Ships under attack in the middle east

[dowie]

Yet they took the time to distinguish funds from economic resources suggesting it wasn't intended for economic resources to be a catch all.

No it does't suggest that at all, it suggests the opposite, that it is a catch all to eliminate other means of providing direct economic support other than funding... like shipping over some gold bars etc...

Edit - indeed see Jokester's post where that is literally explained for you.

 

[EvilSooty]

It is defined explicitly:

I'm not really seeing why you have a problem with this, economic resources are subject to sanctions, if this had been a cargo of gold or bottle caps, then it would have been subject to the same law as crude oil. The fact the crude oil and petroleum products is defined separately because it's subject to additional sanctions that prohibit the import of them from Syria doesn't mean they don't meet the definition of economic resources.

Funds are also the subject of other sanctions within the Regulations in the same way crude oil is so what's your point?

My problem is that they took the time to explicitly separate funds from economic resources. Funds are economic resources too yet were treated separately. Why's that then if economic resources are a catch all?

 

[ubersonic]

Gibraltar is an EU member and so EU sanctions do apply there!

Yes but it isn't a Gibraltarian ship.

This really really is not a difficult concept. The ship is Iranian, as an Iranian ship neither it nor its operators have to comply with EU sanctions on Syria, therefore it did not break EU law by not complying with the sanctions it was not required to comply with.

The fact it was sailing in EU waters is not relevant because the EU does not enforce it's sanctions like the USA does (I.E "sailing towards Cuba with supplies, we have sanctions on them, turn around or get sunk"). It did not break EU laws, because the law doesn't require the vessels of non-EU states to comply with sanctions that only apply to EU-members and their vessels, even if sailing in EU waters.

This is why Spain refused to stop it when the USA ask them so they had to call us.

 

[Jokester]

Funds are also the subject of other sanctions within the Regulations in the same way crude oil is so what's your point?

My problem is that they took the time to explicitly separate funds from economic resources. Funds are economic resources too yet were treated separately. Why's that then if economic resources are a catch all?

Because funds aren't considered economic resources. The whole point of the definition of economic resources is to close the potential loop hole where people use non-funds to circumnavigate the sanctions.

 

[dowie]

Yes but it isn't a Gibraltarian ship.

This really really is not a difficult concept. The ship is Iranian, as an Iranian ship neither it nor its operators have to comply with EU sanctions on Syria, therefore it did not break EU law by not complying with the sanctions it was not required to comply with.

No, you're getting this completely confused it is a Panamanian flagged ship owned by a company based in Singapore. The ship or the cargo might ultimately be owned by Iran but it is a civilian ship and it isn't exempt from the law!

You've again avoided answering the questions posed previously about fishing... funny that... the basis for your claim is complete bunk essentially - flying a flag of another country doesn't exempt a civilian/merchant ship from the laws of the nation whose waters it enters (aside from international rules relating to free passage in certain areas).

The fact it was sailing in EU waters is not relevant because the EU does not enforce it's sanctions like the USA does (I.E "sailing towards Cuba with supplies, we have sanctions on them, turn around or get sunk"). It did not break EU laws, because the law doesn't require the vessels of non-EU states to comply with sanctions that only apply to EU-members and their vessels, even if sailing in EU waters.

Yes it does, that is literally the legal basis for the stop, Gibraltar is part of the EU and EU law applies there. Why do you think the Judge approved the stop?

If the ship didn't want to adhere to EU rules then it shouldn't have planned to stop in Gibraltar. honestly you're just talking complete BS here and have provided nothing at all to back up your statement other than some stupid flow diagram you drew... on the other hand others have referred to the relevant rules that the ship has been seized which have also been confirmed by the government of Gibraltar.

If they've not in fact broken EU law or it doesn't apply then they're perfectly free to challenge it in court - though seemingly the current claim is that they weren't actually sailing to Syria (after taking the long way around) and if that is the case (and they can provide assurances) then the UK was prepared to release the ship anyway.

 

[EvilSooty]

Because funds aren't considered economic resources. The whole point of the definition of economic resources is to close the potential loop hole where people use non-funds to circumnavigate the sanctions.

There you go then: economic resources aren't a catch all. Crude oil could have been used for clarity, but wasn't. Sorry, but it's ambiguous and any lawyer will be all over that.

The more important thing is that there's a whole detailed Article (6) explicitly setting out prohibitions on oil IMPORTS from Syria to the EU yet we are meant to believe that they left oil EXPORTS to Syria, a far more important topic given third parties could be impacted, to be caught by an ambiguous catch-all provision in Article 14? Unlikely.

