It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: DeathSlayer
International sanctions trump Maritime Law...
Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans.
Admiralty law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
Admiralty law is distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters and international law governing relationships between nations.
Explore: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, International law
Although each legal jurisdiction usually has its own enacted legislation governing maritime matters, admiralty law is characterized by a significant amount of international law developed in recent decades, including numerous multilateral treaties.
Explore: International law
. . . under admiralty law, a bill of lading may either be a negotiable or 'order' bill of lading or a nonnegotiable or 'straight' bill of lading.
Explore: Bill of lading
Not a single ME nation backs Iranian nukes. If iran had no intention to build nukes, this would have been settled long ago. AND YOU KNIOW IT. You are one smart dude.
Nice try. Then why develop Ballistic missiles?? Hmmm. 4 of July celebrations?
Then why the accelerators?
I will say one thing in your favor, you persist at it. Lenin would be proud.
A container ship seized in the Strait of Hormuz by Iran last week has been released, its operator has confirmed.
Rickmers Shipmanagement said the 24 crew members of the Maersk Tigris were "in a good condition". The Marshall Islands-flagged vessel was intercepted by Iranian patrol boats on 28 April and taken to Bandar Abbas.
Iran said the ship was detained because of a legal dispute between the Danish company chartering it, Maersk, and a private Iranian firm. Maersk says the dispute dates backs to 2005, when it delivered 10 containers to Dubai for Pars Oil Products.
The containers were not collected and the cargo was disposed of after 90 days by the UAE authorities, it asserts.
The Iranian company subsequently accused Maersk of default and claimed $4m (£2.6m) as the value of the cargo. Maersk said it challenged the suit successfully and in 2007 the case was dismissed. However, an appeals court ordered it to pay $163,000 (£107,400) in February.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok
He isn't anti-war. He's pro-Iran and anti-Israel.
A big difference between the two.
Your not even anti-war. You have your level/bar where you think military action would be acceptable. The only difference between where you and I stand, at least on Iran, is where that point is.
What is the point of ballistic missiles if not for nuclear war-heads?
The accelerators, number-wise, is far beyond maintaining a peaceful nuclear power system, especially when one has oil coming out of your ears.
The connection between Iran and the Nazis is well documented. It could very well be the point where anti-Jewish sentiment was transferred from Europe and the Germans to the ME.
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: buster2010
Here's just one of many on the German-Iranian love affair:
www.gatestoneinstitute.org...
originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: MysterX
Yes, the age old argument of precedence. There is precedence for every act imaginable.
Obviously, the ship is worth far more than 10 mil. Why do you assume the 'taxman' is a valid claim?
Wouldn't a third party be consulted before such action are taken? Beside, the article say an Iranian company is owed that money, not State 'taxes'.
When has the U.S. navy ever been used to seize a foreign ship for debts owed to a U.S. Company? Certianly not without having gone throught the legal system. (such that it is, cough, cough... ).
An Israeli oil company has been ordered by a Swiss court to pay $1.1 billion to Iran in compensation in a long-standing legal battle related to a joint venture before the Islamic Revolution, the IRNA news agency says.
Citing an “informed source” at Iran’s Presidential Center for Legal Affairs, IRNA said the ruling relates to the Israeli company’s sale of Iranian oil and withholding the money.
Iran has been conducting three arbitration suits against Israel at French and Swiss courts in a legal tussle estimated worth several billion dollars. The case relates to a joint venture established in 1968 under the defunct shah of Iran to ship the country’s oil to the Israeli port of Eilat in the Mediterranean for export to Europe.
Iran cancelled the contract after the Islamic Revolution of 1979 because the country doesn’t recognize Israel. Tel Aviv, instead, expropriated Iran’s assets and launched its own litigation offensive against the Islamic Republic, which has been dismissed at international courts.