Tankers in The Minch

[maxi77]

I'm not doubting you, but which convention is that under? Under all the usual rules, the Minch would be Internal Waters without any need for a special agreement; it is narrow enough not to need special treatment, unlike causes celebre like Lancaster Sound, where the USA and Canada for a long time disputed whether it was international or internal waters. I guess it may be a trade-off to do with the status of Rockall, but AFAIK, the status of the territorial waters round Rockall is still disputed, especially whether the UK can use it in defining the "baseline" for the EEZ.

Seriously, I ask because I'm interested - I happen to have had some involvement in this kind of issue in the Southern Ocean round South Georgia. I am sure you are right, but I am surprised as I can't see a need for the UK to make such an agreement, and usually the Foreign Office are very keen on international agreements not giving things away that they don't have to!

For the benefit of others, perhaps I should point out that there are several possibilities for jurisdiction over sea water - it may be international waters, an exclusive economic zone, territorial waters or internal waters. From a navigational POV, the first two are equivalent - an EEZ only covers fishing and mineral exploitation. Internal waters are equivalent in legal status (from an international POV) to rivers and other enclosed bodies of water, and are fully subject to the law of the country concerned. The majority of us sail in internal or territorial waters; I'd guess that the majority sail in internal waters!

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...DAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=minches passage&f=false

 

[AntarcticPilot]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...DAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=minches passage&f=false

Thank-you; the innocent passage rules are from traditional usage - a let out I wasn't aware of, as there is no traditional usage in the Souther Ocean!

 

[maxi77]

Thank-you; the innocent passage rules are from traditional usage - a let out I wasn't aware of, as there is no traditional usage in the Souther Ocean!

For various reasons the UK has always been slow to take up new opportunities in designation of territorial waters etc. Freedom of the seas was a key policy of the UK for centuries, mainly because it was profitable for the UK. Hence the slowness to 'enclose' passages like the Minches.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Lol, I think if the washing was hung out to dry it would become clear that the Tug did precisely no damage to the Astute and that all damage was courtesy of RN arrogance. The damage described did not match the operation carried out. Having spent some five years involved with towage of warships and sea trial support there is quite literally nothing that would surprise me when it came to incidents involving the RN. I have been brought within seconds of a watery grave on several occasions due to the incompetence of RN officers when manoeuvring in close quarters and on one of the occasions the clown had the nerve to complain that his new paint was marked despite nearly killing four men!

I won't argue with your inside knowledge and experience of some Naval Officers, but I know the CO of the sub that went aground and the majority of the damage WAS done by the tug. I appreciate that you might have experience in the past of some real plonkers of Naval Officers (obviously I am not allowed to comment) but sadly the tug was not blameless regarding the damage to Astute.