International boarding rules

[Tingum]

Sorta stupid to argue with someone who has a big gun!

[Franziska]

We were at one time crossing from Turkey into Georgia (not in the US!).

Having cleared out as required in Turkey we where directly headed for Poti as we had only been granted a single entry visa.

Long and behold, shortly after entering Georgian waters a navy speedboat showed up and requested us (8m Catamaran) to stop while wielding there guns.

Their maneuvering skills did not instill great confidence in me. More than once I was scared as s.it if they might sink us accidentally.
Eventually they did not board, but we had to comply with their orders given with very crude English. Next it was quite nerve-racking until the guy at their helm eventually understood that its not a clever idea to try to tow us with 10knots....

After we stopped we became subject of an argument between two of their crew.
Both equipped with AK47 style guns.
Not a fun situation to be in.

We had tried to explain them our destination but their poor English propably lead to their argument of how to proceed with their "catch".

Eventually they towed us towards Batumi where we definitely did not want to go.
When passing a beach it became kind of funny.
The guy on their bow took of his shirt, still carrying his gun and they put on their sirene and blue flashes.

In Batumi it turned out that they where after some booze. We hardly had any, but gave them our last 3 cans of beer and where free to proceed.
Cost us 6 hours and turned an easy daysail into a night time arrival with a thunderstorm approaching. Luckily we made it just before the .. it hit the fan.

So sometimes it's good to have some "gifts" on board to get out off iffy situations.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by MartinR

That was many years ago.

Funny how stories about "a friend" that happened "many years ago" take on a life of their own. Please consider not continuing to tell a story that's effectively libel if you can't/won't back it up. It's pretty much an a-hole thing to do for those of us who many years ago were out there busting our behinds and most certainly didn't say what you're alleging. Thanks

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by sailing_gal

I have been looking for original source law to answer this question. Anyone know this- and have the source?

To return to the OP's question: any student of international law will start by discussing the four (sometimes 5, sometimes 3) bases for international law and talking about the differences between international law and national law.

Let's essay the 4 bases:

1. Treaties or black letter law.

GordMay has already mentioned UNCLOS. Such treaties are binding on signatories (but note that a couple of players in the international game explicitly were not signatories). States can make declarations, reservations, and derogations from treaties at the time of signing and can withdraw from them (and make declarations etc) as they choose later.

You'll also find a host of regional and bilateral treaties and agreements, some of which are less obvious. The US, for example, has bilateral agreements with a few nations to grant "mutual" (but really only by the USA) right of visit/inspection of vessels flagged by the signatories.

2. Customary law, or the general practice accepted as law.

What is customary changes over time as does what is accepted (by "civilised states" as law.

A few NGOs, especially the International Committee of the Red Cross, have made big moves stating principles of customary law. In the absence of rebuttal, reservation, declaration, and derogation, international customary law has some weight.

But international customary law is complicated. In addition to legal opinion (such as considered statements on international humanitarian law by the ICRC), customary law is also considered to be being made and re-made by the actions (and inactions) of civilised states (see below at 5).

Relevant to the OP's questions are customary law principles such as:

* a distinction between civilian vessels and warships;

* a recognition of danger from and therefore the right to interdict and inspect (the right to visit) on the high seas vessels used by drug traffickers, gun runners, etc.

3. Opinions by jurists at or associated with the International Court of Justice.

4. United Nations Security Council actions taken under Article VII related to securing international peace.

UNSC action taken under Article VII are binding on all member states (note that not all actors in the international sphere are members of the UN); other actions and statements from UNGA and UNSC are not necessarily binding on anyone.

5. The common practice of civilised states.

I pointed the OP to Martin Fink's 2018 book (Maritime interception and the law of naval operations, The Hague: Asser Press; an imprint of Springer). Fink wrote his PhD dissertation on Maritime Interception. His 2018 book is his PhD dissertation in public form (with small changes). And Fink 2018 is one of the best recent statements of common practice of civilised states that may be on its way to being accepted as international law.

I chose to cite from the introduction of Fink 2018 to show the depth of historical customary practice behind the "right to visit". Fink 2018 continues, detailing recent (since Roman law) developments in the "right to visit".

You could read the contribution of boatman61, stating that might is right, as a quick summary of the right to visit. But the right to visit, as interpreted by Fink 2018 is more nuanced and principled.

I'll note one other customary international practice, one that Fink 2018 does not cover and one that is seldom discussed: the right of retaliation.

You likely noted Iran recently justified their seizure of a UK oil tanker under the right of retaliation (claiming it was retaliation for the UK seizing an Iran-flagged tanker which may or may not have been in Spanish waters/UK-Gibraltar water/international waters).

You might remember alleged incidents that have been used as justification for "retaliation". The USS Maddox Incident (aka Gulf of Tonkin Incident) for one. Or you might have wondered to what POTUS DJ Trump was referring when he tweeted "We have done worse and others have done almost as bad."

Again, retaliation and the cycle of bad karma could be seen to be covered by boatman61's 'might is right' principle.

tl;dr take: Black letter law is not the only source for what passes for international law. Customary international law based on shifting interpretation of the accepted practice of "civilised" states, including retaliation and the right to visit, mean that if someone can visit your vessel, then they may visit.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

You'll also find a host of regional and bilateral treaties and agreements, some of which are less obvious. The US, for example, has bilateral agreements with a few nations to grant "mutual" (but really only by the USA) right of visit/inspection of vessels flagged by the signatories.

Add to that everything that is directed at shipping (but also relevant to/can capture cruisers) and communicated by NTMs and Maritime Security Charts.

Not being familiar with the waters mentioned by the OP, I scrolled through current MSCs.

I noted that BA MSC Q6110, as an example, has a chartlet for Operation Sea Guardian Med Voluntary Reporting. Op Sea Guardian might not be relevant to the OP. It's one of several similar things around the planet. And cruisers need make themselves aware. (see attached chartlet from: BA Maritime Security Chart Q6110.jpg, about 116 KB) Op Sea Guardian extends to more of the Med than just this chartlet of the Strait of Gib.

When a cruiser is unaware of/ignorant of/chooses not to participate in voluntary reporting, an agency might choose to exert its belligerent right to visit, perhaps?

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

Add to that everything that is directed at shipping (but also relevant to/can capture cruisers) and communicated by NTMs and Maritime Security Charts.

Recently a CF member posted about piracy in the waters between Sabah (aka North Borneo) in Malaysia and the Sulu Archipelago of the Philippines. I note the relevance of BA MSC Q6113 and its prescribed transit routes. See attached: BA Maritime Security Chart Q6113 chartlet.jpg about 188 KB.