Drug interceptions on the high seas

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Basil

Then what you are suggesting is that your own officials are nothing more than Pirates.
I am not American an hence if I am not in your country I do not have to abide by your laws .
If I am within your legal boundaries then I will.

You must be from New Zealand since you did not learn to read or analyze well. I did not say any such thing. I do not know the applicable law, and apparently neither do you. If they, the ships that concern you are not within the law, it may be piracy, although probably not if they are U.S. Navy or even U.S. Coast Guard, which is currently a part of the Navy, I believe, but wisdom would suggest even if they could be wrong personal safety might be an important consideration. I would be sad if you got yourself blown away out of ignorance, even if you were right, which you probably are not, at least to vessels of my country -the U.S.A. As before, the choice is yours. Me, I have absolutely avoided N.Z. waters because I do not want to be nannied, but that is a different topic.

BTW, why do you capitalizes "Pirates"? Is it out of fear or respect?

[buzzstar]

Looking against the many posts, it looks like we have too many sea lawyers and too little knowledge.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My understanding of the law (from reading and discussions like this in the past), is that the USCG can board a US-flagged vessel anytime, anywhere, with no reason at all.

Almost anywhere, cannot do it in sovereign state waters in my area

[ZULU40]

Well I found this, US Coast Guard specific but not a bad read:

via Sailfeed: Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1
Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 - Sailfeed

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Factor

Almost anywhere, cannot do it in sovereign state waters in my area

Kinda shows just how much thread drift there has been. The OP asked about interdiction on the high seas. The OP also noted "I also realize that any navy from a given country can intercept anyone they feel like while in their own territorial waters."

The question of what is legal to a great extent is very sensitive to geography. The US is the dominant sea power in much of the world and as a result has both the power (in terms of ships and guns) and the legal justification (through treaties and US laws) to interdict in many places. But China is also a real power in the South China Sea and have made it clear they have the power to do what they want, including boarding at gun point at the captain's whim.

To make matters more complicated not everyone agrees on what is legal. The UN and the LOS are basically powerless and both the US and China have not signed it. So what is "legal" to the UN and LOS countries has been ignored by both the US and China.

Bottom line is there is no simple one size fits all answer to the question what is legal.

[Basil]

Hi guys
I am out of here, good discussion, we all have our own opinions an I respect yours .
This subject has been debated for years .
Regards

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by tomfl

To make matters more complicated not everyone agrees on what is legal. The UN and the LOS are basically powerless and both the US and China have not signed it. So what is "legal" to the UN and LOS countries has been ignored by both the US and China.

Hmm ... I think you'll find that the People's Republic of China did sign and did ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.


The USA did not.


And the US did not for good reason - the US makes claims over the sea that UNCLOS does not support.


The PRC is now caught by its ratification of UNCLOS: China's historic claim to parts of the South China Sea has not been supported by a panel acting to hear a disagreement over the South China Sea.


Taiwan, aka the Republic of China, is not a member of the UN nor is it a signatory or a ratifier of UNCLOS. But that same panel denied Taiwan the right to make submissions to its hearing and the findings of that panel deny Taiwan part of its claim to the one significantly-sized island in the Spratly group.


The other issue is the contemporary worship of man-made law, especially with respect to drugs.


Chinese, not matter in what polity they live, remember the indignities of the mid-19th century when the UK government decided it could legally use military power to force China to import the illegal drugs (opiates) that British companies grew in India.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by ZULU40

Well I found this, US Coast Guard specific but not a bad read:

via Sailfeed: Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1
Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 - Sailfeed

Interesting article, but definitely not always accurate. I remain unsure stuff in the territorial waters of other nations, but the immediate statements under the heading of the court amendment on land are definitely off base. This creates doubt about other aspects of the article, to the degree of mistrust, not just uncertainty. In US territorial waters, we -boater and ships in general- have few rights, US citizens or not. US vessels on the high seas, I believe the same is true. Non US vessels on the high seas, I simply do not know, but probably would be disinclined to test the question if I were on a foreign flagged vessel, even if I were a foreign national.

[hafa]

One analogy that occurs to me whilst reading this discussion is in the form of a conversation I once had with a friend regarding driving:

Friend: "When I'm at an intersection, and others are turning in front of me, I expect them to yield the right of way, because it's the law."

Me: "So what happens when the other person fails to yield?"

Friend: "I'll push forward, because I'm on the right side of the law."

Me: "But isn't the goal accident avoidance?"

Friend: Silence...

[Dan0]

I like your Quote

[Dan0]

Well said!

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Hmm ... I think you'll find that the People's Republic of China did sign and did ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.


The USA did not.


