It is not a complex issue buddy... In the encyclopedia of rules you posted there is a point where a nation that is a part of a strait can exercise its rights where the passing ship belongs to a flag that is considered hostile (by Iran) to their national security and also do spying regularly... Is it something hard to understand?
It doesn't matter if it is encrypted or open air communications... They can have close-distance espionage and they do so... This is spying and Iran can consider them a threat and push them back or even arrest them if needed..
The fact that Iran does the same is true but we are talking about a distant nation coming to our borders doing espionage... we are not talking about a strait in US... It is Iran's.... So, now that you hide yourself behind international rules, then take it internationally and accept that Iran has all the rights to consider US navy ships as both hostile and spying ships and therefore treat them the way Iran currently does...
So, stop this non sense...
I should stop this alledged "non-sense"?
Source
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewD...g_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en#1
LAW OF THE SEA
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982
Entry into force: 16 November 1994, in accordance with article 308(1).
Registration :16 November 1994, No. 31363
Status: Signatories : 157. Parties : 168.
1
Endnote 1 In accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 which reads as follows: "After the adoption of this Agreement, any instrument of ratification or formal confirmation of or accession to the Convention shall also represent consent to be bound by this Agreement."
[Hence more parties than signatories. The implication is that UNCLOS does not apply only to states signatories but to both states signatories and states parties. States do not have to be a signatory to be a party. See e.g. the entry for 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ' below, or for Germany in the webpage text]
Note: The Convention was adopted by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and
opened for signature, together with the Final Act of the Conference, at Montego Bay, Jamaica, on 10 December 1982. The Conference was convened pursuant to resolution 3067 (XXVIII)
2 adopted by the General Assembly on 16 November 1973. The Conference held eleven sessions, from 1973 to 1982, as follows:
- First session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 3 to 15 December 1973;
- Second session: Parque Central, Caracas, 20 June to 29 August 1974;
- Third session: United Nations Office at Geneva, 17 March to 9 May 1975;
- Fourth session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 15 March to 7 May 1976;
- Fifth session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 2 August to 17 September 1976;
- Sixth session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 23 May to 15 July 1977;
- Seventh session: United Nations Office at Geneva, 28 March to 19 May 1978;
- Resumed seventh session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 21 August to 15 September 1978;
- Eighth session: United Nations Office at Geneva, 19 March to 27 April 1979;
- Resumed eighth session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 19 July to 24 August 1979;
- Ninth session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 3 March to 4 April 1980;
- Resumed ninth session: United Nations Office at Geneva, 28 July to 29 August 1980;
- Tenth session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 9 March to 24 April 1981;
- Resumed tenth session: United Nations Office at Geneva, 3 to 28 August 1981;
- Eleventh session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 8 March to 30 April 1982;
- Resumed eleventh session: United Nations Headquarters, New York, 22 to 24 September 1982;
- Final Part of the eleventh session: Montego Bay, Jamaica, 6 to 10 December 1982.
The Conference also adopted a Final Act
3 with, annexed thereto, nine resolutions and a statement of understanding. The text of the Final Act has been reproduced as document A/CONF.62/121 and Corr. 1 to 8.
Endnote 3: The Final Act was signed, in each instance, on 10 December 1982:
"In the name of the following States:
Algeria, Angola, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany (Federal Republic of), Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua, New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint-Lucia, Saint-Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe; ... [Remarkable! United States does appear in Final Act (even if it didn't sign)]
Participant / Signature / Succession to signature(d) Formal confirmation(c), Accession(a), Succession(d), Ratification
Coastal states in the Persian Gulf and/or along the Strait of Hormuz
Bahrain /10 Dec 1982 /30 May 1985
Iran (Islamic Republic of) / 10 Dec 1982 / -
Iraq /10 Dec 1982 /30 Jul 1985
Kuwait /10 Dec 1982 / 2 May 1986
Oman 1 Jul 1983 / 17 Aug 1989
Qatar / 27 Nov 1984 / 9 Dec 2002
Saudi Arabia / 7 Dec 1984 / 24 Apr 1996
United Arab Emirates / 10 Dec 1982 / -
Yemen / 10 Dec 1982 /21 Jul 1987
Countries with SSN/SSBN and/or CV(N)
China /10 Dec 1982 / 7 Jun 1996
European Union / 7 Dec 1984 / 1 Apr 1998 c
< in addition to / over and above individual EU memberstates
France* /10 Dec 1982 /11 Apr 1996
India / 10 Dec 1982 / 29 Jun 1995
Russian Federation / 10 Dec 1982 / 12 Mar 1997
United Kingdom of Great Britain* and Northern Ireland / - / 25 Jul 1997 a
*As a Member of the European Community, states have transferred competence to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
Yes, it's official position and has been announced publicly, about U.S and some europian countries like U.K and France.
I'll come back to that shortly.
