Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter delft
- Start date
Brumby
Major
The meaning of innocent is clearly explained in UNCLOS and if it is complicated it is because vested parties want to interpret certain actions to suit their own narrative and actions.
Sorry "passage" and "innocent" has reasonably clear meaning in language in plain understanding and in UNCLOS. In this incident, if the Iranians think that the intrusion is not innocent then under international law they have the right to escort/evict the vessels from their territorial waters. There is no provision for boarding under such a situation. The Iranians by boarding has itself committed an act of hostility. The fact that the USN and the WH has acted so passively in the face of such hostile actions presents problems for future USN operations when subject to similar conditions. In other words, a precedent has been set and the damage in my view would take inordinate amount of future effort to reverse.
That is why there are rules so that there is less room for miscalculation. The Iranians had acted outside the norm of international law.
Innocent passage is presumed. Should the Iranians wish to take a view that all intrusion is not then the most they are allowed under international law is to evict the vessls. Boarding is not an option. By doing that they have cross the line which under a different administration that could have invoked a more assertive response.
International law and civil cases are different. Military vessels are not subject to boarding. They are sovereign vessels just like embassies. Had those two vessels been non military then the Iranians had the right to board and inspect.
Brumby
Major
I understand human error is the official position at the moment until the internal investigations are completed (if ever). Human error would suggest that the personnel on board can't even read simple navigation bearing correctly. On top of that they somehow unfortunately had mechanical problem. They did not inform base of the problem and base did not realise through their own monitoring systems that they were off course. Finally, they did not consider expeditiously and judiciously to tow the vessel. In a world where spin has become the norm, this has got to be at the top of the cow manure.
As far as I know, in many U.S. states, an intruder can be shot dead besides being escorted out of private property.
Or the intrusion that happened firstly has itself committed an act of hostility?
Your claim of the boarding being hostile is based on your own presumtion of innocence, that innocence may be true, at least by yourself, but you have to understand that your thinking is not necessarily shared by everyone, and it is not only your thought count, right?
Please don't use a generic word "international law", use a specific one with terms that has jurisdiction on both parties to justify the allowed and not allowed action.
Innocent passage is ONLY presumed by the passing party, not by the intruded party. Please don't use a generic word "international law", see above.
Boarding is not an option ONLY IF that happened in international water.
Different in many ways, but same in principle. If a judge in a domestic case (criminal and civic) is not able to decide, why do you think in an International case, the non-existing Judge can judge?
My original post was to make you see the fact that "nobody can judge, not you alone at least".
So is one country's territory, be it land or sea. Not subjected to intrusion.
It seems that you act like a lawyer of a party assuming that party's innocence. A lawyer is not a judge or Juror. That is fully understandable as I presume your country of origin, but that doesn't make you view more correct than the other side.
Enough has been said from my side and because of your self-taken "lawyer" position I don't see this discussion is going anywhere meaningful. So I will leave it.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
Customary law of the seas were essentially embodied within UNCLOS and the provisions within UNCLOS are clear on the meaning of innocent passage and the treatment of military vessels. That is the international standard. Not what I say or what you might think.
Mind point out the passage in UNCLOS on the definition on top of what taxiya provided?
In many parts of the US, it's perfectly legal for a home owner to shoot someone if that person invaded his/her home.
Brumby
Major
Please read UNCLOS on innocent passage. It is not a voluminous document.
What has US domestic law to do with UNCLOS?
I think the onus is on you to provide the proof since you were the one that brought it up
Same analogy
Brumby
Major
If you do wish to refer to the provisions that are found in UNCLOS pertaining to innocent passage, I have nothing to add as I can only lead a horse to the well. It is your choice thereafter.
As to your analogy, you clearly do not understand general principles of divide between different legislative provisions, be it applicability or simply just logical extension of basic reasoning. Charges and points of law are specific matters and not some analogy.
Since you want to talk like a lawyer, then please enlighten me
Where in the law specified what to do in the case of intrusion? Which court decision established the precedent on what to do? Who determined the court's binding power? Who appointed the justices? Are you bringing up the ancient law of the sea again? One that was established by imperial poweres with zero input from the rest of the worlds?