A dangerous and legally baseless precedent is being set by the United States and European powers, who are deliberately misinterpreting international maritime law to justify what can only be described as state-sponsored piracy. The latest escalations come primarily from the United Kingdom, with other European states involved, floating the idea of seizing ships on the high seas simply because they are Russian-owned or -affiliated part of the so called “shadow fleet” and the US stealing tankers every other week.

Click here to read this article in Spanish/Español.

This pattern of inventing legal justifications be it by misinterpretation or by using their domestic laws as international law for theft is not new. The recent seizure of the Russian-flagged tanker Marinera has triggered this new wave of excitement, with Western media and governments continued construction of a narrative of a “shadow fleet” engaged in illicit activity to lay the groundwork for further seizures.

Manufacturing Consent Through Fabricated Legality

The Western media has become a public relations arm for this lawlessness, uncritically repeating western government claims. Headlines like “UK can legally stop shadow fleet tanker, Ministers believe” present ministerial belief as legal authority. The term “shadow fleet” itself is a fabricated concept, created by Western powers and repeated until it is accepted as a real phenomenon, thus framing targeted ships as inherently ilegal or clandestine. The core legal fallacy is the assumption that UK or EU domestic law, such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2018, applies to non-citizens and non-territorial waters. This is a fundamental violation of state sovereignty for a US court has no jurisdiction in Venezuela, nor Iran, and UK law has no authority on the high seas over Russian, Iranian, or Venezuelan vessels.

When challenged, the legal argument shifts and they begin with claims of improper flags or paperwork, then morphs into accusations of “hostile activity” or “sanctions evasion.” The actual United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the governing framework, provides no basis for such seizures. Article 92 allows ships to change flags with a transfer of ownership or registry, a common and legal practice. So under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a ship may change its flag during a voyage or in port in the case of a genuine transfer of ownership or a change of registry. Moreover, Article 110 grants warships a just a limited “right of visit” on the high seas only under specific conditions, suspected piracy, slave trading, unauthorized broadcasting, or if a ship is stateless. Even if a ship were stateless, the convention only allows for inspection, not seizure or arrest and if said suspicions were to be unfounded, the boarding state must compensate the ship for any loss.

An Escalation Towards Maritime Chaos

Western officials are not using UNCLOS, they are actually conjuring a “legal basis” from domestic legislation, knowing it is invalid internationally. The UK’s Defense Secretary has openly discussed using special forces to “storm” and “raid” tankers, with seized oil potentially being sold to fund Ukraine, a plan that ignores the reality that such oil is purchased property, and selling it would be trafficking in stolen goods, inviting years of litigation.

The United States has argued that interdictions and seizures of vessels circumventing sanctions are a lawful and necessary component of enforcing robust national security and foreign policy objectives. US officials contend that such actions, often conducted under domestic legal authorities like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), are targeted measures to disrupt illicit revenue streams that fund aggression, terrorism, and activities threatening global stability. These measures are framed not as piracy but as upholding the “rules-based international order” by holding malign actors accountable where multilateral bodies like the UN Security Council are deadlocked. The US has recently targeted and seized shipments primarily linked to Iran, aiming to enforce oil sanctions, and has similarly targeted vessels involved in smuggling oil for North Korea. Operations have also focused on shipments from Venezuela, aimed at curtailing the Chavista government’s revenue.

While falsely accusing Russia, Iran and others of violating maritime law, the US and UK are the ones actively hijacking ships. While feigning outrage over potential border disputes, they are stealing sovereign assets when it comes to the frozen Russian assets of the stolen Venezuelan gold UK has. If every state adopted this principle of seizing vessels based on its own unilateral definitions global maritime trade would collapse into chaos.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Miguel Santos García is a Puerto Rican writer and political analyst who mainly writes about the geopolitics of neocolonial conflicts and Hybrid Wars within the 4th Industrial Revolution, the ongoing New Cold War and the transition towards multipolarity. Visit his blog here. 

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image is from the author

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.