| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Wiley wrote: | | Law of the Cannon Shot (Maritime)..... Redivivus? The Historical Cannon-Shot Rule (Maritime Law) was that a country owned the coastal waters as far out as a cannon could shoot from the shore. In the 1700s, this distance was roughly 3 nautical miles. |
OK but was the law enforced? Wars were often fought over whether foreign ships should dip their flags to English ships in the Channel.
| Martime law based on the Cannon Shot originated in Europe and was applicable to Europe. The idea that non chistian peoples could control their own fishing rights did not find favour, until UNCLOS. ie United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea held in 1958. UNCLOS has lasted less than 70 years....... |
Is that a long time or a short time?
| Why did it take so much time ( 300 years) for Europeans to recognise the unfairness of the law of the cannon.? |
Is that a long time or a short time?
| Earlier maritime law was the product of negotiation, abrbitration, wars, between civilized, christian states, many of whom acted as a "overlord", in their rival empires. Europeans did not think that non-chritian states were entitled to their waters by the Cannon Shot rule, unless this was agreed by them. They made the rules. The concept was of clearly European origin and, to be blunt, these European states also had the technical/military means to rule the waves, and stop anyone else from effectively using its cannon. |
This not my recollection of how things were. Entire nations, eg Spain and Holland, would endeavour to keep entire nations, eg Portugal and England, out of all seas, eg the Spanish Main and East Indian waters. There was no reference to cannon shot distances. The Chinese, the Mughals and the Barbary states had the technical means (sometimes) to enforce their own sway in their own way.
| The cannon shot rule was extended to a longer distance 12 miles to reflect the median distance of European cannon shots around 1900. |
Territorial waters were fixed at twelve miles and still are despite... er... cannon shots now being fired over hundreds, indeed thousands, of miles.
| Time has moved on, but more importantly so has technology (weaponry and communications AI etc) this technology maps out real enforceable control of space. |
'Enforceable control' is now universally recognised to be totally impracticable. It has been replaced by universally recognised laws.
| The Houthis have declared a blockade on Saudi ships operating within the red sea, and are now attacking theseships at range of 500 nautical miles away. |
Houthis are not recognised as a lawful actor.
| Iran is now in effective control of the Hormuz strait, and almost certainly is capable of hitting the US navy within a distance of 500 nautical miles. |
Effective control? The US navy can stop Iranian ships passing the Hormuz Strait from five hundred miles away.
| This is becoming the basis of the dispute. |
This is not the basis of the dispute. Iran is clinging on to its ability to stop other people's ships passing the Hormuz Strait as its last bargaining lever.
| After being attacked Iran is now opting out of what is (abstract) international law |
International law is not abstract. It is in black and white and is universally obeyed (even by Iran in other places).
| and has reinstated, within the region (a more realist) Law of the Cannon Shot. That realism extends to 500 nautical miles. |
That realism will be tested, after the war, by every single nation (other than Iran). You and they may think that is a realistic aspiration. I do not.
| If Iran and the Houthis remain undefeated, and there is no diplomatic solution, then 500 nautical miles in the Gulf and the Red Sea will become the new normal. Wiley doubts that Trump has the patience or the desire to enforce UNCLOS, in fact Wiley suspects he would welcome back the Law of the Cannon shot if just for christian nations....... |
Fortunately, the future of the world is only in Trump's hands for the next two and a bit years.
| Shipping will want to check they have safe passage from the Iranians and the Houthis as they are coming into range as they approach the two straits. Most will be totally safe if they do this and pay a small fee. This is not lawful. But the current law cannot be enforced. |
Then they should pay it.
| We are re-entering the law of the cannon shot. |
We left it hundreds of years ago.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| International law is not abstract. It is in black and white and is universally obeyed (even by Iran in other places). |
It is not universally obeyed. For example Russia invasion of Ukraine. The US and Isreal in attacking Iran, were not obeying international law. Isreals recent attacks on Syria and Lebanon were not obeying international law. The US attacks on Venezuela were not in accordance with International Law.
| EU ambassador to the UN wrote: | “The world has spoken. The Russian government must immediately stop the aggression, withdraw its troops, and abide by the rules of the UN Charter that apply to all, equally.”
