Is Iran breaking international law in this latest crisis?

Question

Many believe that Iran's recent abduction of British Naval personnel could be seen as an act of war. Today Iran refused to reveal to the British Embassy in Tehran the location of the soldiers and denied them access to the soldiers. Is this, too, an breach of international law? If so, please provide sources.

Answer 1

Non-Muslims think that Iran violated international law by abducting the 15 British sailors and by refusing to reveal their location and denying them access.  Casus belli.

Iran does not recognize international law.  The Islamic Republic of Iran only recognizes the

sharia.  

Velayat e faqih

The Supreme Leader of Iran (being a Shiite ayatollah) is considered to be supreme authority.  Ayatollah Khamenei can declare a ruling (fatwa) according to his interpretation of the Qur'an.  He is not obliged to follow international law because the law of Allah is above that.  

Also, Ayatollah Khamenei is the commander-in-chief of the military (not Ahmadinejad).  That is the beauty of a theocracy, the leader is always right.

Answer 2

Iranian revolutionaries, led by their current leader, sacked the US embassy in Tehran and took the accredited diplomatic staff hostage for 444 days (Nov. 4, 1979 to Jan. 20, 1981).  It was an act of war.  The US, led by the hapless Jimmy Carter, did nothing.  

The American hostages were subjected to intense psychological torture.  I didn't hear anybody outside the US complaining about it the way they did US soldiers putting knickers over the heads of terrorists held at Abu Grabe.

The Brits better get ready for a long standoff, unless Tony Blair's replacement wants to humiliate himself and his country by begging for the sailors and marines back.

Answer 3

Iran claims that the incident took place in their territorial waters; if this is the case, even if it's 'disputed' territory, detaining the soldiers isn't technically illegal.  It's aggressive, offensive and provocative, but would be hard to prosecute even if Iran were willing to submit to the authority of the World Court - which it isn't.  Refusing information about the detainees, and denying access to humanitarian groups, is in violation of the Geneva Conventions - but Iran isn't a signatory so they can claim they're not bound by it.  (Convenient, eh?)

On the other hand, if it can be proven that the capture took place outside recognized or claimed waters; or if Iran goes through with its threat to try and execute them for 'espionage' then that would constitute an act of war.  Most likely the UK would still be too pussified to react, but they'd be justified in taking retaliatory action if they chose to do so.

Answer 4

No, any Country has the ultimate right to repel any foreign

invasion of their country by reasonable means.You see

if a foreign military crosses in International Border the

country in question can and will detain those military

persons in it's territory and will negotiate the terms for

their return,it's clear politics until people are killed or

vessels or aircraft are lost in mass numbers

Answer 5

There is a good posibility that Iran did break the law in abducting the British soldiers.  But the British shouldn't have to have Iran tell them where the soldiers were when they were captured.  Didn't the soldiers use GPS?

The reason Iran captured them in the first place was to use them for trade.  They want the captured Iranian nationals to be freed and they are willing to trade for them.