Developments on the interdiction of vessels on the high seas

Publications on Ocean Development

Volumn 54, Issue , 2006, Pages 149-201

  Syrigos, Angelos M ^a  

^a PANTEION UNIVERSITY   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964375893     PISSN: 09241922     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (167)

1. According to the Spanish Defence Minister, Frederico Trillo, "the intelligence services of the US obtained information on the fact that that there was a suspicious vessel, which they thought was illegally trading arms⋯", Spanish Authorities hold news conference on Scud missile interception, CNN, Transcript 121101CN.V54, 11 December 2002.
2. M.R. Gordon, German and Spanish Navies take on major role near Horn of Africa, The New York Times, 15 December 2002.
3. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that the "cargo and vessel could be subject to forfeiture under the doctrine of piracy and prize" since "it is not considered polite, in international shipping circles, to sail on the high seas in ghost vessels, without a flag, flaunting a false cargo manifest"; R. Wedgwood, A pirate is a pirate, Wall Street Journal, 16 December 2002.
4. For the initial reactions of American intelligence officials see T. Shanker, Scud missiles found on ship of North Korea, The New York Times, 11 December 2002.
5. D.E. Sanger & T. Shanker, Reluctant US Gives Assent for Missiles to Go to Yemen, The New York Times, 12 December 2002.
6. See the relevant leading article "High seizures: Silly stunts are not a serious policy", The Guardian, 12 December 2002.
7. See D.P. O'Connell, The International Law of the Sea (Vol. II, Shearer(ed.), Clarendon Press, Oxford 1984) pp. 792-801
8. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (6th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003) pp. 223-227
9. R. Jennings & Sir Arthur Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law (9th ed., Vol. I: Peace, Parts 1-4, Longman Group, Avon 1992) pp. 731-735.
10. The present article does not examine interdiction of vessels and intelligence activities on the high seas during armed conflicts at sea. On this issue see San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to armed conflicts at sea (International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Grotius Publications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1995) pp. 187-223.
11. The S.S. Lotus case, France v. Turkey, PCIJ Series A, No. 9, 1927, p. 25.
12. The M/V "SAIGA" case, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea, Case No. 1, Judgment of 4 December 1997
13. The "Grand Prince" case, Belize v. France, Case No. 8, Judgment of 20 April 2001.
14. For more see T. Treves, Flags of convenience before the Law of the Sea Tribunal, 6 San Diego International Law Journal 2004, p. 179.
15. B.A. Boczek, Flags of convenience: An international legal study (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1962) p. 2.
16. The following 32 countries are considered as 'flags of convenience' by the International Transport Workers' Federation Fair Practices Committee: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda (UK), Bolivia, Burma, Cambodia, Canary Islands (Spain), Cayman Islands (UK), Comoros, Cook Islands (New Zealand), Cyprus, Equatorial Guinea, French International Ship Register (FIS), Georgia, German International Ship Register (GIS), Gibraltar (UK), Honduras, Jamaica, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands (USA), Mauritius, Mongolia, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, St. Vincent, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, in http://www.itfglobal.org/flags-convenience/flags-convenien-183.cfm, last visited on 31 August 2005.
17. J.A. Perkins, Ship registers: An international update, 22 Tulane Maritime Law Journal 1997, p. 197.
18. T. Garmon, International Law of the Sea: Reconciling the law of piracy and terrorism in the wake of September 11th, 27 Tulane Maritime Law Journal 2002, pp. 268-269.
19. J. Brooke, Landlocked Mongolia's seafaring tradition, The New York Times, 2 July 2004.
20. H.W. Halleck, International Law; or Rules regulating the intercourse of States in peace and war (H.H. Bancroft & Company, San Francisco, 1861, in reproduction of the original edition, Rodopi, Amsterdam, 1970) p. 593.
21. G. Gidel, Le Droit International Public de la Mer: Le Temps de Paix (Établissements Mellottee Chateauroux, Paris 1932) p. 292.
