Tankers urged not to pay toll to Iran for use of strait (www.bbc.com)
from throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to world@lemmy.world on 11 Apr 16:48
https://lemmy.nz/post/36402492

#world

threaded - newest

givesomefucks@lemmy.world on 11 Apr 17:13 next collapse

Intertanko is saying this…

en.wikipedia.org/…/International_Association_of_I…

They’re third party shippers and if tankers have to pay, that’s their profits.

But the oil companies are gonna pay it anyways, be ause they get the increased profits from the price of oil.

yesman@lemmy.world on 11 Apr 17:31 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5a3e8f68-ad0a-4b97-8995-71b2180a6d3c.jpeg">

wpb@lemmy.world on 12 Apr 06:18 collapse

What international norm says you can’t charge people for using your territory?

Wrufieotnak@feddit.org on 12 Apr 06:32 collapse

That would be UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

And honestly I really like the dry humor that some Wikipedia entries (strait of Hormuz in this case) are written:

To traverse the full length of the strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. Although Iran has not ratified the UNCLOS convention,[19] most countries, including the U.S. which also has not ratified it,[20] claim the right of passage as codified in the convention.

wpb@lemmy.world on 12 Apr 06:40 next collapse

I learned sth new! Pretty funny indeed

Eximius@lemmy.world on 12 Apr 20:58 collapse

That’s hilarious. Just pure historical irony.

marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today on 11 Apr 18:03 next collapse

‘international law’

Bro international law doesn’t exist. if it did the US would have been militarily eliminated in the 1800s and Israel would not have come into existence, period.

Oman and Iran, the two countries that border the straight want recompense for the international community’s failure to control the rabid dog that is the United States. That’s more than fair.

If you want tankers through their waters, which the straight is, then just pay. Otherwise stop buying avocado toast and paying for overland shipping to any of the other water ways.

nkat2112@sh.itjust.works on 11 Apr 18:47 next collapse

I wonder if insurers already listed clauses to contracts protecting themselves from claims resulting in the destruction of tankers whose owners might choose to navigate through dangerous war zones.

And, if so, I would imagine the owners of those tankers would be well aware of this.

Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 11 Apr 22:15 next collapse

Pretty sure most ship insurers have suspended coverage for vessels around that area.

PlantJam@lemmy.world on 12 Apr 03:34 next collapse

Fun fact, war is a commonly excluded cause of loss in insurance policies.

Unimperfect@lemmy.world on 12 Apr 06:04 collapse

There’s a common clause in most commercial B2B agreements called “Force Majeure” which protects one or more parties in case of an unforseen event. War is usually one of the points in such a clause.

Greyghoster@aussie.zone on 11 Apr 21:19 collapse

Don’t pay the toll and get attacked? Insurer’s will go for that! Let’s sail!

YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today on 11 Apr 22:01 collapse

Even if insurers do pay, it’ll be at current valuations, and the shipyards responsible for these massive things are on like a decade plus wait. Insurers at this scale do not insure future expected income. So the owners will be able to pay off the loans and reimburse the suppliers and then hang around for 10 years with their thumbs up their asses. Yeah, no established capital is taking that risk.

Greyghoster@aussie.zone on 11 Apr 22:10 collapse

Yep, the Demented one has really caused a big mess that’s beyond his control.