”This is not just about Ukraine, he continued. This is not just about Europe. This is about defending an international order based on rules we all have signed up to, and the sovereign equality of all states, large and small. This is about whether we choose tanks and missiles, or dialogue and diplomacy.” |
The whole thing is starting to fall apart.
BTW, US still refuses to ratify UNCLOS, it only agrees to act in accordance with conventional maratime law. Not quite the same thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | International law is not abstract. It is in black and white and is universally obeyed (even by Iran in other places).
It is not universally obeyed. For example Russia invasion of Ukraine. |
Come off it, Wiley, we're dealing with free and unobstructed passage through straits. Though since you mention it, there was a considerable kerfuffle after the Russian occupation of Crimea (2014) and when the Crimean bridge over the Kerch Strait was being constructed (2015 onwards).
Although the bridge was from de jure Russian territory to de facto Russian territory, the Strait itself was an international waterway because, at the time, Ukraine had a Sea of Azov coastline. The Russians were tacitly allowed to impose temporary restrictions because of the building work but when they refused all Ukrainian access, the Americans and the Brits threatened to sail warships through.
It all came to nought when Russia completed their occupation of that Ukrainian collar of territory in 2023, the Sea of Azov became an inland Russian sea and the Kerch Strait ceased to be an international waterway.
| The US and Isreal in attacking Iran, were not obeying international law. Isreals recent attacks on Syria and Lebanon were not obeying international law. The US attacks on Venezuela were not in accordance with International Law. |
I'll debate International Law in general some other time.
EU ambassador to the UN wrote: “The world has spoken. The Russian government must immediately stop the aggression, withdraw its troops, and abide by the rules of the UN Charter that apply to all, equally.” “This is not just about Ukraine,” he continued. “This is not just about Europe. This is about defending an international order based on rules we all have signed up to, and the sovereign equality of all states, large and small. This is about whether we choose tanks and missiles, or dialogue and diplomacy.”
The whole thing is starting to fall apart. |
You'll get no argument from me. International Law is always starting to fall apart because there is no higher power than sovereign nations, so no judge and jury to bring lawbreakers to justice.
| BTW, US still refuses to ratify UNCLOS, it only agrees to act in accordance with conventional maratime law. Not quite the same thing. |
Their objections are for technical and partial reasons. As the world's largest international trader (o.n.o.), they are big fans of UNCLOS. As the World Policeman, they are fond of breaking the provisions of UNCLOS whenever they feel the need. Hence they 'recognise' UNCLOS but haven't ratified it. A classic cake-and-eat-it position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick wrote: | | Come off it, Wiley, we're dealing with free and unobstructed passage through straits. |
The point is that we are only talking about this, because the US and Israel launched a manifestly illegal attack on Iran. The Strait of Hormuz was open before this illegal attack. Innocent passage was suspended by Iran following the US/Isreal attack.
There is still a state of war even now, as the US military blockade is considered an act of war, in international law.
| BTW, US still refuses to ratify UNCLOS, it only agrees to act in accordance with conventional maratime law. Not quite the same thing. |
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Their objections are for technical and partial reasons. As the world's largest international trader (o.n.o.), they are big fans of UNCLOS. As the World Policeman, they are fond of breaking the provisions of UNCLOS whenever they feel the need. Hence they 'recognise' UNCLOS but haven't ratified it. A classic cake-and-eat-it position. |
Iran adopts the same position they have not ratified UNCLOS. The reason for this is that they wanted to be able to suspend the "innocent right of passage" to shipping at times of war, when their security was threatoned. That decision not to ratify, is now looking like a wise one to Wiley.
