It’s kicking off in Dubai again FlightRadar24

Yes sorry. I should have said still disputed. But not like it was because it does not get a 200 mile EEZ. It gets 12 miles.

I remember they used to have people camp on it.

Rockall is still under dispute
The UK always thinking they have ownership….again

There's a great song ‘Rock on Rockall you’ll never fall’

The Irish don’t forget and rarely ‘quietly’ give up

There is not a lot anyone can do about it. Because UNCLOS does not really have jurisdiction. to force a result. There are various opt out clauses for member states.

See the 2016 UNCLOS award in PRC v The Philippines. This is my interest in UNCLOS. I armchair follow it. And it's also why it is... ahem... censored.

I think this is one of the big compromises in UNCLOS. Because who would sign a treaty if that treaty could be empowered against them.

Remember Rockall, in the Atlantic. Both the UK and Ireland claimed that. Because oil potential, and the 200 mile EEZ. But the 2016 award finally got to defining what an island is, as per art 121 of UNCLOS. And Rockall does not qualify for a 200 mile EEZ. So the UK and Ireland quietly gave up their spat over it.

Because they claim an entire sea that their neighbours, and even non neighbours rather object to. In fact, they claim 3x seas. And all that is within them.

If they have the might and will to enforce the claim, what can objectors do? A bit like ICC warrant for Bibi.
I was looking up some disputed territory in a part of the world I'm interested in, on marineregions website. There's a lot of it about, not whole seas, mind.

Yup. I looked it up. Apparently the contiguous zone, 12-24 nautical miles from low water, it depends upon the laws of the state. So it can be a bit fuzzy. Some countries don't care. Other countries really do.

This fits in with what I said up thread about the internet where I am. They really do really really care about it. They care so much about it that they censor the internet on it. Because they claim an entire sea that their neighbours, and even non neighbours rather object to. In fact, they claim 3x seas. And all that is within them.

OK, my knowledge of this is a bit dated and I don't recall seeing ever seeing the specifics for where a carrier/ship could be (that was another branches problem) but an aircraft/helicopter launched off it would be legit/legal iaw with the rules I used to work under until at/inside the 12 nautical mile limit.

ETA: just seen your comment about special case - agreed.

Overflight at 13 nautical miles yes, but surely not carrier ops, because sovereignty over sea and bed goes to 24 miles. Air sovereignty stops at 12 miles.

Edit add.

I think what is special about SoH is that it is all in somebodies 12 mile limit. Iran or Oman.

Know zero about maritime limits and I know straits are a special case but as far as aviation goes usually once outside the 12 mile territorial limit airspace is international...

So for example whilst it's true a Russian carrier group (if they still had one) wouldn't drag it's own controlled airpspace around with it they could in theory conduct air operations in open airspace 13 miles east of e.g Flamborough head...(though it might hack a few people off).

That's possibly the point that the Chinese/Japanese were arguing about.

Yup. Countries do usually need their own specialist lawyers for this stuff. And for likes of that oil spill, complaints are supposed to go the UN. All the rules for doing that are in UNCLOS. But they are well above my level of understanding.

Yes. I have mentioned this a few times on these threads, that for freedom of navigation to apply in territorial waters, ships need to be stood down and going somewhere. It is an act of war to send a warship through with guns blazing. UNCLOS does not apply to that. That goes onto the UN war rules.

We see that with Russian spy and warships ships in UK waters. We watch them and shadow them. And is they stop, as they appear to do over fibre optic data cables, then they are often challenged. " Move along now Please". sort of thing.

There was a case last year of PRC carriers doing combat exercises in Japanese waters. Japan complained. And the PRC said it launched planes because they were making innocent passage and Japanese planes "violated their airspace". That is BS because carriers do not get "airspace" in another countries waters. They are supposed to exercise in the high seas.

Here is art 19 for folk who don't like links.

"Meaning of innocent passage 1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law. 2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities: (a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations; (b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind; (c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State; (d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State; (e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft; (f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device; (g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State; (h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention; (i) any fishing activities; (j) the carrying out of research or survey activities; (k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State; (l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage"

Article 19
Is interesting

’the meaning of innocent passage’

its all quite clear that the US is in violation

Hit post too soon, wanted to include this image too:

Yes, he'd need maritime lawyers or whoever it is with expertise in the area.

And then we have this, an oil slick possibly? Or perhaps the Iranians are now releasing excess oil directly into the SoH so they don't have to cap the wells (which would mean permanent shutdown).

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/suspected-oil-spill-seen-satellite-images-near-irans-kharg-island-export-hub-2026-05-08/

@GentleSheep

Browsing through UNCLOS, and see this bit re fees.

"Article 26 Charges which may be levied upon foreign ships 1. No charge may be levied upon foreign ships by reason only of their passage through the territorial sea. 2. Charges may be levied upon a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea as payment only for specific services rendered to the ship. These charges shall be levied without discrimination. "

So its clear that no charges should be made ideally.. But there is a compromise. A fee can be charged for services. We can assume that is normally for pilotage. But see how open it is. The state could, for example insist on a specific pollution insurance. They could really make up any fee they want.

