4 ms·

> Like not attacking civilian infrastructure? No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across milleni

> Like not attacking civilian infrastructure? No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across millenia in a way prohibitions on total war are not. Let me be clear, prohibitions on total war are good. But they're also a new concept and one clearly the world's powers don't agree on to one iota. Freedom of navigation, on the other hand, benefits everyone but autarkies, and has for, again, millenia. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation

magicalist 7mo ago
> No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation is almost the definition of a Pax like, say, across a civilian bridge?
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > like, say, across a civilian bridge? Cute. But no cigar. Point is if you put a random assortment of countries in a series of rooms, more of those rooms will agree on freedom of navigation than they will on what bridge can be blown up when. In part because the former is a bright line in a way deciding what is and isn't a military target cannot be.
  - adrian_b 7mo ago
    You should mention that USA does not believe in the freedom of navigation. Before starting the war with Iran, USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba, intercepting the oil tankers going there and causing thus a severe fuel shortage in Cuba. Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz was just doing the same that USA has begun doing. So USA has no moral authority to say that Iran should respect "the freedom of navigation", which is a thing that USA does not respect.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      Weren't those tankers operating under false flags? Additionally, the US action in Venezuela led to that stream ceasing. I'm not sure what the deal was with Mexico, I read that the US asked them to stop doing business with Cuba but they didn't seem entirely willing to cooperate. When a properly flagged Russian tanker came through it was left alone. My impression is that the situation with Cuba is much more complex than the mass media portrayal of a straightforward blockade. Not that I believe the US is free of guilt here; clearly harm is being caused and the motivations seem suspect at best.
      - UncleMeat 7mo ago
        If freedom of navigation is so fundamental, why does it depend on flags?
        fc417fc802 7mo ago
        Interesting question. I assume piracy and smuggling and various other law breaking but I'm not certain. AFAIK the only requirement is a legitimate registration. Again AFAIK the vessels that were directly interfered with (ie by force) all had either falsified registrations or were flagged under countries that aren't currently in any state to actually manage registrations. Then there's also their participation in what's been termed a shadow fleet, the associated falsification of origin of sanctioned oil, the accessing of ports where they otherwise wouldn't be permitted berth, the lack of insurance in case of environmental damage, etc. As I said previously, much more complex than the mass media portrayal.
        peebee67 7mo ago
        As you say, the shadow fleet exists because of sanctions. In other words, because the biggest bully on the block is committing de facto piracy with their navy. Pretty much the definition of blocking freedom of navigation. Their insurance paperwork not being in order justifies their seizure?
        fc417fc802 7mo ago
  - toyg 7mo ago
    This is such a made-up idea. The various treaties about freedom of passage exist precisely because, before the last 200 years, everyone did whatever they wanted with straits and other natural chokepoints, including closing them at will. Freedom of navigation is not an obviously natural right nor one universally accepted, before colonial powers effectively invented it and enforced it with guns. If somebody shows up with bigger guns, it might well disappear again. Also, I wish the expression "close but no cigar" could be banned on the internet. Unless you're a professor of international relations at a renowned university, you simply don't get to gatekeep what reality is - particularly when making up arbitrary principles like these.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