A possible way to open the strait is to now ease Irans security fears. That is why the signatories to the Mecca agreement are now trying to get Iran to join.
Its probably not going to work, but why not give creative diplomacy a chance?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Come off it, Wiley, we're dealing with free and unobstructed passage through straits.
The point is that we are only talking about this, because the US and Israel launched a manifestly illegal attack on Iran. The Strait of Hormuz was open before this illegal attack. Innocent passage was suspended by Iran following the US/Isreal attack. |
OK
| There is still a state of war even now, as the US military blockade is considered an act of war, in international law. |
OK
BTW, US still refuses to ratify UNCLOS, it only agrees to act in accordance with conventional maratime law. Not quite the same thing.
Their objections are for technical and partial reasons. As the world's largest international trader (o.n.o.), they are big fans of UNCLOS. As the World Policeman, they are fond of breaking the provisions of UNCLOS whenever they feel the need. Hence they 'recognise' UNCLOS but haven't ratified it. A classic cake-and-eat-it position.
Iran adopts the same position they have not ratified UNCLOS. |
OK
| The reason for this is that they wanted to be able to suspend the "innocent right of passage" to shipping at times of war, when their security was threatoned. That decision not to ratify, is now looking like a wise one to Wiley. |
It's looking irrelevant to Mick. Every country has that right whether they are signatories to UNCLOS or not.
| A possible way to open the strait is to now ease Irans security fears. |
Closing the Strait certainly isn't doing it. The last time the Strait was open, following the signing of the MoU, it was Iran that closed it again by peremptorily firing on ships passing through on the Omani side without the slightest attempt to negotiate whether this was or was not permissible under the MoU.
| That is why the signatories to the Mecca agreement are now trying to get Iran to join. |
Good luck with that, guys.
| Its probably not going to work, but why not give creative diplomacy a chance? |
I've been advocating that from the off.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| The reason for this is that they wanted to be able to suspend the "innocent right of passage" to shipping at times of war, when their security was threatoned. That decision not to ratify, is now looking like a wise one to Wiley. |
| Mick Harper wrote: |
It's looking irrelevant to Mick. Every country has that right whether they are signatories to UNCLOS or not. |
That is not the case. If a nation signs and ratifies UNCLOS you agree that ships must have a "Right of Transit", this affords shipping much stronger protections, than "innocent passage" ie ratifiers of UNCLOS must not hamper or suspend ships transit through an international waterway even during times of war or high tension.
Iran is in effect arguing, that as all parties the US, Iran and Isreal are non ratifiers of UNCLOS, ships ony have a "innocent right of passage" as established in previous treaties, which can therefore still be suspended during a war.
Although you disagree, the Iranian position is arguable, by the legal definition, passage is only “innocent” as long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.
Dont get me wrong there is a strong argument against this, that custom dictates UNCLOS is in effect, (despite Iran, US and Israel all consistently denying, that non ratification does not imply acceptance)
its just a tougher argument, when all the main parties to the dispute have not ratified and disagree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Wiley wrote: | It's looking irrelevant to Mick. Every country has that right whether they are signatories to UNCLOS or not.
That is not the case. If a nation signs and ratifies UNCLOS you agree that ships must have a "Right of Transit", this affords shipping much stronger protections, than "innocent passage" ie ratifiers of UNCLOS must not hamper or suspend ships transit through an international waterway even during times of war or high tension. |
I'm obliged for the information but if treaty-makers suppose that national survival comes below the letter of the law they are living in a dream world.
| Iran is in effect arguing, that as all parties the US, Iran and Isreal are non ratifiers of UNCLOS, ships ony have a "innocent right of passage" as established in previous treaties, which can therefore still be suspended during a war. |
Iran can argue till it's blue in the face. Macht makes recht.
| Although you disagree, the Iranian position is arguable |
I do not disagree, Iran's position is arguable. It's just all this legal talk is irrelevant -- apart from point-scoring for the benefit of 'the world community'. Macht makes recht.
