The BBC is reporting that a British (Royal) Navy frigate intercepted a sppedboat transporting two tonnes of cocaine, 100 miles off Nicaragua. What’s the formal legal basis of such action? Aren’t drug laws within the limits of a country’s jurisdiction?
According to maritime law, they can board ships in international waters if they have reason to believe it is involved in:
A. A crime that extends to the shore of the country in question
B. Smuggling contraband or drugs
Which maritime law?
I believe maritime law is international law. If I recall correctly, it’s kinda’ weird and based on international treaty, precedent, etc.
What about piracy?
What about it? IIRC, most modern piracy occures within national maritime boundries. And, I’d be surprised if there weren’t international treaties dealing with piracy.
Information about modern piracy
Cite for my above assertion in Post #2:
Not quite right. The law of the sea was originally part of customary international law, but has been the subject of several multilateral treaties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_Sea
The treaty that you cited is from the first UN Confrerence on the Law of the Sea. That treaty deals with states’s rights and powers in the territorial sea and the contiguous zone. These terms were more clearly defined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) (pdf) (“LOS”).
The LOS treaty settled international disputes about the boundaries of territorial seas by setting the maximum at 12 miles from the baseline (which is defined in the treaty). Within the territorial seas, the coastal state’s drug laws can be applied to foreign flag vessels. See LOS, Art. 27. On the high seas, the seas beyond the 12 mile limit, only the flag state has jurisdiction (except for cases of piracy and slavery).
Piracy is defined as:
So it doesn’t cover drug smuggling.
With respect to drug smuggling, it says:
This article has not been read to permit a non-flag state to intercept the a vessel in international waters. But the US intercepts them anyway. There are some good reasons for this:
-
The right violated is not the right of the individuals who will be prosecuted, but the right of the flag state. The flag state can waive its objections. http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/0120626cr0.htm
-
The Supreme Court has suggested that prosecutions that violate general principles of international law are constitutional. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=504&invol=655 (complaints about violations of international law were to be addressed by the executive branch).
Other countries have complained about the US’s broad and broadening extraterritorial application of its laws.
Here is a classic case discussing the issues described above..
See also, United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988), Art. 17 (Flag state has primary jurisdiction over vessels bearing its flag)
All that said, the article doesn’t say which flag the speedboat bore, if any.
Drug treaty, Art. 17(2).
As this discussion prepared for the Australian Parliament indicates:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1999-2000/2000BD079.htm
So the British probably had good grounds to stop the speedboat, despite its presence in international waters.
I goofed. I forgot about the contiguous zone.
The contiguous zone is an area of ocean that can extend up to an additional 12 miles from the edge of the coastal state’s territorial waters. Within the contiguous zone, a nation can act to prevent violations of its environmental, customs, fiscal, or immigration laws, or to apprehend vessels suspected of violating them.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/CEQ/990902a.html
The US has claimed the full 12 miles. It’s not clear whether the UK has staked out its contiguous zone. Compare, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html (identifying US’s territorial sea claim and its contiguous sea claim) *with * http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html (only identifying terrotorial sea for UK) *and * http://www.indexmundi.com/united_kingdom/maritime_claims.html (same).
I stand corrected.
I’ll admit I’m a little surprised by this. Suppose Libertaria became a country and legalized all drugs. I’m out cruising in the middle of the ocean in my luxury yacht, the SS Ayn Rand, with a sack full of heroin I bought legally back home in Libertopolis. I can be stopped by a USN frigate and be arrested and have my ship and heroin confiscated because I violated the laws of the United States - a country I’m nowhere near and have no intent of going to?
As a practical matter, vessels at sea can be stopped if they lack national identity, claim a false (or try to conceal) their national identity, if the national authority authorizes the stop.
So you see a fishy-looking fishing boat, you check the flag. You call the Panamanian Consul General in Miami. He tells you you can stop him. They you stop him.
If he displays no national identity, you can stop him just for giggles.
If they are suspected of piracy, slaving, illegal broadcasting, polluting (I think) or smuggling, you can stop him just for giggles.
Of course I left Newport a long, long time ago. I am very rusty on the stuff.
If the vessel was clearly identified as a Libertarian ship, then theoretically, the US could only arrest the vessel beyond the 24 mile limit of its contiguous zone and territorial see. Since US customs regulations prohibit the imporation of illegal drugs, you could be stopped and arrested in the contiguous zone. At any rate, beyond that limit, theoretically, the US couldn’t just stop you. They would need to proceed as Paul in Saudi has described. But the US has seized ships on the high seas under just these conditions, so if you want a prediction, I’d say that you are still at risk.
If you were seized illegally, Libertopolis would probably try to resolve the matter diplomatically. So you might not be completely out of luck.