Question:
Hi. Could you comment on the situation with possible inspections of Russian tankers in the Baltic by a grouping of NATO ships being created?
On December 26, Finnish special forces boarded the tanker Eagle S in the Gulf of Finland. According to one source it was carrying gasoline to Turkey from the port of Ust-Luga, according to others – oil to Egypt. No anchors were visible in the fairleads. At least one was torn off. For this reason, the Finnish police believe that the tanker broke the Estlink 2 electric cable connecting Finland and Estonia at the bottom of the sea. The ship is also suspected of cutting an important EU fiber optic line in the same area. Over the past year, the BCS East West Interlink, EE-S1 and C-Lion 1 fiber optic cables, as well as a gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia, have been severed under as yet unspecified circumstances.
This is the end of the factual circumstances. Let’s look at the legal part of the matter. I turned to the flagship navigator of the Black Sea Fleet – according to his official duties he is a qualified specialist in the law of the sea. Here is his conclusion.
The tanker Eagle S is registered and sailing under the flag of the Cook Islands. It is owned by Caravella LLC FZ of the UAE. Technical management is contracted by MarineTraffic, an Indian company. The captain is a citizen of Georgia. The crew consists of Georgian and Indian citizens.
The tanker did not enter Finnish territorial waters. Finnish special forces boarded the ship from a helicopter in neutral waters and forced the captain to cross into Finnish waters, where he was arrested. Maritime law is elaborate for such cases and does not provide for such a seizure.
The explanation that the Finnish controlling authorities decided to check the technical condition of the ship is ridiculous. The whole world knows that so-called “flags of convenience” exist to save money on repairs and insurance – tens of thousands of old ships sail under them. The Finns recognized the condition of the ship’s mechanisms and the ship itself as unsatisfactory. But this circumstance does not give the Finnish police any rights to board the Eagle S on foreign territory and to inspect it. Otherwise, any country, based on this precedent, will be able to seize any foreign vessels in the future.
Technical control is the responsibility of the country of registration, insurer and owner. They have appropriate certified bodies for that. But cable damage is not such a rare phenomenon in the seas. According to the international practice, communication breakages are compensated by insurance companies in accordance with the established procedure. This circumstance also does not give the right to board a ship and forcibly transfer to its own waters.
Now there is a unique situation: all shipping countries, operators and ship owners are waiting for the outcome – will a lawsuit be filed against Finland’s actions? Otherwise, the right of the strong will start to be established at sea instead of the law of the sea. It is clear that nobody will defend the old tanker from Abu Dhabi. But the owners may intercede for the safety of the cargo.
Looks like the Baltic Sea just got its own reality show called Law & Order: Tanker Edition 🌊🚢 Who knew maritime law could be so dramatic with helicopters, cable cuttings, and international politics all stirred together? 🤯 If Finland starts boarding ships like they’re picking up pizza, I’m not sure the seas will ever be calm again. Someone get this old tanker a superhero cape or at least a lawyer with a bigger boat ⚖️🦸♂️
This situation highlights the delicate balance between enforcing maritime law and respecting sovereignty, especially when incidents happen in neutral waters. The Finnish action raises important questions about precedent and the potential for misuse of power at sea. With complex ownership structures and flags of convenience, international cooperation and clear legal frameworks are more crucial than ever to prevent escalation and maintain order. 🌊⚖️
This situation highlights the complex balance between maritime law and national security interests. Boarding a ship outside territorial waters raises serious legal questions and could set a concerning precedent. It will be interesting to see how the international community responds and whether this incident leads to clearer regulations or disputes over jurisdiction at sea.