Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 141 to 147 of 147

Thread: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

  1. #141

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    First of all, this isn't how straights work. It's not just the narrowest part in the narrow, but as defined in article 36 as shown above.
    I don't believe that east of Europa Point is considered part of the Straight of Gibraltar by any definition. It is certainly not part of the straight according to the International Hydrographic Organization (page 16). Article 36 gives no such definition.

    Full text of Article 36:

    This Part does not apply to a strait used for international navigation if there exists through the strait a route through the high seas or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience with respect to navigational and hydrographical characteristics; in such routes, the other relevant Parts of this Convention, including the provisions regarding the freedoms of navigation and overflight, apply.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    British suzerainty over the waters aren't recognised by Spain.
    Okay, whatever:

    In spite of it, Madrid made no attempt at halting the boarding operation.

    “Spain did not want to interfere because this was about upholding EU sanctions,” said a ministry source. A Civil Guard patrol boat was sent out to monitor the operation.
    At worst, the UK was enforcing EU sanctions in territorial waters which are part of the EU no matter which way the dispute is resolved, which the Spanish recognized despite their complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    And again: No one formulating the sanctions regime intended it to be in conflict with the UNCLOS. The UK, as the US' faithful lapdog, knowingly went against the spirit of the deals. And if you're playing technicalities instead of what's morality.
    I don't believe the UK was in violation of UNCLOS. I'm pretty sure it's fairly obvious to everyone that the UK devised a pretext according to the letter of the law. You're the only one talking about morality. The technicalities of international law are just that. As I said before, if you just want to express your feelings about the issue, don't present them as international law. Though I recognized in my last post, that you've upped your game in providing plausible alternative legal arguments, but that in no way proves that the UK had no legal argument (the claim I initially objected to). I'm further skeptical that your interpretations, which you present as self-evident, are accurate in light of the fact that they didn't even occur to any of the experts I could find discussing the topic, nor apparently to the Iranians either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  2. #142

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    So you believe the right of passage through straights only apply to the narrowest part. Not where the territorial waters of the opposing coasts link up, huh?

    That makes the entire part III effectively worthless from your point of view. Spanish and Moroccan territorial waters link up before that western line of Cape Trafalgar-Cape Spartel, and international waters only begin about 12 miles after Gibraltar. Which means in your opinion, freedom of passage through straights only apply to that middle section, but ships can be seized before and after ad libitum.
    I think we both know it to be a safe bet that's not the case.

    But yeah: My mistake. I said article 36, when I meant 37.
    Though 36 itself is also very clear: If an alternative route through international waters exist, that's when they don't apply. No such route exists until 12 miles east of Gibraltar!

    Plus, if you use your own hydrographic organisation source on the straight of Hormuz, it simply does not exist. Whoops. That doesn't mean the right of passage of straights don't apply there. You are misusing a source in a context it clearly wasn't intended for or is related to.

    You don't believe the UK to have acted in violation of UNCLOS, because you don't want to believe that. But it is written there in black and white.
    Part III applies UNLESS there is an alternative route through international seas. This is not the case at Gibraltar, since the Spanish, UK and Morroccan waters directly link up.

    Your frequent references to the ship being unflagged also show some sign of deliberate dishonesty/lie by omission. Because if you know that fact you probably also know how, and when that came to be.

    Same thing goes for the regulations. The regulation passed by Gibraltar enabling the marines to act was passed the day before it happened, which isn't the only indicator as to how the EU sanctions were deliberately misinterpreted to justify the seizure, but also of course the awestruck reaction by all other countries. The strong argument for that is ultimately made irrelevant how UNCLOS supercedes any EU sanctions (again: Only a state of war or a resolution by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter would make it legal), but it does show how farcical that all is.

    Referencing the Spanish, that same logic can again be applied to Oman, which didn't intervene in the matter of the Steno Impero either, and generally just tries to stay out of this.
    Claiming the Spanish to have been informed and happy about this incident is also more than a stretch:
    Quote Originally Posted by Josep Borell, Spain’s acting foreign minister
    We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty
    Plus the US very deliberately withholding the information about Grace-1 from the Spanish, which they provided to the Brits.

