• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran claims to have seized British oil tanker in strait of Hormuz

Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm:

Gibraltar's territorial waters extend only 3.0 nautical miles from Gibraltar. The sh was likely seized south of that limit by the RMC and thus the UK had no jurisdiction as well as no legal basis to seize it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

I provided a link. Contiguous Zone, customs.

The tanker had no legal route.
 
ecofarm said:
I provided a link. Contiguous Zone, customs.

The tanker had no legal route.
Click to expand...

This episode will be studied in Arghanomics for years to come!
 
Trump should send that nut job Omar to Iran and strike a deal.If you think she got a hero's welcome in Minnesota,these kooks would adore her as one of their own.
 
ecofarm said:
Contiguous Zone
Click to expand...

Ecofarm:

From your link:

The contiguous zone is a band of water extending farther from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea, there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone out to 24 nmi from the baseline on 29 September 1999.[2]
Click to expand...

Read it carefully and you will see you don't have a case here.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm:

From your link:



Read it carefully and you will see you don't have a case here.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

"infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea".
 
apdst said:
What about 20 oil tankers?
Click to expand...

depends on what "war" means. A couple cruise missiles into the government headquarters, or an SAS assassination team taking out a few of the leaders-not war. Carpet bombing Tehran and sinking anything that floats with an Iranian Flag on it-that would be a bit too much.
 
ecofarm said:
"infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea".
Click to expand...

Ecofarm.

Yup. But the map shows the tanker was never in the territorial waters of the U.K. until it was seized and diverted by the RMCs and also UK customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations do not apply on the high seas. No case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
tosca1 said:
We'll probably wake up to the news that Iran has been bombed.
or, the top leaders assassinated.

Maybe, both.

I just watched the movie Munich (assassination of those involved with the murders of Israeli athletes).
Israel might get involved.
Click to expand...

they are good at the cleaning business.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm.

Yup. But the map shows the tanker was never in the territorial waters of the U.K. until it was seized by the RMCs and also UK customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations do not apply on the high seas. No case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Freight is subject to customs. Contiguous Zone applies, not merely the Territorial Zone (or territorial waters in the 12m meaning).
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Freight is subject to customs. Contiguous Zone applies, not merely territorial zone.
Click to expand...

Ecofarm:

Read the quote from your link. The infringement must occur on the state's territory or in its territorial waters. Sorry, your case is dead in the water.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm:

Read the quote from your link. The infringement must occur on the state's territory or in its territorial waters. Sorry, your case is dead in the water.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

The Contiguous Zone extends beyond territorial waters and includes customs jurisdiction.
 
ecofarm said:
The Contiguous Zone extends beyond territorial waters and includes customs jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Ecofarm:

Two points. The infringement must occur in the "territorial seas" in order for enforcement to apply in a contiguous zone and there was no violation until the ship was forcefully brought in to Gibraltar's waters by the RMC.

This is all moot however because there is no contiguous zone around Gibraltar since even its territorial waters clash with Spain's and a CZ over 7.1 km would also clash with North African waters too. That is why the Straits of Gibraltar is an international waterway. So no case, I'm afraid.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm:

Two points. The infringement must occur in the "territorial seas" in order for enforcement to apply in a contiguous zone and there was no violation until the ship was forcefully brought in to Gibraltar's waters by the RMC.
Click to expand...

Territorial waters, not territorial sea. The territorial sea extends 12 nm, the contiguous zone extends 24 nm. That's twice the distance.

You're conflating territorial waters, which include the contiguous and exclusive economic zones, and territorial sea, which extends only 12 nm.

So, 24 nm out, twice as far as the territorial sea, is the contiguous zone which is part of territorial waters. In that zone, states have customs jurisdiction.

This is all moot however because there is no contiguous zone around Gibraltar since even its territorial waters clash with Spain's and a CZ over 7.1 km would also clash with North African waters too. That is why the Straits of Gibraltar is an international waterway. So no case, I'm afraid.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Location of apprehension is of convenience. The tanker had no legal route. That's why it was disguised and sailed around Africa to avoid the Suez Canal.
 
ecofarm said:
Territorial waters, not territorial sea. The territorial sea extends 12 nm, the contiguous zone extends 24 nm. That's twice the distance.

You're conflating territorial waters, which include the contiguous and exclusive economic zones, and territorial sea, which extends only 12 nm.

So, 24 nm out, twice as far as the territorial sea, is the contiguous zone which is part of territorial waters. In that zone, states have customs jurisdiction.



Location of apprehension is of convenience. The tanker had no legal route. That's why it was disguised and sailed around Africa to avoid the Suez Canal.
Click to expand...

Ecofarm:

image.jpg

Do you see a contiguous zone? It can't exist because Gibraltar's surrounded by other countries' territorial waters. As to your interpretation go back and read the quote from your own source. You've got no case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm:

View attachment 67260257

Do you see a contiguous zone? It can't exist because Gibraltar's surrounded by other countries' territorial waters. As to your interpretation go back and read the quote from your own source. You've got no case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

The others have territorial waters illustrated but Gibraltar only has territorial seas illustrated. One can see the words are different. And one can see territorial waters consume all possible routes.
 
ecofarm said:
The others have territorial waters illustrated but Gibraltar only has territorial seas illustrated. One can see the words are different. And one can see territorial waters consume all possible routes.
Click to expand...

Ecofarm.

The different nomenclature is due to the fact that the "territorial seas" are disputed waters while the territorial waters are settled. And contiguous zones must be both overtly and explicitly claimed like the USA did in 1999 and cannot emanate from disputed waters. So, no case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Ecofarm.

The different nomenclature is due to the fact that the "territorial seas" are disputed waters while the territorial waters are settled. And contiguous zones must be both overtly and explicitly claimed like the USA did in 1999 and cannot eminate from disputed waters. So, no case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Territorial waters include the territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone. The contiguous zone extends for twice the distance of the territorial sea and in it a state has customs jurisdiction.

Your map has an obvious flaw in either labeling or failing to uniformly illustrate.

One can see that territorial waters consume all possible routes. One can see why Spain said, "hey", but that's between the EU.
 
ecofarm said:
Territorial waters include the territorial sea, contiguous zone and exclusive economic zone. The contiguous zone extends for twice the distance of the territorial sea and in it a state has customs jurisdiction.

Your map has an obvious flaw in either labeling or failing to uniformly illustrate.

One can see that territorial waters consume all possible routes. One can see why Spain said, "hey", but that's between the EU.
Click to expand...

Then Iran has the right to seize UK ships passing through its territorial waters does it not?
 
TurtleDude said:
depends on what "war" means. A couple cruise missiles into the government headquarters, or an SAS assassination team taking out a few of the leaders-not war.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't doubt just thinking about stuff like that might give you a woody.
 
what does going to war with Iran do for us? no need for us to attack Iran because they are being aggressive to British tankers. let the UN take care of it and keep sanctions in place, which DO have a somewhat meaningful purpose.

the hawks in DC need to shut the hell up
 
apdst said:
What about 20 oil tankers?
Click to expand...

who;s oil tankers? ours?

the world doesn't want us to be the police force and frankly I am sick of it, so let them take care of it unless it is our actual assets being harmed.

if they find their ability to do so lacking, then they need to get their asses in gear.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Then Iran has the right to seize UK ships passing through its territorial waters does it not?
Click to expand...

Its contiguous zone, if a vessel violates a law within jurisdiction. Iranian customs has the right to board and Iran has the right to enforce customs law including freight law and sanctions. To my knowledge, the UK vessel did not violate any law. Almost surely not a law justifying confiscation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom