Iran Super Thread- Merged

[brihard]

Lol

I SAID WHAT IS YOUR NAME!?

 

[Kirkhill]

She turned.

Sanctioned Chinese tanker U-turns after passing through Hormuz

Vessel carrying 250,000 barrels of methanol was on course to be first to head through key oil passage during US blockade

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Cloud Cover]

This case with MV Richard Starry appears to be a unique situation:
“The vessel and its Chinese owner, Shanghai Xuanrun Shipping Co Ltd, were sanctioned by the US in 2023 for dealing with Iran.”

It should not have been in the Gulf or anywhere near Iran.

 

[QV]

VDH has some thoughts:

Or if you prefer reading: Iran: A Longer View

 

[lenaitch]

are the laws that underwrote the british anti-piracy and anti-slavery activities of the West Africa Squadron and other Royal Navy units still in effect and if not are there similar laws that would justify similar actions in the present day

The specific 19th-century British laws—such as the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and subsequent abolition acts—that empowered the West Africa Squadron are not in effect today. Those laws were tied to the legal framework of the British Empire and specific treaties, which have been superseded by modern international law.
Facebook +4
However, the principle of using naval force to combat slavery and piracy remains robustly supported by contemporary international law, allowing for similar, though more heavily regulated, actions in the present day.

1. Modern Equivalent Laws and Frameworks (2026)
While Britain cannot unilaterally impose its laws on foreign ships, the following frameworks allow the Royal Navy to act against modern slavery and piracy:

• UNCLOS (1982) Articles 99, 100, and 110:The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) serves as the "Constitution of the Oceans."
  • Anti-Slavery (Art 99): Obliges every state to prevent and punish the transport of slaves in ships flying its flag. It declares that any slave taking refuge on board any ship, regardless of its flag, is free.
  • Right of Visit (Art 110): Authorizes a warship to board a foreign ship on the high seas if there is reasonable ground to suspect it is engaged in the slave trade or piracy.
  • Anti-Piracy (Art 100): Mandates that all states cooperate to repress piracy on the high seas.
• The UK Modern Slavery Act 2015: This law gives the UK jurisdiction over British vessels worldwide and allows for foreign travel restrictions and seizure of vessels involved in trafficking.
• 2000 Trafficking Protocol: Supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, this allows states to take action against trafficking in persons, though it often requires flag-state consent for boarding.
  Brill +4

2. Similarities and Differences in Enforcement

• Similar Actions: Royal Navy units can (and do) track, intercept, and board ships suspected of violating maritime law, particularly in operations targeting "shadow fleet" vessels, illegal trafficking, or piracy.
• Key Differences:
  • Consensual Boarding: While the West Africa Squadron frequently boarded foreign ships without permission (due to treaties), modern naval actions generally require either UN authorization, flag-state consent, or clear evidence of piracy.
  • Definition of Slavery: Modern slavery (trafficking, forced labor) differs from the "classic" slave trade, making it legally more complex to invoke the absolute right of visit solely based on "slave trading" suspicions, though it is still argued to be an evolutionary interpretation of UNCLOS.
    Brill +2

3. Present-Day Legal Justification
Present-day "similar actions" are justified through Universal Jurisdiction for piracy and, arguably, for human trafficking. The international community largely recognizes trafficking as a modern form of slavery that undermines fundamental human rights, thus authorizing warships to act against it under UNCLOS.
Brill +1
In essence, while the specific 19th-century British statutes are gone, they were replaced by global maritime laws that mirror the original intent: suppressing slavery and piracy on the high seas.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. Even if they were, I suspect they wouldn't care.

 

[brihard]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. Even if they were, I suspect they wouldn't care.

That’s mostly due to Congressional truculence, not because U.S. governments tend to object to the contents of it. UNCLOS mostly just codifies customary international law and previous treaties into one source, and it’s largely treated as customary law anyway.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. Even if they were, I suspect they wouldn't care.

In fact they have signed and recognized UNCLOS, they have not ratified it through Congress. I suspect Trump would veto anyway. Certainly Bill Clinton said he would veto in 1994.

 

[Cloud Cover]

In fact they have signed and recognized UNCLOS, they have not ratified it through Congress. I suspect Trump would veto anyway. Certainly Bill Clinton said he would veto in 1994.

One other thing I would add us that many countries that signed UNCLOS and ratified it domestically, like China, have reservations and also take the position that some forms of historic claims as well as subsistence fishing rights supersede UNCLOS.

 

[lenaitch]

That’s mostly due to Congressional truculence, not because U.S. governments tend to object to the contents of it. UNCLOS mostly just codifies customary international law and previous treaties into one source, and it’s largely treated as customary law anyway.

The US tends to object to anything that limits their free action and movement. When you are that big and that powerful, you get to do that.

It has been amplified by this Administration which does even feel constrained by its own domestic checks and balances.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but the US is not a signatory to UNCLOS. Even if they were, I suspect they wouldn't care.

I think that is in part my point. On the international front those that would seek legal justification are going to have a hard time of it. Not in finding laws to debate in court but finding courts that all parties accept and the law codes they adjudicate.

I am pretty sure Benin had difficulty accepting the role of British courts in enforcing anti-slavery actions.

There are laws thatcan be debated, along with associated jurisdictions and their extent, but ultimately the timeless rules apply. Regardless of 80 years of trying to establish a liberal world order.

The vetoes ensured that.