Laws of the sea

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

[Stuart2007]

But those rules only apply to ships registered in a participating country.

If I bought a ship and went into international waters, if a navy boat intercepted me it would have no right to board- that would surely be piracy. IF the ship carried a flag of a country which didn't recognise the UN rules. They may use force to seize your boat, but that is surely dicey.

They may arrest you as soon as you come into territorial wates though.

As I say, if it was a British flagged ship, we are told to surrender to anyone at any time and in any place.

Stu

[mporter]

But those rules only apply to ships registered in a participating country.

Stu

There are very few non-participating countries, and that would be a frail reed to stand on if you somehow incurred the wrath of a major country. Piracy or not, I suspect you'd wish that the flag country had a more extensive consular system after you'd languished in the jug for a while.

Cheers,
Michael

[Captain Davies]

If I bought a ship and went into international waters, if a navy boat intercepted me it would have no right to board- that would surely be piracy. IF the ship carried a flag of a country which didn't recognise the UN rules. They may use force to seize your boat, but that is surely dicey.

That would most definetly be piracy, and would probably result in an international incident. The whole mandate of the UN means that any ship can be boarded by a ship flying the UN flag but with the agreement of the UN itself.  Say for instance the ship was carrying black market weapons, then the UN would order it stopped, because the whole point is for them to intervene for the sake of global security and stability.

As I say, if it was a British flagged ship, we are told to surrender to anyone at any time and in any place.

I imagine the reason the British government says this is to make sure you don't get yourself shot and then that you allow them to sort it out.

[Orinoco]

But those rules only apply to ships registered in a participating country.

If I bought a ship and went into international waters, if a navy boat intercepted me it would have no right to board- that would surely be piracy. IF the ship carried a flag of a country which didn't recognise the UN rules. They may use force to seize your boat, but that is surely dicey.

They may arrest you as soon as you come into territorial wates though.

As I say, if it was a British flagged ship, we are told to surrender to anyone at any time and in any place.

Stu

Indeed, but you're hardly in a position to argue with a Type 22 Frigate, are you? 

[Captain Kool]

OKAY, There are International Waters laws but.... OFFICIALLY... Ships sailing the high seas are generally under flag state jurisdiction.

[LucAtC]

Hello Stu,
As a rule (article 110), navy ships (of any nation) have the right of visit and may board your ship if they suspect your ship is engaged in piracy, slave trade, illegal broadcasting (!), has no nationality (art. 92.2), or hides her flag being in reality of the same nationality of the navy ship herself.
The definition (art. 101) of piracy is not very restrictive "any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation,...."  and cannot be the fact of a naval ship. (They commit illegal acts, collateral damage, errors, mistakes, war crimes, acts of war ...).
Idem slave trade (Spambot, children, ...).
And of course, Captain Kool is quite right, Art. 92.1 says:
Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.
So, if you are suspect,  your freedom of the seas could change if you damage the paint of the boarding party!
Regards,
Luc

[UUUUUHHHHHH]

This is a very nice discussion going on here but I must remind you that it is off topic so please start a new topic in the Small Talk Section.

[Stuart2007]

Indeed, but you're hardly in a position to argue with a Type 22 Frigate, are you? 

That's the point I was making. Is it only the fear of force that makes people comply.

And, I can think of one type 22 I would happily argue with...

Stu

[Orinoco]

LOL, you're thinking of HMS Cornwall, aren't you?

I STILL can't believe what the Iranians got away with, it makes me ANGRY!

[Stuart2007]

LOL, you're thinking of HMS Cornwall, aren't you?

I STILL can't believe what the Iranians got away with, it makes me ANGRY!

Remember though (and I am NOT condoning the Iranian action (I am British and patriotic)) that there may be good grounds for arguing that Cornwalls patrol was in Iranian waters.

Perhaps we should turn our anger to the Captain of Cornwall for incompetence or the MOD for allowing these pathetic creatures to be captured with their trousers down. Compare and contrast to those who recently attended the Falklands remembrance ceremony.

Stu

[Orinoco]

Remember though (and I am NOT condoning the Iranian action (I am British and patriotic)) that there may be good grounds for arguing that Cornwalls patrol was in Iranian waters.

Perhaps we should turn our anger to the Captain of Cornwall for incompetence or the MOD for allowing these pathetic creatures to be captured with their trousers down. Compare and contrast to those who recently attended the Falklands remembrance ceremony.

Stu

I know, I can't believe that HMS Cornwall sat by and did nothing.

Remember though (and I am NOT condoning the Iranian action (I am British and patriotic)) that there may be good grounds for arguing that Cornwalls patrol was in Iranian waters.

