Iran's new piracy case

A singaporian vessel collides with an Iranian floating oil rig , costing 300 million dollars in unpaid damages .

as the crew of the vessel warned the captain of the tanker to watch out the Iranian rig ahead , the captain ignored the warnings .

collision was on the verge of causing a huge oil-spill in the PG which was effectively contaminated by technicians .

Navy was informed and a siege was ordered . the vessel flee the scene as they entered UAE's TTW . it WILL get intercepted once again when they get out of there , till the owner company pays the compensations . either that or US government who is objective to these measures can pay them . lol

there goes another "piracy" story .

i won't be surprised to see a new story on Foxnews about how Iran turned into a robber . cause we stole their luck and karma

My persian links won't be much of a help .

so here you go

rt.com...

a reply to: haman10

Your source said it happened in March?

So there has been no litigation over this or even a court case brought?

Yet Iran it feels the need to fire upon a Singapore flag vessel in international waters? It is then twisted into a blame the US thread?


Seems totally justifiable to me??????

I wonder what your opinion would be if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to a Chinese vessel?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: haman10

Your source said it happened in March?

So there has been no litigation over this or even a court case brought?

Yet Iran it feels the need to fire upon a Singapore flag vessel in international waters? It is then twisted into a blame the US thread?


Seems totally justifiable to me??????

I wonder what your opinion would be if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to a Chinese vessel?

The collision happened in march . the owner company tried to play games .

there is no need for an "international court" over this . even the owner company confessed to the damages , but refused to pay the compensation .

we have every right - based on international laws as previously discussed by member sublimecraft - to detain ships in such a case .

USCG does this on a daily basis . even sublimecraft's very own ship was sieged .

and once again , there is no "international waters" in straight of hormuz . It's Iranian TTW which is given to shipping lanes as good will .

blame the US ? where did i blame US for anything ?

thats your mind playing tricks with you buddy . Foxnews = US ?

anyway , regarding your question about chinese vessel : lets assume its not even chinese but Iranian . alright ?

If an Iranian vessel damages an american oil rig for about 300 freaking million dollars , US has every right to detain the said vessel to get the compensation .

is that clear enough ?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: haman10

Your source said it happened in March?

So there has been no litigation over this or even a court case brought?

Yet Iran it feels the need to fire upon a Singapore flag vessel in international waters? It is then twisted into a blame the US thread?


Seems totally justifiable to me??????

I wonder what your opinion would be if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to a Chinese vessel?

I do not see where he was blaming the U.S., I do see, however, where he sarcastically made a joke in reference to the U.S. and is calling out what likely will be FOX's spin.

I have no doubt Iran, again, obtained a court order through their courts to arrest the vessel as collateral on the debt owed to them. Iran cannot just go out and arrest the vessel in open waters, the vessel needs to be within their TTW to arrest her.

Again, standard protocol was followed. The only exception in this case is that 5 shots across the bow is a bit much.

Why do people seem to have a hard time understanding that though Iran is handling these situations in a manner we would not, they are still within legal rights and protocols and that our government know this which is why they cannot, and are not doing anything about it but lip service.

a reply to: haman10

there is no need for an "international court" over this . even the owner company confessed to the damages , but refused to pay the compensation

I understand the whole due process thing doesn't apply in Iran I guess?

Your source even mentions that they are in negotiations over the incident. When negotiations fail the next move by civilized nations is court.


As far as maritime law and the arrest of the vessel goes. I would agree with you if Iran follow the proper procedures which they did not.

An arrest of a vessel is the prerequisite for the court to establish jurisdiction. If the vessel cannot be seized, the court may have no right over the vessel. Arrest is the physical process by which, in case of the United States, a U.S. Marshal goes aboard the vessel and physically takes charge of it. The Notice of Arrest must be posted on the vessel, a copy given to the master or person in charge, as well as to the owner. Also, notice must be published in a newspaper authorized to publish legal notices. Actual notice must be given to all other lien holders who claim an interest in the vessel.

rest of the vessel maritime law

At this point under maritime law Iran would've been better served to issue letters of marquee.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

have no doubt Iran, again, obtained a court order through their courts to arrest the vessel as collateral on the debt owed to them. Iran cannot just go out and arrest the vessel in open waters, the vessel needs to be within their TTW to arrest her.

If you believe Iran obtained local justification to do it. You them admit that they had no right to seize the vessel because they did not follow admiralty law under which arrest of a vessel is allowed.

Read any of the articles, they did go into international waters and attempt to seize a ship. In a thread I started on this, at one point I believed they were in their rights. After I researched it I realized that they were not.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Why u wonder? Coz Israel says Iran is the devil in disguise.. So in many ignorant mind it must be so..

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: haman10

there is no need for an "international court" over this . even the owner company confessed to the damages , but refused to pay the compensation

I understand the whole due process thing doesn't apply in Iran I guess?

