There is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz (must read)

[Ichingcarpenter]

Legal mist stokes US-Iran tensions in strait
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

snip.......................

Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm".

Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian territorial waters". Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law."

Given that the approximately three-kilometer-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran's territorial water, the US Navy's invocation of "transit passage" harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
Per Article 39 of the UNCLOS, pertaining to "duties of ships during transit passage" US ships passaging through the Strait of Hormuz must "proceed without delay" and "refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of states bordering the strait".

Per Article 40, "During transit passage, foreign ships may not carry out any research or survey activity without the prior authorization of the states bordering the straits." And yet, by the US Navy's own admission, it has been conducting sonar activities in the area, to detect submerged vessels. This, in turn, has harmed the Persian Gulf's aquatic mammals. In light of a recent US court ruling limiting the US Navy's sonar activities off the California coast, Iran now has greater political leverage to seek information regarding the activities of US warships transiting through its territorial waters.
Given the US's verbal acrobatics, of trying to depict as "international waters" what is essentially Iran's territorial water in the inbound traffic channel of the Strait of Hormuz, it collides with Article 34 of UNCLOS. This regards the "legal status of waters forming the straits used for international navigation", that strictly stipulates that the regime of passage "shall not affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits". Following the UNCLOS, Iran's territorial water extends 12 nautical miles at the Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon videotape of the incident shows a US helicopter hovering above the US ships, which is in clear contradiction of Article 19 of the UNCLOS, which expressly forbids "the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft" during transit passage.

Article 19, elaborating on the meaning of "innocent passage", states that "passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". And that means a prohibition on "any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind" and or "any act of harmful and serious pollution".

In other words, US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters.

Under Article 25 of the UNCLOS, a "coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise."

Per Article 30, "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."

Pursuant to Article 42 of the UNCLOS, "states bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage" and "foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations." In this connection, Iran's 1993 maritime law echoes Article 20 of the UNCLOS: "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on surface and to show their flag." Yet, disregarding both international law and Iran's laws, the US Navy until now has refused to comply with the requirement of surface passage of its submarines through the Strait of Hormuz. ............snip


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA15Ak02.html

[mike_c]

1. recommended-- the U.S. is trying to provoke a confrontation with Iran...

...and is refusing to abide by international law, as usual. Iran is not the "rogue nation" in this conflict.

[catnhatnh]

2. Better delete this....

or freeper heads will explode in two minutes....

[dipsydoodle]

3. Nice find

You should however take care when reproducing articles without permission. Stick to the 4 paras only rule for safety - fair use.

[sakabatou]

4. More and more evidence

for a Tonkin event.

The government wants to drag us into another war to which we'll have no escape. >_<

[jody]

5. There is no "Legal mist", U.S. was in Iran's waters and violated international law. The incident is

just another provocation by *.

[peacetalksforall]

6. I haven't been watching tv - are R.hosts and pundits saying we are perfect and innocent?

I assume freepers are have taken sides judging from the above post?

[jody]

7. I believe U.S. and Iran have signed UNCLOS but neither has ratified it. n/t

[nealmhughes]

12. Not sure if the US signed it or not, but Iran did and it is ratified there;

however, they recently passed a law that claimed extraordinary jurisdiction in their waters. However, the US and Iran have been cooperating, along with most maritime powers as if all were in agreement with the LOS.
25% or so of the world's oil passes thru the straits! The corridors are, indeed very narrow for transit on each side of the straits there, and like the Bosphorus, always a point of contention between the various powers who need to get from the Red Sea to the Arabian, or Black to Med.

This is all just a bunch of broohaha and timely coinciding with Bush's visit to the UAE and Israel.

[jody]

13. The link below shows neither Iran nor the U.S. actually ratified the UNCLOS. n/t

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. What spoil-sports! Pestering innocent warships, helicopters, etc.

[arendt]

9. The law and the truth are always recommended. K&R. Thank you for sane discussion. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

10. This is VERY informative.. thank you (Rec-ed). Thank God/dess the US warships didn't open fire.

or we'd at war with Iran ... overnight via a neo-Gulf-of-Tonkin ... with a new military draft bill
winging through Congress.

[smokey nj]

11. K&R!!!!

[Richard Steele]

14. Kick