You mean like being 1.7 miles away from where the Iranians claimed they were? Don't forget that the Iranians changed their story. The original coordinates they gave were also inside Iraqi waters.

[Stuart2007]

Hi Luc/Captain Kool

I take your word both of you on your points. However, (and this ISN'T an argumentative statement) I repeat, IF your registered country does not subscribe to the UN agreements, then where do the rules leave people.

IE

A ship registered in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Stuart is legally sailing in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and, say, HMS Cornwal flounces past and asks the ship to be ever so kind and allow themselves to be boarded.

PDRoS has not subscribed to the UN agreement nor permitted the boarding of the ship. Is this effectively an act of war against PDRoS?

I know that if you sail into territorial waters you automatically assign rights to the host nation to board and inspect your vessel. But in the middle of the sea do they have authority to assign those conventions Luc mentions?

Stu

[Stuart2007]

I know, I can't believe that HMS Cornwall sat by and did nothing.

You mean like being 1.7 miles away from where the Iranians claimed they were? Don't forget that the Iranians changed their story. The original coordinates they gave were also inside Iraqi waters.

After the seizure, there is little that could have been done - apart from threatening to blow the Iranian ship to hell (not much help).

That estuary has been bitterly disputed for hundreds of years. Whilst I would tend to agree with you, let us not forget that the RN should have been aware that its position could have been challenged.

And- and I MUST stress I am not siding with the enemy- but I do not trust the British authorities any more than I trust the Iranians- do we KNOW their position was accurate. And it DOES pain me to say that.

Stu

[Orinoco]

Hm, GPS sides with the British on this one.

As for the capture, I agree that not much could have been done to stop it once it occured, but that shouldn't have stopped some kind of response. For a start, some warning shots/dispatching the Helo would have gone down well.

And while the RN might have had its position 'challenged' by the Iranians, it shouldn't by any stretch of the imagination succumb to that challenge. Had it have come down to any kind of sea engagement, the RN would have won hands down.

[Stuart2007]

nearly 90 years ago, a country in the Med. area (can't remember which) took RN personnel hostage over alleged ilegal entry into territorial waters. The RN response was to get 50 front line ships, block their main ports and threaten to open fire if the prisoners were not returned.

In this day, it doesn't work like that. If they engaged the Iranians, it could have led to all out war. It would be 'nice' to say go for it, but the real world doesn't work like that.

Remember that Iran would sacrifice the boat crew happily, where as if any RN personnel were hurt it would be headline news for weeks in Britain. Same applies to Europe, America, etc.

We don't have the backbone for fights anymore. Look at the idiots that were captured. Was there no LOOKOUT aboard the freighter???

Stu

[Orinoco]

In this day, it doesn't work like that. If they engaged the Iranians, it could have led to all out war. It would be 'nice' to say go for it, but the real world doesn't work like that.

I know. The capture of our personnel would have been the act of war though, not our response.

I realise what you're saying, but if the RN isn't going to have the guts to engage enemies for fear of the potential fallout, then they're effectively useless.

The US Navy engaged Iranian vessels in the original gulf war when they got too close, I can't see why we don't do the same.

[Stuart2007]

I know. The capture of our personnel would have been the act of war though, not our response.

Yes, I agree. 1- IF the RN was right. 2- The truth is usually irelevant- it is perception. You can see the way Iran won be careful 'spin' and a queer diplomacy.

I realise what you're saying, but if the RN isn't going to have the guts to engage enemies for fear of the potential fallout, then they're effectively useless.

Yep, exactly. Some good people, but those useless crettins on Cornwall- that says it all. Look at them- not physically fit, listen- talk c**p, bravery??? 'Missing'

The US Navy engaged Iranian vessels in the original gulf war when they got too close, I can't see why we don't do the same.

A lot has changed in 15 years though. Iran has got more powerful, we've got less powerful.

Stu

[LucAtC]

PDRoS has not subscribed to the UN agreement nor permitted the boarding of the ship. Is this effectively an act of war against PDRoS?

Good question, but there is no need yet to speak of PDRoS! In the real world, it is the City of Vatican, Palestine or Western Sahara!
Anyway, if HMS Cornwall suspects your ship of piracy, drug trafficking or slave trade, if I was the commander, I would board your ship, while pretending to question your dubious flag. It could be seen as an act of war by the lawyers of your PDRoS, and considered as legitimate by HMS Cornwall's country and the UN, because of the importance of the suspected crimes. I am quite sure your conduct would be much more approved and respected than having let go a suspected ship.
 
Regards,
Luc

[Stuart2007]

Yes, that is the way I saw it generally, BUT...

