The Law of the Sea and stateless vessels

A guest commentary by Mark Hayward. Your reaction and serious thoughts are solicited. The recent nonsense about war crimes and accusations of naval forces engaging in piracy themselves is seriously flawed. The claims are made even by people who should know better. The problem, it appears, is not least in the hypocrisy and projection demonstrated by both sides (both old parties and the Trumpista/Never-Trumper conflict). How to deal with those branded as “narco-terrorists” is something that must be properly and thoughtfully addressed in courts, elections, and debates and discourse. This includes precisely why there is an international trade in illegal drugs and why those drugs are illegal. But in the meantime, unfounded accusations of crimes and a misunderstanding of the actual situation on the water just confuse the issues and delay their resolution.

We note that in pointing this out, and providing this guest editorial, The Price of Liberty is in no way endorsing the “War on Some Drugs” or accepting that governments have any legitimate claim to aggression against others, stateless or not.

---

A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.

A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS [UN Convention on the Law of the Sea] to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.

UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:

1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.

2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.

3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.

No armed conflict = no war crime possible.

4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.

Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.

5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.

6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.

Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.

…… Mark’s comments continued but have been removed as they are highly derogatory to various and sundry.

As lovers of liberty, we may and do have serious problems with the Law of the Sea, and especially the way it has been modified and changed by the UN convention and the idiotic politicians. That said, pirates and their ilk are as bad (in most ways) as government agents and officials.Historically, and even in modern times, pirates are not those people portrayed in the Cap’n Jack Sparrow movies, Ragnar in Ayn Rand’s novel, nor Hallowe’en costumes. Virtually all of them were monstrously evil people, loyal (perhaps) to their mates and families, but torturers, murderers, rapists, slavers, and robbing both innocent and government ships, ports, and installations. But like any person, however evil, it is not wrong to offer mercy even while making them pay for their evil deeds.

The War on Some Drugs is the result of people forcing their ideas of what is moral on others, and the idea that government (even if of, by, and for, the people) can successfully keep people from destroying their own lives with chemicals, ignoring the fact that such prohibitions always create far more harm to far more people. These people may indeed be classified as terrorists (“narco-terrorists” in current jargon) but they exist because governments have created the climate in which they can operate and initiate aggression on others. Is attacking and destroying boats or ships transporting drugs (or anything else that might harm someone) an acceptable strategy of self-defense? We do not believe so.

READ MORE

Source: https://freedombunker.com/2025/12/12/the-law-of-the-sea-and-stateless-vessels/