alien to you and Dis
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,444

The Royal Marines "homed" in on an Iranian tanker

The UK said it was stopped for breaching longstanding European sanctions on Syria

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-05/tehran-fumes-as-britain-seizes-iranian-oil-tanker/11281066

Both comments suggest it was moving while the Marines boarded it, why else would you need the marines if it was docked the port authorities wouldn't have needed the marines for a civilian vessel

If it was moving while boarded, it stands to reason it was forced into waters where it could be legally detained

If you guys are fine with that sort of behaviour, then don't complain when Iran starts pulling the same ****
 
Back
Top Bottom