    You're the only one talking about morality.
    Of course I am. In addition to law. Because in no way whatsoever is what is being done to Iran acceptable. From my point of view, Iran has the moral, but not legal right to close down the straights for the US and everyone partaking in that war on them. The US is doing all it can to stop Iran from using the seas, including the pressure on Panama to unflag the Grace 1 after it had already started its voyage, and threatening anyone with sanctions who services their ships on their journey.

    So I could potentially agree with you that Iran might have acted counter to the laws of the seas with the Steno Impero, though I don't have all the details. But the Brits can't accuse the Iranians of piracy after having done so themselves.

    So you have to basically choose a hill to die on. Either that of law, in which case both likely acted wrongly, but Iran only as a reaction, or that of the right of the strongest, in which case Iran is fully free to do what it wants in the straight of Hormuz. Especially in the second case morality comes to bite anyone in the ass, though, as this not only leads to significant financial losses, but also the potential losses of lives.

    "We're doing this because we can" isn't a great argument when people's lives, including that of the military units who would have to fight it out, are on the line.

    But the cynicism you're displaying indicates that's ultimately exactly what your line of reasoning comes down to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince Gilligan
    I can't think of a movie where I like it that the bad guy gets dumb, because it's like I want the bad guy to be smart smart smart, so the good guy has to be even smarter!
    Please stop using politics as an excuse for bad writing.
    That being said: A deep philosophical take about god, Nietzsche, Marx & faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    So deep!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    A polished masterpiece!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    Hey! I never said any of those things!

  3. #143

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    So you believe the right of passage through straights only apply to the narrowest part. Not where the territorial waters of the opposing coasts link up, huh?
    No, I believe it only applies to the coasts of the straight, not the entire Mediterranean Sea beyond the straight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    But yeah: My mistake. I said article 36, when I meant 37.
    Though 36 itself is also very clear: If an alternative route through international waters exist, that's when they don't apply. No such route exists until 12 miles east of Gibraltar!

    Plus, if you use your own hydrographic organisation source on the straight of Hormuz, it simply does not exist. Whoops. That doesn't mean the right of passage of straights don't apply there. You are misusing a source in a context it clearly wasn't intended for or is related to.

    Part III applies UNLESS there is an alternative route through international seas. This is not the case at Gibraltar, since the Spanish, UK and Morroccan waters directly link up.
    It doesn't limit the alternative route to international waters. It specifically says "or through an exclusive economic zone of similar convenience". I don't think you're correctly following everything you're reading, and certainly not everything in my posts, but at this point I doubt anyone reading along is bothering try to follow either of our posts closely. So why don't you let us know when you've successfully argued it before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, or when Iran bothers to, which should be quite an easy case for them if it is as self-evident as you claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    You don't believe the UK to have acted in violation of UNCLOS, because you don't want to believe that.
    No, I wouldn't care if the UK violated UNCLOS. I objected to your claim that they had no legal argument, which is clearly false. Again, if it were obvious that they didn't, why has no claim been made with ITLOS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Your frequent references to the ship being unflagged also show some sign of deliberate dishonesty/lie by omission. Because if you know that fact you probably also know how, and when that came to be.
    As I remember, I actually quoted a source explaining how that came to be, so not much of an omission.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Referencing the Spanish, that same logic can again be applied to Oman, which didn't intervene in the matter of the Steno Impero either, and generally just tries to stay out of this.
    Are Omani waters disputed with Iran? No. Is Iranian law valid in Omani waters as EU law is valid in EU waters? No. Does Iran have a treaty with Oman ceding the waters to Iran? No. Did an Omani official specifically say the reason they didn't interfere? No.

    EDIT: According to Gibraltar, Grace1 entered British territorial waters from international waters inside the Mediterranean after already having traversed the straight:



    The Grace 1 was detained last week in Gibraltar when it freely navigated into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters to a point two miles off the Eastside of Gibraltar, having previously exited the international waters of the Straits of Gibraltar, on a pre-arranged call for provisions and spare parts.
    So no, Article 38 does not apply.

