What the global law postulates?

Of Mermaids, prickly pirates oil rich islands beyond the sea’s cloud of walls, Aqua men and the Poseidon! Apart from the sea myth,  there happens to be a dedicated dictum of “Common Heritage of mankind” along with the contemporary conceptualization of FONOPS, that is, Freedom of navigation which seemingly are the textual maritime law concern in the larger context of the West Asian seas. Coastal security happens to be the order of the day since the 2008 Mumbai travesty, where-in, the kamikaze terrorists of the order of Azmal Kassab perpetrated a tragic and barbaric massacre leading to a complete overhaul of the Indian national security apparatus. 

Similarly, in the “Warre vortex” of Hormuz straits one cannot but hark beck to the iconic and now part of the cold war lore that how the Americans led by JFK carried out a blockade of the Russian ships but both the warring sides exercised utmost restraint leading to the Global polity reaching a precipice but never escalating beyond the globally accepted and delimited redlines.

 It was the  October Bay of Pigs negotiations confabulations between the White House “Ex-comm” and the Kremlin which finally mitigated the near to escalatory scenario and a majorly significant Armageddon between the Kremlin and the  White house could be dexterterously prevented from materializing. Still, the security scenario in the Straits of Hormuz might serve as a stalling and strategic reprieve for the America led Operation Epic Fury, where in, the quintessential, “Coalition of the Willing” alleges that Tehran is essentially responsible for the flouting of the maritime decree of UNCLOS where in the relevant clause contends that, “ If a great deal of military advantage is not to be attained as part of a naval blockade, then the recalcitrant  coastal antagonist cannot block the shipping lanes “ as the universal cannon of International law ascertains and grants a right to innocent passage to the Global shipping.”  The selfsame argument is being bandied about the IRGC in Iran where in the attraction of inflicting naval damage to the American warships such as USS Tripoli and USS Abraham Lincon becomes the warring order of the day.

 Also, the idiom of the Four Fundamental Freedoms as proclaimed and inked by President Roosevelt and the other heads of states of the Allied powers during the course of World War II, became a to be adhered to wartime doctrine whose deliberations, allegations and counter allegations form the core corpuscle of the “Warre” negotiations between Tehran and the White House. 

Still, in the past too in West Asia, there have been ample instances of the order of Suez Canal war in 1956 and the Gallilee water wars in 1967 which pinpoint towards the contemporary maritime context in the Straits of Hormuz. It is kosher to be recalled that about a 20% quantum of world’s energy shipping passes through the contested Strait thus making available to the IRGC a kind of “Weaponized Seascape” which can shake the very fundamentals of the energy economy of the world as the oil and gas derivates pass from the battle mired Straits of Hormuz to the Oriental spaces of the order of India, China, and South East Asia thus engendering a debilitating natural resources crisis in the impacted region

The America spawned Sam Remo manual of maritime law as espoused by the American navy contends that, “ the parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by maritime law at sea from the moment armed force is used at sea.” This factoid attributes to the notion that the principles of necessity and proportionality are adroitly applicable to the warring sides in a seascape.” On the similar document, Clause 98 informs us that, “ Merchant ships belonging to the antagonist may be captured and when the enemy ships still enter the sea passage after prior warning then they may even be attacked.” Though a piecemeal culling out of statutes from International law might not be a sufficient defense for any “hostile” still even a quick peck from our International humanitarian law lenses results in a better and much more widespread reading of the “Water world of the Strait of Hormuz.”

 Another significant snippet out the war in West Asia happens to be that if the Americans were to capture the Kharg Island through an amphibious assault then nearly the entire capacity of Iran amounting to around a quantum of 90 percent of its Energy supplies, primarily the exports to the rest of the world would be stalled which is a  die hard, doomsday scenario which the Han hegemon that is, China would attempt to stay away from. Thus, the core idiom is that even President Woodrow Wilson eked out the dictum of Open seas and the much populist mandate of, “ Open Covenants Openly Arrived at,” which still remains one the driving buttressing of the entire American enterprise in West Asia.

 Still, another argument can be hesitatingly advanced that anarchy ordained realism amalgamated with the neo liberal streak of trade and investments and the geo economic IO’s are a way which finds ample reflection in the manner Iran is blackmailing the entire Global polity and the IHL Covenant. Also, as an attendant fact, the Critical IR theorization, too, enters the maritime “playing for keeps,” where-in, the critical infrastructure such as the under sea optic cables which might be off the global networks placing large swathes of the “ Netizens” in the dark for unenviable periods of time. Thus, as the International law and the International Institutions established by its norm setting fail to act as effective keepers of peace and tranquility, one is accosted by another maritime law violation by Iran, as far as its “ big ticket black mail-bargaining” in the Hormuz Straits is concerned.

Still, a general reading of International law brings us to a  legal and strategic fork. The stereotype of International law prohibits nations to suspend the transit of ships, curtailing passage and charging additional tolls in times of maritime conflict. The US blockade on the other hand is a targeted one, which stymies the passage of the enemy ships.  The Americans are doing it as an escalatory naval response which might further torpedo the second round of talks as they are being whispered about in the Diplomatic corridors. The key difference and dissonance in the American and the Iranian standpoints is any IR busybody’s guess. United States of America and its professed legal pirouetting considers the Straits as an international choke point amounting to a Global waterway while Tehran has time and again propounded that the crucial choke point is partially part and parcel of the Iranian water scape , that is, the territorial waters. The standard perception in line with the ICJ’s baggage is that seen in the perspective of the Corfu channel case and the 1958 territorial sea convention, the “ shared” nature of the high seas which are being tamed for military and strategic gains, is a violation of the maritime cannon. Thus, the squabble is also over the theme of “custom,” which contends that the waterways need to be kept alone if the circumstances are “consistent and expeditious”, But Iran holds the brief that it’s a legal and persistent Objector so the old school UNCLOS does not apply here.  

END OF ARTICLE