[Goose]

Ukraine has started to hit Russia’s shadow fleet in international waters.  I don’t know enough admiralty law to know if this is legal, but of course, since the ships are unflagged, who is going to be in a position to complain?  I know western countries are worried about precedent (though I’ll note that targeting commercial vessels during wartime has a history as long as ocean shipping and wars).

In so far as the ships are unflagged, indeed who can complain? However, from a legal point of view, Ukraine has big  problems. Merchant ships, even Russian flagged merchant ships, cannot legally be sunk without warning. Under the law, the Ukrainian "warship" must stop the merchant ship and search the merchant ship to locate contraband. If no contraband is found, the merchant ship must be sent on its way. If contraband is found the ship may be seized or sunk. In either case the passengers and crew must be provided for in a manner that protects their life. This part of international law goes back to the early 1900s and still is "in force". However, during both WW I and WW II the nature of modern warfare, particularly the submarine and airplane (plus vastly improved mines) rendered these laws impractical. As a result, a consensus developed around the idea that unrestricted warfare against merchant ships was permissible. For those that wish to geek-out on this issue, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/vi...ontext=ils is germane. The most important conclusion is:

The IMT also held that, in light of the order of the British Admiralty concerning the Skagerrak and in light of Admiral Nimitz’s answers concerning unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific, “the sentence of Dönitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.” Dönitz was still found guilty of the conduct—confirming its illegality—but his sentence did not reflect the illegality in light of the related illegality on the part of Britain and the United States. The IMT thus confirmed the continued relevance of the London Submarine Protocol as well as the illegality of the enforcement of the exclusion zones of the Second World War type.

Thus, what Ukraine is doing is unarguably illegal, but, like Dönitz they get a pass because Russia does it too.

But if the Houthis can attack commercial vessels in the Red Sea, and the US can sink alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, Ukraine I’m sure is thinking that targeting the shadow fleet is one way to put pressure on Russia and Putin to negotiate in good faith.

Indeed. Ukraine is at least a nation-state and has standing in international law. It is also clearly engaging in a declared war against a defined enemy. The US is not at war with Venezuela (yet), and the US is also not engaged in "unrestricted" warfare against all vessels in the area. Even if one considers the looser standard used by the IMT as "legality", it is very unclear it applies. The Houthis may claim to be a nation-state. They may also claim to be at war with Israel. However it is unclear how shipping traffic out of the Suez canal is connected to that war. They are probably closer to the IMT standard than the US is in the Caribbean, but still quite far from it.

[Goose]

Ukraine has started to hit Russia’s shadow fleet in international waters.  I don’t know enough admiralty law to know if this is legal, but of course, since the ships are unflagged, who is going to be in a position to complain?  I know western countries are worried about precedent (though I’ll note that targeting commercial vessels during wartime has a history as long as ocean shipping and wars).

In so far as the ships are unflagged, indeed who can complain? However, from a legal point of view, Ukraine has big  problems. Merchant ships, even Russian flagged merchant ships, cannot legally be sunk without warning. Under the law, the Ukrainian "warship" must stop the merchant ship and search the merchant ship to locate contraband. If no contraband is found, the merchant ship must be sent on its way. If contraband is found the ship may be seized or sunk. In either case the passengers and crew must be provided for in a manner that protects their life. This part of international law goes back to the early 1900s and still is "in force". However, during both WW I and WW II the nature of modern warfare, particularly the submarine and airplane (plus vastly improved mines) rendered these laws impractical. As a result, a consensus developed around the idea that unrestricted warfare against merchant ships was permissible. For those that wish to geek-out on this issue, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/vi...ontext=ils is germane. The most important conclusion is:

The IMT also held that, in light of the order of the British Admiralty concerning the Skagerrak and in light of Admiral Nimitz’s answers concerning unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific, “the sentence of Dönitz is not assessed on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare.” Dönitz was still found guilty of the conduct—confirming its illegality—but his sentence did not reflect the illegality in light of the related illegality on the part of Britain and the United States. The IMT thus confirmed the continued relevance of the London Submarine Protocol as well as the illegality of the enforcement of the exclusion zones of the Second World War type.

Thus, what Ukraine is doing is unarguably illegal, but, like Dönitz they get a pass because Russia does it too.

But if the Houthis can attack commercial vessels in the Red Sea, and the US can sink alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, Ukraine I’m sure is thinking that targeting the shadow fleet is one way to put pressure on Russia and Putin to negotiate in good faith.

Indeed. Ukraine is at least a nation-state and has standing in international law. It is also clearly engaging in a declared war against a defined enemy. The US is not at war with Venezuela (yet), and the US is also not engaged in "unrestricted" warfare against all vessels in the area. Even if one considers the looser standard used by the IMT as "legality", it is very unclear it applies. The Houthis may claim to be a nation-state. They may also claim to be at war with Israel. However it is unclear how shipping traffic out of the Suez canal is connected to that war. They are probably closer to the IMT standard than the US is in the Caribbean, but still quite far from it.