Iran, the Red Sea, and the West (tm).

[Zardnaar]

I do not think that is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Whatever it is if they're opting out they're free to claim whatever they like and other countries are free to ignore them?

In practical terms. They're one of the worst governments on the planet so good luck enforcing sny claims they do have.

 

[Samson]

Whatever it is if they're opting out they're free to claim whatever they like and other countries are free to ignore them?

In practical terms. They're one of the worst governments on the planet so good luck enforcing sny claims they do have.

My point is they are different rules. I really do not know the details, but it is something like the definition of a country is customary law and aplies to everyone, and that is things like territorial waters and EEZ, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is treaty law that explicitly only applies to treaty signatories.

 

[FriendlyFire]

My point is they are different rules. I really do not know the details, but it is something like the definition of a country is customary law and aplies to everyone, and that is things like territorial waters and EEZ, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is treaty law that explicitly only applies to treaty signatories.

You probably should have check this because Yemen is a Signatory, while its neighbor across the strait Eritrea isn't
Non signatories aren't bound or protected by the convention
Houthais can try to assert they own the entire strait all they like, by attacking everyone cargo ships and find out what happens

 

[Samson]

You probably should have check this because Yemen is a Signatory, while its neighbor across the strait Eritrea isn't
Non signatories aren't bound or protected by the convention

As I linked above, Yemen (via Yemen Arab Republic aka North Yemen as it was in 1990) is a signatory but they specifically excluded military vessels and stated in signing that they did not recognise Israel. It is correct but not really relevant that Eritrean ships would not receive this protection but would under customary law. It seems not decided law whether passage through the straights during armed conflict against the wishes of the country in question is customary law or treaty law, and that seems to matter.

 

[FriendlyFire]

As I linked above, Yemen (via Yemen Arab Republic aka North Yemen as it was in 1990) is a signatory but they specifically excluded military vessels and stated in signing that they did not recognise Israel. It is correct but not really relevant that Eritrean ships would not receive this protection but would under customary law. It seems not decided law whether passage through the straights during armed conflict against the wishes of the country in question is customary law or treaty law, and that seems to matter.

Sure, If Yemen is bound by the convention, dose the treaty allow for attacks on Civilians ships ?
Can Yemen attack ships that are closer to Somalia for example a fellow treaty signatory ?
Since Eritrea is a non signatory member (some kinda of island dispute) are civilians ship a free for all ?

 

[Samson]

Sure, If Yemen is bound by the convention, dose the treaty allow for attacks on Civilians ships ?
Can Yemen attack ships that are closer to Somalia for example a fellow treaty signatory ?
Since Eritrea is a non signatory member (some kinda of island dispute) are civilians ship a free for all ?

I do not know the details, I think it explicitly does allow some attacks, in particular to unflagged vessels. What that means with respect to vessels flagged with states that are not recognised by the state whose waters they are passing through is an important question that I do not know the answer to.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I do not know the details, I think it explicitly does allow some attacks, in particular to unflagged vessels. What that means with respect to vessels flagged with states that are not recognised by the state whose waters they are passing through is an important question that I do not know the answer to.

Because the US went through the UN for legality of protecting, defending and now striking back at the Houthis
Its a little late to object to transiting warships, that ship has already sailed and we already at the bombing stage

I still would be interest to see what rules are for ships transiting through Eritrea waters

 

[Samson]

Another datapoint on the "what is the difference between sanctions and blockade" question

US seizes plane that Iran sold to Venezuela

The United States has seized a Boeing 747 cargo plane that Iran sold to a Venezuelan state airline, drawing condemnation from Tehran.

The US Department of Justice announced late on Monday that it had taken custody of the aircraft after Argentina grounded it 18 months ago. Washington says that the sale of the plane to Venezuela in 2022 by Iran’s Mahan Air violated its sanctions on Tehran.

The US has imposed sanctions on the airline due to its affiliation with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Mahan Air’s sale of the aircraft to Venezuela’s Emtrasur violated these sanctions, Washington said. Following the deal, Argentina grounded the jumbo jet in July 2022.

“Mahan Air – known to ferry weapons and fighters for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah – violated our export restrictions by selling this airplane to a Venezuelan cargo airline. Now, it’s property of the United States government,” said Assistant Secretary of Export Enforcement Matthew S Axelrod in a statement.

Iran was swift to blast the US move. Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Nasser Kanaani condemned it as “illegal” in a short statement, contended that it violated the United Nations Charter, and vowed to help Caracas in reclaiming the Boeing.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran announces its decisive support for the legal and diplomatic efforts of Venezuela in order to regain ownership and access to the possessions and belongings of the country,” he said.