I said vessels, which is a global term.
You said NUCLEAR vessels. Look it up your original post (as I did).
again nothing about nationality, type or location.
I said other ships cause that's what they collided with.
but even so you knew what I refer to, you are more eager to find a mistake, even a literal one, rather than discussing on the subject
2 accidents just among american vessels in that location is more than many for those who want to live there. although I didn't mention the nationality or location
.
So, essentially you can't counter than besides the one instance you found and the one instance I gratiously added (both in the period 2000-2015 in one of the worlds busiest and narrowest straits) there were no collisions between a nuclear vessel and another vessel. I added that one instance after having searched broadly on any collisions involving USN ships in general, and CVN and SS(B)N in particular, and found this to be the only 2 cases in the past 15 years in the Strait of Hormuz, the area we were discussing. Those instances were US SSN versus a US LPD and versus a Japanse merchant respectively. No nuclear spillage or other dangers related to nuclear propulsion happened. Certainly no CVNs involved in these collisions (or any others in this area). DUring the same period, there were 2 more incidents involving US SSN in the Persian Gulf in the same period. In all, that puts your MANY CASES of NUCLEAR VESSELS claim in the proper perspective.
STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS
Source:
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewD...g_no=XXI-6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en#2
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Montego Bay, 10 December 1982
Declarations and Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon ratification, formal confirmation, accession or succession.)
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Upon signature (10 December 1982):
Interpretative declaration on the subject of straits
"In accordance with article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran seizes the opportunity at this solemn moment of signing the Convention, to place on the records its "understanding" in relation to certain provisions of the Convention. The main objective for submitting these declarations is the avoidance of eventual future interpretation of the following articles in a manner incompatible with the original intention and previous positions or in disharmony with national laws and regulations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is, . . . , the understanding of the Islamic Republic of Iran that:
1) Notwithstanding the intended character of the Convention being one of general application and of law making nature, certain of its provisions are merely product of
quid pro quo which do not necessarily purport to codify the existing customs or established usage (practice) regarded as having an obligatory character.
Therefore, it seems natural and in harmony with article 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that only states parties to the Law of the Sea Convention shall be entitled to benefit from the contractual rights created therein.
[that would include e.g. United Kingdom]
The above considerations pertain specifically (but not exclusively) to the following:
-- The
right of Transit passage through straits used for international navigation (Part III, Section 2, article 38).
-- The
notion of "Exclusive Economic Zone" (Part V). -
All matters regarding the International Seabed Area and the Concept of "Common Heritage of mankind" (Part XI).
2) In the light of customary international law, the provisions of article 21, read in association with article 19 (on the Meaning of Innocent Passage) and article 25 (on the Rights of Protection of the Coastal States), recognize (though implicitly) the rights of the Coastal States to take measures to safeguard their security interests including the adoption of laws and regulations regarding, inter alia , the requirements of prior authorization for warships willing to exercise the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
3) The right referred to in article 125 regarding access to and from the sea and freedom of transit of Land-locked States is one which is derived from mutual agreement of States concerned based on the principle of reciprocity.
4) The provisions of article 70, regarding "Right of States with Special Geographical Characteristics" are without prejudice to the
exclusive right of the Coastal States of enclosed and semi-enclosed maritime regions (such as the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman) with large population predominantly dependent upon relatively poor stocks of living resources of the same regions.
5) Islets situated in enclosed and semi-enclosed seas which potentially can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own, but due to climatic conditions, resource restriction or other limitations, have not yet been put to development, fall within the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 121 concerning "Regime of Islands", and have, therefore, full effect in boundary delimitation of various maritime zones of the interested Coastal States.
Furthermore, with regard to "Compulsory Procedures Entailing Binding Decisions" the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while fully endorsing the Concept of settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, and recognizing the necessity and desirability of settling, in an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation, issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, at this time will not pronounce on the choice of procedures pursuant to articles 287 and 298 and reserves its positions to be declared in due time."
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Upon accession (25 July 1997):
(a) General
The United Kingdom cannot accept any declaration or statement made or to be made in the future which is not in conformity with articles 309 and 310 of the Convention. Article 309 of the Convention prohibits reservations and exceptions (except those expressly permitted by other articles of the Convention). Under article 310 declarations and statements made by a State cannot exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention in their application to the State concerned.
The United Kingdom considers that declarations and statements not in conformity with articles 309 and 310 include, inter alia, the following:
- those which relate to baselines not drawn in conformity with the Convention;
- those which purport to require any form of notification or permission before warships or other ships exercise the right of innocent passage or freedom of navigation or which otherwise purport to limit navigational rights in ways not permitted by the Convention;
- those which are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention relating to straits used for international navigation, including the right of transit passage;
- those which are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention relating to archipelagic states or waters, including archipelagic baselines and archipelagic sea lanes passage;
- those which are not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention relating to the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf, including those which claim coastal state jurisdiction over all installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, and those which purport to require consent for exercises or manoeuvres (including weapons exercises) in those areas;
- those which purport to subordinate the interpretation or application of the Convention to national laws and regulations, including constitutional provisions.
