Oil embargo 'illegal'
===============
BY MICHAEL BINYON,
DIPLOMATIC EDITOR
The Times (UK)
April 26, 1999
the-times.co.uk
A NATO blockade of Yugoslav ports and the forcible inspection of approaching oil tankers would be a breach of international law,
legal experts said yesterday.
Stopping neutral ships on the high seas could be justified only if sanctioned by the United Nations or as a clear act of
self-defence, one expert said. "It would require a new declaration."
Nato might argue that the action was justified under an extension of the doctrine of self-defence. But a unilateral declaration to
that effect might not win acceptance. To board ships otherwise would be seen as aggression against the flag under which they were
sailing.
The Government could try to argue that Security Council Resolution 1160, which last month imposed an arms embargo on Yugoslavia,
included wording that prohibited ships from carrying arms and related material - and this could be stretched to include oil. But
that resolution still does not authorise the use of force.
After the invasion of Kuwait, Britain and America imposed a naval blockade on Iraq. But Washington insisted on a different form of
words so as not to force the invocation of the American War Powers Act. Its action, called a "naval interdiction", was upheld by
the UN.
Yugoslavia receives only a fraction of its oil by sea. Until the airstrikes began, most of the 54,000 barrels it imported each day
came from Russia (12,000 barrels), Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and the European Union. Most unrefined oil came through two
main pipelines from Croatia and Hungary. These have been closed.
Oil, especially from Russia, also came by barge up the Danube. Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, said yesterday that this was a
main reason for blocking the river by bringing down the bridges. Yugoslavia produces a further 18,000 barrels a day of its own
oil. Only small amounts of refined oil come to Bar, on the Montenegrin coast.
Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
|
