quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
quote:
They only got a hull breach from ramming another ship. It's not a "ramming rated" ship either.

quote:

Cole: Yeah, well the sonofabitch just slammed into me!
Harry Hogge: No, no, he didn't slam into you, he didn't bump you, he didn't nudge you...he RUBBED you. And rubbin, son, is racin'.

quote:

This is a research project, said Captain Paul Watson. We've decided to demonstrate our solidarity with the Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand Research projects. Our primary objective is to research non-lethal means for defending whales. Of course this may include research into Japanese ships' hull plate thickness, vessel stress tests, and paint chip analysis, as well as observation of whaler behavior in response to olfactory stimulation.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Quote:
The Sea Shepherd tactics might seem stupid to some but I understand their tactics and why they employ them. Sailing a ship through an ice field is not a drive to the park. It is dangerous. It is deadly if not done carefully. To their credit, they have never had a shipwreck since they were founded and that speaks volumes about their ship handling competence. Attempting to maneuver the Steve Irwin between the Nishin Maru and the Yushin Maru #3 to cut the transfer line, while not successful, was quite a display of testicular fortitude. I salute them for making the attempt. Maybe they will succeed this season. They have purchased a faster ship.
_____________________________________________

Testicular fortitude? LOL I think not. More like Anal-Glaucoma. Or maybe Cranial-Rectal Inversion is more accurate. Perhaps you should see the incident again?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4e_1250377389
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQq78lvKrU
Same ramming filmed from both ships.

quote:

It was not brave it was incredibly stupid and illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
quote:
So because of the invisible ship, The SS rammed the Yushin Maru. Which was visible and on the SS's starboard side. Why would Animal Planet hide the ship? And how? I mean a ship OK,
maybe but what about its wake?

quote:

And why is there nearly 30 seconds of contact between the rammers and the rammed. How do you account for that? Was the invisible ship holding the Sea Monkeys there up against the other ship. Then I guess Animal Planet erased the damage that it caused too (Which would have been on the port side of the SS.

quote:

Did you get a Section 8 from the Navy?

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Wow! You've really made a lot of assumptions about the position of the other YM.
___________________________________________

I was just running with what your throwing out there. The third ship had nothing to do with anything. That's my point.

quote:

Remember, the "researchers" were taking whales from an Australian Exclusive Economic Zone as defined in the UNCLOS.
____________________________________________

Again if the Dutch wont charge the SS. Then the Japanese can't be either.

quote:

So I looked up Section 8. It was an Army regulation, not Navy. How is it you're familiar with it? Oh, that's right, you were in the Army.
____________________________________________

Yeah well what ever you Navy guys call it you still didn't answer the question.

quote:

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd

HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INC v KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
NSD 1519 OF 2004
ALLSOP J
15 JANUARY 2008
SYDNEY

quote:

Australia’s claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised
only by four nations (New Zealand, France, Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves
with asserted (and otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land mass. Japan rejects Australia’s purported exercise of jurisdiction over waters that are considered by Japan to be the high seas.

quote:

I therefore turn to futility as a separate issue.

The respondent has, on the evidence, no presence or assets within the jurisdiction.
Unless the respondent’s vessels enter Australia, thus exposing themselves to possible arrest or seizure, the applicant acknowledges that there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this Court can be enforced (supplementary submissions, paragraph 36)

quote:

No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

quote:

First, the Government considers that the Government of Japan would regard any attempt by Australia to enforce Australian law against Japanese vessels and its nationals in the Antarctic EEZ to be a breach of international law on Australia’s part and would give rise to an international disagreement with Japan.

Secondly, enforcement of Australian domestic law against foreigners in the Antarctic EEZ, based as it is on Australia’s claim to territorial sovereignty to the relevant part of Antarctica, can be “reasonably expected to prompt a significant adverse reaction from other Antarctic Treaty Parties”.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
The Japanese were poaching in Australian waters, not Dutch.
__________________________________________

Really, gee...

__________________________________________
Remember, the "researchers" were taking whales from an Australian Exclusive Economic Zone as defined in the UNCLOS.
____________________________________________

Again if the Dutch wont charge the SS. Then the Japanese can't be either.

That means if the Dutch can't charge the SS under UNCLOS and 72 COLREGS for being unfeasible.
Austrailia or anyone can't charge Japan for UNCLOS violations which are clearly a much lower priority then maritime safety laws.

Both countries have no teeth.
I guess I have to get used to spelling everything out for you...
Dutch waters....ROTFLMAO!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
From Article IV of the Antarctic treaty

quote:

No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force.

Which makes Australian EEZ extension claims illegal under international law

quote:

But the reality is in 1959 when the Antarctic Treaty was signed it put in abeyance any existing claims in Antarctica. It said that we’re not going to challenge them, we’re not going to affirm them, but one thing that was very, very clear in article four of the Antarctic Convention is that no further territorial claims were made on Antarctica. The 1994 extension of this 200 mile Economic Exclusive Zone is a new claim.

quote:

The legal definition of piracy is very hard to nail down. If they are attempting to sabotage a ship on the high seas or to capture a ship on the high seas, of course, then they would be considered pirates. The claim that they’re doing something that the Australian Government should do is ridiculous because the Australian Government, if they intervened and stopped whaling on the grounds that this is their waters, I’m sure Japan would immediately take it to the International Court of Justice. And for all intents and purposes Australia would likely lose.

JENNIFER COOK
And it’s such an emotional issue, isn’t it, you know, to see these people on a ship protesting and coming between the Japanese whaling ships and the whales.

CHARLES SCHENCKING
They can certainly place themselves between harpoons and whales and the whaling ships. I mean, that would be something that they would be able to do under international law, but actually boarding a ship or ramming a ship, that is piracy.

quote:

Originally posted by agni99:
The Japanese are whaling in international waters.

Note this comment from the Australian judge

quote:

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd

HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL INC v KYODO SENPAKU KAISHA LTD
NSD 1519 OF 2004
ALLSOP J
15 JANUARY 2008
SYDNEY

quote:

Australia’s claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised
only by four nations (New Zealand, France, Norway and the United Kingdom), themselves
with asserted (and otherwise disputed) claims over various parts of the Antarctic land mass. Japan rejects Australia’s purported exercise of jurisdiction over waters that are considered by Japan to be the high seas.

quote:

I therefore turn to futility as a separate issue.

The respondent has, on the evidence, no presence or assets within the jurisdiction.
Unless the respondent’s vessels enter Australia, thus exposing themselves to possible arrest or seizure, the applicant acknowledges that there is no practical mechanism by which orders of this Court can be enforced (supplementary submissions, paragraph 36)

He then goes on at length about "futility" and the inability to enforce his order. He cites the Court of Appeal on "futility".

If these were really Australian waters, they would do as all nations do - enforce their EEZ rights. Australia has not and will not. They will not approach the ICJ because they have no rights under international law and may in fact be in violation of the Antarctic treaty by claiming Antarctic waters as an extension to their EEZ.

Justice Alsop is an Australian Federal Judge. His jurisdiction is throughout Australian territory. Yet he himself admits his rulings are unenforceable and futile.

In what country in the world are national waters outside court jurisdiction? Is there some shortage of boats in Australia? A lack of court marshals?

Japan is whaling in international waters. Under a permit issued in accordance with international treaty.

quote:

Originally posted by Ophidian:
Nobody hunts whales in the US, Why?
We have laws, no that can't be it. Austrailia has laws too. So why does no one come into our territory hunt whales?

Hmmmmm..... I wonder why they don't?