At Reuters it is being reported that the oil tanker boarded and seized by U. S. forces was operating under a false flag:
GEORGETOWN, Dec 10 (Reuters) – Guyana’s maritime authority said on Wednesday that supertanker Skipper carrying Venezuelan oil, which was seized by the United States, was falsely flying Guyana’s flag.
“The Maritime Administration Department has observed the proliferation and unacceptable trend of the unauthorised use of the Guyana flag by vessels that are not registered in Guyana,” it said in a statement.
The authority, which was informed by the U.S. government of the tanker’s seizure, plans to take action against the unauthorized use of the country’s flag, it added.
Under UNCLOS Article 92, ships on the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag state. That protection applies only if the vessel is validly registered and genuinely entitled to fly that flag. UNCLOS Article 110(1)(d) explicitly allows warships (and government vessels clearly marked and authorized) to board a vessel on the high seas when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the ship is without nationality.
That changes my opinion somewhat. The Trump Administration was acting legally in boarding and seizing the oil tanker. Either the U.S. had prior intelligence indicating the vessel’s lack of nationality, or it established that fact during the boarding itself—both of which satisfy the UNCLOS standard.
That suggests that the coverage of this story has been a predictable deficiency of event-driven reporting. The information above should have been front page news. At least it should have received the same level of coverage that the boarding and seizure itself did. AFAICT that has not been the case. While Reuters reported the false flag detail, its legal significance—namely that the vessel was stateless and therefore subject to boarding by any state—was largely unexplored. That omission materially affected how the event was understood.
Remember Jonathan Swift’s witticism: “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect.”
Updata
Maybe I wasn’t hearing right but the “talking heads” news programs this morning didn’t mention the “false flag” or legality issues in any discussions of the oil tanker. IMO that was a serious omission.
Plus it was reported that it was on its way to Iran in violation of sanctions.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the implications. What is clear is that Venezuela is a partner with Russia, China and Iran in the drug trade and oil. When does that change the environment from a crime to terrorism and acts of war. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I think that gets to the root of disputes over US actions.
BTW on the “talking heads” programs they persistently referred to the vessel as a “Venezuelan oil tanker”. It may have been carrying Venezuelan oil but referring to it as a “Venezuelan oil tanker” is gravely misleading at best.
Is any of this surprising? I am not sure if you can trust primary sources.
There have apparently been a number of oil tankers seized by the U.S. over the last several years. A commentor at Volokh found seven via AI:
2020: Cargo from four tankers (Bella, Bering, Pandi, Luna) carrying Iranian oil to Venezuela
2021: Cargo from two tankers (Arina and Nostos) of Iranian origin.
2023: Nearly 1 million barrels from the tanker Suez Rajan (formerly involved in smuggling Iranian oil).
2024: Cargo from the tanker Abyss (over 500,000 barrels of Iranian fuel oil)
I confirmed the first:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/largest-us-seizure-iranian-fuel-four-tankers
Is what’s different here that the oil was going the other direction?
There are some saying that the use of the words “Venezuelan oil tanker” are a “drumbeat to war”.
The U.S. was probably operating with the insight of the Louisiana highway patrol, waiting for the driver to pickup the cargo to maximize the return. (At one point, LA stood out for its use of civil forfeiture)
Isn’t it possible that the oil came from Iran to be refined in Venezuela. Andy wrote in the previous comment it was Venezuelan crude, but there are limited places that can be refined aren’t there?
The AG referred to a “crude oil tanker” in her tweet, which might be the only official press release we have?
“Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations. This seizure, completed off the coast of Venezuela, was conducted safely and securely—and our investigation alongside the Department of Homeland Security to prevent the transport of sanctioned oil continues.”
She doesn’t give the “sanctioned oil” a nationality — perhaps because their official possession is it’s not owned by anyone, or at least not anyone entitled to retrieve it. That will be for the court to decide. But I don’t recall any of the initial coverage recognizing that this was done pursuant to warrant. The people complaining about the previous attacks on drug smuggling vessels outside of the law enforcement paradigm should be happy.
Does that have anything to do with Louisiana and the civil code (Code Napoleon)?
My understanding is that Iranian crude is sort of intermediate between Venezuela crude and Texas crude (WTI). Venezuela crude is denser and has more sulfur (sour) than WTI. Iranian crude is light but sour. It is my understanding that relatively few U. S. refineries are set up to handle Venezuela crude in particular.