Your source even mentions that they are in negotiations over the incident. When negotiations fail the next move by civilized nations is court.


As far as maritime law and the arrest of the vessel goes. I would agree with you if Iran follow the proper procedures which they did not.

An arrest of a vessel is the prerequisite for the court to establish jurisdiction. If the vessel cannot be seized, the court may have no right over the vessel. Arrest is the physical process by which, in case of the United States, a U.S. Marshal goes aboard the vessel and physically takes charge of it. The Notice of Arrest must be posted on the vessel, a copy given to the master or person in charge, as well as to the owner. Also, notice must be published in a newspaper authorized to publish legal notices. Actual notice must be given to all other lien holders who claim an interest in the vessel.

rest of the vessel maritime law

At this point under maritime law Iran would've been better served to issue letters of marquee.

yeah , but as i said . there is no need to go through an international court .

a local court has ordered the detaining of the ship . and it will get detained as soon as it gets out of UAE's TTW .

don't play smart for me now . you cannot possibly find a case that say for example in US , for detention of a ship , the issue was brought up in an international court .

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: haman10

there is no need for an "international court" over this . even the owner company confessed to the damages , but refused to pay the compensation

I understand the whole due process thing doesn't apply in Iran I guess?

Your source even mentions that they are in negotiations over the incident. When negotiations fail the next move by civilized nations is court.


As far as maritime law and the arrest of the vessel goes. I would agree with you if Iran follow the proper procedures which they did not.

An arrest of a vessel is the prerequisite for the court to establish jurisdiction. If the vessel cannot be seized, the court may have no right over the vessel. Arrest is the physical process by which, in case of the United States, a U.S. Marshal goes aboard the vessel and physically takes charge of it. The Notice of Arrest must be posted on the vessel, a copy given to the master or person in charge, as well as to the owner. Also, notice must be published in a newspaper authorized to publish legal notices. Actual notice must be given to all other lien holders who claim an interest in the vessel.

rest of the vessel maritime law

At this point under maritime law Iran would've been better served to issue letters of marquee.

The above is applicable in the U.S. only, Iran has different procedures.

International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952

International Convention on the Arrest of Ships 1999

Generalities of arrest procedure in Iran, by Dr. Hassan Amirshahi

and other International/Admiralty law can be found on page 17 of the original thread from the first ship.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

have no doubt Iran, again, obtained a court order through their courts to arrest the vessel as collateral on the debt owed to them. Iran cannot just go out and arrest the vessel in open waters, the vessel needs to be within their TTW to arrest her.

admit that they had no right to seize the vessel because they did not follow admiralty law under which arrest of a vessel is allowed.

ehmm ehmm .

guess you know the laws better cause the government of singapore - which is an ally of Iran - has made no objections . zilch .

even the owner company said that the detain attempt was "un-necessary" . they cannot object the decision at all .

but who are we kidding . you know the laws better .

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

have no doubt Iran, again, obtained a court order through their courts to arrest the vessel as collateral on the debt owed to them. Iran cannot just go out and arrest the vessel in open waters, the vessel needs to be within their TTW to arrest her.

If you believe Iran obtained local justification to do it. You them admit that they had no right to seize the vessel because they did not follow admiralty law under which arrest of a vessel is allowed.

Read any of the articles, they did go into international waters and attempt to seize a ship. In a thread I started on this, at one point I believed they were in their rights. After I researched it I realized that they were not.

If they hailed her, and attempted communication with her, and she ignored them, they then have right to Hot Pursuit.

a reply to: haman10

Exactly!!!!

I heard you say Iran does not need to follow international law they can do however they please in the Persian Gulf. After all Iran took the exact same position in the 80s during the tanker wars look how well that turned out.


Iran is not the only country in the Persian Gulf and most of the other Arab countries disagree with you. I noticed you have ignored my question would you have the same feelings if Saudi Arabia did the same thing to it ship from China?

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I really wish you would quit guessing and post some real sources. Or for that matter read the source I posted under maritime law for arrest of a vessel.

a reply to: haman10

Wow you do bounce around on the topic a lot don't you? I never said Singapore made a complaint. I only addressed the heightened tension for Iran's failure to follow international laws again.

a reply to: Greathouse
What international law are they not following?

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

I really wish you would quit guessing and post some real sources. Or for that matter read the source I posted under maritime law for arrest of a vessel.

I really wish you would read the sources I posted, the actual legal documents that govern the matters.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Damn I'm stuck in a game of last word again with the child. If you don't know which enter national laws I'm talking about there's absolutely no sense in continuing this discussion with you.

a reply to: Greathouse
Please elaborate.

Imho if the Singaporean ship tried to run off, heck yeah they should try to apprehend them! Its not like they crashed in tree in Iranian backyard, they wreck some serious equipment over there and should be made to pay it fully.