If HMS Cornwall tried to board me, I would laugh at them and tell them to come back when they had all grown up.

I doubt anyone would take that ships crew seriously now. Lets face it, for all the talk of 'would you face down a RN frigate with its weaponery'- they wouldn't open fire unless specifically authorised by Government.

And in the event that the ship being boarded saw it as an ilegal act of piracy and opened fire with side arms, what is the position there? I still don't think that these laws carry any weight except for general basic agreements.

Stu

PS. I am NOT on the side of pirates, terrorists, smugglers etc. I am just playing devils advocate.

[Captain Davies]

Wait a minute, I was under the impression that HMS Cornwall was a fair distance from the site of the abduction.  It would have been too late by the time they found out, it would only have been after they failed to return that alarms would have been raised.  By that time it would have been too late, they wouldn't even know where to look for them, let alone catch up.  I'm sure HMS Cornwall would have done something had they been in the know.

On top of that, the men (and Spambot) in the boat were in no position to fight back because a) they were in a RHIB whcih could easily be damaged by small arms fire, let alone the heavy callibur weapons aboard the Iranian boats, and b) all they had were SA80s.

The real crime here is not that HMS Cornwall didn't do anything, but that the RHIB was sent out so poorly equipped and that the helicopter was not dispatched for cover from the very beginning.

[Orinoco]

Wait a minute, I was under the impression that HMS Cornwall was a fair distance from the site of the abduction.  It would have been too late by the time they found out, it would only have been after they failed to return that alarms would have been raised.  By that time it would have been too late, they wouldn't even know where to look for them, let alone catch up.  I'm sure HMS Cornwall would have done something had they been in the know.

On top of that, the men (and Spambot) in the boat were in no position to fight back because a) they were in a RHIB whcih could easily be damaged by small arms fire, let alone the heavy callibur weapons aboard the Iranian boats, and b) all they had were SA80s.

The real crime here is not that HMS Cornwall didn't do anything, but that the RHIB was sent out so poorly equipped and that the helicopter was not dispatched for cover from the very beginning.
 

How far away? If it was within 12 miles, HMS Cornwall could have had their backs with the 4.5 inch cannon.

Out of contact? What happened to radios?

As for cover, you're right, they should have had helo support.

[Captain Davies]

Out of contact? What happened to radios?

Would you reach for a radio with AK74s and heavy callibur guns pointing at you?

[Stuart2007]

Would you reach for a radio with AK74s and heavy callibur guns pointing at you?

Capt D, you are quite right on the realities of this. It isn't a game and the Iranians would likely have enjoyed firing.

But I repeat, one of the useles lumps from HMS Cornwall should have been on the freighters bridge keeping a 360 degree lookout for enemy vessels if the 'copter wasn't available (UK can not afford aviation fuel I think...)

So Orinoco has a point- they should have seen what was going on and radioed long before the AK47 was in range.

Finally, Capt D.. I think the real problem is that due to political interference that the patrol was sent out with people who were not competent to do their job. Looking at them on the news, I wouldn't let them loose on a rowing boat on the Serpentine.

I would go further. Personally I would have let the Iranians hang them and rid us of their stupidity.

Stu

[Captain Davies]

But I repeat, one of the useles lumps from HMS Cornwall should have been on the freighters bridge keeping a 360 degree lookout for enemy vessels if the 'copter wasn't available (UK can not afford aviation fuel I think...)

So Orinoco has a point- they should have seen what was going on and radioed long before the AK47 was in range.

From what I saw on news reports the group had already left the ship they were inspecting when the Iranians headed them off.

Finally, Capt D.. I think the real problem is that due to political interference that the patrol was sent out with people who were not competent to do their job. Looking at them on the news, I wouldn't let them loose on a rowing boat on the Serpentine.

I would go further. Personally I would have let the Iranians hang them and rid us of their stupidity.

Stu

Most of the men aboard that boat were Royal Marines, quite competent I'm sure.  It all boils down to the fact those personell didn't stand a chance of fighting the Iranians off, and the people aboard HMS Cornwall didn't have a chance to stop it.  Ultimately, the only people to blame were the Iranians.

[Orinoco]

From what I saw on news reports the group had already left the ship they were inspecting when the Iranians headed them off.
 

Most of the men aboard that boat were Royal Marines, quite competent I'm sure.  It all boils down to the fact those personell didn't stand a chance of fighting the Iranians off, and the people aboard HMS Cornwall didn't have a chance to stop it.  Ultimately, the only people to blame were the Iranians.

Not forgetting Margaret Beckett and the p*** poor 'response' of the Foreign Office!

Edited for language, DJM.