Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:12:45.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interdicting Vessels to Enforce the Common Interest: Maritime Countermeasures and the use of Force

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Douglas Guilfoyle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can the law of countermeasures be used to police the high seas? The freedom of the high seas is guaranteed by the immunity of a State's flag vessels from interference by the public vessels of other States, subject to limited exceptions. However, this rule of non-interference may shield those engaged in unregulated or illegal fishing or transporting weapons of mass destruction and their precursors. This article argues that while such conduct may breach obligations protecting the common interest, unilaterally boarding and arresting a vessel involved would constitute an illegal use of force and cannot be justified as a countermeasure.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 69 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bederman, DJ, “Counterintuiting Countermeasures” (2002) 96 AJIL 817, 818Google Scholar; Cannizzaro, E, ‘The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures’ (2001) 12 EJIL 889, 890Google Scholar and see the International Law Commission commentary reproduced in Crawford, J, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text, and Commentaries (CUP, Cambridge, 2002) 281 at (1) [hereinafter, ‘ILC Commentary in Crawford’].Google Scholar

2 Art 49, International Law Commission, The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, annexed to UNGA Res 56/83 (28 Jan 2002) [hereinafter ‘Articleson State Responsibility’]; and see the ILC commentary reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 284–7.

3 Art 42, Articles on State Responsibility (n 2); and the ILC Commentary in Crawford (n 1) 260.

4 ibid; cf Weiss, EB, ‘Invoking State Responsibility in the Twenty-First Century’ (2002) 96 AJIL 798, 802 ff.Google Scholar

5 See Rayfuse, R, Non-Flag State Enforcement (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2004) 347 and 372–3Google Scholar; Heintschel von Heinegg, W, ‘The Proliferation Security Initiative: Security vs Freedom of Navigation?’ (2005) 35 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 181.Google Scholar

6 Heintschel von Heinegg (n 5) 200–1; cf Kaye, S, ‘The Proliferation Security Initiative in the Maritime Domain’ (2005) 35 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 205, 223–4.Google Scholar

7 Rayfuse, R, ‘Countermeasures and High Seas Fisheries Enforcement’ (2004) 51 Netherlands International Law Review 41, 63–5; Rayfuse (n 5) 347 and 372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Rayfuse (n 7) 55 and 59; Rayfuse (n 5) 373. Duties to cooperate are found in Art 117, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, (1994) 1833 UNTS 3 [hereinafter ‘UNCLOS’]and Art 8, The United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 Dec 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, 1995, 2167 UNTS 88. See the discussion accompanying (n 23)–(n 25), below.

9 Lotus case, PCIJ Series A, No 10, 1927, 4 at 25Google Scholar; Art 6(1), High Seas Convention, 1958, (1963) 450 UNTS 82; Art 92(1), UNCLOS.Google Scholar

10 Art 2(4), Charter of the United Nations, UNCIO XV, 335Google Scholar; amendments by General Assembly Resolution in UNTS 557, 143/638, 308/892, 119; Art 50(1)(a), Articles on State Responsibility (n 2).Google Scholar

11 Rayfuse, (n 7) 74.Google Scholar

12 Kaye, (n 6) 218.Google Scholar

13 Allen, CH, ‘Limits on the Use of Force in Maritime Operations in Support of WMD Counter-Proliferation Initiatives’ (2005) 35 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 115, 125.Google Scholar

14 Art 48, Articles on State Responsibility (n 2).

15 Arts 54 and 48, Articles on State Responsibility (n 2).

16 ILC commentary reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 283 at (8); Rayfuse, R, ‘Countermeasures and High Seas Fisheries Enforcement’ (2004) 51 Netherlands International Law Review 41, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 ILC commentary reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 283 at (8).

18 ibid 305 at (6).

19 Tams, C, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2005) 231 (emphasis added).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 ILC commentary reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 302–5Google Scholar; Tarns (n 19) 209–28.Google Scholar

21 ibid.The ILC commentary cites eight such episodes, Tams cites 13.Google Scholar

22 Rayfuse, (n 7) 49.Google Scholar

23 ibid 64.

24 ibid 55 and 59; FSA cited at (n 8).

25 ILC Commentary to Art 42(b)(i) and Art 48(1)(b) of the Articles on State Responsibility (n 2), reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 259 at (12) and 278 (10).

26 Cannizzaro, (n 1) 913–14.Google Scholar

27 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada) [1993] ICJ Reports 432, 433–44, para 20.Google Scholar

28 See, eg, Baird, R, ‘CCAMLR Initiatives to Counter Flag State Non-Enforcement in Southern Ocean Fisheries’ (2006) VUW Law Review 733, 745–6; the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission port State scheme has also been described as a ‘success story’: NEAF Commission, Report of the Permanent Committee on Control and Enforcement (11–12 Oct 2005), 8 and 36 (available at <http://www.neafc.org/reports/peccoe/docs/peccoe_oct-2005.pdf>).).>Google Scholar

29 Baird, (n 28) 740.Google Scholar

30 ibid.

31 See, eg, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources' website <http://www.ccamlr.Org/pu/e/gen-intro.htm>.

32 Regarding surveillance of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission area, see 2005 Report of the Secretary of State of Commerce to the Congress of the United States concerning US actions taken on foreign large-scale high seas driftnet fishing (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Washington DC, 2005) 4 (copy on file with author).Google Scholar

33 Preamble and para 2, SC Res 1540 (2004).Google Scholar

34 Heinegg, Heintschel von (n 5) 200.Google Scholar

34a See paras 8(a), 8 (b) and 8(f), SC Res 1718 (2006).Google Scholar

35 ibid 200–1.

