3 ms·
> According to the British maritime security firm Ambrey, the tanker was told via radio to stop by the Iranians. When the tanker didn’t comply, the Iranians ope
by vkou 3y ago
> According to the British maritime security firm Ambrey, the tanker was told via radio to stop by the Iranians. When the tanker didn’t comply, the Iranians opened fire.
What would happen if a ship refused to comply with a radio order to stop issued by the USN/USCG, while traveling just off the coast of the US?
Would it be fired upon? Boarded? Would either action be legal, or illegal under international law?
- alistairSH 3y agoHow far is “just off the coast”. This tankers appears to have been in international waters. The Iranians had no reason to stop it, board it, etc. The exception here would be suspected terrorism, drug trafficking, or other major crime (none of which appears to be the case here). The US generally considers anything within 12 miles to be within American territorial waters. Inside that, a request to stop would need to be observed. Outside that, the US doesn’t have a legal right to stop or board a vessel (subject to exceptions as noted above).
- synetic 3y agohttps://www.businessinsider.com/us-north-korean-seize-ships-international-waters-2018-3?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/us-north-korean-seize-ships-...
- alistairSH 3y agoYes, that falls within the exceptions I mentioned - in this case, NK ships are suspected of transferring sanctioned good from ship to ship to avoid sanctions. Like manythings involving the high seas, there’s a fair bit of gray. But Iran’s propensity to stop, search, and seize vessels in international waters isn’t generally one of those gray things.
- salek110 3y agoWhat exactly are US ships doing 10,000 miles from home?
- vkou 3y agoIn the case of this part of the ocean, various things, but they've recently been seizing Iranian ships.
- alistairSH 3y agoIn this case, working with our allies to enforce international sanctions.
- synetic 3y agoThe ship the Iranians tried to stop violated sanctions of the Iranian government. The U.S. is a bit hypocritical. We ignore U.N. resolutions when it suits us in case you think violating U.N. sanctions somehow is a higher standard than violating Iranian sanctions.
- tptacek 3y agoAs you can see from the Iranian reaction to USN assets arriving on the scene, Iran simply doesn't get to enforce sanctions on other countries in international waters. Reasonable people will read USN interdiction of Iranian-based tankers as lawful enforcement of sanctions, and Iranian retaliatory seizures as piracy.
- synetic 3y agoYou may define “reasonable” any way you want to. The fact is that U.S. has sufficient military power to enforce its will on others while having enough soft power to, usually, wrap those actions in a cloak of U.N. legitimacy. One should not confuse this with morality or justice or righteousness of action. The U.S. has a long history of hypocritical justifications against those it deems foes. For instance we didn’t really care all that much when Israel acquired nuclear weapons but suddenly care when the Iranians want to acquire them. We look askance when others do to us as we do to them but we shouldn’t. It’s ok to admit that we (the U.S.) are hypocrites when it comes to this stuff. We decry (justly in my opinion) the Russian invasion of Ukraine while having engaged in even more pointlessly stupid and evil invasions of other nations (like Iraq).
- tptacek 3y agoThat is correct. The US has sufficient military power to enforce a global sanctions regime on Iran, and everybody knows it, very much including Iran. Iran, meanwhile, has no such ability. Sovereign states relate to each other in a Hobbesian state of nature, not under the due process laws of any one country. If Iran could do anything other than prey on hapless commercial vessels, people might look at the situation differently. But they can't, and people see it for what it appears to be: illegitimate.
- creato 3y ago> Richmond Voyager was more than 20 miles off the coast of Muscat, Oman, and was in international waters when the Iranian Navy approached it. Not sure what you mean by “just off the coast” but 20 miles from Oman would put it ~100 miles from Iran.
- pgorczak 3y agoIf it’s just off the coast as in “territorial waters”, there’s the concept of innocent passage in international law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_passage) - although the US are not part of this UN convention. If the criteria for innocent passage are not met, “the coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage”. Edit: I guess in more tricky situations e.g. the ship isn’t obviously armed or spying, it comes down to questions similar to probable cause.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kayodelycaon 3y agoDoesn’t really matter. If the US Coast Guard really wants to board you, there are no warships coming to your defense. The USCG hunts down drug runners in intentional waters all the time. They have snipers in helicopters who can take out the engines on speedboats. Once they are disabled, an armed boarding party from a ship collects the crew. For larger ships, the US doesn’t need a messy show of force. We can politely ask a friendly nation to seize the ship and detain the crew in their waters. It’s all nice and legal.