Legal Authority Of Coastal States In The Interdiction Of Foreign Vessels On The High Seas
Keywords:
Legal Authority Of Coastal States, Washington initiated its Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), weapons of mass destruction (WMD),Abstract
The terror attacks of 11 September 2001 dramatically changed the course of world events. It is observed that they have led to a re-definition of the threat to US, Europe and indeed the global security as the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the possibility of access to such weapons through failed states or 'rouge regimes'. Accordingly, this report examines the legal authorities or otherwise of coastal states to engage in the interdiction of foreign vessels on the high seas. The reporter used a descriptive research design method. The findings indicate that in the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) proposal to establish a comprehensive enforcement mechanism which aims to restrict WMD trafficking in the air, on land and at sea. The threat to international community through the proliferation of WMD has been recognized by both individual coastal states and the wider international community; but the methods available to deal with the threat have not enjoyed the same degree of international consensus. Any coastal state sanctioning action directed at interdicting foreign ships on the high seas would be running the risk of breaching international law and may leave the authorizing state liable to a claim in compensation. Although the PSI maritime interdiction activities breach international law, a coastal state intent on pursuing such interdiction activities has an array of options available in which to chart a course around the heavy rocks of illegality of such activities.
References
Abrams, E. (2011). UN Report on Flottilla Incident Exonerates Israel. http://www.cfr.org/israel/ un-report-flotilla-incident-exonerates-Israel/p25764. Accessed 4th October 2011.
Anthony, B. P. (2004). PSI is not only legitimate; it is necessary self-defence. Working paper, University of Wollongong, Australia.
Bergin, D. S. (2003), High Stakes on the high seas in Korean Blockade. http://www.smh.com.au/ cgibin/common/popuPrintArticle.PL?Path=/articles/200/3/07. Accessed 26th May 2007.
Chaffee, D. (2004). Freedom or Force on the High Seas? Arms Interdiction and International Law, Science Democratic Action, 12 (3), 1-67.
Davies, M. and Dickey, A. (2004). Shipping Law (3rd edition). Australia: Law Book Co. NSW.
Matsuya, M. (2005). Trade and Human Development: The Asia-Pacific Experience', Working paper, University of Osaka, Japan.
McGlinchy, D. (2004). Anti-Proliferation effort will receive no separate funding. Personnel, Government Executive Magazine, 15 (3), 28-36.
Persbo, A. and Davies, I. (2004). Sailing into Uncharted Waters? The Proliferation Security Initiative and the Law of the Sea', Basic Research Report 2004 (2), published by British American Security Information Council.
Resolution on the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction UNSCR 1540 (2004), UN Doc,s/Res/1540, publications.
Roberts, B. S. (2003), The future of the Proliferation Security Initiatives. http://www.basicint.org/ pubs/Research/04PSI.htm. Accessed 22nd May 2007.
Sprigall, R. and Glover, P. (2007). Legal authorities to Interdict foreign ships on high seas. Shipping Australia Limited (Annual Issue), 3 (37), 134-137.
UNCLOS (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part II, Section 3, Article 27, Publications, Australia.
Yang, S. S. (2003). Legal Basis for State Interception of Shipments on High Seas: Legality of the Naval Interdiction the Proliferation Security Initiative. Working Paper, Brooklyn Law School, UK.
