# Maritime traffic through Guantanamo Bay **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 18, 2015, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282 "2015-03-18T13:15:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/1 "2015-03-18T13:15:39Z")
The United States famously has a perpetual lease on a naval base at Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, though what isn’t widely known is that the lease covers only the half of the bay forming its outlet to the Caribbean Sea. (See [this map of Guantanamo](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guantanamo.jpg).) [One of the original treaties governing the lease](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba003.asp) seems to provide for the continuance of Cuban maritime traffic through the bay: > [@](#): > > Except as provided in the preceding Article, vessels entering into or departing from the Bays of Guantanamo and Bahia Honda within the limits of Cuban territory shall be subject exclusively to Cuban laws and authorities and orders emanating from the latter in all that respects port police, Customs or Health, and authorities of the United States shall place no obstacle in the way of entrance and departure of said vessels except in case of a state of war. I’m interested to know, then, whether there’s any shipping or naval traffic between the Caribbean Sea and the upper, Cuban-controlled part of the bay. Or has the Cuban government effectively shut Guantanamo Bay to all ocean-going vessels? ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/2 "2015-03-18T13:54:07Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Or has the Cuban government effectively shut Guantanamo Bay to all ocean-going vessels? Cuba couldn’t legally do that. The right of innocent passage, which is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but also part of customary international law, means that ships of all nations are allowed to traverse Cuban territorial waters as long as this is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of Cuba. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/3 "2015-03-18T15:44:52Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > Cuba couldn’t legally do that. The right of innocent passage, which is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but also part of customary international law, means that ships of all nations are allowed to traverse Cuban territorial waters as long as this is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of Cuba. Are you sure the bay isn’t considered Cuba’s [internal waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters)? The internal/territorial baseline is often drawn straight across deeply indented coastlines like this one. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/4 "2015-03-18T15:55:57Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > Cuba couldn’t legally do that. The right of innocent passage, which is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but also part of customary international law, means that ships of all nations are allowed to traverse Cuban territorial waters as long as this is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of Cuba. Who gets to decide whether a specific traversal is prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of a country? E.g. suppose I attempt to traverse Cuban waters with a ship armed with torpedoes. Cuba feels that letting an armed ship get so close to their country is dangerous to their navy and to Cuban civilians, but I claim that the torpedoes are only there for self-defense against pirates and that I have no hostile intentions. Who gets to adjudicate the case? Do we go before a UN tribunal? ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/5 "2015-03-18T16:13:29Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Are you sure the bay isn’t considered Cuba’s [internal waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_waters)? The internal/territorial baseline is often drawn straight across deeply indented coastlines like this one. Good point. [Here](http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/documents/mcrm/CubaChart.pdf) is a map and [here](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/59586.pdf) a verbal description of Cuba’s straight baseline claims (both PDF). But then again, even in this case Article 8(2) of UNCLOS would provide for a right of innocent passage through such waters as well: > [@](#): > > Article 8 > > Internal waters > > 1. Except as provided in Part IV, waters on the landward side of the baseline of the territorial sea form part of the internal waters of the State. > > 2. Where the establishment of a straight baseline in accordance with the method set forth in article 7 has the effect of enclosing as internal waters areas which had not previously been considered as such, a right of innocent passage as provided in this Convention shall exist in those waters. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/6 "2015-03-18T16:13:57Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Who gets to decide whether a specific traversal is prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of a country? E.g. suppose I attempt to traverse Cuban waters with a ship armed with torpedoes. Cuba feels that letting an armed ship get so close to their country is dangerous to their navy and to Cuban civilians, but I claim that the torpedoes are only there for self-defense against pirates and that I have no hostile intentions. Who gets to adjudicate the case? Do we go before a UN tribunal? If you don’t end up solving the dispute by one-on-one diplomacy or by military hostilities, then yeah, you would probably go before the [International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea](https://www.itlos.org/the-tribunal/). ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/7 "2015-03-18T16:29:40Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Who gets to decide whether a specific traversal is prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of a country? E.g. suppose I attempt to traverse Cuban waters with a ship armed with torpedoes. Cuba feels that letting an armed ship get so close to their country is dangerous to their navy and to Cuban civilians, but I claim that the torpedoes are only there for self-defense against pirates and that I have no hostile intentions. Who gets to adjudicate the case? Do we go before a UN tribunal? It’s first and foremost within the discretion of the coastal state, but that discretion is not unlimited. Other countries could argue that this was not actually an instance of legitimate restrictions to innocent passage and resolve the isse either diplomatically, or ultimately through litigation before the court mentioned by **psychonaut**. It’s an international tribunal deciding disputes between states under the international law of the sea in a legally binding manner. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/8 "2015-03-18T16:32:45Z")
By the way, UNCLOS does include rules defining in more detail what innocent passage is: > [@](#): > > Article 19 > > Meaning of innocent passage > > 1. 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. > > 2. 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. In your case, the mere fact that a foreign warship carrying torpedos wants to traverse the waters would not be sufficient to make the passage non-innocent, as long as the warship, in essence, doesn’t do anything with the warships while in the territorial (or, potentially, internal) waters of the coastal state. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/9 "2015-03-18T16:37:02Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > Good point. [Here](http://www.jag.navy.mil/organization/documents/mcrm/CubaChart.pdf) is a map and [here](http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/59586.pdf) a verbal description of Cuba’s straight baseline claims (both PDF). But then again, even in this case Article 8(2) of UNCLOS would provide for a right of innocent passage through such waters as well: Don’t forget article 10 of UNCLOS: > [@](#): > > Bays > > [ol] > [li]This article relates only to bays the coasts of which belong to a single State.[/li][li]For the purposes of this Convention, a bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation.[/li][li]For the purpose of measurement, the area of an indentation is that lying between the low-water mark around the shore of the indentation and a line joining the low-water mark of its natural entrance points. Where, because of the presence of islands, an indentation has more than one mouth, the semi-circle shall be drawn on a line as long as the sum total of the lengths of the lines across the different mouths. Islands within an indentation shall be included as if they were part of the water area of the indentation.[/li][li]If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed 24 nautical miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters.[/li][li]Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay exceeds 24 nautical miles, a straight baseline of 24 nautical miles shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is possible with a line of that length.[/li][li]The foregoing provisions do not apply to so-called “historic” bays, or in any case where the system of straight baselines provided for in article 7 is applied.[/li][/ol] Even without the straight baselines, Guantanamo Bay would be considered internal waters. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2015, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/10 "2015-03-19T11:21:24Z")
My personal knowledge is several years old. Cuban fishing vessels go through the bay to the ocean constantly throughout each day. The boats are not interfered with. Prior coordination is made for each ship that passes through. There is a sea gate flanked by two Marine Observation Posts on the northern mouth of American Navy post. If need be the passage can be shut down. The waters of the bay are patrolled by the U.S. Coast Guard. Even at the chilliest of the Cold War communication was open between the Cubans and the base commander. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2015, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maritime-traffic-through-guantanamo-bay/715282/11 "2015-03-21T10:21:47Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > My personal knowledge is several years old. Cuban fishing vessels go through the bay to the ocean constantly throughout each day. Fascinating. I know that since the 1960s hundreds of thousands of Cubans have crossed over to Florida on boat to seek asylum. Did any asylum seekers head for the much closer American base on Guantanamo Bay instead? I’m not sure if international law would even allow the US to accept asylum seekers there, though I’m thinking at least some Cubans may have tried.