Contradictions of the Proliferation Security Initiative with the Law of the Sea Convention 1982

After the end of the Cold War and the subsequent breakdown of the Soviet Union, weapons of mass destruction have become more accessible to states and non-state actors. In addition, the terror attack of September 11, 2001 has become a cornerstone of fight against terrorism in the large scale and therefore western states seek to fight it seriously. The United States of America, with the claim that current policies for fighting proliferation of (WMD), are insufficient, proposed an initiative (the so called Proliferation Security Initiative) to prevent accessibility of terrorists to them. The principal members of this initiative believe that it has no contradiction with international law and until recently a large scale of states have declared their support for the initiative. In contrast, some believe that the initiative has serious contradictions with international law, especially with the law of the sea. Some countries (like the Islamic Republic of Iran, Libya, Syria) and some terrorist groups (like Al Qaeda) are target of the initiative. As our country is subject to the initiative, it is necessary to analysis its contradiction and conformity with international law. In particular, this paper examines the contradictions of the Initiative with the 192 Convention on the Law of the Sea and with the established principles of the Law of the Sea, such as the “Principle of Freedom of Navigation”.