Comment by JumpCrisscross
18 hours ago
> Like not attacking civilian infrastructure?
No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across millenia in a way prohibitions on total war are not.
Let me be clear, prohibitions on total war are good. But they're also a new concept and one clearly the world's powers don't agree on to one iota. Freedom of navigation, on the other hand, benefits everyone but autarkies, and has for, again, millenia.
> "shall not suffer interference from other states when in international waters"
The strait of hormuz is NOT international waters.
UNCLOS states that "straits used for international navigation" shall allow transit with impedance, which would include the strait of Hormuz, but Iran has never ratified the treaty (and neither has the USA).
While the US never ratified UNCLOS III (with things like economic exclusion zones), they did ratify the preceding UNCLOS I's Convention of the High Seas and it's freedom of navigation.
You are correct, I was mistaken - UNCLOS I was indeed ratified by the USA.
> I'd actually say freedom of navigation is almost the definition of a Pax
Right, and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana.
> and “Pax” are rare enough that we actually name them. I.e. Pax Romana etc. what we are seeing here is the end of Pax Americana
Fair enough.
> No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation is almost the definition of a Pax
like, say, across a civilian bridge?
> like, say, across a civilian bridge?
Cute. But no cigar. Point is if you put a random assortment of countries in a series of rooms, more of those rooms will agree on freedom of navigation than they will on what bridge can be blown up when. In part because the former is a bright line in a way deciding what is and isn't a military target cannot be.
You should mention that USA does not believe in the freedom of navigation.
Before starting the war with Iran, USA has instituted a blockade of Cuba, intercepting the oil tankers going there and causing thus a severe fuel shortage in Cuba.
Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz was just doing the same that USA has begun doing. So USA has no moral authority to say that Iran should respect "the freedom of navigation", which is a thing that USA does not respect.
4 replies →
This is such a made-up idea.
The various treaties about freedom of passage exist precisely because, before the last 200 years, everyone did whatever they wanted with straits and other natural chokepoints, including closing them at will. Freedom of navigation is not an obviously natural right nor one universally accepted, before colonial powers effectively invented it and enforced it with guns. If somebody shows up with bigger guns, it might well disappear again.
Also, I wish the expression "close but no cigar" could be banned on the internet. Unless you're a professor of international relations at a renowned university, you simply don't get to gatekeep what reality is - particularly when making up arbitrary principles like these.
4 replies →
> No. I'd actually say freedom of navigation [1] is almost the definition of a Pax. It's precedented across millenia in a way prohibitions on total war are not.
What ? The U.S. themselves don't respect this. They only expect OTHER nations to follow it. UNCLOS has been MOCKED by U.S. Presidents all the time. Not just Trump. Reagan & Bush did too. And so do all the neocon U.S. Senators. In their view, the U.S. has a fundamental right to block traffic and setup embargoes.
So blockades weren’t ever a thing?
You mean commercial navigation
It's broader than that [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation