Obviously not, because the SCO hasn't pooled sovereignty so that it can bind member states to enforce sanctions. Call me when it gets to that stage. If it evolved into an organisation like the EU, that would be an interesting scenario if it tried to enforce its own sanctions.
When did Iran become a fully signed up member of the EU?
It’s not a difficult concept and I am struggling to see how it can be so hard for you to grasp.
EU sanctions can only apply to EU member states who have
themselves signed up to be legally bound by the EU.
Whether the EU or SCO has the power to sanction its member states is entirely immaterial to outside 3rd parties who never agreed to be so bound by any decisions the EU or SCO might make.
The only organisation that could impose sanctions on other nation states is the UN, and only because all nations have signed up to recognise and accept the UN’s authority to do so.
Probably because Iranian ships haven't been going through their waters to get to Syria. If the Iranian tanker had gone via the Suez Canal, this wouldn't have been an issue.
So much for freedom of navigating. Maybe the Russian and Chinese navies should conduct their own FONOPS around EU waters to re-enforce the rights of international shipping?
Marines from 42 Commando were involved in the overnight seizure, with some landing on the ship’s deck by rapidly descending down ropes suspended from a Wildcat helicopter, and the rest following up via speedboat.
...But the Foreign Office reasoned that it had a legal and moral duty to impound any ship that was heading to Syria in breach of EU sanctions. It was the Iranian’s surprise decision to enter Gibraltarian waters with its communications transponders on that left the UK with the option to impound the vessel.
I'm not sure what other sort of account you were expecting.
Oh, silly me, there was me thinking an actual legal examination of the actual merits of the legal case rather than just toeing the party line of ‘because some government spokesperson said it was legal so it is legal’.
More than that, an in-depth accounting of precisely who green lighted this op in the first place. More on that later.
If the British-flagged ship had undeniably been in non-disputed Iranian waters, it might have been somewhat understandable the Iranians would go after it. But the tracking information suggests it was in Omanese waters. This is the biggest point. Not just that Iran decided to mix things up by picking on a ship that wasn't subject to sanctions imposed by anyone, but going into someone else's territory to do it.
All of that is conditional on anyone accepting the legality and legitimacy of the British action to enforce EU sanctions on a non-EU ship.
As far as the Iranians are concerned, the British started this by seizing one of their ships legally going about its own business. So it seized a British ship in return.
As far as I am concerned, both sides are in the wrong, the British doubly so for starting all this nonsense for no good reason in the first place.
And behind closed doors, I bet the EU are furious with the British for this wholly unnecessarily BS nonsense at the exact time the EU is desperately trying to save the nuclear agreement.
And I highly suspect that is what all these is all about - the UK military, intelligence and diplomatic corps have long held a near treasonous obsession with brown nosing the Americans, often to the detriment of the UK’s own national self interest.
On the very eve of the departure of the current lame duck PM and before the new one even takes over, this incident’a timing is exceptionally suspicious, as it seems perfectly timed to define the new regime’s position on Iran before the new PM has any chance to have any input into the decision.
The UK’s move puts the EU in an incredibly difficult bind, as it is forced to support the British initial action no matter how much they may privately object to it; thereby souring their relations with Iran and fundamentally undermining their efforts to save the nuclear accord.
