Who and what is behind the case MT "Grace 1" - an analysis
Gunter Schütze
Graduate Engineer Ship Management, Master Mariner, Captain, Consultant, Author
In "LLOYD'S LIST MARITIME INTELLIGENCE" I found two articles about the case of MT "Grace 1", which cause me to comment on this topic again.
Reason for my renewed comment on the case "Grace 1" are stated statements that raise the question of what and who wants to obscure the true background here.
In the article
"Iranian tanker seizure could face legal challenge, say shipping lawyers" from 05. July 2015 are interesting messages from James Turner to find.
James M. Turner, QC is an experienced “commercial advocate specialising in commercial contractual disputes across sectors including international commercial arbitration, energy, shipbuilding, offshore construction, shipping and banking. He is regularly appointed arbitrator, particularly in shipping disputes, and has extensive experience of mediation, both as mediator and as counsel.”
(source: https://www.quadrantchambers.com/barristers/profile/james-m-turner-qc)
He is an excellent lawyer with extensive knowledge and experience in the field of international shipping
I would like to elaborate on two of his arguments:
quote
“Mr. Turner said: “If — as appears to be the case — the ship was in Gibraltar waters when it was seized by the local authorities, assisted by a detachment of Royal Marines, then this would appear to be a conventional enforcement action, permissible under EU law.”
unquote
The Facts
I am not a lawyer, but a longtime navigator, who is able to create travel route recoveries in the context of navigational facts and thereby also incorporate his background knowledge as a naval officer. Hereto I want following facts presenting:
1) Ships entering the Mediterranean from the Atlantic Ocean have the duty (mandatory) to use the southern eastbound lane of the TSS. They drive through Moroccan territorial waters and in the area around Ceuta, Spanish territorial waters, which are to be regarded as EU territory
They do not get into the embarrassment of entering into the territorial waters of Gibraltar unless they are execute a bunker stop in Gibraltar. Thus, the authorities of Gibraltar also have no legitimate right to divert this ship. From the point of view of UNCLOS, this gives no legal basis.
2) Recovery of the "Grace 1" itinerary suggests that the ship in international waters by British Marines had been boarded. The mentioned periods and ship speeds allow only this logical conclusion.
3) AIS records show that MT "Grace 1" was in Moroccan territorial waters on 04.07.2019, 05:03 LT. Around 05:37 LT "Grace 1" passed the maritime border between Morocco and Spain / Ceuta with the course 063 ° and speed of 10.5 kts, following the eastbound TSS lane.
4) On the eastern limit line of the S-ly Traffic Lane to the E-ly Precaution Area, there is a wheel over point for course alteration to course 074 ° to follow the lane. The minimum distance to the waters of Gibraltar is 3.5 nm, which means vessels are always outside the territorial waters of Gibraltar.
5) "Grace 1", however, retains its course 063 °. Then 05:43 LT she initiated a NE-ly course alteration to 045°
6) At 05.51 LT, "Grace 1" carried out a course alteration to course 008 ° outside the territorial waters of Gibraltar, which will lead to the eastern anchorage within the territorial waters of Gibraltar and she did reduce significantly speed. She enters 06:22 LT the territorial waters of Gibraltar. In position 36 ° 03 '23 "N 005 ° 18' 20" W and not before is the Gibraltar's sovereign right are in force.
7) From the recovery of voyage data it is evident that MT "Grace 1" was forced on 07.04.2019, 05:23 lt heading for the E-ly anchorage of Gibraltar located in the Alboran Sea. At that time the ship was in Moroccan territorial waters! This is a clear indication that even at this time people must have been on board, which are not assigned to the crew. It is thus almost 100% certain excluded that MT "Grace 1" was boarded in the territorial waters of Gibraltar.
8) In my view, it is evidence that the British Marines were already on board, because why should I, as captain, follow a request from Tangier Traffic to sail to the E-ly Anchorage of Gibraltar, when I plan to travel to easterly in Mediterranean Sea? I would not follow this instruction and continue my journey, since this instruction during a normal sea passage, without violating the sovereignty of Morocco, does not contain a legally binding obligation to follow such instructions. And if so, then only the request could be made to sail to an anchorage within the Moroccan waters. Because it would be Moroccan sovereign law and that has nothing to do with Gibraltar.
9) The elaborate recovery of the voyage data of the "Grace 1" does not support the thesis of James Turner:
“If — as appears to be the case — the ship was in Gibraltar waters when it was seized by the local authorities, assisted by a detachment of Royal Marines, then this would appear to be a conventional enforcement action, permissible under EU law.”
Since it is impossible, from the point of view of an eastbound passage through the Strait of Gibraltar into the Mediterranean, to ever enter the territory of Gibraltar. This case was enforced by force of arms!
10) I share the view of James Turner, QC:
“James Turner, QC, a prominent shipping barrister, said that while the import into the EU of Syrian oil has been prohibited since 2012 by Council Regulation 36/2012, the export of oil to Syria is not banned per se, despite widespread media commentary to that effect.”
It is interesting that a UK renowned specialist lawyer, interprets the EU Council Regulation 36/2012, interprets the same as I set out in my article "The Case of MT Grace 1".
Another article in LLOYD'S LIST MARITIME INTELLIGENCE
The article "Iran says seizure of oil tanker was 'threatening act", published on 08 July 2019
(Source: https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1128263/Iran-says-seizure-of-oil-tanker-was-threatening-act)
Contains in the article a statement that has it in itself. In it is confirmed by the Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Borrell:
quote
“Spain’s acting foreign minister Josep Borrell said the mission was actually carried out at America’s request, implying that the raid had little to do with EU sanctions. “
Unquote
It shows that the Spainsch governement was informed about this request by US Government or British government.
As a reminder, Chief Minister Gibraltars announced in Press Release 514/2019 of 5 July 2019:
“There has been no political request at any time from any Government that the Gibraltar Government should act or not act, on one basis or another.”
What is true now? Was the by Spanish Foreign Minister named request by US Government addressed to Government of Great Britain und not to Government of Gibraltar? And that Gibraltar was commissioned by London as the overseas territory of Great Britain to carry out the access?
The political status of Gibraltar can be seen from the following passage:
“Gibraltar has a Westminster-style Parliament and is responsible for its own internal affairs whilst foreign affairs and defence remain the responsibility of the UK Government (represented in Gibraltar by the Governor, Lt Gen Edward Davis).”
(Source: https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press/gibraltar-fact-sheets)
Than we can see that the press release 514/ 2019 was not wrong, because the US Government had sent a request to Government of UK and not to the Government of Gibraltar. Because only the British government could response in foreign affairs.
Gibraltar was only pleaded forward, because the action is in reality an action of UK after all, because it is a request of the United States government to the Britain that is responsible to "foreign affairs and defense of Gibraltar remain in responsibility of the UK Government"
This also makes it clear to the last that in fact the US government is behind this action and found in the government of Britain a willing executor. The EU Council Regulation 36/2012 does not cover this diversion of MT Grace 1. It can’t even be used.
© Copyright 2019 Capt. Gunter Schütze. Replication or redistribution in whole or in part is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent by Capt. M.Eng. Gunter Schütze
News to me that sailing eastbound you go through Gib waters! ???😳
Very strange from Mr. Turner to make these obviously false statements in public! 😩👎
SLKroneberg Consulting
4yIt is a clear, undeniable and indisputable act of piracy.