particular the law of the sea. . .’
49 UNSC Res 1929 (2010) further explains these
limits, noting that States ‘consistent with international law. . .may request inspections of vessels on the high seas with the consent of the flag State. . .’
50
Security Council authorization for vessel inspections in the North Korea context
has evolved further. While UNSC Res 1874 (2009) similarly calls on all States
to inspect cargo, consistent with international law, when it has ‘reasonable grounds
to believe’ the cargo contains prohibited items, it further calls on Member States to
inspect such vessels on the high seas ‘with consent of the flag state.’
51 If that does not
work, under UNSC Res 2087 (2013), the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee
will issue an ‘Implementation Assistance Notice’ if the vessel ‘refused to allow an
inspection after such an inspection has been authorized by the vessel’s Flag State or
if any DPRK-flagged vessel has refused to be inspected. . .’
52 UNSC Res 2094
(2013) expands on this practice by requiring States to inspect ‘all cargo within or
transiting through their territory that has originated in the DPRK, or that is destined
for the DPRK, or has been brokered or facilitated by the DPRK or its nationals. . .’
53
If any vessel refuses inspection after it has been authorized by the flag State (or if it is
a DPRK-flagged vessel), the Security Council requires all States to ‘. . .deny such a
vessel entry to their ports. . .’
54
Under UNSC Res 2375 (2017), if the flag State does not consent to inspection on
the high seas and does not direct the vessel to proceed to a convenient port for
inspection, then the Security Council’s Sanctions Committee ‘shall consider designating the vessel’ for targeted sanctions.
55 Once designated, the flag State is required
to ‘immediately deregister’ the vessel.
56 The Resolution further notes that inspections may only be carried out by ‘warships and other ships or aircraft clearly marked
and identifiable as being on government services. . .’and that inspections are not
authorized for vessels ‘entitled to sovereign immunity under international law’.
57
Most recently, concerned about illicit North Korean exports facilitated through
‘deceptive maritime practices’, the Security Council under UNSC Res 2397
(2017) requires Member States to ‘seize, inspect, and freeze (impound) any vessel’
in its territorial waters, if it has ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ the vessel was
involved in prohibited activities.
58
49 Id.
50 UNSC Res 1929 (2010).
51 UNSC Res 1874 (2009).
52 UNSC Res 2087 (2013).
53 UNSC Res 2094 (2013).
54 UNSC Res 2094 (2013) para 17.
55 UNSC Res 2375 (2017).
56 Id. para 8.
57 Id. para 10.
58 UNSC Res 2397 (2017) para 9.
168
R. L. Kilpatrick
49 UNSC Res 1929 (2010) further explains these
limits, noting that States ‘consistent with international law. . .may request inspections of vessels on the high seas with the consent of the flag State. . .’
50
Security Council authorization for vessel inspections in the North Korea context
has evolved further. While UNSC Res 1874 (2009) similarly calls on all States
to inspect cargo, consistent with international law, when it has ‘reasonable grounds
to believe’ the cargo contains prohibited items, it further calls on Member States to
inspect such vessels on the high seas ‘with consent of the flag state.’
51 If that does not
work, under UNSC Res 2087 (2013), the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee
will issue an ‘Implementation Assistance Notice’ if the vessel ‘refused to allow an
inspection after such an inspection has been authorized by the vessel’s Flag State or
if any DPRK-flagged vessel has refused to be inspected. . .’
52 UNSC Res 2094
(2013) expands on this practice by requiring States to inspect ‘all cargo within or
transiting through their territory that has originated in the DPRK, or that is destined
for the DPRK, or has been brokered or facilitated by the DPRK or its nationals. . .’
53
If any vessel refuses inspection after it has been authorized by the flag State (or if it is
a DPRK-flagged vessel), the Security Council requires all States to ‘. . .deny such a
vessel entry to their ports. . .’
54
Under UNSC Res 2375 (2017), if the flag State does not consent to inspection on
the high seas and does not direct the vessel to proceed to a convenient port for
inspection, then the Security Council’s Sanctions Committee ‘shall consider designating the vessel’ for targeted sanctions.
55 Once designated, the flag State is required
to ‘immediately deregister’ the vessel.
56 The Resolution further notes that inspections may only be carried out by ‘warships and other ships or aircraft clearly marked
and identifiable as being on government services. . .’and that inspections are not
authorized for vessels ‘entitled to sovereign immunity under international law’.
57
Most recently, concerned about illicit North Korean exports facilitated through
‘deceptive maritime practices’, the Security Council under UNSC Res 2397
(2017) requires Member States to ‘seize, inspect, and freeze (impound) any vessel’
in its territorial waters, if it has ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ the vessel was
involved in prohibited activities.
58
49 Id.
50 UNSC Res 1929 (2010).
51 UNSC Res 1874 (2009).
52 UNSC Res 2087 (2013).
53 UNSC Res 2094 (2013).
54 UNSC Res 2094 (2013) para 17.
55 UNSC Res 2375 (2017).
56 Id. para 8.
57 Id. para 10.
58 UNSC Res 2397 (2017) para 9.
168
R. L. Kilpatrick