"Navy To Escort Commercial Ships Strait Of Hormuz" Topic

With this new development I might be starting to get a little too paranoid now … Well, more than usual.

"A Senior Defense Department official confirms to CBS News that U.S. Naval forces have begun accompanying American-flagged maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz."

link
link
link
link
link

Accompanying, escorting, same thing to me. But that's not the issue.

Think about this for a second.

Well, weren't the Iranians practicing how to blow up our Navy ships just a few weeks ago? A pitiful demonstration, but it got our attention. And the nuke talks kept the leaders distracted, and the people in our nation divided on yet one more issue.

Now this commercial shipping threat. They are trying a bit too obvious and eagerly to draw us in. The question is really, truly why.

They could have prepared the area already with mines or something. But that's just tactical.

But that still doesn't answer why they are asking for an open confrontation now. What's their actual overall strategy is. Who is pulling strings and stands to benefit most out of this?

This is gonna drive me nuts. Or, maybe, nuttier.

Dan

Ok, thanks. Phew. That's the kind of stuff I need to hear right now.

Dan

Yeah, you are paranoid… And, evidently, so is the US government.

Do you know what would have happened if a US ship was 'accompanying' the Maersk Tigris. Same thing. The Iranians had a legally binding order to seize the ship. And, unless the US government wishes to flaunt international law, they would have to stand by and watch.

And I'm surprised the DoD has as little knowledge of commercial sea law as a dull first year law student…

Give me a break.

They're just pushing the envelope, since they know they can get away with virtually anything, and perhaps since they want more hostages.

Mako – is the container ships crew being held hostage? Or are they free to leave Iran? The court ruling covers the vessel not the crew ( unless one or more are directors of the company). Can anyone point me to a reliable source about the crew?

Well let's see -

"No official statement has yet been issued by Iran. However Iran's state news agency IRNA quoted the managing director of Iran's Ports and Maritime Organisation, Mohammed Saeidnejad, as saying that the vessel had been detained based on a court ruling which ordered the confiscation of Maersk's assets.

The report cites a legal complaint made by an unnamed private Iranian firm which led to Maersk being indicted by the Tehran Provincial Court last March.

Have to say 'unnamed private Iranian firm,' 'indicted by Tehran Provincial Court,' certainly no thought of any possible irregularities there.

Wonder if any representative from Maersk was aware of the proceedings. Definitely foolish to risk a ship in Iranian waters if they did. On the other hand one can get judgements without having the defendant present.

Ok, here's the details:

"The Iran port agency's statement identified the Iranian company that sued Maersk as the Pars Talaee Oil Production Company. The statement said the agency had been notified of the verdict in the court case and that it "was implemented by the operational forces."

And this:

"The disposal of the crates led to court battles in several Iranian courts since then. Maersk said that on Feb. 18, a court ordered Maersk to pay $163,000 USD, which the company said it was willing to pay. "

So I'd say they were aware.

Haven't heard about the disposition of the crew, though they are holding at least 3 – 4 Americans on trumped up charges, and in some cases, have been doing so for years.

They are apparently being tortured, not given medical treatment, and the International Red Cross has also not been permitted to see them.

Same old crap they've been pulling since 1979, because they are a lawless, terrorist supporting regime.

$163 USDK debt -> naval action = over reaction.
Or deliberate provocation
Or face saving – tail tweeking – national pride – Iranian convoy turned back in response to show of force
The hawks (of all nationalities) will be pleased

And no – I'm not an apologist nor an appeaser – war should be the last not first recourse to settling disputes.

Not necessarily. If the nation the ship was heading to doesn't have an agreement with Iran, then no, Iran wouldn't be able to handle it there.

Are they flexing their muscles? Probably. But the rude fact is that they also got the law on their side (for once).

The bottom line is this: Iran did what is within her rights to do. Could she have handled the matter more delicately behind the scenes and spared us the embarassment? Of course. But she instead chose to make it a high profile public "incident" to humiliate us.

So now we have to flex our muscle and make a show of not backing down in the name of freedom of transit with escort duty or we'll lose face.

yeah, been there, done that and got the cruise jacket both '83 and '85.

Hey, guys. It doesn't matter what the "judgment" is against Maersk, the seizure still violates maritime law.

There's what's known as the "right of transit". Because there are constricted areas of the ocean that you can't pass through without entering someone's territorial waters, a vessel is allowed to pass through territorial waters at any time -- so long as they're transiting.

If you want to board or seize a ship in that situation, then you have to get permission from the nation that flags the ship -- in this case, the United States, because the Marshall Islands are a protectorate.

The Iranians didn't ask, so they're in violation of maritime law. No ifs, ands, or buts.

The term is 'innocent passage'. And, according to some interpretations, the existence of the judgment (which Maersk certainly acknowledged) nullifies that in this case. Now, I don't know if that's right or wrong (I'll leave that one to the lawyers).

And, technically, the Marshall Islands are not a 'protectorate'. That was changed to 'Compact of Free Association' (which is something less than 'protectorate' status) back in the '80s-'90s. Go figure.

