Yemen’s Houthi rebels grasped on Sunday, an Israeli-linked cargo ship in the Red Sea, taking 25 crew members hostage. The rebels claimed the hijacking was a response to the ship’s connection to Israel and declared their intention to target Israeli-linked or owned vessels in international waters until the end of the Israeli campaign against Hamas leaders in Gaza, saying such ships would be considered “legitimate targets,” the PA reported. The incident sparked a wave of claims and counterclaims from various countries, highlighting the complexity of the geopolitical landscape in the region as violence continues to rage between Israeli and Hamas forces. In this explainer, JURIST explores the accusations and denials from world leaders that followed the incident, what international law says about it, and what it all reveals about the complex web of global alliances that serve as the web of background to current regional tensions.
What do we know about the ship itself?
According to TankerTracker, a company that tracks large tankers in real time, the vessel is flagged in the Bahamas, is insured in the UK, owned in the UK, managed by a Greek company and chartered by the Japanese company NYK. TankerTracker also said the ship was leaving the port of Korfez, Turkey, and heading to Pipavav, India, when it was seized. It is difficult to confirm or deny whether the ship has any association with Israel due to its multinational connections; however, some reports claimed the vessel was associated with Ray Shipping Ltd., based in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Israel’s view:
A statement released Sunday by the Israel Defense Forces claimed that the seized vessel had no connection to Israel. Office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the ship was owned by a British company and operated by a Japanese company. Netanyahu’s office accused Iran of supporting the seizure, calling the incident “a step forward in Iran’s aggression against the citizens of the free world, with international consequences for the security of the world’s sea lanes.”
The Houthis and their response
The Houthis are a Shiite Zaydi movement engaged in conflict with Yemen’s Sunni-majority government since 2004, according to a Wilson Center briefing paper. The Houthis took control of the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, in September 2014, extending their rule over all of northern Yemen until 2016. Yahya Sare’e, the official spokesperson for the Houthi paramilitaries, disputed the Houthis’ claims. Israeli government that the ship was not Israeli. declaring:
Yemeni naval forces managed to capture an Israeli ship in the depths of the Red Sea, transporting it to the Yemeni coast… Yemeni armed forces reiterate their warning to all ships belonging to or dealing with the Israeli enemy that they will become a legitimate target for armed forces. The Yemeni Armed Forces urge all countries whose citizens work in the Red Sea to avoid any work or activities involving Israeli or Israeli-owned vessels. The Yemeni armed forces confirm that they will continue to carry out military operations against the Israeli enemy until the aggression against Gaza ceases and until the heinous acts against our Palestinian brothers in Gaza and the West Bank cease.
And Iran?
Yemeni officials and Sunni states have consistently asserted that Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, provided the Houthis with weapons, training and financial support. Despite these allegations, Iranian and Hezbollah officials have either denied or downplayed the claims. The United States, together with Saudi Arabia, presented evidence Iranian arms transfers to the Houthi group, according to the Wilson Center.
Iran has denied any involvement in the seizure. According to media coverage of Al JazeeraIranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said on Monday:
These accusations are void and are due to the terrible situation facing the Zionist regime. We have repeatedly announced that the resistance groups in the region are representatives of their nation and that they make decisions based on their own interests.
And what is Japan’s role?
Japanese Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa told reporters On Monday, the country is trying to hold negotiations with the Houthi paramilitaries to ensure the release of the ship, chartered by the Japanese company NYK. In a statement NYK confirmed the seizure and the company’s association with the vessel, saying the vessel was owned by British company Galaxy Maritime Ltd. and that it had no cargo at the time of the seizure, with a crew of 25 on board.
What does international law say about all this?
In situations where a non-state actor, such as a paramilitary group, seizes a vessel in international waters, the applicability of international laws becomes more complex, particularly where the non-state actor is not signatory to treaties and conventions of international law. THE United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the main legal framework governing maritime activities. Section 3 of Article 17 of UNCLOS states in relevant part: “Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or landlocked, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the sea territorial. » The convention then specifies that “the passage is innocent as long as it does not harm the peace, good order or security of the coastal State”.
But the effectiveness of UNCLOS depends on the support of the parties involved. Even if the Houthi paramilitaries do not constitute a signatory At UNCLOS, Japan, Greece, the Bahamas and Iran are all signatories to the Convention, although they have not ratified it. Although Yemen is also a signatory, international maritime law is largely aimed at state actors. It is therefore unclear whether UNCLOS would apply to the actions of the Houthi paramilitaries despite their quasi-governmental status in parts of Yemen.
The UN Security Council could play a crucial role in responding to such incidents. Under the powers of Chapter VII, the Security Council has the authority to maintain or restore international peace and security. In the event of piracy or threats to maritime security, the Security Council can adopt resolutions authorizing member states to take action. These resolutions may include mandates for naval patrols, interdictions, and the use of force against non-state actors involved in the seizure. That said, the geopolitical issues mentioned above could thwart this option. Each permanent member of the UN Security Council has veto power, and given that the permanent members include China, France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia, the likelihood of ‘an agreement is at its lowest.
Although a non-state actor cannot be a signatory to international treaties, the principles of customary international law may still apply. Customary international law represents legal norms and practices accepted by States, and certain fundamental principles, such as the prohibition of acts of violence and the taking of hostages, are considered binding on all actors, regardless of their formal commitments in the treaties. However, the application of customary international law against non-state actors often relies on the cooperation of states and the international community to bring perpetrators to justice through national or international legal mechanisms, which once again raises the question of rising geopolitical tensions.
In summary, the legal response to incidents involving non-state actors seizing vessels in international waters requires a multifaceted approach, involving the potential intervention of the UN Security Council, the application of customary international law and the cooperation of States to ensure that appropriate measures are taken. are taken against the perpetrators.
Maritime safety concerns
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has raised concerns on overall maritime security in the Red Sea for some time, launching the Red Sea Project in 2021 to help Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen by strengthening their territorial maritime laws and enforcing existing laws. International Maritime Construct (IMSC) has also raised concerns about security in the Red Sea, issuing a statement days before the seizure, warning ships to avoid sailing too close to Yemen’s maritime borders.
Conclusion
The seizure of the Galaxy Leader underscores the complex geopolitical dynamics of the region, involving Iran, Israel, the Houthi paramilitaries and various international actors. While efforts are being made to secure the release of the vessel, the incident highlights broader concerns about maritime security and the application of international maritime law in complex situations.
