| Aktungbby |
12-30-15 04:48 PM |
Incomplete balderdash and welcome aboard
orla trees!:Kaleun_Salute:
Quote:
Originally Posted by orla trees
(Post 2369771)
Dreadfully sorry but that is complete ballderdash.
Please keep your claims in the realm of reality.
It does your arguement no service if it is based on falsehood.
Thank you.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dowly
(Post 2369773)
First of all, Welcome to SUBSIM.
May I ask for a source for your claim? Not because I don't believe what you say, but as so we would not make that mistake again. Thanks.
|
Actually balderdash is what its all about::D relying on my source, possibly outdated : http://www.virginia.edu/colp/pdf/kraska-legal-vortex.pdf Neither Iran nor the United States are signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, governing the Straits of Hormuz. Which is similar to the Montreux Convention for the Bosphorus controlled by Turkey generally aginst Russia. God knows what the Brits do when Russians are in the English Channel:yep: basically; since Iran is NOT signatory to the UNCLOS and is under no compunctoion to recognize legal regimes, it does NOT enjoy a twelve mile territorial sea limit, as claimed for example by neighboring Oman, and may claim only the 'historic' 3 nautical mile territorial limit (hey a few extra feet:up:) thereby. Iran has signed, but not ratified, the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention. The US, not signatory, claims "longstanding practice and 'opinio juris'; innocent passage is a longstanding right of 'customary' international laws. Customary transit argument is considered weaker than innocent passage right...China for example, when passing too close to the US Aleutians claims 'innocent passage' while denying it to everyone in the South China Sea's Spratley Islands... so everyone plays this game IMHO. With regard to Oman's twelve mile claim: are there even twelve miles to claim??!!:doh: My link describes the situation as a 'knife fight in a phone booth':nope: EDIT: I see HMS Oberon has slipped in also:yeah: whilst I was composing my 'balderdash' response! :03:
Quote:
Iran's (Islamic Republic) addendums to UNCLOS treaty
Upon signature (10 December 1982):
Interpretative declaration on the subject of straits
"In accordance with article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seizes the opportunity at this solemn moment of signing the Convention, to place on the records its "understanding" in relation to certain provisions of the Convention. The main objective for submitting these declarations is the avoidance of eventual future interpretation of the following articles in a manner incompatible with the original intention and previous positions or in disharmony with national laws and regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is, . . . , the understanding of the Islamic Republic of Iran that:
1) Notwithstanding the intended character of the Convention being one of general application and of law making nature, certain of its provisions are merely product of quid pro quo which do not necessarily purport to codify the existing customs or established usage (practice) regarded as having an obligatory character. Therefore, it seems natural and in harmony with article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein.
The above considerations pertain specifically (but not exclusively) to the following:
-- The right of Transit passage through straits used for international navigation (Part III, Section 2, article 38).:hmmm:
-- The notion of "Exclusive Economic Zone" (Part V). - All matters regarding the International Seabed Area and the Concept of "Common Heritage of mankind" (Part XI).
2) In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognize (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia , the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
3) The right referred to in article 125 regarding access to and from the sea and freedom of transit of Land-locked States is one which is derived from mutual agreement of States concerned based on the principle of reciprocity.
4) The provisions of article 70, regarding "Right of States with Special Geographical Characteristics" are without prejudice to the exclusive right of the Coastal States of enclosed and semi-enclosed maritime regions (such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman) with large population predominantly dependent upon relatively poor stocks of living resources of the same regions.
5) Islets situated in enclosed and semi-enclosed seas which potentially can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, but due to climatic conditions, resource restriction or other limitations, have not yet been put to development, fall within the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 121 concerning "Regime of Islands", and have, therefore, full effect in boundary delimitation of various maritime zones of the interested Coastal States.
Furthermore, with regard to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time."
|
:()1::k_confused:
|