Crude oil was clearly high in the mind of the draftsman writing it hence the creation of an entire Article dealing with that alone yet they only decided to deal with oil IMPORTS from Syria, not EXPORTS to Syria.

Would be nice to see the Gibraltan Supreme Court's opinion on this, but they must not be too confident in their reasoning if it was held in private.

 

[EvilSooty]

Why do you think the Judge approved the stop?

Because he was ordered to by Westminster?

 

[ubersonic]

You've again avoided answering the questions posed previously about fishing...

I've answered it multiple times in replies but if you really require it to be super direct: Yes if a Russian ship is fishing in our waters then UK/EU law applies to it. Just like UK/EU law applied to the Iranian tanker, and if it had broken those laws then stopping it would have been justified.

Gibraltar is part of the EU and EU law applies there.

I have never said that it doesn't (In fact IIRC I have pointed out it does), the thing you seem to be missing time and time again in what I say, is that EU law and EU sanctions are not the same thing. If the crime under EU law is violation of sanctions, but those sanctions do not apply to you, then you have violated nothing by not complying with them, and thus not broken any EU laws.

 

[dowie]

There you go then: economic resources aren't a catch all. Crude oil could have been used for clarity, but wasn't. Sorry, but it's ambiguous and any lawyer will be all over that.

Strange how they haven't been then... If they intended to limit it to crude oil then I'd suggest that they would have done so given they've had no problem mentioning it elsewhere in the document. It covers a range of individuals and entities and isn't limited to oil!

The more important thing is that there's a whole detailed Article (6) explicitly setting out prohibitions on oil IMPORTS from Syria to the EU yet we are meant to believe that they left oil EXPORTS to Syria, a far more important topic given third parties could be impacted, to be caught by an ambiguous catch-all provision in Article 14? Unlikely.

Crude oil was clearly high in the mind of the draftsman writing it hence the creation of an entire Article dealing with that alone yet they only decided to deal with oil IMPORTS to Syria, not EXPORTS to Syria.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Yes article 6 deals with imports... Yes if the EU had intended to ban all oil exports to Syria then they'd have perhaps made that explicit, the issue here is a specifically named refinery company.

 

[Kenai]

If the crime under EU law is violation of sanctions, but those sanctions do not apply to you, then you have violated nothing by not complying with them, and thus not broken any EU laws.

The sanction in question applies to (amongst other definitions) any vessel under the jurisdiction of a member state, which said vessel would have been as soon as it was within Gibraltars territorial waters.

 

[Jokester]

There you go then: economic resources aren't a catch all. Crude oil could have been used for clarity, but wasn't. Sorry, but it's ambiguous and any lawyer will be all over that.

The more important thing is that there's a whole detailed Article (6) explicitly setting out prohibitions on oil IMPORTS from Syria to the EU yet we are meant to believe that they left oil EXPORTS to Syria, a far more important topic given third parties could be impacted, to be caught by an ambiguous catch-all provision in Article 14? Unlikely.

Crude oil was clearly high in the mind of the draftsman writing it hence the creation of an entire Article dealing with that alone yet they only decided to deal with oil IMPORTS from Syria, not EXPORTS to Syria.

Would be nice to see the Gibraltan Supreme Court's opinion on this, but they must not be too confident in their reasoning if it was held in private.

It doesn't say it's a catch all at all. It essentially defines anything that doesn't meet the definition of funds, but still has economic value that can be transferred, which oil meets ($62.47 a barrel).

This is totally separate to the specific sanctions related to crude oil imports.

 

[dowie]

I've answered it multiple times in replies but if you really require it to be super direct: Yes if a Russian ship is fishing in our waters then UK/EU law applies to it. Just like UK/EU law applied to the Iranian tanker, and if it had broken those laws then stopping it would have been justified.

You were arguing that EU law/sanctions didn't apply to the tanker though - specifically the prohibitions on certain trade relating to Syria.

I have never said that it doesn't (In fact IIRC I have pointed out it does), the thing you seem to be missing time and time again in what I say, is that EU law and EU sanctions are not the same thing. If the crime under EU law is violation of sanctions, but those sanctions do not apply to you, then you have violated nothing by not complying with them, and thus not broken any EU laws.

I'm really not sure what distinction you're trying to make here re: sanctions/law - how do you suppose sanctions are enforced?

Gibraltar is part of the EU - why do you think EU law/sanctions don't apply there?

Honestly - you're just wrong here, apparently you know better than the judge in the Gibraltar Supreme Court and their attorney general... rather unlikely I think, especially considering you've provided nothing to back up your argument other than your own dubious assertions.

