Author Topic: US challenge of international maritime law (Read 783 times)

Preon1 · « **on:** July 11, 2003, 08:39:51 AM »

Wow, you'd think that American papers would carry something like this. Apparently, the US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security thinks that international waters now fall under the jurisdiction of the CIA. Even I'M starting to get uncomfortable with the "cowboy diplomacy" of the current administration.

Ofcourse, maybe the brits misquoted or took something out of context... ...doubt it.

Quote

London Times
July 11, 2003

US Plans To Seize Suspects At Will

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

AMERICA appeared to be at loggerheads with Britain and other allies yesterday after it declared that it had the authority to intercept any suspect ships and aircraft in international waters and airspace.

“We are prepared to undertake interdictions right now and, if that opportunity arises, if we had actionable intelligence and it was appropriate, we would do it now,” John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said.

He was speaking after a meeting in Brisbane of the new Proliferation Security Initiative, whose 11 members include Britain. Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit.

British diplomatic sources were taken aback by Mr Bolton’s interpretation. A Foreign Office spokesman said: “All 11 participants agreed that any action that might be taken would have to be consistent with international law.”

However, Mr Bolton, a Washington hawk, said that the countries had reached an agreement that in itself authorised the US to take action on the high seas and in international airspace. “There is broad agreement within the group that we have that authority,” he said.

The Brisbane meeting, which agreed to hold military exercises to train for interceptions, was also attended by Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

The US initiative was launched after an attempt to stop Scud missiles being shipped from North Korea to Yemen failed for legal reasons. Mr Bolton said the US might seek a UN Security Council resolution to add further weight to the action.

The International Maritime Organisation said the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation was being reviewed. The US had proposed a new power to board ships on the high seas. It was “pretty contentious”.

Maniac · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2003, 08:44:44 AM »

Quote

Mr Bolton said the US might seek a UN Security Council resolution to add further weight to the action.

WHY? really why? The U.S do what they feel like anyway...

Syzygyone · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2003, 08:55:09 AM »

Preon1:

Well, you could characterise the U.S. interpretation as cowboy diplomacy, I guess. I'd characterise it as sensible precaution together with other measures now being implemented, in many many international ports and other countries. Like pre-shipment registration and tracking of container cargo. Or, the fact that all foreign crew lists are required to be sent to the U.S. 96 hours before they get here, which puts them in international waters. Should that be stopped as well?

Ocean going terrorism is one of our biggest vulnerabilities and since we are an avowed target, we have the right to protect ourselves. Your concern about cowboy diplomacy might be valid if you really think the U.S. will willy nilly start boarding and seizing ships at sea. do you think that and if so, why?

Really curious about your thoughts.

Dowding · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2003, 09:33:27 AM »

Quote

Like pre-shipment registration and tracking of container cargo. Or, the fact that all foreign crew lists are required to be sent to the U.S. 96 hours before they get here, which puts them in international waters. Should that be stopped as well?

Are those in breach of any international law or treaty? Nope.

john9001 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2003, 10:07:12 AM »

"""Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit. """

thats not true, if you get permission from the country of registration, you can stop the ship in international waters, US Coast Guard does it all the time.
if the ship flys no flag, it can be stopped anytime, anywhere.

midnight Target · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2003, 10:24:41 AM »

This sounds a lot like the reason we went to war...................

in 1812.

Sabre · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2003, 10:26:15 AM »

Preon1, that is most curious, and I wonder also about what Mr. Bolton means by

Quote

the countries had reached an agreement that in itself authorised the US to take action on the high seas and in international airspace. “There is broad agreement within the group that we have that authority,”

Authority from where? From whom? So this 11-member commitee granted itself authority? On the otherhand, I don't recall any mention of seeking or needing international approval during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the USN routinely stopped merchantmen in international waters and bound for Cuba, in order to search for nuclear-capable missiles. As the US has stated, any nation has the right to reasonable actions in self-defense (even pre-emptive, if the threat is grave enough)...you just better be right, and prepared to apologize and make restitution if you're wrong. I also believe international law should be observed when ever possible.

I guess I have a problem primarily with use of the word "authorized" by Mr. Bolton. We are in a war, a war on terror, to use an overused phrase. As such, authority is neither sought nor needed. If he had simply stated that the 11-member nations had agreed to take this action in mutual self-defense (which it sounds like they didn't), rather than try to spin it as somehow having authority (which implies we are subservient somehow to some international body), then it would at least come across as more honest.

Syzygyone · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:10:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
This sounds a lot like the reason we went to war...................

in 1812.

IIRC we won that war! And we'll win this one also.

Syzygyone · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:15:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Are those in breach of any international law or treaty? Nope.

What international law allows you to force seaman to be identified while still in International Waters? You say it isn't a breach. Okay, then, if that act is okay, then what is the difference in boarding a vessle that we have intelligence on that says it might pose a threat. We are not pirating that vessel, are we?

midnight Target · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:20:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Syzygyone
IIRC we won that war! And we'll win this one also.

Hehe.. thats not how the history books in Canada see it.

I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.

Syzygyone · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2003, 11:25:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.

A W is a W. Just ask W!

Arfann · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2003, 01:51:04 PM »

“We are prepared to undertake interdictions right now and, if that opportunity arises, if we had actionable intelligence and it was appropriate, we would do it now,” John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said.

Kewl, all they gotta do is invent some more intel and do what they want to do. Just like the intel about WMD. If they keep poking in blind corners they just may come up with something. Or maybe not.

Dowding · « **Reply #12 on:** July 11, 2003, 02:10:51 PM »

Quote

What international law allows you to force seaman to be identified while still in International Waters?

What? Now you've changed your tune. The crews must be on ships destined for US ports - why should there be a law prohibiting the forced disclosure of information about such ship's crews?

We're talking about the authority to perform 'anytime, anywhere, any place' searches, that has nothing to do with ships destined for the US.

rpm · « **Reply #13 on:** July 11, 2003, 02:22:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
"""Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit. """

thats not true, if you get permission from the country of registration, you can stop the ship in international waters, US Coast Guard does it all the time.
if the ship flys no flag, it can be stopped anytime, anywhere.

The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels).

Basicly, what that says is there is no limit to where a U.S. Coast Guard vessel can stop and inspect ANY ship ANYWHERE on the High Seas. It all depends on the mission. SEMPER PARATUS!

Syzygyone · « **Reply #14 on:** July 11, 2003, 02:31:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
What? Now you've changed your tune. The crews must be on ships destined for US ports - why should there be a law prohibiting the forced disclosure of information about such ship's crews?

We're talking about the authority to perform 'anytime, anywhere, any place' searches, that has nothing to do with ships destined for the US.

I haven't changed my or any other tune. I am tone deaf but thanks for forcing me to bring my disability up so that you and others can ridicule me with it.