Obama's New BFF Iran’s legal claims for seizing the Maersk Tigris is paper thin. (Wapo).By Eugene Kontorovich.
Iran’s seizure of the Marshall Islands’ flagged Maersk Tigris cargo ship has lead to important discussions about the United States’ legal responsibilities to respond, under treaties with its one-time trust territory and current protectorate.
But first one must address the legality of Iran’s arrest of the vessel. The Islamic Republic makes a very legalistic case for the detention, arguing it results from a decade-old Iranian court judgement against Maersk, the which chartered the vessel.
Maritime law in fact allows nations to arrest foreign vessels for certain kind of claims, or maritime liens, and the cargo dispute between Iran and Maersk qualifies. However, the arrest of ships engaged in innocent transit is limited under the United Convention of the Law of the Sea, and general custom, to a limited set of claims involving the vessel itself. As UNCLOS Art. 28 states:
The coastal State may not levy execution against or arrest the ship for the purpose of any civil proceedings, save only in respect of obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred by the ship itself in the course or for the purpose of its voyage through the waters of the coastal State.
This reflects the in rem nature of admiralty and maritime proceedings. In short, there is simply no basis under UNCLOS for arresting a ship for any debts incurred during prior voyages, and certainly not for those incurred by other ships.
The discussion of sister ships is quite arcane, and ultimately besides the point. The arrest of vessels applies typically to those that have come into port. There is no right to arrest for prior or collateral obligations during an innocent passage through territorial waters. That is, in waters where ships have an international right to transit – such as the Gulf – they may not be molested at all by coastal states for the enforcement of outstanding maritime liens.
Thus the ownership of ships, the scope of the sister ship/associated ship doctrine, and so forth are entirely besides the point. Iran’s seizure clearly violates international law, and one might add, a branch of international law that is ordinarily well-respected, and quite fundamental for global commerce. Moreover, no maritime lien gives Iran any authority to detain the crew.
Given the flagrant breach of international law, there seems to be a surprising silence from the “international community” and proponents of global governance. Read the full story here. Hmmm........And then there's this:
#MaerskTigris managed by Rickmers Trust, who have told #LloydsList vessel was in international waters when captured
— David Osler (@finance_LL) April 28, 2015
Related: Maersk Meets Iran Officials over Seizure of Vessel in International waters.
No comments:
Post a Comment