22. Oppenheim includes in the notion of the verification of flag the actual boarding upon the ship in certain cases "since a suspicious vessel may still be a pirate although it shows a flag, it may further be stopped and visited for the purpose of inspecting its papers and thereby verifying its flag"; Oppenheim, supra note 7, pp. 736-737. Colombos takes a similar view; C.J. Colombos, The International Law of the Sea (6th edition, Longmans, London 1967) p. 311.
23. The same view is shared by A. van Zwanenberg, Interference with ships on the High Seas, 10 ICLQ 1961, pp. 791-792.
24. Evans does nor refer to the right of approach but only to the right of visit; M. Evans, International Law (Oxford University Press, 2003) pp. 638-641
25. an approach which is followed by R.R. Churchill & A.V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (3rd edition, Manchester University Press, 1999) pp. 210-213.
26. Contra Brownlie considers that "the right of approach exists in all circumstances but does not involve the actual examination of papers or seizure of the vessel"; Brownlie, supra note 7, p. 232 & fn. 56; R. Reuland, Interference with non-national ships on the High Seas: Peacetime exceptions to the exclusivity rule of flag jurisdiction, 22 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1989, pp. 1169-1171.
27. Daillier & Pellet make a very short but very precise description of the actions undertaken during the intervention of a ship on the high seas; P. Daillier & A. Pellet, Droit International Public (7e edition, LGDJ, Paris 2002) p. 1201. Both the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the LOS Convention use the expression "boarding/arraisonnement".
28. M. Morris, Universal jurisdiction in a divided world: Conference remarks, 35 New England LR 2001, p. 35.
29. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 case, Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium, Preliminary objections and merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, paragraph 61.
30. C. Bassiouni, Universal jurisdiction for international crimes: Historical perspectives and contemporary practice, 42 Vancouver Journal of International Law 2001, pp. 108-115.
31. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 case, Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium, Preliminary objections and merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, Separate Opinion of President Guillaume, par. 5.
32. For more see A.W. Anderson, Jurisdiction over Stateless Vessels on the High Seas: An Appraisal under Domestic and International Law, 13 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 1981-82, pp. 323-343.
33. Molgan v. Attorney General for Palestine, Appeal Cases, 1948 (England), p. 370.
34. See the 1982 exchange of notes between Britain and the USA permitting the US authorities to board private British vessels on the High Seas in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea; J. Siddle, Anglo-American co-operation in the suppression of drug smuggling, 31 ICLQ 1982, pp. 726-747.
35. C. Sorensen, Drug trafficking on the High Seas: A move towards universal jurisdiction under international law, 4 Emory International Law Review 1990, pp. 220-225.
36. See United States v. Gonzalez, US Federal Court, 629 F.2d 1081, 1083 (5th Cir. 1980).
37. See United States v. Barrio Hernandez, as referred in Sorensen, supra note 38, p. 224, at footnote 86.
38. Section 1903(c)(1) of the 1986 Act as it is referred in J.D. Stieb, Survey of United States Jurisdiction over High Seas Narcotics Trafficking, 19 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1989, p. 141.
39. Letter from Mr. Daniel Webster to Lord Ashburton, 17 July 1842, reprinted in R. Jennings, The Caroline and McLeod cases, 32 AJIL 1938, p. 89.
40. It has been argued that the standard of necessity set in the Caroline case exaggerates necessity in a time when war was a permissible option for States that had actually been attacked; A.R. Coll, The legal and moral adequacy of military responses to terrorism, 81 ASIL Proceedings 1987, pp. 297-298.
