01-07-2026, 10:15 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/07/...=url-share
Article should be shared to defeat paywall.
Well, we did the "right thing" despite the fact Putin might be offended. I am not sure this wasn't somehow negotiated to make it "OK". The NYT article references UNCLOS and Russia's statement that it forbids stopping a vessel in international waters that is properly registered in another country. However, the "current" interpretation of the "right of visit" that is part of UNCLOS does allow such actions in order to determine if the vessel is indeed properly registered and has indeed followed all appropriate regulations. This interpretation has been legally confirmed in territorial waters, and it has been legally confirmed the right of visit extends to nations that are NOT in their own territorial waters. As I understand it, the "high seas" interpretation has not been legally confirmed (yet), but it makes sense in terms of "hot pursuit" of a vessel flying no flag and not operating its AIS or spoofing its identity/position when it is. Both apply in this case. This interpretation would allow a "visit", and if the visit determined the vessel was not legitimately registered and/or had engaged in illegal activity it can be seized and taken to a port for adjudication. Falsifying your log is of course illegal activity, and one can be sure the ship had done that.
Article should be shared to defeat paywall.
Well, we did the "right thing" despite the fact Putin might be offended. I am not sure this wasn't somehow negotiated to make it "OK". The NYT article references UNCLOS and Russia's statement that it forbids stopping a vessel in international waters that is properly registered in another country. However, the "current" interpretation of the "right of visit" that is part of UNCLOS does allow such actions in order to determine if the vessel is indeed properly registered and has indeed followed all appropriate regulations. This interpretation has been legally confirmed in territorial waters, and it has been legally confirmed the right of visit extends to nations that are NOT in their own territorial waters. As I understand it, the "high seas" interpretation has not been legally confirmed (yet), but it makes sense in terms of "hot pursuit" of a vessel flying no flag and not operating its AIS or spoofing its identity/position when it is. Both apply in this case. This interpretation would allow a "visit", and if the visit determined the vessel was not legitimately registered and/or had engaged in illegal activity it can be seized and taken to a port for adjudication. Falsifying your log is of course illegal activity, and one can be sure the ship had done that.