Sri Lankan Navy arrests 56 Tamil fishermen in two days

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
I don't know international maritime laws, but logic says if an international agreement is reached, then not ratified by parl of one of the countries, its that country's internal issue. The other country will obviously go by the agreement only! Ratification should be done before signing the agreement, right?

Its like I go and sign a business deal, and later say I can't honor the deal as my boss didn't approve it.

Why should both parties stay away? It was Indian territory, and it's transfer has not yet been ratified by the Indian Parliament, so shouldn't status quo be maintained?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,594
I don't know international maritime laws, but logic says if an international agreement is reached, then not ratified by parl of one of the countries, its that country's internal issue. The other country will obviously go by the agreement only! Ratification should be done before signing the agreement, right?

Its like I go and sign a business deal, and later say I can't honor the deal as my boss didn't approve it.
Not sure about that, but let me get the legal experts to comment on this.
@sayareakd, @nrj, @The Messiah
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sridhar

House keeper
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,474
Likes
1,061
Country flag
@sayareakd

Can you please clarify on the article 8 of 74 Agreement and Article 7 of 76 Agreement, Which mandates a ratification.

Article 8
This Agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of the instruments of ratification which will take place as soon as possible.
Boundary Agreement in Historic Waters

The Agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification,
which shall take place as soon as possible.
New Delhi, 23rd March 1976

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/LKA-IND1976MB.PDF

PS: I tried for MEA web site link , but for year 1976 there is no record.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

U Sun Dar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
94
Likes
39
Why does the title says tamil fisherman ?
Since its a international issue it shud rather say indian fishermen were arrested ?
Same Question....Why central Gov didn't treat as a Indian fisher mans Rather than Tamil Fisher mans....Enna vazkada idhu:rolleyes:
 

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
Nobody claimed so... They are Indian fishermen. However all we hear in news that it is only Tamil fishermen who get arrested. I may be wrong, but I don't think SL coast guard looks at the fishermen through binoculars, identifies only the tamil boats and captures them.

Same Question....Why central Gov didn't treat as a Indian fisher mans Rather than Tamil Fisher mans....Enna vazkada idhu:rolleyes:
 

U Sun Dar

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
94
Likes
39
Till now more than 500 fishermens killed by Srilankan navy......Who will responce...?
?
?
Probably Central goverment take neccessary action against SL...But what They doing :frusty:?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
were they in SL waters?

Did they have GPS?

It is time the Coast Guard (CG) of India patrols so that these things don't happen.

And I am sure no SL Navy chaps can come close to do illegal detention if the CG is there!

This problem is happening all the time.

Why is India not fielding its CG?

What is the CG for but to protect Indian waters and those who use it?!

We are selling ourselves all over!

Punks are also acting tough and we are lumping it!
 
Last edited:

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,952
Country flag
@sayareakd

Can you please clarify on the article 8 of 74 Agreement and Article 7 of 76 Agreement, Which mandates a ratification.

Article 8
This Agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of the instruments of ratification which will take place as soon as possible.
Boundary Agreement in Historic Waters

The Agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments of ratification,
which shall take place as soon as possible.
New Delhi, 23rd March 1976

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/LKA-IND1976MB.PDF

PS: I tried for MEA web site link , but for year 1976 there is no record.
It has been long time since i last read International law, except for Italian marines discussion here.

Signing and Ratifying a Treaty

so approval from Parliament is necessary in case of India.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

arnabmit

Homo Communis Indus
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
6,242
Likes
7,522
Country flag
But the question is, should the ratification happen before or after the agreement.

If the agreement can be vetoed during ratification, what is the value of a previously signed agreement then?

Would or should the other party agree to a veto during ratification once they have already signed an agreement?

It has been long time since i last read International law, except for Italian marines discussion here.

Signing and Ratifying a Treaty

so approval from Parliament is necessary in case of India.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,952
Country flag
But the question is, should the ratification happen before or after the agreement.
always after.

If the agreement can be vetoed during ratification, what is the value of a previously signed agreement then?
Would or should the other party agree to a veto during ratification once they have already signed an agreement?
if vetoed then treaty is not binding. If some parts are agreed to and others are not agreed to it is called reservations to treaty
here this will help
Reservation (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

more details here
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft articles/1_8_2011.pdf
 

tramp

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,464
Likes
580
were they in SL waters?

Did they have GPS?

It is time the Coast Guard (CG) of India patrols so that these things don't happen.

And I am sure no SL Navy chaps can come close to do illegal detention if the CG is there!

This problem is happening all the time.

Why is India not fielding its CG?

What is the CG for but to protect Indian waters and those who use it?!

We are selling ourselves all over!

Punks are also acting tough and we are lumping it!
The strait is very narrow. Therefore, there is bound to be overlapping. Because the sea lies between two countries and both countries fishermen exploit it, the yield is bound to be low forcing fishermen to try their luck a little further into the sea, invariably crossing over. This happens on both sides. There needs to be some joint mechanism between the two countries to return fishermen caught like this without much delay.
And stipulating that the boats should have GPS as part of the lincensing process is also a good idea. Maybe, the state government can subsidize the cost.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
pmaitra's post above is worth noting!
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Not sure about that, but let me get the legal experts to comment on this.
@sayareakd, @nrj, @The Messiah
ratification is done afterwards and its not binding unless its ratified.

International Court of Justice

The dispute, which was submitted to the Court on 20 February 1967, related to the delimitation of the continental shelf between the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark on the one hand, and between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands on the other. The Parties asked the Court to state the principles and rules of international law applicable, and undertook thereafter to carry out the delimitations on that basis.

The Court rejected the contention of Denmark and the Netherlands to the effect that the delimitations in question had to be carried out in accordance with the principle of equidistance as defined in Article 6 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, holding:

- that the Federal Republic, which had not ratified the Convention, was not legally bound by the provisions of Article 6;

- that the equidistance principle was not a necessary consequence of the general concept of continental shelf rights, and was not a rule of customary international law.

The first question to be considered was whether the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf was binding for all the Parties in the case. Under the formal provisions of the Convention, it was in force for any individual State that had signed it within the time-limit provided, only if that State had also subsequently ratified it. Denmark and the Netherlands had both signed and ratified the Convention and were parties to it, but the Federal Republic, although one of the signatories of the Convention, had never ratified it, and was consequently not a party.
Also the treaty itself says its subject to ratification!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SinghSher1984

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
109
Likes
13
Ratification is supposed to represent the fact that multiple parties are being represented, the people, governments etc.

If it has not been ratified, and therefore is not binding the Indian Naval Forces need to pay this little island a visit as it amounts to a declaration of war.

Once again, an example of government incompetence.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top