Ssssssshhhhhh, don't mention Reform.

[Mottie]

No

In that situation a British vessel can’t enter French water

It can wait on the line of UK/French waters and prevent them from entering UK waters.

 

[motorbiking]

So you mean these magical migrant boats which you have decided are in distress when in French water, but once they cross into U.K. water (or international water) suddenly they aren’t in distress anymore and can be pushed back


You really are making yerself look a right plonker Rodney

I'm glad we got that sorted, so a French vessel (nor any other vessel) can forcibly 'rescue' a boat that does not want to be rescued.

They are in distress, when they issue a distress call. Nobody has the right to forcibly rescue someone because they are on an unsafe vessel.

Nothing in the above limits a coastal state from executing its rights under article 19 and 25 of UNCLOS

Anyone trying it risks being charged with a criminal offence, which is why no-one has risked it.

And those pushing back are charged with endangering life at sea.
Which is why no-one is prepared to risk it.

They would obviously have a lawful excuse.

It can wait on the line of UK/French waters and prevent them from entering UK waters.

correct - it can ask them to turn around and use force if necessary.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

No

In that situation a British vessel can’t enter French water

Precisely, unless it is in distress and the UK vessel is the nearest to effect a rescue, unless told not to by the French. E.g. if the French are coordinating a rescue, or knows of nearer vessels that can effect a rescue.
But if the UK does effect a rescue they are under no obligation to take them to the nearest port.
In case of risk of deteriorating condition of those rescued, they may decide to take them to the nearest port if that is also the quickest.

 

[Notch7]

So amusing seeing Notch and Tom tit arguing with MBK who is a lawyer and sailor. Yet here they are acting like they know better. It really is arguing for the sake of it. The saddest part is that they clearly have no idea and are just googling every response hoping to god it is correct what they are reading. Clearly misunderstanding and misinterpreting what they are reading. Listen to the experts guys and save yourself the embarrassment

oh look, lightbulb changing Nan has shown up

How sweet

Ps are you manoeuvres with the TA this weekend

 

[Deleted member 323070]

It can wait on the line of UK/French waters and prevent them from entering UK waters.

For the ummpteenth time it cannot use pushback, even if there was anyone prepared to risk it.

 

[motorbiking]

Precisely, unless it is in distress and the UK vessel is the nearest to effect a rescue, unless told not to by the French. E.g. if the French are coordinating a rescue, or knows of nearer vessels that can effect a rescue.
But if the UK does effect a rescue they are under no obligation to take them to the nearest port.
In case of risk of deteriorating condition of those rescued, they may decide to take them to the nearest port if that is also the quickest.

so France then.

 

[motorbiking]

For the ummpteenth time it cannot use pushback, even if there was anyone prepared to risk it.

UNCLOS 25 says otherwise.

The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

UNCLOS 19 says:

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; Is passage that is not innocent.

 

[motorbiking]

No

In that situation a British vessel can’t enter French water

it doesn't need to, it prevents entry to UK territorial waters.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Nobody has the right to forcibly rescue someone because they are on an unsafe vessel.

That is what I said, and have been saying it for weeks.
Any attempt to forcibly rescue someone against their will risks endangering their life.

Nothing in the above limits a coastal state from executing its rights under article 19 and 25 of UNCLOS

Agreed but 19 also describes that a boat that is not a risk to the peace, good order and security of the state must be allowed free passage.
So the refugees boats cannot be prevented in their free passage, nor can they be 'pushed back'.

They would obviously have a lawful excuse.

In what circumstances? Certainly not under UNCLOS 19 nor 25.

correct - it can ask them to turn around and use force if necessary.

Incorrect, Under UNCLOS 19 an innocent boat must be allowed free passage.

Article 19 defines Innocent Passage “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State."
It would seem that passage is to be presumed innocent until shown otherwise

The Right of Innocent Passage in the UN Convention

The term Innocent Passage is defined under international law referring to a ship or aircraft’s right to enter and pass through another’s territory.

www.lawteacher.net

 

[Deleted member 323070]

so France then.

Yes, as said. there is no obligation to take them the to nearest port.
But as the refugees are likely to be rescued in UK waters, by UK vessels, it stands to reason that the nearest port will probably be UK.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes, as said. there is no obligation to take them the to nearest port.
But as the refugees are likely to be rescued in UK waters, by UK vessels, it stands to reason that the nearest port will probably be UK.

Not if they are prevented entry to UK waters.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

UNCLOS 25 says otherwise.

The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.

For crying out loud.
A boat full of unarmed refugees cannot be deemed as "not innocent".
It really doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't alter reality.

It would seem that passage is to be presumed innocent until shown otherwise
"Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.”

The Right of Innocent Passage in the UN Convention

The term Innocent Passage is defined under international law referring to a ship or aircraft’s right to enter and pass through another’s territory.

www.lawteacher.net

UNCLOS 19 says:

the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary ; Is passage that is not innocent.

Unloading of refugees who intend to claim asylum is not contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State.

It would seem that passage is to be presumed innocent until shown otherwise
"Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State.”

 

[Deleted member 323070]

it doesn't need to, it prevents entry to UK territorial waters.

It cannot do that legally.
You are basing your arguments on your false premises.

 

[motorbiking]

That is what I said, and have been saying it for weeks.
Any attempt to forcibly rescue someone against their will risks endangering their life.


Agreed but 19 also describes that a boat that is not a risk to the peace, good order and security of the state must be allowed free passage.
So the refugees boats cannot be prevented in their free passage, nor can they be 'pushed back'.


In what circumstances? Certainly not under UNCLOS 19 nor 25.


Incorrect, Under UNCLOS 19 an innocent boat must be allowed free passage.

The Right of Innocent Passage in the UN Convention

The term Innocent Passage is defined under international law referring to a ship or aircraft’s right to enter and pass through another’s territory.

www.lawteacher.net

you seem to be struggling with Article 19 - see paragraph 2, clause (g)

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Not if they are prevented entry to UK waters.

They can't legally.