Iran's new piracy case

UNCLOS
pg. 63-64

Article 111
Right of hot pursuit
1. The hot pursuit of a foreign ship may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted. It is not necessary that, at the time when the foreign ship within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone receives the order to stop, the ship giving the order should likewise be within the territorial sea or the contiguous zone. If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone, as defined in article 33, the pursuit may only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone was established.
2. The right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations, of the laws and regulations of the coastal State applicable in accordance with this Convention to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including such safety zones.
3. The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.
4. Hot pursuit is not deemed to have begun unless the pursuing ship has satisfied itself by such practicable means as may be available that the ship pursued or one of its boats or other craft working as a team and using the ship pursued as a mother ship is within the limits of the territorial sea, or, as the case may be, within the contiguous zone or the exclusive economic zone or above the continental shelf. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been given at a distance which enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.
5. The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.
6. Where hot pursuit is effected by an aircraft:
(a) the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis; (b) the aircraft giving the order to stop must itself actively pursue the ship until a ship or another aircraft of the coastal State, summoned by the aircraft, arrives to take over the pursuit, unless the aircraft is itself able to arrest the ship. It does not suffice to justify an arrest outside the territorial sea that the ship was merely sighted by the aircraft as an offender or suspected offender, if it was not both ordered to stop and pursued by the aircraft itself or other aircraft or ships which continue the pursuit without interruption.
7. The release of a ship arrested within the jurisdiction of a State and escorted to a port of that State for the purposes of an inquiry before the competent authorities may not be claimed solely on the ground that the ship, in the course of its voyage, was escorted across a portion of the exclusive economic zone or the high seas, if the circumstances rendered this necessary.
8. Where a ship has been stopped or arrested outside the territorial sea in circumstances which do not justify the exercise of the right of hot pursuit, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been thereby sustained.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Back to my first post and see the procedure they are required to follow before the arrest of a vessel.

Nope I haven't seen letters of intent notices to all lienholders among the many other regulations involved.

Also arrest of a vessel is a last resort not a first resort.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Back to my first post and see the procedure they are required to follow before the arrest of a vessel.

Nope I haven't seen letters of intent notices to all lienholders among the many other regulations involved.

Also arrest of a vessel is a last resort not a first resort.

Your source is U.S. procedure, applicable here in the U.S. only, not anywhere else.
MARITIME PRACTICE & PROCEDURE ARREST OF VESSEL

Arrest of a vessel is part of the process by which an Admiralty Court gains jurisdiction over the subject matter of a law suit. These lawsuits are known as "in rem" actions meaning that the action is again a "thing" rather than a person.

Generally, the vessel, itself, is responsible for payment of liens, mortgages or any other maritime lien that may arise. When the owner encumbers a vessel with a First Preferred Ship's Mortgage, it is the ship that guarantees payment rather than the owner. However, the owner may separately contract by a personal promise to pay or other type of guarantee to be personally liable.

An arrest of a vessel is the prerequisite for the court to establish jurisdiction. If the vessel cannot be seized, the court may have no right over the vessel. Arrest is the physical process by which, in case of the United States, a U.S. Marshal goes aboard the vessel and physically takes charge of it. The Notice of Arrest must be posted on the vessel, a copy given to the master or person in charge, as well as to the owner. Also, notice must be published in a newspaper authorized to publish legal notices. Actual notice must be given to all other lien holders who claim an interest in the vessel.

Once seized, the court, through the marshal's service or substitute custodian, maintains possession of the vessel and the owner loses all control. To avoid this situation and its effect on commerce, the court will allow the owner to post a bond or other suitable security. Once the security is accepted, the vessel is returned to the owner and the litigation continues with the security as the subject of execution of judgement.

Letters of undertaking, are stipulations by the owner or his insurance company to appear and defend any claim that is made, just as if the vessel had been arrested. If a judgment is entered, the owner or the insurer must pay the judgement. This amounts to stipulated jurisdiction for the admiralty court and prevents the disruption of the owner's business during the litigation.

Once the marshal has seized a vessel, he is obligated to preserve the vessel and its equipment. Generally, the custodian of a seized vessel should not interfere with the conduct of cargo and other operations normal to a vessel in berth unless directed so by court order. In the United States, the "Manual for United States Marshals" sets forth the obligations and duties for the marshal and how he should perform them.

It is important to realize that the Marshal does not put hull insurance on a seized vessel. It is necessary for the owner or the Plaintiff to place adequate Port Risk Insurance on the vessel to protect their interest against loss.