    This is something anyone with historical AIS tracking data access can check, which is probably why none of the experts I could find discussing it even mentioned Article 38.
    Last edited by sumskilz; August 01, 2019 at 08:21 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  4. #144

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    I think we can both agree that this discussion is going nowhere.

    So I took the liberty to illustrate your definition of the passage of straits:

    I inserted some humour there, but not that much. I took the same source as you did (p.16 here), even though these divisions were clearly not meant to be used in this context at all (the strait of Hormuz doesn't even exist in that one - nor do many others... So they are no straits at all?).

    The red and white zones are of course the territorial waters of the neighbouring countries. Yet it's only in the white one that part 3 of UNCLOS applies.

    Which basically makes the whole part of the treaty pointless, and not just for the strait of Gibraltar, but all of them, unless the landmasses are precisely 24 nautical miles apart at the edges. ^^ So while the traffic is protected in the white zone, the moment you're in the red zones the countries are free to enforce their "regulations" on you.

    This, according to you, is the valid legal argument the UK can build upon.



    Fine. Let's say it is. This debate is not going to bring us anywhere, because you don't actually care about legality:
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    No, I wouldn't care if the UK violated UNCLOS.
    And you are meeting me halfway by admitting that "the UK devised a pretext":
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I don't believe the UK was in violation of UNCLOS. I'm pretty sure it's fairly obvious to everyone that the UK devised a pretext according to the letter of the law.
    Alright then. Let's skip law then. What are you building your support then on?
    Clearly not any moral stance:
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    You're the only one talking about morality.
    And that's where I have to realise that no consensus between you and I can be reached.

    You are clearly in support of this hawkish attitude.

    I asked you more than a week before the (very unsurprising) seizure of the Steno Impero was going to happen, how you would feel if Iran started seizing ships as well. Your responses from July 11th epitomises your belief in the right of the strongest:

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Well, they're obviously free to try.
    [...]
    I can't see a reason to care either way.
    And there we have it.

    You don't care if it's legal, and you don't care if it's moral. But you were glad that it happened.

    The escalation since wasn't surprising to anyone. Because the attitude espoused by the British, American, Saudi and Israeli leadership... and you could only ever lead to this and nothing else.

    This is the very essence of "Tätervolk"-attitude my grandfather fought against. And it's a very sad thing that this morally nihilistic part of human society isn't ever going to die out.

    If I were an Iranian politician, I'd say: We need nuclear weapons now.
    Because the only thing that can stop psychopaths is when they themselves suddenly are in danger - and not just the cannon fodder they send out to fight it out for them.
    "Iran is free to try" according to you. That hardly left room for any other interpretation than you supporting a Western attack if they did.

    Iran would be able to stop shipping through the strait of Hormuz even without their navy, simply with their land based systems. The only way to suppress that would be through a large scale ground invasion.

    There's absolutely no way you would stay this unfazed if they actually did close it off, maybe even bomb the Transarabian pipeline for good measure, and simply watch the global economy die and the fuel tank in your car remain empty. You would not remain this indifferent if the consequences were to hit you.

    But you totally lack any capacity to see why doing the same to Iran would be wrong.

    You even admit that you yourself are aware why the ship no longer is carrying the Panama flag, which is this:

    Detailed evidence of Bolton’s deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.

    Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance. This decision was accompanied by political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.

    That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities. The State Department’s Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions, warned those entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a self-insured Iranian tanker.

    But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System data cited by Riviera Maritime Media. It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority delisted the Grace 1 on May 29—just as the ship was beginning its journey.

    The US are doing their utmost to stop any Iranian trade with anyone anywhere, and everything to impede their ability to navigate the seas.

    You know this.

    And yet you are taking this stance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince Gilligan
    I can't think of a movie where I like it that the bad guy gets dumb, because it's like I want the bad guy to be smart smart smart, so the good guy has to be even smarter!
    Please stop using politics as an excuse for bad writing.
    That being said: A deep philosophical take about god, Nietzsche, Marx & faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    So deep!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    A polished masterpiece!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    Hey! I never said any of those things!

