Interdiction: modalities and international law standards

Abstract

The structure of Part III This book has examined the international law rules permitting one state to operate within another's sphere of jurisdiction (‘jurisdictional rules’) and governing the conduct of such operations (‘operational rules’). This chapter focuses upon the operational rules of maritime interdiction at general international law, while the following chapters deal with the consequences of their breach under the rules of state immunity and state responsibility. This chapter commences by discussing the emergence of increasingly standard safeguard provisions applicable to interdictions before discussing in detail the law on the use of force during interdictions. These safeguard provisions constitute the essential primary obligations during an interdiction, breach of which gives rise to issues of state immunity and responsibility. Allegations of wrongdoing, especially under flag-state law, raise questions of whether boarding-party officials enjoy state immunity for their acts aboard foreign vessels. As seen in NAFO practice, disgruntled vessel masters may undermine inspection regimes by bringing proceedings against individual inspectors for their official acts. The immunity of boarding parties is thus a practical issue in maritime policing and is considered in Chapter 11. Issues of state responsibility may arise from interdictions in three principal cases: alleged breaches of public international law (including rules on the use of force), wrongs to private parties and breaches of flag-state law. These may overlap. The use of excessive force during an interdiction may constitute a public wrong against the flag state and a violation of individual rights of those aboard.