If a vessel is not released by the posting of security, the court may order an interlocutory sale. An interlocutory sale, means a sale prior to the completion of the litigation and the entering of a judgment. As a general rule the sale will not be allowed for four months. The rules provide for sale if the arrested property is perishable, liable to deterioration, of if the cost of keeping it is excessive or disproportionate.

Regardless as whether the sale is interlocutory or a judgment sale, the purchaser at the auction does not have any right in the vessel, until the sale is confirmed by the court. If a higher bid is received within three days by the court, the court has the option of voiding the auction and ordering a new sale. Once confirmation is received, the buyer receives title which extinguishes all other liens and provided him with a clear title. An "in rem" action resolves claims of all of the world against the vessel and no lien for past debts can be created or asserted.

The proceeds of the sale are paid into the court and are used to satisfy any expenses incurred by the keeping of the vessel and fees to the marshal. The balance is paid to the claimants and any balance left over is paid to the owner. If the sums received are not sufficient to pay all claims, the claimants pay proportionately to the shortfall.

Unless the claimant/plaintiff who seized the vessel acts in bad faith, the owner of the vessel may not recover damages due to the arrest or for loss of profits.

A vessel sold at a marshal's sale to foreclose on a preferred ship's mortgage or maritime lien does not, as a result of the sale, become qualified as a "U.S. built" for the purpose of the Jones Act, requiring vessels trading between U.S. ports to be U.S. built. However, if the vessel is forfeited to the U.S. Government as a drug, customs or other "seizure", then when purchased from a marshal's sale, will become "U.S. built" for all purposes.

I provided you with the actual international documents and the Iranian's procedure governing these matters.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Wrong it is the procedures for admiralty law. They cited one piece of case law that involved the United States .

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. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

source


I mean come on my God. The stance you're taking would make it completely legal for the US to fire on and sieze any ship that is in a legal dispute with any corporation in the country.

Is that what you really want? Or is this subject just too passionate for you?

To tie this thread in with your original, 5 Iranian boats fire on Singapore flag vessel., you asked the question:

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
I'm curious I don't recall any incidents where other countries used military force to settle legal disputes. Can anyone else supply similar incidents?

To which I have a response:
China Seizes Japanese Ship — As Payment for Pre-World War II Debt

Iranian Cargo Ship Busts out of Sri Lanka After Being Arrested for Unpaid Debts

Found those interesting.

a reply to: Greathouse
I give you actual legal documents and you give me a wiki page? And yes, your source is strictly U.S., the only international procedure are those within the documents I posted, which, if the procedure in your source was internationally binding, it would be within those documents.

"Fired upon" is not what happened "shot across the bow" is what happened - there is a distinct, and very explicit difference between the two.

a reply to: haman10

If the events actually occurred as portrayed, then I'd think Iran has a valid case.

Apparently, the events surrounding the Maersk ship isn't well known/published.

Seeing Obama's desire for a credible agreement with Iran, ordering U.S. warships to escort U.S. and U.K. flagged ships through the strait suggests otherwise in that instance.

a reply to: Greathouse
Again from,5 Iranian boats fire on Singapore flag vessel.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I'm a little light on international law.

And here is complete U.S. procedure: XIII. SUPPLEMENTAL RULES FOR ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME CLAIMS AND ASSET FORFEITURE ACTIONS

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

You did no such thing. What you supplied was a opinion base on assumptions.

From your source .

it is possible to submit a motion to the Iranian competent courts for arresting any ship where the subject-matter o the claim has no relationship with Iran and Iranian nationals, even if the cargo is not shipped from or to Iran and the parties to the contrac

Yet you supplied no documentation that Iran followed these procedures. you may base your opinion on speculation if you like but I refuse to.

OP once again there ARE international waters there according to the agreements made at the UN and its predecessor. When two nations waters overlap the middle where they meet is considered international waters. the US navy should escort the singaporian vessel back out to sea and dare the iranians to fire on them liek they did when Iraq and Iran were fighting each other.

Firing on a vessel and hitting it should negate the debt like when a country goes to war with one that owes it money.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Which was exactly why I chose to research it. Now I no longer feel light on international law.


Btw these procedures are followed under US law to comply with international law. So what exactly is your point?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

You did no such thing. What you supplied was a opinion base on assumptions.

Did you open the links? Anyone here who opens the links can clearly tell those are the actual legal documents governing the matter at hand. If they are not, I would expect every one else to agree with you (ETA: and call me out on that fact as quick as ATS is accustomed to doing so).

