Abstract
Enhancement of maritime security has become important in the maritime dimension in the last decennia. International agreements between States are considered to be another legal solution to seek effective enhancement of maritime security. International agreements are not only useful for the actual interception phase at sea, but also facilitate the cooperation before and after the interception at sea. This chapter touches upon a number of international agreements that can be the basis for maritime interception operations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Kraska 2009.
- 2.
Klein 2011, p. 313.
- 3.
Syrigos 2006, p. 201.
- 4.
See Article17 of the Vienna Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances (1988).
- 5.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes 10 member states in South Asia.
- 6.
ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism, Cebu, 13 January 2007.
- 7.
Agreement concerning co-operation in suppressing illicit maritime and air trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the Caribbean area, San Jose, 10 April 2003.
- 8.
Klein 2010, pp. 224–241.
- 9.
Voetelink 2013, p. 150. Shipriders should not be confused with vessel protection detachments (VPD). The first are law enforcement agents who ‘ride’ on board a warship of another State through which specific authorities are provided that enables an arrest of a person at sea. VPD are protection teams that protect a vessel from being boarded. These are frequently used in the context of piracy . See for the Dutch experiences Fink and Voetelink 2013.
- 10.
Law Enforcement Detachment.
- 11.
See Van der Kruit 2007, pp. 274–294.
- 12.
Article 10 SUA Convention .
- 13.
Exchange of Letter between the European Union and the Government of Kenya on the conditions and modalities for the transfer of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy and detained by the European Union-led naval force (EUNAVFOR), and seized property in possession of EUNAVFOR, from EUNAVFOR to Kenya and for their treatment after such capture , 25 March 2009.
- 14.
Based on the author’s experience during OUP .
- 15.
Churchill 2008, p. 147.
- 16.
Hodgkinson 2007, p. 665.
- 17.
Article 8 bis, sub 5 (d) 2005 Protocol to the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, London, 14 October 2005, IMO Doc. LEG/CONF.15/21, reads as follows:
Upon or after depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a State Party may notify the Secretary-General that, with respect to ships flying its flag or displaying its mark of registry, the requesting Party is granted authorization to board and search the ship, its cargo and persons on board, and to question the persons on board in order to locate and examine documentation of its nationality and determine if an offence set forth in article 3, 3bis, 3ter or 3quater has been, is being or is about to be committed, if there is no response from the first Party within four hours of acknowledgement of receipt of a request to confirm nationality.
- 18.
Ashley-Roach 2012, p. 50.
- 19.
The fourth principle states that:
Take specific actions in support of interdiction efforts regarding cargoes of WMD , their delivery systems, or related materials, to the extent their national legal authorities permit and consistent with their obligations under international law and frameworks…
- 20.
Ship boarding agreements have been agreed between the US and Antigua & Barbuda (2010); Nassau (2008), Belize (2005); Croatia (2007); Cyprus (2006); Liberia (2004); Malta (2007); Marshall Islands (2004); Mongolia (2008); Panama (2004); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2010).
- 21.
Article 3(d) Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Liberia concerning Cooperation to Suppress the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, their Delivery Systems, and Related Materials by Sea, Washington, 11 February 2004, http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/32403.htm, reads as follows:
If there is no response from the Competent Authority of the requested Party within two hours of its acknowledgment of receipt of the request, the requesting Party will be deemed to have been authorized to board the suspect vessel for the purpose of inspecting the vessels documents, questioning the persons on board, and searching the vessel to determine if it is engaged in proliferation by sea.
- 22.
See Articles 4(b) and (d) Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Croatia concerning Cooperation to Suppress the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, their Delivery Systems, and Related Materials, Washington, 1 June 2005 (at:http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/47086.htm). Article 4d of this agreements states:
d. Except as otherwise permitted by international law, the requesting Party shall not board the vessel without the express written authorization of the Competent Authority of the requested Party.
- 23.
Garvey 2005, p. 133.
- 24.
Article 110 sub 1 UNCLOS reads:
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy ;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
- 25.
Presumably, this is Antarctica. Some have, however, argued that maritime areas that belong to failed States would also fall under this.
- 26.
Such as the SOLAS Convention and the Salvage Convention.
- 27.
The Italian-flagged Achille Lauro was hijacked by Palestinians off the coast of Egypt, demanding the release of 50 Palestine prisoners. The hijackers were given safe passage in Egypt and allowed to board an airplane to fly to Tunisia. US fighters then forced the plane to land in Italy. See Bryant 2004; Cassese 1989.
- 28.
The IMO website states that as of February 2016, 35 states ratified the Protocol.
- 29.
Article 4 under 5 SUA Protocol .
- 30.
Kraska and Pedrozo 2013, p. 835.
- 31.
Kraska and Pedrozo 2013, p. 788.
- 32.
The Belize -flagged vessel M/ V Light from North Korea on its way to Myanmar and suspected of carrying missile parts was forced to turn back by the US who dispatched the USS McCampbell to intercept the M/V Light. Although authority to board was given by Belize, based on the US-Belize ship boarding agreement the master refused. Instead it finally turned back to North Korea.
References
Ashley-Roach J (2012) Global Conventions on piracy, ship hijacking, hostage taking and maritime terrorism. In: Beckmann R, Ashley-Roach R (eds) Piracy and international maritime crimes in ASEAN. Prospects for cooperation. NUS center for international law, pp. 38–61
Bryant D (2004) Historical and Legal Aspects of Maritime Security. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal 1:3–4, pp. 1–27
Cassese A (1989) Terrorism, politics and law. The Achille Lauro affair. Polity Press, Oxford
Churchill R (2008) UN Security Council Resolutions and 1982 LOS Convention. In: Carsten M (ed) International Law Studies 84. Naval War College, Newport RI, pp. 143–157
European Union (2009) Exchange of Letter between the European Union and the Government of Kenya on the conditions and modalities for the transfer of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy and detained by the European Union-led naval force (EUNAVFOR), and seized property in possession of EUNAVFOR, from EUNAVFOR to Kenya and for their treatment after such capture, 25 March 2009
Fink M, Voetelink J (2013) De status van militaire Vessel Protection Detachments. Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift 106, pp. 41–53
Garvey J (2005) The international institution imperative for countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction: Assessing the Proliferation Security Initiative. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 10:2, pp. 125–147
Hodgkinson S (2007) Challenges to Maritime Interception Operations in the War on Terror: Bridging the Gap. American University International Law Review 22:4, pp. 853–671
Klein N (2010) Intelligence gathering and information sharing for maritime security purposes under international law. In: Klein N, Mossop J, Rothwell D (eds) Maritime security. International law and policy perspectives from Australia and New Zealand. Routledge, London/New York, pp. 224–241
Klein N (2011) Maritime security and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, New York
Kraska J (2009) Grasping the influence of law on sea power. Naval War College Review 62:3, pp. 113–135
Kraska J, Pedrozo R (2013) International Maritime Security Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston
Syrigos A (2006) Development on the interdiction of vessels on the high seas. In: Strati A, Gavouneli M, Skourtos N (eds) Unresolved issues and new challenges to the law of the sea. Time before and time after. Publication on Ocean Development 54, pp. 149–202
van der Kruit P (2007) Maritime drug interdiction in international law. Dissertation, Den Helder
Voetelink J (2013) Militair operationeel recht. Wolff Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fink, M. (2018). International Agreements on Maritime Interception. In: Maritime Interception and the Law of Naval Operations. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-249-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-249-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-248-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-249-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)