Mr T
Senior Member
The UK doesn't claim all of the Straits as territorial waters. It only claims a couple of miles around Gibraltar.
The Iranian ship could have transited the Straits without coming into UK/Gibraltarian waters.
Iranian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter ShahryarHedayat
- Start date
The UK doesn't claim all of the Straits as territorial waters. It only claims a couple of miles around Gibraltar.
The Iranian ship could have transited the Straits without coming into UK/Gibraltarian waters.
Brumby
Major
I have to agree with you for once. The Straits of Gibraltar is subject to Article 38 of UNCLOS and the Iranian vessel is protected by right of transit passage under that article. The EU sanctions is secondary as the enforcement of sanction has to be done legally and I can't conclude that the British has a solid legal defence in this case. It may be the British has one but since they haven't offered a legal explanation I can only conclude based on my understanding of the situation.
The Iranian vessel is deregistered since May 29 according to Panama.
The Gibraltar authorities can argue on grounds of procedural compliance for impounding the vessel as it is unregistered but given that this is not the reason given by the British I will not go there.
That said, the Strait of Hormuz falls into the same category of right of transit passage. In my view, the British has made a number of mistakes by first impounding and then not protecting its own civilian vessels. The UK should just take the Iranian offer of exchanging vessels and start again.
So basically UK stalking Iran ship from the start and waiting Iran ship move to right spot (just few miles) where they can use the elite troop to seize civilian ship? Bravo United Kingdom bravo MI6 bravo 007, long live the Queen.
Mr T
Senior Member
How would the British authorities know the ship was going to enter into Gibraltarian waters? As I pointed out, it didn't have to.
Right of transit doesn't give you immunity. It means you have the right to transit through the area without requiring the special permission of the country in question. So the ship couldn't be detained because it was sailing through the area without permission. But if you're breaking local law specifically, your vessel can still be seized.
Brumby
Major
I understand your argument and that was my original thinking too. However a straits transit is subject to Article 38 protection and the conditions for impeding are limited to environmental and pollution contravention which is what the Iranian are invoking in the Hormuz Straits seizure. I must add though that the Iranians are seizing vessels not in their territorial waters and that is clearly illegal regardless of their reasoning that it is pursuant to environmental reasons. The conditions for impediment are rather restricted and breaking sanctions would not qualify even by any broad interpretation of the articles. The provisions were purposely drafted to ensure maximal protection from coastal states intervention during straits transit. I have looked at the prevailing articles and into any relevant case laws and I can't justify legally the British position based on public information. There might be legal justification but since the British are not explaining their legal position I cannot draw any other conclusion.
Mr T
Senior Member
You need to look at a map of the area. Gibraltar is not at the tip of the Spanish peninsula. It's to the east and north. The Iranian ship had the option of sailing through Spanish or Moroccan waters. So it couldn't claim it was doing a Straits passage when it entered Gibraltarian waters.
I don't know how accurate this map is, but I've seen different versions of it with roughly the same borders.
Also, there is nothing in UNCLOS at all about sanctions. If you want to be pedantic, you could try to argue that even UN sanctions don't apply to Straits passages, because there's nothing in UNCLOS to allow them to apply in those situations. But my guess is that no one would interpret the document that way. So there clearly must be exceptions, perhaps set out in a different document.
Brumby
Major
I suggest you have a read of the article on the Strait of Gibraltar written by Oxford Public International Law
Of particular interest is the description which outlines at which point the right of transit actually starts. .
Clearly there are exceptions but not something I am aware of that can be reasonably introduced. For example, should a state of armed conflict be declared then Article 38 would not apply.
Equation
Lieutenant General
You clearly do not understand what "transit passage" by UNCLOS means. Reread the post you quoted so you understand before making unreasonable requests of others such as going to your courts for your misdeeds or sailing around what they have a legal right to sail through as protected by "transit passage." To break it down for you as simply as possible, of course they were sailing through your territorial waters; if they weren't, then it wouldn't even be necessary to apply "transit passage." It is because they are transiting through your territorial waters, and these waters encompass a critical shipping strait, that UNCLOS "transit passage" applies to allow innocent passage as defined here:
And then reread the latter part of the post you quoted as well. Even without transit passage applying, countries are obligated to warn foreign ships that they are trespassing and to turn around. You cannot board or seize without several warnings being ignored.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I don't know if you can seize a tanker with marines dropped onto their deck for a slightly expired registration (like you can't arrest someone for driving 64mph on a 60mph zone), especially if you had no reason to stop and check their registration in the first place as they innocently sail through under transit passage. And even if that were to be somehow acceptable, then it really means that they just need to get the ship registered before it needs to be released. In any case, I would say that the UK should do the exchange and not restart anything ever again unless you mean normal relations.
Mr T
Senior Member
That's interesting, thanks for sharing.
I'm not sure what you're saying. If there are exceptions, they exist. If you want to say it's not clear what the exceptions are, that's fair enough. But in my view logically they must extend to sanctions, otherwise you could never enforce sanctions against ships at sea.