Did Trump and Starmer break international law with tanker seizure?

[Footage of the US pursuit of the Marinera (Photo: US Coast Guard)]

The US seizure of a Russian-flagged oil tanker, with British military support, in the North Atlantic may have violated international law, legal experts tell *Declassified*.

“Overall, there would appear to be no credible basis in law for this interdiction,” Douglas Guilfoyle, professor of international law at the University of New South Wales in Sydney said.

The US Coast Guard intercepted the Marinera early Wednesday afternoon as it travelled in the wintry waters between Iceland and Scotland.

The US had been pursuing the ship, accused of violating US sanctions and being part of a fleet used by Russia, Iran and [Venezuela][1] to dodge sanctions, for two weeks after it evaded capture in the Caribbean.

Along the way, fleeing northwards into the Atlantic, the ship changed its name from Bella-1 to Marinera and re-registered as a Russian vessel.

A steady build-up of US aircraft at British air bases following the US attack on Venezuela last week sent plane spotters into overdrive and led to speculation that an operation on the tanker was imminent.

Just before 2pm on Wednesday, US European Command [announced][2] the ship’s seizure, with Britain’s Ministry of Defence confirming soon after that it had provided the US with “enabling support in full compliance with international law”.

The support included Royal Air Force surveillance and the provision of the RFA Tideforce, a Royal Navy auxiliary ship “designed to provide key underway replenishment at sea”.

Defence secretary John Healey justified the UK’s involvement, citing the ship’s “nefarious history” of Russian-Iranian axis sanctions evasion “fuelling terrorism, conflict and misery from the Middle East to Ukraine”.

Speaking in parliament several hours later, Healey claimed that the vessel was stateless and, therefore, could be “lawfully intercepted and subjected to the law of the interdicting state”.

Experts, however, say this is far from clear.

Professor Guilfoyle said that in order for a vessel to be stateless, it must “either have no claim to nationality or be carrying the paperwork required to claim nationality in two flag states and be using those at convenience”.

However Russia’s claim to have granted the ship temporary nationality “disposes of the issue” since ”one state cannot challenge the validity of another state’s grant of its flag to a vessel – the result would be legal chaos”.

### RELATED

[

## How Britain helped Trump destabilise Venezuela

][3] [READ MORE **][4]

## **‘Contested area of law’**

Karen Scott, a law professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, said that under the [UN Convention on the Law of the Sea][5] (Unclos), vessels cannot change their state of registration at sea or in a port of call “save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry”.

Whether the Marinera’s change of registry was “justified and indeed whether it has been properly completed” appeared unclear, Scott said.

“In this situation, there is precedent allowing a state to refuse to recognise the new state of registration and to treat the vessel as stateless. It is, however, a contested area of law.”

She added: “Of course the US is not currently acting in conformity with international law in a range of situations at the moment. The more interesting issue is the involvement of the UK and whether its support is lawful.”

Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said a vessel could only be stopped, searched and seized on the high seas under four conditions.

These are if it is a pirate ship, engaged in unauthorised broadcasting, is stateless/not-flying a flag or acting in violation of US Security Council resolutions.

“None of those conditions appear to apply in this instance as I understand the tanker was Russian flagged (and that is not in dispute), and the only sanctions it was subject to were US sanctions imposed under US,” he said.

“So, on the facts, this would appear to be extraterritorial US national law enforcement taking place on the high seas/international waters, or even within the UK’s 200 [nautical mile] exclusive economic zone.”

The UK support, he added, was “not exceptional, especially as the tanker was off the coast of Scotland and would have in the normal course of events been under watch by the UK”.

### RELATED

[

## US Air Force deployment in Britain is third largest in...

][6] [READ MORE **][7]

## **Hot pursuit?**

Andrew Serdy, professor of public international law of the sea and director of the Institute of Maritime Law at the University of Southampton, has questioned whether the US was already pursuing the vessel when it changed its flag.

In this case, he [wrote in The Conversation][8], the US “may be entitled to disregard reregistration”.

That’s because, Serdy said, Unclos allows for “hot pursuit”, allowing a vessel to be pursued until the ship enters the territorial sea of its own state or a third one.

The US, he said, is left open to argue that it was “already pursuing the Marinera/Bella 1 and was thus not required to call off its pursuit”.However, he said that the argument has limited usefulness because it’s unclear “whether this was actually a hot pursuit at all”, noting that the term is used for pursuits that begin in one of the maritime zones of the state conducting it not on the high seas.

None of the MPs who spoke on Wednesday evening questioned the legality of the Marinera operation when Healey informed parliament about Britain’s role.

However, one voiced concern at the swift support the UK provided to the US so soon after its military operation in Venezuela which legal scholars [roundly agree][9] broke international law, even as British leaders have [refused][10] to take a public position.

Green MP Ellie Chowns asked: “In a week in which Trump rode roughshod over international law on Monday and threatened a NATO ally on Tuesday, why is it on Wednesday that the UK was so keen to hang on Trump’s military coat-tails when it did not have the courage to call out and condemn his breaking of international law earlier in the week?”

Healey responded: “Quite simply, the US asked for our UK military support because it wanted and needed our UK military support to conduct this operation.

“The legal basis for us doing so was sound and the purpose for this action and operation was strong.”

The post [Did Trump and Starmer break international law with tanker seizure?][11] appeared first on [Declassified UK][12].