The European Commission has adopted another key measure to crackdown on the so-called shadow fleet passing through its waters. The amendment to the Vessel Monitoring Directive now requires all vessels, including those merely passing through European Union waters without entering an EU port, to provide insurance information. “By requiring that all vessels operating in our …
It might be possible to prevent some vessels passing through EU waters, but some of the ships doing so are doing so using the right of innocent passage. I don’t think that it’s possible, without EU members violating UNCLOS, or an amendment to UNCLOS, to deny vessels transit through territorial waters on insurance grounds, as long as those ships are otherwise conforming to the obligations associated with their right of innocent passage. Like, say a ship were sailing through the Strait of Gibraltar or the Danish straits.
SECTION 3. INNOCENT PASSAGE IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA
SUBSECTION A. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL SHIPS
Article 17
Right of innocent passage
Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
Article 18
Meaning of passage
Passage means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of:
(a) traversing that sea without entering internal waters or calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters; or
(b) proceeding to or from internal waters or a call at such roadstead or port facility.
Passage shall be continuous and expeditious. However, passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only in so far as the same are incidental to ordinary navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or distress or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.
Article 19
Meaning of innocent passage
Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
Article 25
3. The coastal State may, without discrimination in form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security, including weapons exercises. Such suspension shall take effect only after having been duly published.
Not an expert by any mean. But if they already did it with canceling the insurances of the Russian planes, banning effectively from the common European airspace, I see high chances of successfully implementing this.
Hmm.
It might be possible to prevent some vessels passing through EU waters, but some of the ships doing so are doing so using the right of innocent passage. I don’t think that it’s possible, without EU members violating UNCLOS, or an amendment to UNCLOS, to deny vessels transit through territorial waters on insurance grounds, as long as those ships are otherwise conforming to the obligations associated with their right of innocent passage. Like, say a ship were sailing through the Strait of Gibraltar or the Danish straits.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm
Temporary and security are not clearly defined.
No insurance is prejudicial to the good order of the EU legal framework on accidents, liability, etc. The list afterwards is not exhaustive.
Also who the fuck is going to complain. Russia? International law is whatever states get away with.
Wouldn’t repeated violations of point (k) justify a law aiming to minimise those infractions?
Excellent point, but I do have another to make which supersedes your argument:
Fuck putler and fuck his dumb fucking war.
Not an expert by any mean. But if they already did it with canceling the insurances of the Russian planes, banning effectively from the common European airspace, I see high chances of successfully implementing this.
The airspace ban wasn’t predicated on insurance.
True, somehow I mixed them both