(b) European Community
The United Kingdom recalls that, as a Member of the European Community, it has transferred competence to the Community in respect of certain matters governed by the Convention. A detailed declaration on the nature and extent of the competence to the European Community will be made in due course in accordance with the provisions of Annex IX of the Convention.
(c) The Falkland Islands
With regard to paragraph (d) of the Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of the Argentine Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands and over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of both Territories, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to the Falkland Islands and to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded paragraph (d) of the Argentine declaration.
(d) Gibraltar
With regard to point 2 of the declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of Spain, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of Gibraltar, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to Gibraltar. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded point 2 of the Spanish declaration.
(e) Extent
These instruments of accession and of ratification extend to:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The Bailiwick of Jersey
The Bailiwick of Guernsey
The Isle of Man
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Antarctic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar
Montserrat
Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands
St. Helena and Dependencies
South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
Declaration made after accession
12 January 1998
Declaration on the choice of procedure under article 287
In accordance with Article 287, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland chooses the International Court of Justice for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is a new institution, which the United Kingdom hopes will make an important contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes concerning the law of the sea. In addition to those cases where the Convention itself provides for the compulsory jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the United Kingdom remains ready to consider the submission of disputes to the Tribunal as may be agreed on a case-by-case basis.
7 April 2003
Declaration pursuant to article 298, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:
".....the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV of the Convention with respect to the categories of disputes referred to in paragraph 1(b) and (c) of article 298."
BOTH THESE STATES PARTIES ADDED A STATEMENT UPON SIGNING
NEITHER FILED OBJECTIONS.
See: Objections (Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were received upon ratification, formal confirmation, accession or succession.)
So, what would be the legal position of Iran and UK be if a UK SSN or its new QE aircraft carrier passed through the Strait of Hormuz?
ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF DECLARATIONS AND STATEMENTS
SOURCE:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm
Introduction:
Article 310 of the Convention allows States and entities to make declarations or statements regarding its application at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention,
which do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of the provisions of the Convention.
Article 310 reads:
"Article 310. Declarations and statements "Article 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State."
Article 287, paragraph 1, provides that States and entities, when signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention, or at any time thereafter, may make declarations specifying the forums for the settlement of disputes which they accept.
Article 287, paragraph 1, reads:
"Article 287. Choice of procedure "When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention:
(a) the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex VI;
(b) the International Court of Justice;
(c) an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII;
(d) a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein."
In addition, article 298, paragraph 1, allows States and entities to declare that they exclude the application of the compulsory binding procedures for the settlement of disputes under the Convention in respect of certain specified categories kinds of disputes. Article 298, paragraph 1, reads:
"Article 298. Optional exceptions to applicability of section 2
"1. When signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State may, without prejudice to the obligations arising under section 1, declare in writing that it does not accept any one or more of the procedures provided for in section 2 with respect to one or more of the following categories of disputes:
(a)
(i) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles, provided that a State having made such a declaration shall, when such a dispute arises subsequent to the entry into force of this Convention and where no agreement within a reasonable period of time is reached in negotiations between the parties, at the request of any party to the dispute, accept submission of the matter to conciliation under Annex V, section 2; and provided further that any dispute that necessarily involves the concurrent consideration of any unsettled dispute concerning sovereignty or other rights over continental or insular land territory shall be excluded form such submission;
(ii) after the conciliation commission has presented its report, which shall state the reasons on which it is based, the parties shall negotiate an agreement on the basis of that report; if these negotiations do not result in an agreement, the parties shall, by mutual consent, submit the question to one of the procedures provided for in section 2, unless the parties otherwise agree;
(iii) this subparagraph does not apply to any sea boundary dispute finally settled by an arrangement between the parties, or to any such dispute which is to be settled in accordance with a bilateral or multilateral agreement binding upon those parties;
(b) disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service, and disputes concerning law enforcement activities in regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or jurisdiction excluded from the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal under article 297, paragraph 2 or 3;
(c) disputes in respect of which the Security Council of the United Nations is exercising the functions assigned to it by the Charter of the United Nations, unless the Security Council decides to remove the matter from its agenda or calls upon the parties to settle it by the means provided for in this Convention."
PLEASE NOTE: Declarations and statements with respect to the Convention and to the Agreement on Part XI made before 31 December 1996 - upon signature, ratification or accession - have been analyzed and published in
"The Law of the Sea: Declarations and statements with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.97.V.3).
I think that pretty much puts the legal status of Iran's statement vis a vis that of the UK in proper perspective.
