LEGALITY OF ACT STUDIED

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31028, 6 April 1966, Page 17

LEGALITY OF ACT STUDIED

(N.Z.P.A.~Reuter —Copyright) NEW YORK, April 5. The November 20 United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an oil embargo against Rhodesia was the legal basis for the interception of the Joanna V by the British frigate Plymouth in the Indian Ocean, diplomats said last night. It is believed that, though the naval action was the first to be announced officially since the blockade was begun, it wa s not the first such incident. Other interceptions of tankers bound for the Mozambique port of Beira with oil apparently destined for Rhodesia had not been made public for fear of embarrassing the countries whose flags they were flying. According to persons famiI liar with the details, the for-

mula has been to communicate with the government of the vessel involved asking whether any assistance might be required to ensure that the council’s resolution is observed. This has generally resulted in the dispatch of instructions to the owners and the master of the ship concerned, and a warning of the consequences if governmental orders were violated. Warnings Made Diplomats said that British naval vessels had intervened when tankers had not heeded warnings or when there was doubt about the movements in the Mozambique area. It was not clear, however, whether these other incidents had been interceptions or whether the vessels had merely been “buzzed” by naval aircraft. There is believed to be no immediate intention of informing the Security Council officially of the interception. But the action is expected Ito help Britain’s case when I the United Nations special 'committee on colonialism rel sumes debate on Rhodesia toi day. African. Asian and ComSmunist delegates in the United I Nations have called for sanctions against Portugal and ! South Africa, because of their j policies on Rhodesia. Legal Question In London, “The Times" said that Britain had no legal case, under the 1958 Geneva convention of the high seas, to intercept the-Joanna V. It said in an editorial that the interception by the Royal Navy of a merchant vessel on the high seas would raise questions of international legality deserving the closest examination. Britain had no case under the four specific conditions of the convention permitting interfence. The newspaper said: “The government must either claim that the interception is carried out for self defence, or else argue that the United Nations resolution (recommending an oil embargo of Rhode-

sia) gives an extraordinary authority to what would otherwise be an illegal act. “The United Nations resolution is not mandatory, but conditions are such that international lawyers might accept a British explanation that it gives an umbrella of legality to a naval interception. “The government must also have weighed the chances of any nation or company suing

Britain for this act, and decided that the risks of the case going against them were marginal.” An editorial in the “Guardian” said: “Unsporting though t is to turn a battle of wit s into a trial of strength, the British Government was right to use its naval forces in the Mozambique channel to prevent a shipload of oil from reaching Rhodesia.”