Also it is possible it was no accident but targeted destruction.

a reply to: Greathouse
International Convention on the Arrest of Ships

Article 1
Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention:

1. "Maritime Claim" means a claim arising out of one or more of the following:

(a) loss or damage caused by the operation of the ship

Ok, check.

Article 2
Powers of arrest

1. A ship may be arrested or released from arrest only under the authority of a Court of the State Party in which the arrest is effected.

2. A ship may only be arrested in respect of a maritime claim but in respect of no other claim.

3. A ship may be arrested for the purpose of obtaining security notwithstanding that, by virtue of a jurisdiction clause or arbitration clause in any relevant contract, or otherwise, the maritime claim in respect of which the arrest is effected is to be adjudicated in a State other than the State where the arrest is effected, or is to be arbitrated, or is to be adjudicated subject to the law of another State.

4. Subject to the provisions of this Convention, the procedure relating to the arrest of a ship or its release shall be governed by the law of the State in which the arrest was effected or applied for.

Check

Article 3
Exercise of right of arrest

1. Arrest is permissible of any ship in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted if:

(a) the person who owned the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or

(b) the demise charterer of the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is demise charterer or owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or

(c) the claim is based upon a mortgage or a "hypothèque" or a charge of the same nature on the ship; or

(d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the ship; or

(e) the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the ship and is secured by a maritime lien which is granted or arises under the law of the State where the arrest is applied for.

check

Generalities of arrest procedure in Iran, by Dr. Hassan Amirshahi

It is noteworthy that a number of international conventions apply to arrest of ships in Iran top among which is the Brussels Convention of May 1952.Document relating to the claims arising out of the privileged rights are stipulated under article 29 of the maritime law of Iran and other provisions of the said law. Every kind of official and commercial instrument including cheques, promissory notes, drafts and /or contracts wherein the ship indebtedness is reflected, taking into account the preference of the privileged rights and chooses in possession over the ship (mortgage).

Considering that a ship holds juridical personality, it is possible to submit a motion to the Iranian competent courts for arresting any ship where the subject-matter o the claim has no relationship with Iran and Iranian nationals, even if the cargo is not shipped from or to Iran and the parties to the contract of sale or the charter party are not of Iranian nationality.

The Iranian courts may issue an attachment order against the properties and the vessel for the acquisition of appropriate security and agreed jurisdiction , upon the claimant’s motion to this effect.

According to the general principles of law, the Iranian courts are inclined to extend their judicial jurisdiction. However, under the special laws, as applicable to the above question, the Iranian courts, after issuance of the attachment order and arrest of the vessel, do not insist on examining the merits of the case without the claimant’s motion to this effect. However, in case of the claimant’s failure to request the court ( within 10 days from the issuance of the attachment order and the subsequent arrest of the ship ) to take cognizance of the merits of the case, the respondent may request the court to revoke the said order. The Iranian courts do not accept a P. & 1. Club letter of guarantee as good security and their acceptance of the foreign letter of guarantees is contingent upon their issuance through the Iranian banks. The Iranian courts, a fortiori , accept cash as good security.

By virtue of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Iran, if the claimant has intended to arrest a ship as a certain rem, its conversion into the letter of guarantee or cash is subject to the claimant’s consent (Art. 122 of Civil Procedure Code). But, in the event that the ship is merely arrested for the purpose of securing the claimant’s claim, the respondent may request the court to convert it into cash, letter of guarantee or any other property which in the latter case the value of the property must be equivalent to the amount of the relief sought and, further, its marketability and ease of sale must not be lower than the arrested ship. (Art.124 ibid)

By virtue of article 108, Para. d, of the Civil Procedure Code of Iran, the claimant is bound to deposit in cash the amount of damages which might be incurred by the opponent party with the Justice Administration’s Fund. However, in certain instances, such as the lawsuits which are instituted on the strength of promissory notes or bills of exchange (in case of these instruments being protested within the legal respite by their holders), and in the same manner in lawsuits which are instituted on the basis of cheques and notarial documents, the claimant is exempt from depositing the above cash counter-security . The Iranian courts usually determine an amount between 10 to 25% of the relief sought as counte-rsecurity .

In order to arrest a ship within the territorial jurisdiction of Iran, the claimant is obliged to make payment of the amount which is revised upwards annually and which represents costs of a civil law suit on account of its plaint for the issuance of the attachment order plus a sum of IR Rls 2000 (approx. twenty cents) for each photocopy of the exhibits attached to the plaint together with an amount representing the court’s expenses for the attachment proceeding. Also, certain other unforeseeable costs are involved including, for example, the cost on account of translation into Farsi (around USD forty per page), publication of relevant notices, expertise fees, etc. The attorney’s fees will be as per amount agreed upon by the parties (attorney and client). The Marine Marshal’s fees will be determined according to the tariff approved by the maritime law of which depends on the tonnage and power of the ship as well as the length of time the ship is under arrest.

...