41. A term used by M. Sapiro, Iraq: The shifting sands of pre-emptive self-defence, AJIL 2003, p. 599.
42. D. Greig, International Law (Butterworth, London 1976) p. 336-337.
43. See also D. Bowett, Self-defence in International Law (Manchester University Press, Manchester 1958) pp. 185-186
44. J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations. An introduction to the international law of peace (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1963) pp. 416-421
45. D.W. Greig, Self-defence and the Security Council: What does Article 51 require, 40 ICLQ 1991, pp. 366 et seq.
46. R. Higgins, Problems and process. International law and how we use it (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996) pp. 242-243
47. D.P. O'Connell, International Law (Stevens & Sons, London 1970) pp. 315-320
48. M. Shaw, International Law (5th edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003) pp. 1024-1031
49. J. Stone, Aggression and World Order: A critique of United Nations theories of aggression (Stevens & Sons, London 1958) pp. 95-96
50. C.H.M. Waldock, The regulation of the use of force by individual States in international law, 81 RCADI 1952-II, pp. 496-498.
51. "The right of self-defence ⋯ will confer on a State, in a case where its safety is threatened, a self-protective jurisdiction which will entitle it to visit and arrest a vessel on the high seas⋯"; Colombos, supra note 21, p. 315. "Once the proposition is accepted that self-defence is available as a basis for action in the absence of an actual armed attack, it is clear that some form of interference with the freedom of passage of foreign vessels on the high seas may be justifiable"; Greig, International Law, supra, p. 341.
52. J. de Arechaga, International law in the past third of a century, 159 RCADI 1978-I, pp. 87-98
53. Brownlie, supra note 7, pp. 699-702; Ian Brownlie, International Law and the use of force by States (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1963) pp. 264-280
54. L. Henkin, How nations behave: Law and foreign policy (Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia University Press, New York 1979) pp. 141-144
55. Oppenheim, International Law. Disputes, War and Neutrality (Volume II, 7th edition, Longmans, London-New York 1955) pp. 154-157.
56. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua v. United States of America, Merits, ICJ Reports 1986, par. 176.
57. See e.g. the incidents with the Italian vessel Duizar in D.P. O'Connell, International Law and contemporary naval operations, 40 BYBIL 1970, p. 37 et seq.; or the West Breeze on 23 February 1961 while she was off 32 miles from the coast of Algeria, referred in van Zwanenberg, supra note 21, p. 791.
58. For a chronological list of the events see Mallison, Limited naval blockade or quarantine interdiction: National and collective self-defence claims valid under international law, 31 George Washington University Law Review 1962, pp. 339-343.
59. C.Q. Christol & C.R. Davis, Maritime Quarantine: The naval interdiction of offensive weapons and associated materiel to Cuba, 1962, 57 AJIL 1963, p. 528.
60. A. Chayes, Law and the Quarantine of Cuba, 41 Foreign Affairs, p. 550.
61. United States Proclamation 4865 on High Seas interdiction of illegal aliens, 29 September 1981, 20 ILM 1981, p. 1263.
62. See Haitian Refugee Centre, Inc. v. Gracey, US District Court, DDC, 10 January 1985, 79 AJIL 1985, pp. 744-746.
63. The issue of the Haitian refugees has been raised several times in the US courts. See M. Leigh, Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Gracey, 600 F. Supp. 1396, 79 AJIL 1985, pp. 744-746
64. Jonathan Harris, Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, 87 AJIL 1993, pp. 112-117
65. T.D. Jones, Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 88 AJIL 1994, pp. 114-126; see also For Haitians, justice denied, The New York Times, 30 August 1992 (editorial).
66. See T.D. Jones & J.H. Bello, Cuban-American Bar Association, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412
67. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1431, 90 AJIL 1996, pp. 477-483
68. see also Sean Murphy, Ability of detainees in Cuba to obtain federal Habeas Corpus review, 96 AJIL 2002, pp. 481-482.
69. Executive Order 12807, 24 May 1992 (Kennebunkport Order), 57 Federal Registry 1992, p. 133.
70. For a basic points of the exchange of notes see M.N. Leigh, Contemporary practice of the United States relating to international law, 76 AJIL 1982, pp. 374-376.
71. Some other points were related to the definition of a refugee under international law and the obligatory return of the refugees which conflicts with the principle of non-refoulement; for more see C. Gutekunst, Interdiction of Haitian migrants on the high seas: A legal and policy analysis, 10 Yale Journal of International Law 1984, pp. 151-184.