  5. #145

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    I took the same source as you did (p.16 here), even though these divisions were clearly not meant to be used in this context at all (the strait of Hormuz doesn't even exist in that one - nor do many others... So they are no straits at all?).
    That source was just an example of how east of Point Europa isn't considered part of the straight by any definition, but this image should clearly demonstrate why that is the case:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    The red and white zones are of course the territorial waters of the neighbouring countries. Yet it's only in the white one that part 3 of UNCLOS applies.
    Article 38 only applies in the white zone, Article 19 applies in the red zones. The difference is that in the red zone, states can enforce their customs laws, whereas in the white zone states can only enforce their customs laws if the ship is loading and unloading. That is the main relevant difference between the concepts of "innocent passage" through territorial waters and "transit passage" through a straight.

    The difference is directly in the text of UNCLOS, but this is more plain language:

    Innocent passage signifies a right of free passage through territorial waters which exists only as long as the foreign vessel respects coastal state regulations and does not interfere with or threaten the tranquility of the coastal state...

    Transit passage refers to navigation through straits which connect the high seas.
    In this case, innocent passage applies because Grace 1 passed from international waters inside the Mediterranean into British territorial waters inside the Mediterranean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    This debate is not going to bring us anywhere, because you don't actually care about legality
    What I mean is that I don't have any emotional investment in the issue. If ITLOS were to rule that the UK did indeed violate international law, I would simply find it interesting and would want to know the rationale. My objection to your initial claim was that I considered it non-factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    And you are meeting me halfway by admitting that "the UK devised a pretext"
    I assumed it was obvious from the beginning that the desire to seize the tanker preceded the fashioning of a legal argument by which to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    I asked you more than a week before the (very unsurprising) seizure of the Steno Impero was going to happen, how you would feel if Iran started seizing ships as well. Your responses from July 11th epitomises your belief in the right of the strongest
    I'd characterize my response as a belief in reality. Iran is free to take whatever course of action they wish and are capable of in response, though I expect it won't be without consequences. There is a lot of drama in your post I simply can't relate to.
    Last edited by sumskilz; August 02, 2019 at 04:56 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  6. #146
    Carmen Sylva's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Palace of Neuwied
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    The next act of the drama:

    US is warning Greece and all other east med countries to help the iranian tanker heading Kalamata, Greece.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-idUSKCN1V90DM

    The elephant in the porcelain store.
    Christ was crucified, Socrates was poisoned, Phidias was accused of theft - it is almost an honor to be abused by contemporaries.

    Carmen Sylva (1843 - 1916), actually Princess Elisabeth Pauline Ottilie Luise zu Wied VA (Royal Order of Victoria and Albert), German writer and lyricist, by marriage Queen Elizabeth of Romania

    Proud Non-Citizen / End of Time / Ravens March / My Mods

  7. #147

    Default Re: 2019 Iran - USA War... Almost

    Kinda proves the pretense by the UK and the US to be a sham. If stopping that ship from going to Syria was ever their goal, closing every non syrian harbour to them is kinda the wrong move.

    Fun economic facts: Heavy crude, which iirc is what the ship is carrying, usually trade at at discount to light crude. Thanks to the US embargo of Iran, that has changed. Especially in the Mediterranean, which is where a lot of Iranian fuel tends to go. It's painfully obvious that this isn't just about the US trying to cut off Syria from getting fuel, but more about the US once again trying to forcefully close the European markets to Iran. Russia in the meantime is more than happy to sell their crude at a premium and has according to bloomberg already made an extra billion.

    Спасибо Трамп!
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince Gilligan
    I can't think of a movie where I like it that the bad guy gets dumb, because it's like I want the bad guy to be smart smart smart, so the good guy has to be even smarter!
    Please stop using politics as an excuse for bad writing.
    That being said: A deep philosophical take about god, Nietzsche, Marx & faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    So deep!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    A polished masterpiece!
    Quote Originally Posted by Derc View Post
    Hey! I never said any of those things!

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •