Rhodesian Oil: Bootleggers or Pirates?
| Published date | 01 September 1966 |
| Date | 01 September 1966 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206602100306 |
| Author | L. C. Green |
| Subject Matter | Notes and Comment |
Notes
and
Comment
L.
C.
Green,
University
of
Alberta,
Edmonton
Rhodesian
Oil:
Bootleggers
or
Pirates
9
The
recent
decision of
the
Security
Council
to
authorize
Britain
to
resort
to
force
against
blockade-runners
seeking
to
supply
oil
to
Rho-
desia
raises
a
number
of
questions
in
international
law Not
least
of
these
is
concerned
with
the
status
of
the
vessel
involved,
which
has
been
described
by
many
as
piratical.
Before
examining
its
true
position,
it
will
be
as
well
to
pause
a
moment
to consider
the authority
of
Great
Britain
and
the
Security
Council m
this
matter.
Rhodesia,
whatever
the
pretensions
and
assertions
of
Ian
Smith
and
his
aides,
is
still
a
British
colony
the
adnminstration
of
which
is
in
the hands
of
a
band of
rebels.
So
far,
no
country, not
even
Portugal
or
South
Africa,
has
recognized
the
territory
as
an
independent
state,
even
though
it
is
now
nearly
six
months
since
the unilateral
declaration
of
independence.
Far
from
independence
being
accepted,
the
majority
of
states,
including
the
Organization
of
African
Unity
has
rightly
pursued
the
line
that
the
issue
is
one
of
internal
British
concern
with
the
first
and
primary
responsibility
for
its
settlement resting
on
Britain.
In
fact,
the
issue
was
first
referred
to
the
United
Nations
for
comment
and
action
by
Great
Britain
herself,
on
the
basis
that
the
revolt
there,
albeit
pacific
in
character,
had
international
complications
and
might
legiti-
mately
be
of
concern
to
international
society
at
large.
It
is
perhaps
now
purely
of
historic
interest
to
rake
over
the
past
in
order
to
ascertain whether
Britain's
attitude
in
November and
earlier
was
correct,
or whether
the original
resolution
of
the
United
Nations
was
sufficiently
strongly
termed.
The
point
of
importance
today
is
that
the
United
Nations had
called upon
its
members to
exercise
economic
sanctions
against
Rhodesia,
while
Britain,
as
the
legally
ruling
power,
was
entitled
to
forbid
the
import
of
any
materials
to
her
Rhodesian
colony
and
to
treat
any
exporter
seeking
to
secure
entry
for
his
products
as
in
breach
of
law
When
it
became
clear
that
certain
shippers
were
prepared
to
defy
the
British
regulations,
it
became
necessary
for
the
British
Government
to
seek
further
authorization
from the
United
Nations.
It
is
all
very
well
being
entitled
to forbid
imports
into
one's
territory
whether
the
home
country
or
a
colony.
It
is
a
very
different
story
to
seek
to
enforce
such
legislation
outside one's
own
territorial
limits.
International
law
traditionally
has
recogmzed
the
right
of
customs
enforcement
to
a
reasonable
distance
on
the
high
seas,
and
by
the
Geneva
Convention
on
the
Territorial
Sea
and
Contiguous
Zone,
1958,
a
state
is
authorized
to
take
control
measures
to
a
distance
of
twelve
miles
in
order
to
enforce
its
customs,
fiscal,
imnugration
or
sani-
tary
regulations.
Even
in
the
absence
of
treaty
provision,
a
similar
right
To continue reading
Request your trial