Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

wionews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#11

Post by tristanj »

constantius wrote: post #8
spwa4 wrote: post #3

Yes what they want to do is to tax other countries for using what is currently international waters and tax free, because they are militarily able to do so. That creates the problem that if Iran is allowed to do this, other countries will do this too (Indonesia will tax the Malacca strait). If that happens, a lot of countries will give very serious thought to attacking each other, not just in the middle east, and may…

> international waters It's not international waters. > if Iran is allowed to do this They have sovereignty and they only ever mentioned doing this to pay for reparations after being attacked by two countries that have been allowed to routinely attack/exploit the Middle East and, in the case of one, carry out genocide. As an aside, the war is largely seen as being waged for the sake of Israel, against US/world intere…

Iran does not have full sovereignty over the strait of Hormuz. Ownership of the the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran has sovereignty over the waters on its side, but Iran does not have sovereignty over the Omani side.

Iran maintains a blockade on the strait by placing mines in Omani waters, and firing missiles at civilian ships that attempt to pass in Omani waters. It has no legal basis to do either of those.

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#12

Post by spwa4 »

dingaling wrote: post #6
tristanj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nit: The strait of Hormuz is not considered international waters. It's split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. The strait itself is classified as a "transit passage" under Articles 37–44 of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees ships the right of continuous and expeditious transit.

Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage. So the Strait has no clear legal status. In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow. The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so th…

... and do you think that's a reasonable position to take?

If these treaties are not in force, a lot of countries cannot trade freely internationally. These days all countries are dependent on free international trade, but for obvious reasons it goes double for desert countries like the ones behind the strait of Hormuz, even without considering oil.

Geography allows a number of countries like Iran, but also Spain, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina, Turkey, UK, Denmark and Yemen to tax entire continents, including each other simply by threat of sinking ships. Endless wars have been fought over this.

Why?

First, anything that depends on international supply chains (like computers, iphones, cars, coffee, chocolate, tea, ... or the food for the survival of gulf nations' populations) is gone, in a matter of months.

Second, the "Pax Americana" is over, the post-WW2 security architecture is over (which is code for WW3 will start as soon as the first country considers itself ready). This will, by the way, not fix the first problem, not even if your country wins.

The sad truth is that either the US wins this war, or half of the world will once again find their place of employment is a cold, wet dugout with people shooting at them. Including, of course, Iranians.

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#14

Post by spwa4 »

tristanj wrote: post #7
dingaling wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage. So the Strait has no clear legal status. In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow. The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so th…

Very interesting, I wasn't aware of the full legal mess occurring at the strait. I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law. [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-strait-of-hormuz-an...

I don't understand this legal position: the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it.

In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.

That's what the world voted. That's the situation "international diplomacy" has chosen.

There's not much relevant to be said about maritime law until the US wins (because Iran won't respect it, regardless of what it says)

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#15

Post by aucisson_masque »

dingaling wrote: post #6
tristanj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nit: The strait of Hormuz is not considered international waters. It's split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. The strait itself is classified as a "transit passage" under Articles 37–44 of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees ships the right of continuous and expeditious transit.

Iran has not ratified UNCLOS, and Oman has ratified it but then negated the implied right of transit passage in domestic law - they only recognise innocent passage. So the Strait has no clear legal status. In theory since Iran didn't ratify UNCLOS they can only claim 3nm of territorial water, but they claim 12nm anyhow. The USA insists on the right of transit passage, but itself isn't even a signatory to UNCLOS so th…

Who cares about legality in these matter ? You are not going to see a UN white ship splitting the Detroit between Iran and Oman.

It's whoever has the will and the mean.

The more I see of that war, the more I think a war was/is necessary because we can't let these lunatics have nuclear weapon. Whatever the cost.

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#17

Post by spwa4 »

tristanj wrote: post #11
constantius wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> international waters It's not international waters. > if Iran is allowed to do this They have sovereignty and they only ever mentioned doing this to pay for reparations after being attacked by two countries that have been allowed to routinely attack/exploit the Middle East and, in the case of one, carry out genocide. As an aside, the war is largely seen as being waged for the sake of Israel, against US/world intere…

Iran does not have full sovereignty over the strait of Hormuz. Ownership of the the strait is split between Iranian and Omani territorial waters. Iran has sovereignty over the waters on its side, but Iran does not have sovereignty over the Omani side. Iran maintains a blockade on the strait by placing mines in Omani waters, and firing missiles at civilian ships that attempt to pass in Omani waters. It has no legal ba…

We might add that the actual maritime corridor goes through Omani and UAE waters. It comes close, but does not actually go through Iranian waters.

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#18

Post by tristanj »

spwa4 wrote: post #14
tristanj wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting, I wasn't aware of the full legal mess occurring at the strait. I found this detailed article [0], written by a law student, which discusses the Hormuz strait situation in the context of the past century of maritime law. [0] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-strait-of-hormuz-an...

I don't understand this legal position: the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each othe…

>the UN security council, which is both the judge, the appelate court, the supreme court and the enforcement mechanism of maritime law, has publicly declared they won't do anything about it. In any other legal situation, if the supreme court says it's OK, there's nothing to be done. There's a word for that: legal. As in whatever happens is legal, even if everyone kills each other.

You are rhetorically clever but analytically wrong on almost every premise.

Your claim rests on UNSC inaction = judicial approval = legal sanction. This is false on multiple levels.

A supreme court saying something is legal relies on an affirmative ruling. A body simply declining to act, especially for political reasons such as a Russian or Chinese veto, is not a ruling of any kind.

The UNSC is also not a court. It is a political body of 15 member states that authorize enforcement actions related to international peace and security. It does not make legal rulings. The actual judicial body in the UN system is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has made no ruling on the strait of Hormuz situation.

You also conflate UNSC inaction with legality. That's an interesting philosophical position, but by that exact logic:

* The apartheid of South Africa was "legal" because the UNSC was blocked from acting decisively on the issue for decades.

* The US/Israel strikes on Iran were "legal" because the UNSC never vetoed it.

* The Israeli genocide of Palestine is "legal" because it was protected by UNSC veto.

Obviously, quite flawed logic.

Overall, three errors:

1) you conflated legal inaction as affirmative legal action.

2) you conflated a political body with a legal one.

3) you conflated UNSC inaction with legality.

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#19

Post by ElProlactin »

tristanj wrote: post #10
peter-m80 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

* * *

> Iran's leadership changed post-1979...

You mean the de facto dictatorship that was installed by an MI6 and CIA-instigated coup in 1953 and widely unpopular because, among other things, it used secret police to brutally suppress political dissent?

Re: Iran mulls taking control of all 7 cables passing through Strait of Hormuz

#20

Post by tristanj »

peter-m80 wrote: post #16
tristanj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* * *

Hezbollah is the consequence of Israel Invading Lebannon.

Sure, but Lebanon attacked Israel first (in 1948). Lebanon was the aggressor.

Assigning blame to only one side is meaningless when both sides go tit-for-tat for decades. Both Israel and Lebanon are complicit in this mess.

Post reply on HN