Iranian General killed by US Drone.

[Homar]

Please see my last post.

Looking at the way you spelt 'gray', I will assume that you are not from the UK therefore you might not know that the UK is a dualist country and regards international law inferior to its own domestic laws. The same constitutional principles govern Gibraltar therefore, whatever is stated in international law - unless its transposed in its own law, will be disregarded insofar as its incompatible with its own law.

The power for law enforcement to arrest anything within its territory on reasonable grounds, I'm guessing, is a law of Gibraltar therefore the seizure of the ship was lawful. But even if its not, EU regulations have direct, legal effect in the EU, and the specific regulations in question apply not just to EU citizens but to all inside EU (and Gibraltan) territory. So it doesn't matter if the ship was Iranian, or the captain was Egyptian or any company involved is headquarted in China, EU law still requires the sanctions to be enforced.

You can read more about the applicability of EU sanctions here:

https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/423/sanctions-policy_en

This is just not true. The link you posted details the legal relationship between the UK and the EU, but it confirms what I have said:

“EU sanctions apply within the jurisdiction (territory) of the EU; to EU nationals in any location; to companies and organisations incorporated under the law of a member state - including branches of EU companies in third countries; on board of aircrafts or vessels under member states´ jurisdiction.”

Read it, please.

The UK can take any view that it wants. It can arrest the Iranian vessel and it may even do so lawfully under national law. It cannot do so lawfully under international law, except under the provisions provided by international law.

Gibraltar and the UK signed and ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, they are even in violation of their own national laws.

Once again, EU sanctions do not apply to non-EU states. International law takes precedence.

 

[BlueAnorak]

It was all running smoothly up until Trump pulled out of the Nuclear deal while his strings were being pulled by Netanyahu. All to try and get one over on Obama.

We, the British, along with near enough every other nation condemned what the yanks did.

And this is where we are.

Hardly. Irain has been taking the piss on the proliferation treaties for years.
Germany and France (and a lesser extent the UK) decided to turn a blind eye. The US didn't. Let's not forget that the election of Trump actually stopped the 40 year undeclared war between the US and Iran getting hot under Hillary Clinton.

 

[urban genie]

Channel 4 just had state department rep brian hook , on dismissed UN concerns as not being American so don't know what they are talking about, called it a defensive strike because 100s of Americans were in danger.

I doubt they were but with at least 3-4 batallions of the quds spread fron the border of the golan hieghts to northern Iraq and baghdad and many in the Iraqi malitia aligned to them, add the fact the US fucked over the Kurds and are Iran have supported assads forces, and lebanons hezbolah already adding support trump may have actually managed to unite most of the northern middle east in fighting against america rather than supporting it.

In Germany last year four qud sleeper cells were raided i the country and there will be plenty others spread across the world, we may not see a war, but there will be plenty of shit happen if this isn't calmed down.

 

[Chris in London]

You are mistaken. The only limitations imposed on freedom of navigation are those imposed by *international* law. Without this, the UK could simply introduce a law prohibiting Russia from accessing or passing through the English Channel. Incidentally, it could do this, but international law takes precedence and guarantees them lawful passage.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation

Rubbish.

You appear to overlook two fundamental principles. The first is the absolute sovereignty of the UK Parliament to legislate in whatever way it thinks fit. If our Parliament said ‘it is illegal for the Russian navy to pass through UK territorial water’ then it would be illegal, because our parliament is sovereign. No law in the world takes precedence as a matter of UK law over an act of the UK Parliament. Any vessel in UK waters is subject to UK law, just as any aircraft in UK skies is.

Secondly you appear to misunderstand the difference between the principle of freedom of navigation insofar as it applies in international waters and the principle insofar as it applies within the UK. In international waters, every ship is deemed to be an extension of the territory of the flag it carries. So if a murder is committed on a ship carrying the US flag, US law applies even if the ship is actually in the Indian Ocean. Thus it is that a ship in international waters is free to traverse the oceans without interference from any other nation.

Within UK territorial waters the position is different. Freedom of navigation permits non UK ships to pass through our waters under a principle known as innocent passage. It does not permit unlawful activities to be conducted within UK territorial waters. Exactly the same principle is true in Gibraltar.

 

[Blue Hefner]

 

[BlueAnorak]

Channel 4 just had state department rep brian hook , on dismissed UN concerns as not being American so don't know what they are talking about, called it a defensive strike because 100s of Americans were in danger.

I doubt they were but with at least 3-4 batallions of the quds spread fron the border of the golan hieghts to northern Iraq and baghdad and many in the Iraqi malitia aligned to them, add the fact the US fucked over the Kurds and are Iran have supported assads forces, and lebanons hezbolah already adding support trump may have actually managed to unite most of the northern middle east in fighting against america rather than supporting it.

In Germany last year four qud sleeper cells were raided i the country and there will be plenty others spread across the world, we may not see a war, but there will be plenty of shit happen if this isn't calmed down.

Not just in Germany in the UK too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...sts-caught-stockpiling-explosives-north-west/

They'll be stockpiles that haven't been found yet Let's hope there aren't any cells that haven't been uncovered yet.

 

[Bovril]

By all means, express an opinion. But leave the misogynistic comments out of it, yeah?

As Karen said I have apologised to her for my comment and righty so, but let me be clear to you it was not a misogynistic comment it was just a comment because I have strong feelings on the subject. And how dare you accuse me of that !

 

[Homar]

Rubbish.

You appear to overlook two fundamental principles. The first is the absolute sovereignty of the UK Parliament to legislate in whatever way it thinks fit. If our Parliament said ‘it is illegal for the Russian navy to pass through UK territorial water’ then it would be illegal, because our parliament is sovereign. No law in the world takes precedence as a matter of UK law over an act of the UK Parliament. Any vessel in UK waters is subject to UK law, just as any aircraft in UK skies is.

Secondly you appear to misunderstand the difference between the principle of freedom of navigation insofar as it applies in international waters and the principle insofar as it applies within the UK. In international waters, every ship is deemed to be an extension of the territory of the flag it carries. So if a murder is committed on a ship carrying the US flag, US law applies even if the ship is actually in the Indian Ocean. Thus it is that a ship in international waters is free to traverse the oceans without interference from any other nation.

Within UK territorial waters the position is different. Freedom of navigation permits non UK ships to pass through our waters under a principle known as innocent passage. It does not permit unlawful activities to be conducted within UK territorial waters. Exactly the same principle is true in Gibraltar.

You have confused innocent passage with freedom of navigation. The two are different, apply to different coastal radii and different laws apply.

If the UK made it illegal for Russia to pass through the English Channel, Russia could still pass through the channel legally under international law. Again, this is the principle that allows the USN to sail freely through the South China Sea or through the Strait of Hormuz.

 

[jimharri]

As Karen said I have apologised to her for my comment and righty so, but let me be clear to you it was not a misogynistic comment it was just a comment because I have strong feelings on the subject. And how dare you accuse me of that !

If you feel that way, and you obviously do feel strongly about it, please feel free to report me. Or, if you prefer, send a pm to Ric. And I'll step down if he feels it appropriate.

*edit* I have raised your displeasure with Ric, by the way.

 

[jimharri]

He has apologised jim

Fair enough. But he shouldn't have said it in the first place. We would like more female posters on here, we don't want to be scaring them away.