Coastal2: "And, technically, the Marshall Islands are not a 'protectorate'. That was changed to 'Compact of Free Association' (which is something less than 'protectorate' status) back in the '80s-'90s. Go figure."

Hmm. Is that's anything like "The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico", which on our Spanish side of the 1948 agreement says "Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico"? Because in that Puerto Rican Free State Association agreement, we continue to be US citizens (awarded since 1917) and we continue to be clearly a US territory, ever since 1898.

We are a US Commonwealth. And, as such, we are supposed to be guaranteed the protection of the U.S.

Is the status of the Marshall Islands that different?

Dan

Ok, here we go …

"Politically, the Marshall Islands is a presidential republic in free association with the United States, with the US providing defense, subsidies, and access to social services."

"The Compact of Free Association with the United States gives the U.S. sole responsibility for international defense of the Marshall Islands. It allows islanders to live and work in the United States, and establishes economic and technical aid programs."

Per Wilipedia.

Dan

The right of visit, search and seizure of foreign flagged vessels on the high seas pursuant to customary international law – makes for interesting reading that I have only just started reading about at :
link

Has this as a case in point wrt A defender of the proliferation security initiative

In December 2003, the United States Navy intercepted and seized a
small vessel near the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.1 Found
aboard were nearly two tons of illicit drugs,2 and more importantly to the
ongoing war on terror, three al Qaeda suspects.3 The seizure occurred in
a strait used for international navigation, as that term is defined by the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea4 (Law of the Sea
Treaty), where "all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage,
which shall not be impeded." 5

Problem for the US is that it sets up a 'yes, the US can do what it likes and doesn't have to worry about the law. US ships don't have to worry about it, whilst everyone else are at the mercy of any minor whim of the American government.'

So basically, even if the Iranians are right, doesn't matter. How DARE they stop a ship that has an American connection. Manwhile, how DARE any Iranian ship sail anywhere in the world – don't they know that America doesn't like it?

That is a very good way to get very unpopular in the world very quickly. Except, of course, that the US probably already has that reputation… and the only way to lose it is to stop automatically jumping in feet first. This one seems to be legit, so the US response is a very bad move.

Well, I just heard on tv that the U.S. Navy will extend the same escort protection to vessels with British and flags of other allies.

Dan

That is a navy's primary mission to protect the flow of commerce …

I thought it was to blow the enemy to hell! :)

Dan

That too !

One wonders whether the search and seizure of a ship carrying contraband (illegal drugs) and terrorists is viewed in the same light in international law as the boarding and seizure of a ship based on a civil financial judgement.

Engaging in criminal activity usually removes some of the protections normally given the law abiding.

Now there is the question of whether that instance in 2003 had 'probable cause' or hard intelligence as to the cargo and passengers or was just 'lucky.'

The link that mentioned the 2003 case raises boarding for security as a defense. Security also seems to include illegal trade including smuggling. Seizing for debt collection at sea doesn't appear to be covered by that defense.

Maybe, maybe not. In the eyes of the court they may well be the same (that I'll leave to the lawyers to argue over…).

'Well, I just heard on tv that the U.S. Navy will extend the same escort protection to vessels with British and flags of other allies.'

That doesn't affect the legal position. If the Iranians attempt to legally board a ship and is prevented by the US, then the US is in the wrong. You can't choose to only obey the law when it suites you, Nor is it right to act like a bully-boy in such a situation.

Sometimes, the ones you think of as the bad guys are atually in the right – and that has ben demonstrated many times.

G'day all,

War game relevance – the laws applicable to the high seas could constrain the players actions as follows:

link

Article110

Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or

(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.

Article111

Right of hot pursuit

1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.

2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.

3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.

4. Hot pursuit is not deemed to have begun unless the pursuing ship has satisfied itself by such practicable means as may be available that the ship pursued or one of its boats or other craft working as a team and using the ship pursued as a mother ship is within the limits of the territorial sea, or, as the case may be, within the contiguous zone or the exclusive economic zone or above the continental shelf. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.

5. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

6. Where hot pursuit is effected by an aircraft:

(a) the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis;

(b) the aircraft giving the order to stop must itself actively pursue the ship until a ship or another aircraft of the coastal State, summoned by the aircraft, arrives to take over the pursuit, unless the aircraft is itself able to arrest the ship. It does not suffice to justify an arrest outside the territorial sea that the ship was merely sighted by the aircraft as an offender or suspected offender, if it was not both ordered to stop and pursued by the aircraft itself or other aircraft or ships which continue the pursuit without interruption.

7. The release of a ship arrested within the jurisdiction of a State and escorted to a port of that State for the purposes of an inquiry before the competent authorities may not be claimed solely on the ground that the ship, in the course of its voyage, was escorted across a portion of the exclusive economic zone or the high seas, if the circumstances rendered this necessary.

8. Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.

The Iranians have released the ship and crew see link

Good news.