Brumby
Major
What intrusion? UNCLOS provides for innocent passage. Have you actually bother to read the prescribed provisions rather than this back and forth which is becoming rather meaningless?
Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter delft
- Start date
What intrusion? UNCLOS provides for innocent passage. Have you actually bother to read the prescribed provisions rather than this back and forth which is becoming rather meaningless?
The UNCLOS defines what's innocent passage. However, who is the arbiter in this case when Iranian disagreed on whether the American ships' actions are "innocent", considering the intruded ships are armed? How can the Iranian know it's not an infiltration attempt? Escorting the ship out of Iranian water is only one of the options. Considering what Turkey did to Russian's Su24, Iranian's action is rather tame
Equation
Lieutenant General
Imagine hundreds of these things buzzing the CVG in the Persian Gulf to track and relate the locations of those carriers. I'm thinking General Van Ripper teams in action armed with these drones would make the Millennium Challenge even more effective against carrier battle groups.
Oh, please, United States IS NOT a signatory of UNCLOS. Now you use a law that you rejected to protect you?
No need to ask him, U.S. is NOT a signatory of UNCLOS. Even if (a big IF) there is any lines in UNCLOS that support his statement, he(U.S) is not entitled to use it as a defence.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Actually it's not that clear cut.
The US was a player in the treaties drafting and signed the agreement 1994.
But the US did not ratify due to issues with Article XI regarding mineral mining from deep sea beds.
The US Recognizes the Agreement as a Customary Codification of International Law. which means basically the Us will Accept a ruling of the UNCLOS but under potential protest.
The US was a player in the treaties drafting and signed the agreement 1994.
But the US did not ratify due to issues with Article XI regarding mineral mining from deep sea beds.
The US Recognizes the Agreement as a Customary Codification of International Law. which means basically the Us will Accept a ruling of the UNCLOS but under potential protest.
Thanks for bringing up the matter so I can further my point on it.
I am aware of that technical detail (signed but not ratified). From a strictly legal perspective, ratification is the last step of the whole procedure of being a member of a treaty, not ratifying means not part of it. Signing (by state representative or president) is not meaningful in international affairs WITHOUT going through and passed by domestic legal procedure of said state. In other words, not legally binding to that state, means nothing to other states.
The US' acceptance is conditional as you said, therefor selective, that is not convincing to other member states at all.
It is impossible to tell whether it is true or not at this moment by anybody outside the inner circle of US and UK intelligence.
But it won't surprise anybody if it was true, because espionage between U.S. and Israel is nothing new, the case of "Jonathan Pollard" is an example. We also have the examples of France and Germany recently.