And as I wrote the above, I wondered about the Bosphorus. Do Turkey charge ? And it turns out yes, they do.

Turkey raises the fee for the passage of ships through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles (gmk.center)

"Starting July 1, 2025, Turkey is bumping up the fee for ships going through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits by 15% to $5.83 per net ton. This was announced by the country’s Minister of Transport and Infrastructure, Abdulkadir Uraloglu, according to a statement from the ministry."

There is precedent for charging. And freedom of navigation does apply to the Bosphorus. But there does appear to be an earlier treaty. The Montreux Convention of 1936. But UNCLOS should have superseded that. Needs investigation.

I am just a layperson. But Rubio has expert advisors to tell him.

UNCLOS is a fascinating treaty. To me anyway.

It's supposed to be the most successful international treaty of all time. Many parts of it are wide open to different interpretations, and many disputes are near impossible to resolve.

But it is because of the flaws that it is so successful. It is a masterclass really of compromise, that near every nation on earth were happy to sign and ratify.

It just so happens that the USA and Iran are 2 of the nations did not ratify it.

@GentleSheep

That is an excellent resource map you found and posted. Thank you very much.

Screen shot attached.

Sea lanes are not shown. Because per UNCLOS that is something the territorial state are allowed to set up. It's up to the owner of the water where ships are directed, for safety and general management.

Dark green is territorial. No different than if it was land. Pale green is contiguous sea. Almost the same as territorial, but overflight by planes is allowed.

The red blob is contested. The South Pars gas field.

Solid black lines are the national boundaries that are agreed and set. There sure is a lot of contested boundaries. I also like how it shows the low water shore baselines. You can see how Iran cheats by doing straight lines between headlands. The PRC do the same.

It even shows the territorial and contiguous waters around Islands.

And yup. There is no international water anywhere.

Glad you can use it! Thanks for the linked document. 🙂

Excellent thanks. That works for me. The map is real slow though. But it works :-)

Where I am these things are usually blocked. Because the guv has loads of.. ahem.. disputes. Stuff like this will not show up on search. Most maps are blocked.

Here is UNCLOS:

UNCLOS+ANNEXES+RES.+AGREEMENT

Hmm I can see the narrow blue 'Internal waters' areas, which are where Iran have been directing ships wanting to pass through, right near Bandar Abbas. Then if I zoom out you can see the dark blue 'High Seas' which are international waters.

Found an EEZ mapper

https://www.marineregions.org/eezmapper.php

Am not entirely sure what I am looking at here, might need to play around with the settings.

Indeed. This stuff with what international waters are baffles me. Rubio is a clever guy. He is the top diplomat. He has a whole department of advisors. But he still gets it wrong.

To me there is only one conclusion. That he came out from meeting the Pope, and he said something he knew not to be true.

Marco Rubio needing to be swift on his feet I see, inventing a whole new 'Not Epic Fury' operation! I thought that was 'AI waters' for a moment rather than International waters. 😅They might as well be, eh?

Not research. Just something I know from something else I follow. I just had to find a link to quote from.

There is also this from Rubio, in that same clip I posted.

“Only stupid countries don’t shoot back when you’re shot at. And we’re not a stupid country,”

Followed by :

Asked if the US has conveyed any red lines to Iran, Rubio replied, “the red line is clear: if they threaten Americans, they’re going to get blown up.”"

So they are stupid if they don't fire back. America is not stupid, so they fire back, and if they just threaten back, they will get blown up.

To me it shows Rubio is speaking from some sort of superiority position. Because what he is saying here certainly does not appear to apply to the other side. Not the way he says it anyway.

And this is the USAs top diplomat saying this. Just after meeting The Pope.

Guessing most MAGA followers don’t get past what they say and do the research like you Redtag

This on the CNN feed just now :

"US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US military action against Iran yesterday was “separate and distinct from Operation Epic Fury,” and that the United States would continue to respond “defensively.”
Operation Epic Fury, which Rubio said earlier this week is over, “was an offensive operation designed to destroy their missile launches, the navy, their air force,” he said in Rome today.
“What you saw yesterday was US destroyers moving through international waters being fired upon by the Iranians, and the US responded defensively to protect itself,” he said.
“Only stupid countries don’t shoot back when you’re shot at. And we’re not a stupid country,” the top US diplomat said at a press gaggle.
Asked if the US has conveyed any red lines to Iran, Rubio replied, “the red line is clear: if they threaten Americans, they’re going to get blown up.”"

I bolded 2 parts above. The first for obvious reasons. Because that is just a plain daft thing to say. I think so anyway.

The 2nd bolded part is important. Because if he is talking about the SoH it is just not true. In fact, it is not true for the entire gulf area. I don't have a EEZ map, but I reckon the closest international water will be out in the Arabian sea.

"International waters are defined as areas of the sea that are not included within the territorial sea or the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of any country. According to UNCLOS, which is the cornerstone of maritime law, the territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles from a nation’s baseline, while the EEZ stretches up to 200 nautical miles. Beyond these boundaries, the high seas begin, free from the sovereignty of any state."

Source for the Intl waters quote:

Where Are International Waters? | Seaplify