And the US did not for good reason - the US makes claims over the sea that UNCLOS does not support.


The PRC is now caught by its ratification of UNCLOS: China's historic claim to parts of the South China Sea has not been supported by a panel acting to hear a disagreement over the South China Sea.


Taiwan, aka the Republic of China, is not a member of the UN nor is it a signatory or a ratifier of UNCLOS. But that same panel denied Taiwan the right to make submissions to its hearing and the findings of that panel deny Taiwan part of its claim to the one significantly-sized island in the Spratly group.


The other issue is the contemporary worship of man-made law, especially with respect to drugs.


Chinese, not matter in what polity they live, remember the indignities of the mid-19th century when the UK government decided it could legally use military power to force China to import the illegal drugs (opiates) that British companies grew in India.

PRC did both ratify and sign the LOS; my bad.

While the US did not ratify or sign the LOS the US has been involved in discussions and in general has agreed with everything in the LOS treaties with the exception of Part XI, which mainly relates to deep sea mining, sharing profits from deep sea mining with all LOS member countries, and mandatory sharing of deep sea mining technology. Realistically the provisions related to deep sea mining are almost moot due to economic realities related to the price of the metals that could be mined. In addition to economic factors related to metal prices the break up of the communist block, the source of the push for sharing profits and technology, added to making Part XI moot.

The PRC's claim to the Spratly Islands has been rejected but that has not changed the PRC's actions in building military bases there. Other countries do seem to have better claims to the Spratly Islands, in great part because they are hundreds of miles closer to the Spratly Islands. I suspect the real problem for PRC's military bases will be when a typhoon hits the area.

No question China has a real gripe about GB selling drugs there in the past. But as a rule China, and a lot of other countries, have much harsher laws than the US concerning drugs; often even simple possession can result in capital punishment. In fact there is almost no disagreement among any LOS party concerning smuggling drugs; they are all against it.

The OP was asking about "Drug interceptions on the high seas" and this seems to be something all parties to the LOS, and non parties like the US, agree on. While there are a few countries who don't automatically grant US permission to interdict realistically the US is free to interdict anywhere on the high seas. There are also a few other countries who infrequently interdict on the high seas, and again do so almost with impunity. Another consideration is that if you decline to allow LEOs to interdict, especially US interdiction, you almost certainly will be subject to a long and detailed visit by customs when you enter port.

Bottom line for me is the best course of action is to cooperate with LEOs early on to avoid problems later on.

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by Factor

Almost anywhere, cannot do it in sovereign state waters in my area

Ah... Wrongo... A US flagged ship/yacht is, by definition, "US Territory" no less so than the grounds of a US Embassy situated in another country. The crew of the ship/yacht may be subject to the laws of another country while within its territory but they are not relieved of US law and particularly, in the case of a ship/yacht, the right of the USCG to board on demand.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Factor

Almost anywhere, cannot do it in sovereign state waters in my area

Right. Thanks for clarifying that. My fumbled meaning was that anywhere in US territorial waters, or in the open seas, the USCG can board a US-flagged vessel with no reason at all — at least this is my understanding.

Now, here’s a question for the legal beagles: I accept that nations can have reciprocal arrangements to allow their water police to stop and board another nation’s vessels on the high seas. (In reality this mostly just means the US police can board other nation’s vessels). But.. (and here’s my question):

Does the USCG, which seems unique in its power to stop and board US-flagged vessels for no reason, have the same rights when applied to foreign flagged vessels in international waters where the foreign vessel is from a country that has signed reciprocal agreements with the US?

(clear as mud ?)

What I’m asking is, can the USCG legally stop and board a Canadian vessel in the open ocean without probable cause. The USCG could do this with a US flagged vessel, and I assume Canada and the USA have reciprocal agreements on this matter. However, in Canada water cops must meet the minimal requirement of having ‘probable cause’ before stopping and boarding.

I realize it’s not hard to generate this ‘probable cause,’ but it is at least a minimal hurdle for law enforcement to meet. The USCG has no such need, but I don’t think this power could be applied to foreign flagged vessels in open water even if the countries have reciprocal agreements in place.

(am I making any sense )

[robbievardon]

At 500 miles from land, I would be quite pleased to have someone know where I was and when and where I expected to make landfall. "Hobnail boots: Anne Just the thing for skating about on the steel decks of a warship or jumping into a RIB !!!Bit emotional, but I bet if you were in the arabian sea and being hijacked by pirates you would be happy for the good guys to jump on your boat. The same applies to the Gulf of Mexico where it is not unknown for drug smugglers to take over a private yacht and shoot and dump the crew over the side. I*m with Uncivilized here.