72. L. Sohn, Interdiction of vessels on the high seas, 18 International Lawyer 1984, pp. 418-419.
73. See the 1970 Comprehensive Drug abuse Prevention and Control Act, passage 21 USC section 955a, as it is referred in Sorensen, supra note 39, p. 211, fn. 19; see also C. Connoly, 'Smoke on the water': Coast Guard authority to seize foreign vessels beyond the Contiguous Zone, 13 International Law and Policy 1981, pp. 249-332.
74. See Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/USA.htm.
75. See the Case of United States v. Postal, where the US courts acted in derogation of the High Seas Convention, in S.P. Bodner, United States v. Postal, 6 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1980, pp. 134-158.
76. United States v. Julio-Cardales, United States First Circuit, Court of Appeals, No 97-2383, 26 February 1999.
77. United States v. Martínez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1993).
78. United States v. Romero-Galue, 757 F. 2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1985).
79. It is out of the scope of the present article to examine problems related with the legal definition of terrorism. Quite often "freedom fighters" are considered as "terrorists" and vice versa; for more see A.C. Arend & R.J. Beck, 'Don't read on us': International law and forcible state responses to terrorism, 12 Wisconsin International Law Journal 1994, p. 172.
80. See e.g. the relevant discussion during the 1987 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law: Views by F. Boyle, Military Responses to Terrorism: Remarks, 81 ASIL Proceedings 1987, pp. 288-297
81. also C. Gray, The use of force and the international legal order, in M. Evans (ed.), International Law (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003) p. 603.
82. H. Kamm, Rabin defends air interception: Vows more 'unconventional" acts, The New York Times, 6 February 1986.
83. For more see A. Cassese, The international community's 'legal' response to terrorism, 38 ICLQ 1989, pp. 601, 603-604
84. D. Kash, Abductions of terrorists in international airspace and on the high seas, 8 Florida JIL, pp. 90-93
85. also A.C. Arend & R.J. Beck, International Law and the Use of Force. Beyond the UN paradigm (Routledge, New York 1993) pp. 148-149.
86. G.M. Borkowski, Recent developments. Use of force: Interception of Aircraft, 27 Harvard International Law Journal 1986, pp. 765-766.
87. National Strategy for combating terrorism, February 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/counter-terrorism/counter-terrorism
88. J.P. Rowles, Military Responses to Terrorism: Substantive and Procedural Constraints in International Law. Military Responses to Terrorism, 81 ASIL Proceedings 1987, p. 314.
89. According to the US National Strategy "The United States currently lists seven state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan", National Strategy for combating terrorism, February 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/counter-terrorism/counter-terrorism
90. Remarks on the Six-Month Anniversary of the September 11th Attacks, 38 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc., 11 March 2002, p. 391.
91. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf>, Introduction.
92. National Strategy for combating terrorism, February 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/counter-terrorism/counter-terrorism
93. L. Feinstein, A duty to prevent, 98 ASIL Proceedings 2004, pp. 89-94
94. L. Feinstein & A.-M. Slaughter, A duty to prevent, 83 Foreign Affairs 2004, pp. 136-150
95. C.M. Bassiouni, Legal control of international terrorism: A policy oriented assessment, 43 Harvard International Law Journal 2002, pp. 97-103
96. R. Turner, State responsibility and the war on terror: The legacy of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary pirates, 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 2003, pp. 121-140.
97. See International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Centre, Attacks on Ships. Background Information, http://www.marisec.org/piracy/background.htm#IMO (last visited: 27 April 2005).
98. See also M.W. Brauchli, High Seas scourge: Pirates return in Asia armed with AK 47s instead of bolo knives, Wall Street Journal, 2 June 1993.