Venezuela’s government called the transfer a “shameful rapacious operation” and vowed to “take all actions to restore justice and achieve the restitution of the aircraft to its legitimate owner” without elaborating on any detailed steps.

The administration of Tehran-allied Nicolas Maduro condemned Argentina for “colluding” with the US and violating international aeronautics regulations and the rights of Emtrasur.

The US Justice Department cited court documents claiming that the registered captain of the aircraft was a former commander of the IRGC and a shareholder and board member of Fars Air Qeshm, which the US claims to be affiliated with the foreign operations Quds Force of the IRGC branch charged with operations outside Iran.

 

[Samson]

US-British aggression launches raid on Ras Issa

The US-British aggression launched a raid this on Hodeidah Governorate.

A security source explained to the Yemeni News Agency (Saba) that the US-British aggression targeted a raid on the Ras Issa area in the Salif district of Hodeidah.

 

[Estebonrober]

More violations of international law and national laws.

 

[Kyriakos]

A problem with not respecting international law is that in the future you will also be the recipient of that lack of respect.
For magical reasons, in the near past, many people thought that such simply cannot happen to the team Good.
Endless conflicts/civil wars are just what happens when the country is ruled by hideous tyrants, but how do you think those on the receiving end of your bombs view you?

 

[pigswill]

As long as the US of A keeps supporting them Israel doesn't need to be in the UN.

 

[Samson]

I wonder if the Houthis have better targetting accuracy than us? They hit a ship that the UK is reporting on (and probably had British mercenaries on) than was shipping Russian oil to India. How many "better" targets could they find than that for PR purposes. I bet the red sea is more important for Russian oil exports to the east than most other major routes.

Armed forces target British oil ship in Red Sea [Saba]

The naval forces of the Yemeni Armed Forces carried out a targeting operation against a British oil ship (Pollux) in the Red Sea with a large number of appropriate naval missiles, and the strikes were accurate and direct.

India-bound oil tanker hit by missile in Red Sea attack [Reuters]

Earlier on Friday, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency and British maritime security firm Ambrey [aka mercenaries] said a Panama-flagged tanker had reportedly been hit 72 nautical miles (133 km) northwest of the port of Mokha, off Yemen.

M/T Pollux embarked from Russia's Black Sea port city of Novorossiysk on Jan. 24 and was due to discharge in Paradip, India, on Feb 28, according to LSEG data. Indian Oil Company has a 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) oil refinery at Paradip, in eastern Odisha state.

 

[r16]

didn't we have this already ? Husi firing is always more accurate against ships with Russian oil . As in the West will simply avoid interfering , if not directly hitting "Russian oil" . Which is indeed less damaging than what has been long happening in the Black Sea .

 

[Samson]

didn't we have this already ? Husi firing is always more accurate against ships with Russian oil . As in the West will simply avoid interfering , if not directly hitting "Russian oil" . Which is indeed less damaging than what has been long happening in the Black Sea .

We have put mercenaries on the ships. If that was Wagner we would say they are interfering.

 

[r16]

hence the accurate shooting . In a tanker the crew should be all in the back ; hit the front and nobody will sue His Majesties Goverment for intentionally killing British subjects .

 

[Kyriakos]

Kastor will have his revenge, then they will both reach the sky.

 

[r16]

for those who wouldn't know like me , that's apparently a computer game or a mod or a something or a whatever . Going deeper it might even be Greek mythology . Flippant ? No , this is just a military exercise with live ammunition , the likes of which do not generally kill people when done in the US .

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I thought it was a reference to the Greek patron god of merchants or sailors or something (not that I knew this beforehand, looked it up on Wikipedia myself)

 

[Crezth]

There’s a very fundamental misunderstanding about how the UN seems to work here that I think prevails because the dominant view being articulated is one of post-9/11 natsec conservatism “it’s us versus the world” mentality, which is exactly what is having us reverse course on our relationship to these things. It is because the empire is crumbling and the UN was the arm of it designed to generate the consensus of the global governmental assemblies - mainly, as it is, bourgeois states with fraught relationships with their populations. It is exactly because these states need some kind of guarantee or forum within which to press their claims and operate with the sovereign authority of nation states that the UN exists today.

Indeed why keep the UN together? Well does it even matter if we all don’t obey the laws and invade who we please? At that rate the only thing that matters is who has the most nukes. Which is US policy. But the problem is that the UN is the glue that binds the world to the G8 nations’ lofty interests. You eliminate it and what guarantees your return. Mercenaries and Interpol? If you think the enemies are bad now, remember, they can always get worse.