UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Violet Oboe said:

Some guys here are obviously assuming that british military and intelligence forces are immaculate like little Miss Innocence!

Click to expand...

You're clutching at straws. What the Iranians did was contrary to UN law, which clearly states they should have let these people get on with work or at most asked them to leave if they believed they really were in Iraqi waters. That is the only important point in this incident.

FuManChu said:

You're clutching at straws. What the Iranians did was contrary to UN law, which clearly states they should have let these people get on with work or at most asked them to leave if they believed they really were in Iraqi waters. That is the only important point in this incident.

Click to expand...

There is no such kind of law in UN.

fishhead said:

There is no such kind of law in UN.

Click to expand...

Since when were you an expert on UN law? Well obviously not a terribly good one, as you obviously haven't heard of the principle of "innocent passage", as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

When you've read up on that please come back and feel free to make new comments.

FuManChu said:

Since when were you an expert on UN law? Well obviously not a terribly good one, as you obviously haven't heard of the principle of "innocent passage", as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Click to expand...

Well, UN doesn't regulate how each country conducts its border control, and that's the common sense.

If you enter another country illegeally, you will be either arrested on the spot, or shot if things go worse. Try US-Mexico border youself please.

"innocent passage" doesn't apply here. That's how people interpretes if the action is an aggression or not. In your case, obviously Iran interpreted its an aggresion, then how they react is totally up to them.

FuManChu said:

Since when were you an expert on UN law? Well obviously not a terribly good one, as you obviously haven't heard of the principle of "innocent passage", as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

When you've read up on that please come back and feel free to make new comments.

Click to expand...

One does not have to be expert in UN law to understand border control. Giving the tension in the middleeast and hostility towards Iran by US and UK, your statment regarding "innocent passage" is somewhat out of place. The law of sea is to be observe in neutral areas of water within the region by neighbouring countries. In this particular case, it was dangerously close to Iran's territorial water and Iran is within it's sovereign right to react the way they did. Have you ever been on a boat crossing the english channel? if not, I suggest you take a ride there and see how Royal Navy patrol reacts to you. After that, please feel free to come back and make such arrogant comments that you are making now.

fishhead said:

Well, UN doesn't regulate how each country conducts its border control, and that's the common sense.

If you enter another country illegeally, you will be either arrested on the spot, or shot if things go worse. Try US-Mexico border youself please.

Click to expand...

Actually the UN does regulate how border control is conducted. You can't just shoot someone for crossing the border - there has to be serious justification (as far as I can remember that if you don't shoot others will come into harm).

Also there is no such principle of innocent passage over crossing land borders (that I know of).

"innocent passage" doesn't apply here. That's how people interpretes if the action is an aggression or not. In your case, obviously Iran interpreted its an aggresion, then how they react is totally up to them.

Click to expand...

Innocent passage is not interpreted by countries - it is defined in UNCLOS. Simply seeing something as an "act of aggression" is an invalid reason to counter innocent passage.

FuManChu said:

You're clutching at straws. What the Iranians did was contrary to UN law, which clearly states they should have let these people get on with work or at most asked them to leave if they believed they really were in Iraqi waters. That is the only important point in this incident.

Click to expand...

The most important point in this incident is a country's sovereign right to defend itself against "would be" aggressors. Giving the current stance towards Iran by UK and US (not to mention US's threat to bomb iran's nuclear facilities), Iran is within it's right to defend itself by taking any appropiate actions they see fit. If the situation was the other way around, US and UK would reacted much worse i.e. sinking the boats and killing the marines and claiming to be protecting their territorial water.

As per UN charter, any country in the world have the right to protect it's territory and sovereignity.

FuManChu said:

Actually the UN does regulate how border control is conducted. You can't just shoot someone for crossing the border - there has to be serious justification (as far as I can remember that if you don't shoot others will come into harm).

Also there is no such principle of innocent passage over crossing land borders (that I know of).



Innocent passage is not interpreted by countries - it is defined in UNCLOS. Simply seeing something as an "act of aggression" is an invalid reason to counter innocent passage.

Click to expand...

Again, you are missing the basic principle of UN charter, let me educate you - "Every country has the right to defened it's territory and sovereignity" - theres no need for any justification to protect it's terroritory.

bakapa said:

Again, you are missing the basic principle of UN charter, let me educate you - "Every country has the right to defened it's territory and sovereignity" - theres no need for any justification to protect it's terroritory.

Click to expand...

bakapa, it is actually you who are missing the point. With no further laws and regulations, any country could interpret that statement to allow it to attack and invade whoever it wanted with impunity. "Sovereignty" can be defined many ways.

All UN members are bound by UN laws. Those very rules are drawn up with the UN Charter in mind, so the Charter cannot override UNCLOS in the way you mentioned.

A selective interpretation of ´international law´by the UK and her allies have initially created the catastrophic mess in Iraq since the ´coalition of the willing´ claimed existing UN resolutions gave them the necessary legitimation to invade and occupy a sovereign country. The main guideline for the current US administration and her allies is the simple slogan ´might is right´and right after that the created facts on the ground are turned into UN sanctioned ´international law´ (indeed Fu you are completely correct: There are existing several UN resolutions legitimizing US/UK occupation forces in Iraq).

But we should not dramatize the incident since the iranians did obviously not apply force (perhaps there are actually more regular shooting incidents at the US-Mexico border! ) and recent news from Tehran indicate that british diplomats will be allowed to visit the 15 servicemen soon. Probably the mini crisis will be defused during the coming week and interestingly Washington has at least until now desisted from complicating the situation.

(´Current USN maneuvers in the Gulf are carefully conducted for not provoking any clashes with iranian naval forces.´ This circumspect statement from CENTCOM is intended to calm down tensions and also fears about a new ´Tongkin incident´, but only time will tell!:coffee: )