99. See e.g. the case of the Malaysian tanker Petchem, carrying a mixed cargo of light fuel oil and aviation spirit. On 25 September 2000 a gang of armed pirates took control of the ship off East Malaysia. The pirates painted a false name on the ship's stern, changed the colour of its funnel, and then navigated near Johore, where they pumped the light fuel oil onto a second vessel; Piracy in southeast Asia getting out of control, Jane's Terrorism & Security Monitor, 1 November 2000. See also C. Glass, Terror on the High Seas? Piracy is up, increasing fears of terror attacks at sea, ABC News, 10 September 2003.
100. T. Ország-Land, Fighting terrorism at sea, Jane's Terrorism & Security Monitor, 1 July 2003.
101. M. Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety, 82 AJIL 1988, p. 289.
102. See A. Cassese, Terrorism, politics and the law: The Achille Lauro Affair (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1989).
103. e.g. to include single ship seizures; G.R. Constantinople, Towards a New Definition of Piracy: The Achille Lauro Incident, 6 Vancouver JIL 1985, pp. 748-749.
104. In addition to the above mentioned passage by Halberstam, see also F.W. Paasche, who also considers that "acts of terrorism, like acts of piracy, should be declared crimes against humanity'"; The use of force in combating terrorism, 25 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1987, p. 380
105. also S.P. Menefee, Piracy, terrorism and the insurgent passenger: A historical and legal perspective, in N. Ronzitti (ed.), Maritime terrorism and International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, Dodrecht 1990) pp. 43-68.
106. See M.H. Morris, Universal jurisdiction in a divided world: Conference remarks, 35 New England Law Review 2001, p. 2001
107. also M.P. Scharf, Application of treaty-based universal jurisdiction to nationals of non-party States, ibid., p. 361.
108. See e.g. J.D. Fry, Terrorism as a crime against humanity and genocide: The backdoor to universal jurisdiction, 7 UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs 2002, pp. 190-197.
109. M.A. Summers, The International Court of Justice's decision in Congo v. Belgium: How has it affected the development of a principle of universal jurisdiction that would obligate all states to prosecute war criminals?, 21 Boston University International Law Journal 2003, pp. 65, 67-68.
110. Belgium, Austria and Denmark have adopted legislation which provides their courts with varying degrees of jurisdiction based on universality; see e.g. M. Holdgaard Bukh, Prosecution before Danish Courts of foreigners suspected of serious violations of human rights or humanitarian law, 6 Revue Européenne de Droit Public 1994, pp. 339-352.
111. Spain requested the extradition of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet from Britain on the basis of universal jurisdiction; W.J. Aceves, Liberalism and international legal scholarship: The Pinochet case and the move towards a universal system of transnational law litigation, 41 Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 162-164.
112. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf, p. 15.
113. See J.E.S. Fawcett, Security Council Resolution on Rhodesia, 41 BYBIL 1965-66, pp. 118 et seq.
114. for the case of the two Greek ships attempting to run the blockade see H.L. Cryer, Legal aspects of the Joanna V and Manuela Incidents, Australian Yearbook of International Law 1966, pp. 85-98.
115. According to Captain Mark Buzby, commander of US Destroyer Squadron Thirty One, who led the maritime interdiction operations in the northern and southern Gulf during the latter half of 2002: "In a typical week we do 500 queries of ships and make 150-200 boardings. At the top of the Gulf we make seizures every night⋯ Every week 10-30 dhows and five or six large ships are boarded and diverted to a holding area for detailed survey so [that] we can investigate them"; T. Ripley, Middle East maritime embargo patrols maintain pressure, Jane's Navy International, 1 January 2003.
116. E. Sciolino, US tracks a Korean Ship taking missile to Syria, The New York Times, 21 February 1992.
117. A. Rosenthal, No orders to stop arms ship, The New York Times, 9 March 1992.
118. Misguided machismo on the High Seas, leading article in The New York Times, 7 March 1992.
119. The initial name was "Operation Infinite Justice". It became "Operation Enduring Freedom" when Islamic scholars complained that only God was capable of dispensing infinite justice and the US administration worried that people in the Middle East would take offence by the use of this name. For more see E. Becker, Renaming an Operation to Fit the Mood, The New York Times, 26 September 2001. It was supported by the Canadian Operation "Apollo".