36 UNSC Verbatim Record (22 Apr 2004), UN Doc S/PV.4950 (Resumption 1), 14 (Nepal).

37 S/PV.4950, 6.

38 ibid 3 (Philippines), 4 (Brazil), 5 (Algeria), 8 (France); S/PV.4950 (Resumption 1), 15 (Nigeria).

39 Simpson, G, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (CUP, Cambridge, 2004) 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farer, T, ‘Beyond the Charter Frame: Unilateralism or Condominium?’ (2002) 96 AJIL 359, 363–4Google Scholar; Weil, P, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law’ (1983) 77 AJIL 413, 432–3Google Scholar; Marek, K, ‘Criminalizing State Responsibility’ (1978–1979) 14 RBDI 460, 481 ffGoogle Scholar; contra Tams, (n 19) 230 and 240.Google Scholar

40 If, indeed, the doctrine survives the UN Charter, see: Simma, B (ed), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (2nd edn, OUP, Oxford, 2002) vol 1, 803Google Scholar; Franck, T, Recourse to Force: State Action Against Threats and Armed Attacks (CUP, Cambridge, 2002) 97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brownlie, I, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963) 258–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowett, DW, Self-Defence in International Law (MUP, Manchester, 1958) 189–93.Google Scholar

41 Guilfoyle, D, ‘The Proliferation Security Initiative: Interdicting Vessels in International Waters to Prevent the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction?’ (2005) 29 MULR 733, 739Google Scholar; see also Roach, J, ‘Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): Countering Proliferation by Sea’ in Nordquist, M, Moore, J, and Fu, K (eds), Recent Developments in the Law of the Sea and China (Center for Oceans Law and Policy, 10) (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2006) 351–424.Google Scholar

42 ibid 735–6; Byers, M, ‘Policing the High Seas: The Proliferation Security Initiative’ (2004)98 AJIL 526, 526.Google Scholar

43 See Guilfoyle, D, ‘Maritime Interdiction of Weapons of Mass Destruction’ forthcoming(2007) 12(1) Journal of Conflict and Security LawCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heinegg, Heintschel von (n 5) 193–4.Google Scholar

44 Art 50, Articles on State Responsibility (n 2).

45 See the ILC Commentary to the Articles on State Responsibility (n 2), reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 288–9 at (4) and (5).

46 Rayfuse, (n 7) 74.Google Scholar

47 Kaye, (n 5) 218.Google Scholar

48 ibid; cf Bowett, (n 24) 152.Google Scholar

49 Franck, (n 24) 12Google Scholar; Brownlie, (n 24) 265–8Google Scholar; Simma, (n 24) 123–4.Google Scholar

50 Fleck, D (ed), The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts (OUP, Oxford, 1995) 2Google Scholar; Raab, D, ‘“Armed Attack” after the Oil Platforms Case’ (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 719, 727CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gray, C, ‘The British Position with Regard to the Gulf Conflict (Iran-Iraq): Part 2? (1991) 40 ICLQ 464, 469Google Scholar; Lowe, V, ‘Self-Defence at Sea’, in Butler, W (ed), The Non-Use of Force in International Law (1989) 189Google Scholar; cf Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Judgment [2003] ICJ Reports 161, 191, para 64.Google Scholar Some authorities are ambiguous as to whether self-defence would only arise if a military vessel is attacked: Bowett, (n 24) 71; Art 6, North Atlantic Treaty, 1949, 34 UNTS 243 as amended by Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey, 1951, 126 UNTS 350.Google Scholar

51 Shaw, M, International Law (5th edn, CUP, Cambridge, 2003) 1042–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aust, A, Handbook of International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2005) 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 cf Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment [2003] ICJ Reports 3, 169, para 49 (Diss Op Judge Van Den Wyngaert).Google Scholar

53 See, eg, Art 17, UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988, 185 UNTS 453; Art 6, Agreement on illicit traffic by sea, implementing Art 17 of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 1995, ETS No 156; para 1, Agreement to facilitate the interdiction by the United States of vessels of the United Kingdom suspected of trafficking in drugs, 1981, 1285 UNTS 197; Art 5, Treaty between the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic to Combat Illicit Drug Trafficking at Sea, 1990, 1776 UNTS 229. The US also has at least 24 such agreements with neighbouring countries.

54 See the references at (n 9), above.

55 Greig, D., International Law (2nd edn, Butterworths, London, 1976) 333–4Google Scholar; McDougaland, MS and Burke, WT, The Public Order of the Oceans (New Haven, New Haven Press, 1985) 881 ffGoogle Scholar; Reuland, R, ‘Interference with Non-National Ships on the High Seas: Peacetime Exceptions to the Exclusivity Rule of Flag-State Jurisdiction’ (1989) 22 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1161, 1190.Google Scholar

56 See generally Hunnings, N, ‘Pirate Broadcasting in European Waters’ (1965) 14 ICLQ 410Google Scholar; Van Panhuys, H and Van Emde Boas, M, ‘Legal Aspects of Pirate Broadcasting: A Dutch Approach’ (1966) 60 AJIL 303Google Scholar; Robertson, H Jr, ‘The Suppression of Pirate Radio Broadcasting: A Test Case of the International System for Control of Activities outside National Territory’ (1982) 45 Law & Contemporary Problems 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Bederman, (n 1) 831.Google Scholar

58 ibid 827; ILC commentary reproduced in Crawford (n 1) 281 at (3).