      > colonial powers effectively invented it “In both Roman law and Islamic law, notions of a commonality of the seas were firmly established” (Id.). (It’s also weird to describe a custom of commons as colonial. European colonialism was about the opposite, turning historic commons into private rights.) As a normative concept, you’re right, it’s new. But the notion that a great power would protect sea access for a variety of groups is old. More as a practical matter, granted—it’s hard to project enough power onto an ocean to control it.
      - graemep 7mo ago
        What is the source? Roman and Islamic law were also pretty much "colonial", even though the term is used of modern European empires, Rome was also an Empire, and the Arab Empires were also aggressively imperialist and maritime traders.
        tolerance 7mo ago
        > The notion of the commonality of the seas is firmly established in Roman law, which formed the foundation of early modern European discussions on the right of navigation. A series of passages from the Corpus iuris civilis state that the sea, like the air, should be considered, by the law of nature, a res communis – a thing common to all, which cannot be claimed or usurped by anyone for exclusive use. Islamic law, which had a wide impact from the early modern Mediterranean to Southeast Asia, also considers the sea a boundless entity that is common to all mankind and not subject to private appropriation. — "The Right of Navigation" <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-rights/right-of-navigation/89234E9381A830A3C0D15080BA94FD11 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-o...> > Roman and Islamic law were also pretty much "colonial", even though the term is used of modern European empires, Rome was also an Empire, and the Arab Empires were also aggressively imperialist and maritime traders. The difference between European empires and Islamic/Roman ones would be what JumpCrissCross advanced + the extent to which the conquered inhabitants are incorporated into the state, no?
oa335 7mo ago
> I'd actually say freedom of navigation is almost the definition of a Pax Right, and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana Fair enough.
hackable_sand 7mo ago
You mean commercial navigation
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  It's broader than that [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation
  - hackable_sand 7mo ago
    Food for thought Thanks
digitaltrees 7mo ago
So blockades weren’t ever a thing?
supermatt 7mo ago
> "shall not suffer interference from other states when in international waters" The strait of hormuz is NOT international waters. UNCLOS states that "straits used for international navigation" shall allow transit with impedance, which would include the strait of Hormuz, but Iran has never ratified the treaty (and neither has the USA).
- HWR_14 7mo ago
  While the US never ratified UNCLOS III (with things like economic exclusion zones), they did ratify the preceding UNCLOS I's Convention of the High Seas and it's freedom of navigation.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - supermatt 7mo ago
    You are correct, I was mistaken - UNCLOS I was indeed ratified by the USA.
lenkite 7mo ago
> No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across millenia in a way prohibitions on total war are not. What ? The U.S. themselves don't respect this. They only expect OTHER nations to follow it. UNCLOS has been MOCKED by U.S. Presidents all the time. Not just Trump. Reagan & Bush did too. And so do all the neocon U.S. Senators. In their view, the U.S. has a fundamental right to block traffic and setup embargoes.