| by the legal definition, passage is only “innocent” as long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. |
Iran can argue till it's blue in the face. Macht makes recht.
| Dont get me wrong there is a strong argument against this, that custom dictates UNCLOS is in effect, (despite Iran, US and Israel all consistently denying, that non ratification does not imply acceptance) its just a tougher argument, when all the main parties to the dispute have not ratified and disagree. |
You (and I) can argue till we're blue in the face. Macht makes recht. End of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| The plan did not work, their bases are badly damaged, even after they fired off more interceptors in 4 days, than Ukraine has in 5 years, leading them to abandon both the bases and retreat back the Armada over 400 miles.. |
| MICK wrote: |
* The bases are not badly damaged, just in need of some TLC.
* They haven't abandoned the bases
* The Armada was never in the Gulf, it took up station in the north-east Indian Ocean where it still is |
https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/2026/08/28/the-devastation-of-nsa-bahrain-is-a-national-security-warning/
The idea that the U.S. could not prevent and defend against a predictable attack on a Fleet Headquarters — and our sailors stationed there — is quite startling. It likely is just as alarming to our allies.
The depth of NSA Bahrain’s impact became clear as the stories of scarcities of parts, food, mail and supplies to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln hit the news. Before long, pieces of the puzzle began falling into place as to the connection between ship supplies and the lack of a familiar resupply source.
Stretching supply lines that were once hundreds of miles away out to thousands of miles has far-reaching implications for forward-deployed ships and is likely to become a significant constraint in maritime operations.
|
The severirty of the attack on the bases was largely hidden, but it has leaked out.
You will not see the Fifth fleet return to Bahrain soon, if ever.
| If NSA Bahrain is not reconstituted to something near its pre-attack capabilities, it will fundamentally change how the U.S. Navy operates, supplies and maintains its ships. It will also upend how we support regional coalition partners in the Gulf region. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I don't like to pull rank but all this is sheer hokum. First off, even in open access America, what the military does tends to stay behind the Arras. Whatever we hear is what the military wants us to hear. The 'we' being anybody from Congressional Armed Services Committees to the IRGC.
The idea of the US Navy -- perhaps the most pampered service in the history of warfare -- being driven from any pillar to any post by anyone is entirely fanciful.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
They evacuated the base, abandoning possessions, and the Navy now wants the families to pick more permanent locations. They cant be protected in Bahrain, its 150 miles to Iranian coast thats well within the distance of Iranian ballistic miles. They havnt got the numbers of interceptors to defend the base.
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/24/nx-s1-5943188/six-months-on-u-s-navy-families-who-evacauated-bahrain-remain-in-limbo
| The Iran war has left the Navy scrambling to figure out what to do with 1,300 dependents who left just about everything behind in Bahrain, the headquarters of the Navy's 5th Fleet. The number doesn't include the sailors and civilian workers, who were also displaced. |
| According to information relayed during the virtual town hall, the Navy wants families to pick a more permanent location, while the military decides what will eventually happen to families assigned to Bahrain. They would receive a housing allowance, similar to what other military families receive.. |
The spouses NPR spoke with, who also did not want to be named, said they believe the Navy has already waited too long to see if their situation would return to normal. They are also concerned that a growing number of expenses will now come out of their own pockets. Most people have not received their belongings from Bahrain. Many people have had to buy second cars and new clothing. |
| Several families told the Navy and NPR that they wanted to return to Bahrain. But Cancian, who's now a military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the war may have permanently changed how the U.S. operates its bases in the Middle East, including Bahrain. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Military wives bitch. What can I say?
I cannot say the USN might not move out of the Gulf one day. I cannot say they might not move out of Bahrain one day this year. An ex-girlfriend of mine claimed to have driven the USAF out of Greenham Common, so anything's possible.
All I am saying is that when such strategic decisions are taken and why they are being taken won't be known ahead of time by you, by me or by the Mahjong Tuesday Club, APO 7th Fleet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
