Prior notification rather, and this is a requirement many states, not just Iran, imposes.

No, I'm not wrong. You're suck a fucking bully, Invictus. Get over yourself.

http://www.dod.gov/execsec/adr95/appendix_i.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=yGMiyU6AGGQC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=prior+notification+warships+law&source=bl&ots=VmH5WpyP0o&sig=Mr0pqTXF9nO6NFDSYswST6TVQx4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V6YDT6KyGMnJgQfp7ayvAg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=prior%20notification%20warships%20law&f=false

"aws and regulations of the coastal State relating to innocent passage

1. The coastal State may adopt laws and regulations, in conformity with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law, relating to innocent passage through the territorial sea, in respect of all or any of the following:

(a) the safety of navigation and the regulation of maritime traffic;

(b) the protection of navigational aids and facilities and other facilities or installations;

(c) the protection of cables and pipelines;

(d) the conservation of the living resources of the sea;

(e) the prevention of infringement of the fisheries laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(f) the preservation of the environment of the coastal State and the prevention, reduction and control of pollution thereof;

(g) marine scientific research and hydrographic surveys;

(h) the prevention of infringement of the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State."

You fail to see the distinction between a state's territorial sea and an international waterway like the Strait of Hormuz. A ship going through the Intracoastal Waterway needs the United State's permission, one going through the Bering Strait doesn't.

Dover strait or strait of Gibraltar are better examples

Much better, I just wanted to keep with American examples.

What Controls can Coastal States Exercise over Vessels Engaged in
Transit Passage through International Straits?

The rules recognized in the LOS Convention do not allow suspension of
transit passage (Article 44) and do not require innocence,
17
but they do
impose, inter alia, the following restrictions on transit passage: (1) transit
passage must be solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious
transit (Article 38(2)); (2) transiting ships must comply with generally
accepted international regulations, procedures, and practices for safety at
sea (Article 39(2)(a)) and for the prevention, reduction, and control of
pollution from ships (Article 39(2)(b)); and (3) ships exercising the right
of transit passage must proceed without delay through the strait, must
not engage in any research or fi shing activities, and must refrain from any
threat or use of force (Articles 39(1), 40, and 42(1)(c)"

US warships fail to meet any such criteria.

http://www.law.hawaii.edu/sites/www.law.hawaii.edu/files/webFM/Faculty/Straits100308.pdf

And I might add, that this whole "transit passage" business for straits was a law made by UNCLOS, which the US hasn't ratified. So once again, I repeat, it is not binding customary law.

Really? A ship that goes right to Bahrain doesn't fit that criteria?

Excuse me, but isn't the US using the 5th fleet to threaten Iran with violence if the strait closes? Isn't it being used for intelligence gathering and other hostile purposes? Do you really think the world believes that US warships in and around Iran are not there for hostile purposes vis-a-vis Iran? Get real.

Ah! You don't know what customary law is if you think that just because the United States hasn't ratified the treaty it doesn't apply! Customary law is just that: custom. It's treated as law because states accept it as law. The United States accepts the Law of the Sea as customary law, but has not ratified it because it feels certain provisions (mostly dealing with money, not anything at issue here) impugn on its sovereignty. We should ratify it, but saying that just because we haven't Iran is justified in closing the Strait of Hormuz is ludicrous.

US warships are there because the other states in the Gulf invited them. You want Iran to have a veto over the foreign policies of the Gulf states? Unless and until there really is a war, our warships and the warships of any other state can go right through the Strait of Hormuz whenever they want to. In the event of a war, Iran has every right to try and stop us. Till then it belongs to everyone to use.

There are wide ranging interpretations about prior notification and the transit passage issue, which isn't ratified by a large number of countries, and only came into existence in 1982. To argue that transit passage is customary law is horsepuckey. The Geneva Convention on the territorial sea is much older, and has better much claim to being "customary law" than the 1982 regime.

You can't just close a strait, it's like a blockade. Imagine if the Spain just "closed" the Strait of Gibraltar. Fuck that.

Stop blocking people and you won't be blockaded.

*blockading

Iran can easily argue that the tight sanctions constitute an act of war and therefore any claim to "innocent passage" is moot.

It's an act of war now to not buy oil? An act of war to not do business with Iranian companies? Iran can't close the strait. To do so would prevent other states from their right to access international waters and would threaten the entire world economy by keeping shipments of oil from leaving the Gulf. Pick your battles, Putin33. Just because America is on one side of an issue does not mean you always need to take the other side.

Yes, it is. It's not just a matter of the US not buying Iranian goods, but extends to affect Iran's entire ability to export. It's economic strangulation, and it's long been considered an act of war.

"Just because America is on one side of an issue does not mean you always need to take the other side."

Oh shut up. You've never criticized the US on any major foreign policy issue.

Vietnam. And the sanctions would end if Iran stopped its nuclear program.

And Iraq would not have been invaded if it had ended its chemical and biological weapons programs. Oops!

"Vietnam. "

Way to go out on a limb on that one.

"And the sanctions would end if Iran stopped its nuclear program."

Last I checked America had a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons, not to mention dozens of nuclear plants. So do other countries. When will you call for a blockade on the US?

Sanctions is not equal to an act of war, everyone knows that, whether they are sanctioners or sanctionees.

It's an unfriendly act, but that doesn't mean you get to start blocking straits.

That said I don't know if that's what Iran is actually doing. But it seems you guys are arguing about whether Iran should be allowed to, and no, they shouldn't. Just like Spain shouldn't be allowed to block the strait of Gibraltar, or the Americans the Bering Strait, or whatever.

"And the sanctions would end if Iran stopped its nuclear program."

Iran has a right under the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty to develop civil nuclear power, the US as a signatory is required to help.

Now the US claim that Iran is trying to turn a civil program into military one is largely unprovable.

How and ever, as Iran hasn't ratified a treaty regarding passage of ships through a strait, i think you'll find they have a lot of room to act.

Whether they 'should' be allowed is largely a stupid question. No-one is allowing or preventing them. That they should be encouraged to ratify the treaty and join the global international community is a given and i think that's what most people agree on, whether US military action is justified or even useful toward that goal is a secondary question.