120. See President George W. Bush Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, 20th September 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html; also President George W. Bush Speaks to America After the Strikes Begin, Address made from the Treaty Room in the White House, 7 October 2001.
121. As expressed by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in Her Majesty's Government Campaign Objectives, 16 October 2001, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/10/uk-011016-terror-objectives.htm.
122. As provided by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Naval Forces in the Gulf/Arabian Sea and in Support of Operation Enduring Freedom, 6 May 2003, http://www.iiss.org/iraqCrisis-more.php?itemID=137.
123. See D.S. Cloud, US Navy, allies patrol sea off Somalia, in search of fleeing Al Qaeda fighters, The New York Times, 4 January 2002.
124. See W.K. Rashbaum & B. Weiser, Al Qaeda's fleet, The New York Times, 27 December 2001. According to other information by 2003 23 merchant vessels were linked to Osama bin Laden. All of them were registered in Arab countries and with flags of convenience, see Ország-Land, supra note 114.
125. J. Dao, Coalition widens its ocean manhunt, The New York Times, 17 March 2002.
126. A French oil tanker, the Limburg, was attacked by a small boat on 6 October 2002 while docking to take on crude oil in Mina al-Dabah port in Yemen. The Aden Abyan Islamic Army (AAIA) claimed the attack. For more see E. Sciolino, Preliminary investigation indicates oil tanker was attacked, The New York Times, 11 October 2002. The attack against Limburg followed a previous attack in October 2000 against "USS Cole" in Yemen.
127. K. Bradsher, Warnings from Al Qaeda stir fear that terrorist may attack oil tankers, The New York Times, 12 December 2002.
128. Sri Lankan suicide attack at sea, 30 October 2001, CNN News, http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/10/30/slanka.tiger.attack.
129. For more see J. Romero, Prevention of maritime terrorism: The Container Security Initiative, 4 Chicago Journal of International Law 2003, pp. 597-605
130. also F. Booth & L. Altenbrun, Maritime and port security, piracy and stowaways: Renewed concerns over old problems, 15 USF Maritime Law Journal, pp. 2-47
131. T. Schoenbaum & J.C. Langston, An all hands evolution: Port security in the wake of September 11, 77 Tulane Law Review, pp. 1333-1370.
132. German Ship Seized with Uranium-Making Parts for Libya, Deutche Welle, 1 December 2004, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1075724,00.html.
133. K. Marks, Australia to impose 1000-mile terror exclusion zone, The Independent, 16 December 2004.
134. M. Moore, Indonesia rejects plan for security zone as breach of maritime boundaries, The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 December 2004.
135. Remarks by President George W. Bush to the People of Poland, 31 May 2003, http://www.usinfo.pl/bushvisit2003/wawel.htm
136. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, NSPD-17 / HSPD 4 [unclassified version], December 2002, http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-17.html.
137. B. Coceano, The Proliferation Security Initiative: Challenges and Perceptions, The Atlantic Council of the United States, Occasional Paper, Washington, DC, May 2004, p. 3.
138. Testimony of John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, U.S. Department of State, Committee on International Relations, United States House of Representatives, 4 June 2003, http://wwwa.house.gov/international-relations/108/bolt0604.htm.
139. See Question: How were the founding PSI countries chosen" [emphasis added], Proliferation Security Initiative Frequently Asked Questions, Fact Sheet, Bureau of Non Proliferation, Washington, DC, 11 January 2005.
140. Nevertheless, South Korea has not joined the PSI "due to the peculiar and political and security situation of the Korean peninsula"; Interview with Song Young Wan, South Korea's Deputy Director General for Disarmament, Asian Export Control Observer, Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Issue 3, August/September 2004, p. 21.
141. Proliferation Security Initiative: Statement of Interdiction Principles, 4 September 2003, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Washington, DC., reprinted in Annex II(a).
