This seems germane to the sinking of the drug smuggling boats. From a quick read, it appears that any boat refusing to sail under a national flag automatically assumes some degree of risk of being presumed to be involved in illegal action, and the risk of being dealt with accordingly.
| |||
A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.
5 comments:
Wow! Well done! Do you have the link to this info? I thought of looking up the codes in question, but this explains them well without the legalese. I'd love to post this on FB. If you've already done so, let me know and I'll look through your page to find it and then share it.
Craig citing some unknown source...
Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them...
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict.
One thing for sure this uncited source gets right is this: War crimes require an armed conflict. If you kill some one (dozens of people) outside of armed conflict, then you're committing murder, not a war crime.
EVEN IF these people were outside of national protections, that STILL does not justify another nation slaughtering everyone on the boat, just 'cuz. IF the boats were firing on other ships, THAT would perhaps justify an armed response. I've heard no suggestion that was happening.
Do you really not know about the criminal action of Murder is?
Dan,
There was THE PRIMARY SOURCE literally cited in the quote. Are you too stupid or committed to ignorance to choose to ignore that fact.
1. Dan still can't provide one specific US law that has been broken, but is clinging to straws to pretend like he has.
2. You are welcome to your opinions and hunches. You are not welcome to impose them on others.
I'm not surprised Dan literally missed or ignored the primary source that this quote summarizes, his commitment to ignorance is impressive.
I merely Googled the UNCLOS sections mentioned and confirmed that the sections are accurately summarized.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/maritime-drug-law-enforcement-act
So, we have UN Law of the Sea cited, as well as US Code cited (which Schumer voted for) to support Trump's actions.
Dan has offered nothing specific.
Post a Comment