From your source .

it is possible to submit a motion to the Iranian competent courts for arresting any ship where the subject-matter o the claim has no relationship with Iran and Iranian nationals, even if the cargo is not shipped from or to Iran and the parties to the contrac

Yet you supplied no documentation that Iran followed these procedures. you may base your opinion on speculation if you like but I refuse to.

Because I can't, I am not part of, or privy to, Iranian court documents, and yes, we are working under the assumption Iran's claim is legitimate and procedure was followed, that should go without saying, especially since that is precisely what happened with M/V Maersk Tigris, to which Iran secured securities from.

And to be fair, we both are basing our opinions on speculation.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Which was exactly why I chose to research it. Now I no longer feel light on international law.

I have researched it, sat next to a JAG on several occasions as he gave guidance to an Admiral on the law and as I gave guidance on intelligence on vessels. I have experience in these matters, and I now sublimecraft does as well on the civilian side of things, I have no doubt he would be stating the same things I am, if not adding more to it.

Btw these procedures are followed under US law to comply with international law. So what exactly is your point?

Yes, that is true, but our law also goes above and beyond it, goes further if you will.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yep open and read all your links. They pretty much verify all my statements.

Are you trying to dominate a thread with the quantity over quality position?

Besides you ignoring this event happened in international waters. You were also prompting a position it would call open warfare among all seafaring nations over a debt perfectly exceptable.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Yep open and read all your links. They pretty much verify all my statements.

Can you illustrate how they verify your statements for me please?

Are you trying to dominate a thread with the quantity over quality position?

No, I am trying to dominate it with fact.

Besides you ignoring this event happened in international waters. You were also prompting a position it would call open warfare among all seafaring nations over eight debt perfectly exceptable.

That statement is speculation in itself, can you provide the actual location datum where this incident occurred?

If in international water, yes, Iran would be in the wrong. If in the SOH, yes Iran would be in the wrong. Both by law. If, however, the vessel was not in the SOH but still inside Iranian TTW, that is another matter.

a reply to: Greathouse
If I can be definitively proven wrong, I concede my point. But I need to be shown, not told.

We did have a decent conversation in your thread, I wish not to decay matters here.

By the way, do you think M/V Maersk Tigris was legitimately arrested? Absent the shot across the bow of course, as I have conceded that is not the best course of action nor decision to take.

a reply to: haman10

"as the crew of the vessel warned the captain of the tanker to watch out the Iranian rig ahead , the captain ignored the warnings" .

A possibility just came to mind.

Why would a Captain ignore the warnings of his crew about an imminent collision?

The answer is he would not. I goes against years of training and instinct...unless it was deliberate....paid to do so?

Just saying.....

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

If it occurred in international waters and did not include hot pursuit no it was not illegal. Why do you keep asking for me to supply the sources when I am using your sources?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
If it occurred in international waters and did not include hot pursuit no it was not illegal.

In international waters + no hot pursuit = legal? Sorry, I am a little confused here, I am not sure if you meant to use that many negatives? You mean the opposite correct?

Why do you keep asking for me to supply the sources when I am using your sources?

Because you said:

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
Yep open and read all your links. They pretty much verify all my statements.

So I am asking you to demonstrate that, as I demonstrated my side of the debate.

FYI: She was located at 25.31511n 54.99821e at 1130 UTC via Marine Traffic (AIS) (however the day has changed and that datum is now pay to see) steaming at 6kts so an approximate dead reckoning would place her near Jask at the time of the incident:

U.S. officials, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said five Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy ships approached the Alpine Eternity oil products tanker at about noon (0800 GMT), prompting the ship to flee to safety in United Arab Emirates’ waters.

Apologies I didn't get a screenshot of the location datum I am using. If anyone has paid access to marinetraffic.com or AIS Live, a location for the date and time stated above would be appreciated.


ETA: I asked sublimecraft if he could use his access to paid services and get a better datum. The earliest he could get is 1300 GMT that day.


If I was still serving I would have the her entire data, which bothers me that I do not. My dead reckoning should be a good approximation given the information we have. The track I laid it is approximate to the transit lanes (the best I can do on google maps) and it looks like the IRGCN attempted to arrest her off of Jask, where the transit lanes dip into Iranian TTW for several miles. Please note, because this is in the Gulf of Oman and not the SOH, Iran has historically used this location for such activities as they obviously cannot in the SOH and they can quickly lose a ship into UAE TTW after SOH transit.

edit on 5/17/2015 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)