There has been a long-established principle of the law of the sea that allows free passage through things like the Strait of Hormuz. While this principle has been around since… I think the 1800s but I’m not 100% sure, its most recent incarnation is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
So Iran wasn’t “playing nice”, they were playing by the rules.
Donald Trump has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t care about the rules. By going to war with Iran, he then gives them permission to also defy the rules. Iran will say: “We’ll follow the rules when the US does”.
N.B. Yes, it’s really called “the law of the sea”, maritime law is also a thing but a different thing
For what it’s worth, neither Iran nor the United States have actually signed and ratified the UNCLOS and therefore are not actually members of it nor bound by its rules.
The maritime treaties are the ones that I assume the most countries have signed, because they rely on such old principles, but I didn’t go check details on this one.
EDIT: Damn it, you made me go down a Law of the Sea rabbit hole, what with your “facts”.
The US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, you’re right. But it did both sign and ratify the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which guarantees the right of innocent passage, which is what is at issue here. Iran also signed this treaty, though never ratified.
Further, both the US and Iran signed UNCLOS, even though neither has ratified.
Further still, Oman, who is the other half of this agreement with Iran, has both signed and ratified UNCLOS.
Did the law somehow change to allow them to now charge fees? Or, were they playing nice by following a law that has no real enforcement behind it? What will we do? Sanction them?
The war didn’t start because they were charging fees, they weren’t. They started charging fees because of the war.
UNCLOS has specific enforcement mechanisms behind it. I don’t know enough detail to know what they are, but yes, it’s founded on an international treaty. My point was Iran wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they got something in return: on UNCLOS specifically they get free passage for their own ships in others’ territorial waters. More broadly, they get the stability of the post-WWII international order.
The US has turned its back on that international order by attacking Iran. Therefore the incentive for Iran to participate in that order has greatly diminished.
If all international treaties are “playing nice”, then fine, they were playing nice. I prefer to see them as a mutually beneficial exchange. We’re getting dangerously close to “laws are just threats” territory though, and I think that moves us away from a conversation whose definitions are useful for dialogue.
There has been a long-established principle of the law of the sea that allows free passage through things like the Strait of Hormuz. While this principle has been around since… I think the 1800s but I’m not 100% sure, its most recent incarnation is enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
So Iran wasn’t “playing nice”, they were playing by the rules.
Donald Trump has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t care about the rules. By going to war with Iran, he then gives them permission to also defy the rules. Iran will say: “We’ll follow the rules when the US does”.
N.B. Yes, it’s really called “the law of the sea”, maritime law is also a thing but a different thing
For what it’s worth, neither Iran nor the United States have actually signed and ratified the UNCLOS and therefore are not actually members of it nor bound by its rules.
This is a very good point, have an upvote.
The maritime treaties are the ones that I assume the most countries have signed, because they rely on such old principles, but I didn’t go check details on this one.
EDIT: Damn it, you made me go down a Law of the Sea rabbit hole, what with your “facts”.
The US hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, you’re right. But it did both sign and ratify the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, which guarantees the right of innocent passage, which is what is at issue here. Iran also signed this treaty, though never ratified.
Further, both the US and Iran signed UNCLOS, even though neither has ratified.
Further still, Oman, who is the other half of this agreement with Iran, has both signed and ratified UNCLOS.
The US also supported the definition of innocent passage in a 1989 joint statement with the USSR.
International law is mostly honor system, no?
Did the law somehow change to allow them to now charge fees? Or, were they playing nice by following a law that has no real enforcement behind it? What will we do? Sanction them?
The war didn’t start because they were charging fees, they weren’t. They started charging fees because of the war.
“Playing nice” is a good way to describe it.
UNCLOS has specific enforcement mechanisms behind it. I don’t know enough detail to know what they are, but yes, it’s founded on an international treaty. My point was Iran wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they got something in return: on UNCLOS specifically they get free passage for their own ships in others’ territorial waters. More broadly, they get the stability of the post-WWII international order.
The US has turned its back on that international order by attacking Iran. Therefore the incentive for Iran to participate in that order has greatly diminished.
If all international treaties are “playing nice”, then fine, they were playing nice. I prefer to see them as a mutually beneficial exchange. We’re getting dangerously close to “laws are just threats” territory though, and I think that moves us away from a conversation whose definitions are useful for dialogue.