magicalist 7mo ago

> No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation is almost the definition of a Pax like, say, across a civilian bridge?

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> like, say, across a civilian bridge? Cute. But no cigar. Point is if you put a random assortment of countries in a series of rooms, more of those rooms will agree on freedom of navigation than they will on what bridge can be blown up when. In part because the former is a bright line in a way deciding what is and isn't a military target cannot be.
- adrian_b 7mo ago
  You should mention that USA does not believe in the freedom of navigation. Before starting the war with Iran, USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba, intercepting the oil tankers going there and causing thus a severe fuel shortage in Cuba. Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz was just doing the same that USA has begun doing. So USA has no moral authority to say that Iran should respect "the freedom of navigation", which is a thing that USA does not respect.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Weren't those tankers operating under false flags? Additionally, the US action in Venezuela led to that stream ceasing. I'm not sure what the deal was with Mexico, I read that the US asked them to stop doing business with Cuba but they didn't seem entirely willing to cooperate. When a properly flagged Russian tanker came through it was left alone. My impression is that the situation with Cuba is much more complex than the mass media portrayal of a straightforward blockade. Not that I believe the US is free of guilt here; clearly harm is being caused and the motivations seem suspect at best.
    - UncleMeat 7mo ago
      If freedom of navigation is so fundamental, why does it depend on flags?
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        Interesting question. I assume piracy and smuggling and various other law breaking but I'm not certain. AFAIK the only requirement is a legitimate registration. Again AFAIK the vessels that were directly interfered with (ie by force) all had either falsified registrations or were flagged under countries that aren't currently in any state to actually manage registrations. Then there's also their participation in what's been termed a shadow fleet, the associated falsification of origin of sanctioned oil, the accessing of ports where they otherwise wouldn't be permitted berth, the lack of insurance in case of environmental damage, etc. As I said previously, much more complex than the mass media portrayal.
        peebee67 7mo ago
        As you say, the shadow fleet exists because of sanctions. In other words, because the biggest bully on the block is committing de facto piracy with their navy. Pretty much the definition of blocking freedom of navigation. Their insurance paperwork not being in order justifies their seizure?
        fc417fc802 7mo ago
- toyg 7mo ago
  This is such a made-up idea. The various treaties about freedom of passage exist precisely because, before the last 200 years, everyone did whatever they wanted with straits and other natural chokepoints, including closing them at will. Freedom of navigation is not an obviously natural right nor one universally accepted, before colonial powers effectively invented it and enforced it with guns. If somebody shows up with bigger guns, it might well disappear again. Also, I wish the expression "close but no cigar" could be banned on the internet. Unless you're a professor of international relations at a renowned university, you simply don't get to gatekeep what reality is - particularly when making up arbitrary principles like these.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > colonial powers effectively invented it “In both Roman law and Islamic law, notions of a commonality of the seas were firmly established” (Id.). (It’s also weird to describe a custom of commons as colonial. European colonialism was about the opposite, turning historic commons into private rights.) As a normative concept, you’re right, it’s new. But the notion that a great power would protect sea access for a variety of groups is old. More as a practical matter, granted—it’s hard to project enough power onto an ocean to control it.
    - graemep 7mo ago
      What is the source? Roman and Islamic law were also pretty much "colonial", even though the term is used of modern European empires, Rome was also an Empire, and the Arab Empires were also aggressively imperialist and maritime traders.
      - tolerance 7mo ago
        > The notion of the commonality of the seas is firmly established in Roman law, which formed the foundation of early modern European discussions on the right of navigation. A series of passages from the Corpus iuris civilis state that the sea, like the air, should be considered, by the law of nature, a res communis – a thing common to all, which cannot be claimed or usurped by anyone for exclusive use. Islamic law, which had a wide impact from the early modern Mediterranean to Southeast Asia, also considers the sea a boundless entity that is common to all mankind and not subject to private appropriation. — "The Right of Navigation" <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-of-rights/right-of-navigation/89234E9381A830A3C0D15080BA94FD11 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-history-o...> > Roman and Islamic law were also pretty much "colonial", even though the term is used of modern European empires, Rome was also an Empire, and the Arab Empires were also aggressively imperialist and maritime traders. The difference between European empires and Islamic/Roman ones would be what JumpCrissCross advanced + the extent to which the conquered inhabitants are incorporated into the state, no?

oa335 7mo ago

> I'd actually say freedom of navigation is almost the definition of a Pax Right, and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana Fair enough.

hackable_sand 7mo ago

You mean commercial navigation

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
It's broader than that [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation
- hackable_sand 7mo ago
  Food for thought Thanks

digitaltrees 7mo ago

So blockades weren’t ever a thing?

supermatt 7mo ago

> "shall not suffer interference from other states when in international waters" The strait of hormuz is NOT international waters. UNCLOS states that "straits used for international navigation" shall allow transit with impedance, which would include the strait of Hormuz, but Iran has never ratified the treaty (and neither has the USA).

HWR_14 7mo ago
While the US never ratified UNCLOS III (with things like economic exclusion zones), they did ratify the preceding UNCLOS I's Convention of the High Seas and it's freedom of navigation.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- supermatt 7mo ago
  You are correct, I was mistaken - UNCLOS I was indeed ratified by the USA.

lenkite 7mo ago

> No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across millenia in a way prohibitions on total war are not. What ? The U.S. themselves don't respect this. They only expect OTHER nations to follow it. UNCLOS has been MOCKED by U.S. Presidents all the time. Not just Trump. Reagan & Bush did too. And so do all the neocon U.S. Senators. In their view, the U.S. has a fundamental right to block traffic and setup embargoes.