Iran's Mistake IAW UN Maritime Law

I have read many posts about the UN backed Coalition and Iran’s actions within territorial waters. There is a “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” that should be followed. This makes things very clear and I want to let everyone know about one certain part that covers the released British Sailors and Marines. Before I start I have to point out that Iran has signed but not ratified this.

“Out to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate any use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of "innocent passage" through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as "transit passage", in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent Passage" is defined by the convention as passing through waters in expeditious and continuous manner, which is not “prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, spying are not “innocent.” Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.”

We have to make some points clear. The UN patrols would fall under “Innocent Passage” not “Transit Passage” since they are not operating in a strategic straight. They are there to provide security for the coastal states and are not there to spy, pollute, fish, or weapons practice. No country other then Iran has had an issue with the UN patrols. I say that since Iran captured them while they were passing through territorial waters. Whose waters is a question that many have argued about, but according to the UN Convention it wouldn’t matter since they were not doing illegal activity and were maintaining good order and security of the coastal states.

This brings up the intelligence collecting that was mentioned. Collecting Intel and spying are two separate operations, so there is no argument over what the British were doing while they were out patrolling under UN Security Council resolution 1723. Intel collecting is part of providing a good security net. If you can prevent illegal acts against the states you are protecting you are doing your job. If the British were sent out there to spy why would they waste their time searching cargo vessels? Would that be a cover for them? There is no proof to back up that claim so why would anyone suggest it?

So this brings us to figuring out why Iran captured these UN personnel when they were performing a routine UN security operation. Iran understood what the British were doing, Iran was not under any threat from them, the British were not acting illegally, so why did this happen? This isn’t the first time either, so why is Iran acting in this way? The UN SCR 1723 lists what the goals are of these operations and Iran can only gain from them, so why are they acting so foolishly? Are they upset with the UN’s reaction to their nuclear research? It looks like an easy way to say we can strike back if you keep pushing your resolutions on us.

I just wanted everyone to know the facts about maritime law. Iran should have let the British personnel continue with their operations that are 100% legal. To dissolve what some are saying was an illegal entry into Iran’s territorial waters, the British security teams are allowed to go into Iran’s territorial waters since they are not prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security” of the coastal state. Continuous operations into Iran’s waters are legal according to the UN Convention as long as they are legal and not endangering Iran’s security.

Either way Iran screwed up. Knowing the law is what matters and it wasn’t followed in this case. There is no evidence that the British were acting illegally, they were acting under a UN Security Council Resolution, and they are protected by a UN Maritime Law. I hope everyone can learn something from what happened. These are the facts and hopefully everyone can understand that the actions of Iran lowered the security of the region since they removed an operational team that was there to protect the local coastal states.

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
Knowing the law is what matters and it wasn’t followed in this case. There is no evidence that the British were acting illegally, they were acting under a UN Security Council Resolution, and they are protected by a UN Maritime Law.

The UN is UNable to influence

The UN is plagued by scandals and corruption and therefore is UNtrustworthy

The UN as a global sanctioning body has dimished to the point of comedy, look at the terrible events in Darfur, the UN's treatment of this situation is UNbearable.

Any laws based on UN policy these days sorry to say appear to be UNworthy.

I find the fact that the UN still exists UNbelieveable.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
The UN is UNable to influence

Actually the IMO is one of the most powerful agencies in the world, remember that 98% of the worlds goods are shipped across the world.

Any laws based on UN policy these days sorry to say appear to be UNworthy.

I didnt know you agreed with piracy....most states seem to side with the UN on that little point...

Originally posted by devilwasp
I didnt know you agreed with piracy....most states seem to side with the UN on that little point...

I was just being realistic, I know what the UN is supposed to be...

...the influence the UN should have doesn't exist..

I think what Iran did was wrong, I just don't think using the UN as a standard really affects opinion on those who are on the other side.





[edit on 2007/4/7 by JacKatMtn]

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I was just being realistic, I know what the UN is supposed to be...

...the influence the UN should have doesn't exist..

Yes it does, it influenced most of the world to sign up to MARPOL , UNCLOS hell not to mention the several other laws agreed to in the last decade. If you dont believe me then read up on UNCLOS and MARPOL. The US (even though it hasnt ratified the UNCLOS treaty) is VERY strict about MARPOL and inspects most ships entering its water and if they dont meet with US coastguard rules and regs the ship can be refused entry.

I think what Iran did was wrong, I just don't think using the UN as a standard really affects opinion on those who are on the other side.

I think it does since iran signed up to the UNCLOS treaty and if they break it (even though they technically didnt) they would be punished for it, the UNCLOS is the bible for sea territories along with SOLAS (do you want another titanic incident?)

...I think it does since iran signed up to the UNCLOS treaty and if they break it (even though they technically didnt) they would be punished for it...

I understand there are laws in place but if they are violated and the violators are not held to account, how does this make the laws look?
I am just pointing out perception.

I did find your technically didn't line intriguing, could you explain the technicality you are referring to? I would like to know the layman's version as I am lawspeak challenged

Thanks in advance devilwasp, I like to learn...

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
I understand there are laws in place but if they are violated and the violators are not held to account, how does this make the laws look?
I am just pointing out perception.

Well they are, the US prosicutes people every year acording to MARPOL laws, infact probably more than 1 a year seeing how strict US coastguard is.

I did find your technically didn't line intriguing, could you explain the technicality you are referring to? I would like to know the layman's version as I am lawspeak challenged

Thanks in advance devilwasp, I like to learn...

Technically they havent ratified the UNCLOS treaty so therefore cant be held acountable for it, BUT this backfires as since UNCLOS doesnt actually apply to warships so therefore has no grounds to call it "illegal".