 

[EvilSooty]

Strange how they haven't been then... If they intended to limit it to crude oil then I'd suggest that they would have done so given they've had no problem mentioning it elsewhere in the document. It covers a range of individuals and entities and isn't limited to oil!

We'll never know given they are holding the hearings in secret...justice must be seen to be done, no? Not in Gibraltar it seems.

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? Yes article 6 deals with imports... Yes if the EU had intended to ban all oil exports to Syria then they'd have perhaps made that explicit, the issue here is a specifically named refinery company.

Yes, a specific oil refinery that is the only one in Syria capable of handling oil deliveries by sea. Your strained interpretation of the purpose of Article 14 creates an EU-enforced oil embargo against any ships trying to deliver oil passing through EU waters. If that had been their intention it would have been in Article 6 and not Article 14 which seems far more concerned with stopping investment and the transfer of funds, or other means of payments, to the entities listed in the Annex.

It's a weak argument.

 

[EvilSooty]

It doesn't say it's a catch all at all. It essentially defines anything that doesn't meet the definition of funds, but still has economic value that can be transferred, which oil meets ($62.47 a barrel).

This is totally separate to the specific sanctions related to crude oil imports.

Crude oil is defined separately so it's ambiguous to rely on economic resources. Simple as that.

It's either badly written or it wasn't their intention to include crude oil under Article 14. Either way makes for a weak argument to have to rely on it.

 

[Jokester]

and not Article 14 which seems far more concerned with stopping investment and the transfer of funds, or other means of payments, to the entities listed in the Annex.

That's entirely the point!

Crude oil is defined separately so it's ambiguous to rely on economic resources. Simple as that.

It's either badly written or it wasn't their intention to include crude oil under Article 14. Either way makes for a weak argument to have to rely on it.

None of this is correct.

It's a weak argument.

You said it.

 

[dowie]

We'll never know given they are holding the hearings in secret...justice must be seen to be done, no? Not in Gibraltar it seems.

The Gibraltar government didn't write the document, you're getting rather confused there! I'd suggest some Eurocrats at the EC were involved in drafting it and various EU members agreed upon the terms/scope.

Yes, a specific oil refinery that is the only one in Syria capable of handling oil deliveries by sea. Your strained interpretation of the purpose of Article 14 creates an EU-enforced oil embargo against any ships trying to deliver oil passing through EU waters. If that had been their intention it would have been in Article 6 and not Article 14 which seems far more concerned with stopping investment and the transfer of funds, or other means of payments, to the entities listed in the Annex.

It's a weak argument.

No it isn't a weak argument - financial and economic sanctions against named individuals and entities is literally the purpose of article 14

You seem to have forgotten that that entity wasn't listed at the time the the document was drafted, the entity has been listed as a result of its involvement in financing the regime.

If the EU wanted to ban oil exports in general they could have done so.

What exactly is your point here anyway? There doesn't seem to be one other than an attempt to quibble over rather trivial details after your previous arguments were shown to be complete nonsense.

 

[dowie]

Crude oil is defined separately so it's ambiguous to rely on economic resources. Simple as that.

It's either badly written or it wasn't their intention to include crude oil under Article 14. Either way makes for a weak argument to have to rely on it.

I'd say is is broad rather than ambiguous and deliberately so. Note the purpose of Article 14 and the reasons listed next to the various entities in the relevant appendix.

The whole point is to ban any funding or economic resources being delivered to those specific individuals and entities ergo they're obviously going to be broad.

On the other hand when you're taking about the country as a whole then no, they're not necessarily, jet fuel is an obvious one to ban but they've not opted to ban oil in general for example.

 

[Hagar]

My reading is that funds are liquid assets ie currency or stocks, shares, bank deposits etc.

Economic resources are not in themselves liquid but can be turned into a fund through trading or added value manufacture (ie refining).

No comebacks please about crude oil being liquid.

Your computer may be an economic resource if used to create wealth, it is not a fund.

 

[dowie]

My reading is that funds are liquid assets ie currency or stocks, shares, bank deposits etc.

Economic resources are not in themselves liquid but can be turned into a fund through trading or added value manufacture (ie refining).

Yeah indeed, or these individuals or entities could simply make use of say gold bars or platinum sponge etc..etc.. ergo it is deliberately broad.

 

[Rroff]

'Embolden them' to...carry on selling oil. The horror.

Them selling oil isn't the problem here... or there wouldn't have been talk of returning the tanker and contents.