Indians board US flagged yacht in International waters and send crew to UAE

Seven Spades

Seven Spades

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Aug 2003
Messages
4,940
Location
Surrey
Visit site
I cannot understand how this has not caused an international incident. According to the report a French/US national picked up a Princess (UAE national - she paid him) from a beach in Oman and sailed for five days. The boat was tracked by air and then boarded in International waters off India and the crew ruffed up, threatened with death and then transported to the UAE and it seems neither the USA nor French governments are keen to take us this outrage. As a US flagged vessel no nation has the right to intercept or hinder a vessel in any way other than that of the vessels flag.


There is good coverage of the incident:-

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/stirli...live-and-has-been-taken-back-to-dubai-2444740

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/stirli...can-national-desperate-video-released-2443209

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-beaten-commandos-enforcing-Islamic-law.html


 
Last edited:
Seven Spades said:
.....no nation has the right to intercept or hinder a vessel in any way other than that of the vessels flag.
Click to expand...

This just isn't true. There are about 5 or 6 motives which enable a vessel to be challenged on the high seas eg suspected slavery abductions, drug running etc.

If the interception is found not to be justified the stopped vessel may sue for damages. (UNCLOS)
 
Suspect a Saudi Court will rule she has technically been "abducted" because she departed without her guardian's permission (which is required for Saudi females to travel).
 
Strolls said:
Suspect a Saudi Court will rule she has technically been "abducted" because she departed without her guardian's permission (which is required for Saudi females to travel).
Click to expand...

I suspect a Saudi court would have chopped her head off by now, so it is lucky for her she is not from Saudi. I believe the UAE is a separate country and she comes from there.:cool:
 
My concern is that the Indians boarded a yacht in international waters and then sent the occupants to a third party country. No one seems to be bothered about this, I think it is shocking.
 
Seven Spades said:
My concern is that the Indians boarded a yacht in international waters and then sent the occupants to a third party country. No one seems to be bothered about this, I think it is shocking.
Click to expand...

It is likely that the Indian government has treaties and cooperative ties with the UAE and the reason that neither the French or US are doing anything is that they acted within the laws of those two countries in retrieving an abducted national and her abductor.
 
petehb said:
It is likely that the Indian government has treaties and cooperative ties with the UAE and the reason that neither the French or US are doing anything is that they acted within the laws of those two countries in retrieving an abducted national and her abductor.
Click to expand...

I think so too - whatever the rights and wrongs of the case the crew will have known that their actions were very irregular and possibly illegal so might have to be fought out in court. The times when a yacht effectively disappeared from view once it was over the horizon are long long gone. It wouldn't surprise me if the numpties were broadcasting AIS too but perhaps I'm being unkind.
 
That makes no sense. The Indians and UAE can have any treaties they like they are not operating within the law in boarding a US flagged vessel in International waters. The woman is not a child, not a chattel and was not being kidnapped.
 
RupertW said:
I think so too - whatever the rights and wrongs of the case the crew will have known that their actions were very irregular and possibly illegal so might have to be fought out in court. The times when a yacht effectively disappeared from view once it was over the horizon are long long gone. It wouldn't surprise me if the numpties were broadcasting AIS too but perhaps I'm being unkind.
Click to expand...

Realistically the only offence would have been committed in Oman i.e. not passing out through immigration controls. There is no possibility of the boat having committed any crime in the UAE is it did not go there. There is no question this was an illegal boarding and arrest and we should be playing merry hell. I don't think that they had AIS switched on because they were using spotter planes to locate it.
 
Seven Spades said:
My concern is that the Indians boarded a yacht in international waters and then sent the occupants to a third party country.
Click to expand...

I share your alarm about the second part, less so the first for reasons discussed above. We don't know, of course, what paperwork was involved, or what treaties might exist between the UAE and India. But from the sound of it due process was conspicuous by its absence and I daresay Indian law somewhat mirrors British law in such matters. It's painfully ironic that the country most associated with illegal rendition is Jaubert's own. (A remark I make without any ill-will to the man himself who appears to be in a hideous position.) Just as ironic is that, according to Wiki, "Since the drafting of the Indian Constitution, Indian laws also adhere to the United Nations guidelines on human rights law". Realpolitik, eh?
 
Seven Spades said:
That makes no sense. The Indians and UAE can have any treaties they like they are not operating within the law in boarding a US flagged vessel in International waters. The woman is not a child, not a chattel and was not being kidnapped.
Click to expand...

Arab state law in connection with women like it or lump it is very different to what is the practice in the west, so a young woman taken away without her guardians consent falls into the realm of unlawful abduction giving the Indian navy the right to board and detain then in accordance with inter country treaties deport. You need to look at it within the context of the laws of the two countries and then how they relate to international law.
 
petehb said:
Arab state law in connection with women like it or lump it is very different to what is the practice in the west, so a young woman taken away without her guardians consent falls into the realm of unlawful abduction giving the Indian navy the right to board and detain then in accordance with inter country treaties deport. You need to look at it within the context of the laws of the two countries and then how they relate to international law.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
It's also a report that comes from a bunch of 'activists'.

That area of the world is not Surrey. Local rules, get involved at your peril.
 
I overlooked that opinion earlier, Tin Tin, but you're right...and with good reason.

Imagine a boat full of IS warriors 12.1 miles off Brighton beach. OK, lads, says RN. Someone ring the [insert Middle East state of choice} embassy and ask them to send a RIB...

The issue is not that the yacht was boarded, but what happened next.

Seven Spades said:
The woman...was not being kidnapped.
Click to expand...
Possibly she was, probably she wasn't. I can shrug my shoulders about it, but the Indian authorities, less so. If a credible allegation is made that she was kidnapped, then in any civilized country the authorities are bound to investigate it. Whether that would routinely involve a gung-ho dash into international waters is open to argument.
 
Last edited:
Seven Spades said:
That makes no sense. The Indians and UAE can have any treaties they like they are not operating within the law in boarding a US flagged vessel in International waters. The woman is not a child, not a chattel and was not being kidnapped.
Click to expand...

I don't think the vessel's flag is as relevant as you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top