142. Michael Evans, US plans to seize suspects at will, The Times, 11 July 2003.
143. G. Sheridan, US 'free' to tackle N. Korea, The Australian, 9 July 2003.
144. See R. Weiner, Proliferation Security Initiative to Stem Flow of WMD Matériel, 16 July 2003, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030716.htm.
145. D.E. Sanger, When laws don't apply: Cracking down on the terror-arms trade, The New York Times, 15 June 2003
146. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Liberia concerning cooperation to suppress the proliferation of weapons of Mass Destruction, their deliver systems and related material by sea, Washington, 11 February 2004, http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/32403.htm
147. reprinted in Annex II(b). The Liberian agreement was regarded by US officials as a model for similar agreements; see: High time to stop terrorists on the high seas, Financial Times, 27 February 2004.
148. Amendment to the Supplementary Arrangement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Panama to Arrangement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Panama for support and assistance from the United States Coast Guard for the National Maritime Service of the Ministry of Government and Justice, 12 May 2004, http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/32858.htm.
149. See also: Panama joins Accord to stem ships' transport of illicit arms, The New York Times, 11 May 2004.
150. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands concerning cooperation to suppress the proliferation of weapons of Mass Destruction, their deliver systems and related material by sea, Washington, 13 August 2004, http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/35237.htm; reprinted in Annex II(c).
151. Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Croatia concerning cooperation to suppress the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials, 1 June 2005, http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/47086.htm.
152. Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus Concerning Cooperation to Suppress the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Their Delivery Systems, and Related Materials By Sea, Washington, 25 July 2005, http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/50274.htm; reprinted in Annex II(d).
153. Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Belize Concerning Cooperation to Suppress the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Their Delivery Systems, and Related Materials By Sea, Washington, 4 August 2005, http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/50809.htm.
154. "This would make the PSI appear multilateral, when it, in essence, is unilateral"; A. Persbo, The Proliferation Security Initiative: Dead in the water or steaming ahead? Prospects for the 16-17 December 2003 PSI meeting in Washington, 12 December 2003, http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN031212.htm.
155. G-8 Action Plan for non-proliferation, White House, Office of Press Secretary, 9 June 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040609-28
156. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/2510/2511/t25626.htm.
157. On Russia's participation in Proliferation Security Initiative, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Press Department, Press Release no 1224, 31 May 2004
158. see also: Russia joins Proliferation Security Initiative, Asia Export Control Observer, Issue 3, August/September 2004, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/observer/asian.
159. W. Hawkins, Chinese Realpolitik and the Proliferation Security Initiative, 5 China Brief - A Journal of Analysis and Information, Jamestown Foundation, 1 February 2005.
160. S. Maiden, The Advertiser, 14 July 2003.
161. Estonia was the 149th State that ratified on 26 August 2005 the LOS Convention; see Chronological list of ratification of, accession and succession to the Convention, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, Oceans and Law of the Sea, http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference-files/chronological-lists-of-ratifications.htm#The%20United%20Nations%20Convention%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20the%20Sea.
162. The meaning of these terms is given in article 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, New York, 15 December 1997, 37 ILM 1998, pp. 249-252.
163. In the initial draft Statute "crimes of terrorism" meant "understanding, organising, sponsoring, ordering, facilitating, financing, encouraging or tolerating acts of violence against another State directed at persons or property and of such a nature as to create terror, fear or insecurity in the minds of public figures, groups of persons, the general public or populations, for whatever considerations and purposes of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or such other nature that may be invoked to justify them"; see Draft of the Rome Statute to International Criminal Court, http://www.un.org/law/icc/n9810105.pdf.
164. J.E. Noyes, American Hegemony, US political leaders and general international law, 19 Connecticut Journal of International Law 2003, p. 301.
165. D.F. Vagts, Hegemonic international law, 95 AJIL 2001, pp. 843-848.
166. J.E. Alvarez, Hegemonic international law revisited, 97 AJIL 2003, p. 873.
167. See relevant comment in J.E. Kramke, Bilateral maritime counter-drug and immigrant interdiction agreements: Is this the world of the future?, 31 University of Miami Inter American Law Review 2000, p. 146.