The middle east...

[gingerjon]

Are you disputing what he says?

 

I'm saying his political views and electoral needs may lead him to not be as fair and balanced as his military background might suggest he would be.

[ckn]

Are you disputing what he says?

Yes.  He is clearly wrong.  My knowledge of the laws on this were rusty so I had to read up on them again.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives a nation an absolute right to impose a maritime border and treat it as if it were a land border except where there's a treaty bound right of way.  That then means that any military incursion into that territory becomes immediately unlawful, even if done by accident.  Under the treaty, the flag state of the vessel assumes all responsibilities for ensuring that it does not encroach on the maritime exclusion border of any nation without invitation.  In short, the US was at fault by UN treaty because it failed to stop its military vessel from entering the Iranian sovereign maritime exclusion border, utterly indisputable and utterly irrelevant that it was accidental.  Also, the UN treaty allows the nation state to make whatever laws it sees for the detention and prosecution of any unlawful intrusion.

 

Also, the Geneva Convention only applies where there is a declared war between nation states.  It clearly does not apply, and cannot be used, where there is no conflict and both nations are doing their best to avoid conflict.  Finally, even if there were a declared war between the US and Iran, merely photographing legally detained people and releasing it to prove good conduct is not prejudicial to the Geneva Convention.

[Martyn Sadler]

Yes.  He is clearly wrong.  My knowledge of the laws on this were rusty so I had to read up on them again.  The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives a nation an absolute right to impose a maritime border and treat it as if it were a land border except where there's a treaty bound right of way.  That then means that any military incursion into that territory becomes immediately unlawful, even if done by accident.  Under the treaty, the flag state of the vessel assumes all responsibilities for ensuring that it does not encroach on the maritime exclusion border of any nation without invitation.  In short, the US was at fault by UN treaty because it failed to stop its military vessel from entering the Iranian sovereign maritime exclusion border, utterly indisputable and utterly irrelevant that it was accidental.  Also, the UN treaty allows the nation state to make whatever laws it sees for the detention and prosecution of any unlawful intrusion.

 

Also, the Geneva Convention only applies where there is a declared war between nation states.  It clearly does not apply, and cannot be used, where there is no conflict and both nations are doing their best to avoid conflict.  Finally, even if there were a declared war between the US and Iran, merely photographing legally detained people and releasing it to prove good conduct is not prejudicial to the Geneva Convention.

 

 

Subsection 3 of Section 2 of Part B of UNCLOS lays out the rules applicable to warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

 

Article 29

 

Definition of warships

 

For the purposes of this Convention, "warship" means a ship belonging to the armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of the State and whose name appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.

 

Article 30

 

Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State

 

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

 

 

Article 31

 

Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes

 

The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.

 

 

Article 32

 

Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes

 

With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.

 

That seems to fit John McCain's definition of sovereign immune vessels.

 

Your comments seem to refer to vessels that are not immune.

[Bedford Roughyed]

Martyn, you seem to be saying that the US can sail in any waters it chooses without being boarded?  Do you really believe that?

[Bedford Roughyed]

Republican and failed Presidential candidate John McCain who is facing a Tea Party challenge to his Senate seat wants to point score about it?

 

I am surprised.

 

<Trump mode> McCain knows all about being captured.</Trump mode>

[ckn]

OK, if we're quoting the actual treaty then here's Article 19 which defines what is innocent passage:

 

Article 19

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b ) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c ) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

 

So, that's b, c and l breached.  This is why the US military just held their hands up, said "sorry, guv, can we have our people back please?"

 

Just look at the huffiness and whining that the UK government makes about the Russian planes flying close to but OUTSIDE our maritime border.  They don't come within the border at all yet it regularly gets articles in the press about Russian sabre-rattling when the Russians are doing nothing illegal at all.

 

Then look at the Turks, a Russian plane overflew their territory for SEVEN seconds and was shot down.

 

The Iranians taking the US crew prisoner, photographing them to prove safe conduct then releasing them when the US said "sorry" is about as much of a non-story as you can get in modern diplomatic relations.

[Martyn Sadler]

Martyn, you seem to be saying that the US can sail in any waters it chooses without being boarded?  Do you really believe that?

 

What do you think, reading those regulations?

 

You'd better take up the issue with the United Nations, assuming those sections of UNCLOS I have quoted are not overruled by other sections I'm not aware of.

 

It strikes me as eminently sensible to have regulations that don't allow naval ships of any nation to be boarded by another nation, otherwise there would be numerous flashpoints leading to some very serious outcomes.

[tonyXIII]

What do you think, reading those regulations?

 

You'd better take up the issue with the United Nations, assuming those sections of UNCLOS I have quoted are not overruled by other sections I'm not aware of.

 

It strikes me as eminently sensible to have regulations that don't allow naval ships of any nation to be boarded by another nation, otherwise there would be numerous flashpoints leading to some very serious outcomes.

It would strike me as eminently more sensible to keep your warships out of other nations' territorial waters.

[Martyn Sadler]

OK, if we're quoting the actual treaty then here's Article 19 which defines what is innocent passage:

 

Article 19

Meaning of innocent passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b ) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c ) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.

 

So, that's b, c and l breached.  This is why the US military just held their hands up, said "sorry, guv, can we have our people back please?"

 

Just look at the huffiness and whining that the UK government makes about the Russian planes flying close to but OUTSIDE our maritime border.  They don't come within the border at all yet it regularly gets articles in the press about Russian sabre-rattling when the Russians are doing nothing illegal at all.

 

Then look at the Turks, a Russian plane overflew their territory for SEVEN seconds and was shot down.

 

The Iranians taking the US crew prisoner, photographing them to prove safe conduct then releasing them when the US said "sorry" is about as much of a non-story as you can get in modern diplomatic relations.

 

I'm not quite sure how you draw those conclusions. As far as I know there has been no indication of what the American boats were doing in those waters, although it's feasible that they may have been taking part in some form of information gathering.

 

But, whichever way you look at it, bringing USA forces personnel to their knees and sending the photos around the world is certainly not a non-story and the Iranians will use it to their own advantage.

[Martyn Sadler]

It would strike me as eminently more sensible to keep your warships out of other nations' territorial waters.

 

It certainly would, although UNCLOS was drawn up in recognition of the fact that boats can accidentally stray into waters that are territorial, and there is also the fact that some territorial waters are disputed, so the Convention rules were presumably drawn up with that in mind.

 

The extracts I quoted about naval ships were designed, I imagine, to avoid the sort of flare-up that could have occurred on this occasion if the Americans hadn't been so compliant with what the Iranians did.

[getdownmonkeyman]

Hardly the actions of a country looking to belittle the US, more that of appeasement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35333656

[Martyn Sadler]

Hardly the actions of a country looking to belittle the US, more that of appeasement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35333656

 

One of the problems with countries like Iran is knowing who is actually making which decisions.

 

The Ayatollahs or the secular politicians often seem to have differing objectives, as do the Revolutionary Guards and the regular Iranian military.

 

But I have no doubt they all want the sanctions to be lifted and they will do what's necessary to ensure they are.