LONDON - The dispute at the heart of Britain's two-week stand-off with Iran -- in whose jurisdiction the 15 British sailors were seized -- is clouded by murky legal and geographical waters, experts said Wednesday.
Iran captured the sailors at gunpoint in the northern Gulf on March 23, triggering a bitter war of words between London and Tehran, before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced their release Wednesday.
Iran insisted they were in its territorial waters, while Britain asserted that they were operating under a UN mandate well within Iraqi waters.
No maritime boundary has ever been agreed between Iran and Iraq, said experts at the International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University in northeast England.
In 1975, the two countries agreed on a land boundary along the "thalweg" -- the deepest part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, extending out as far as the lowest low-water line.
The coordinates provided by Britain for what it called the "ambush" are clearly on the Iraqi side of the 1975-agreed thalweg between land exposed at the maximum low tide.
However, the treaty said the border moves with the ever-shifting thalweg, which should have been reviewed every 10 years -- but in fact was not.
"I wouldn't say dogmatically that the British coordinates are definitely Iraqi territory because they've never met to redefine the thalweg. But I can't see how Iran would be able to say that is under Iranian sovereignty," Martin Pratt, the IBRU's director of research told AFP.
Both sets of Iranian coordinates, including a revised version, are beyond the end of the 1975 agreed Shatt al-Arab boundary line.
The revised position is on the Iranian side of the maritime median line marked on British charts.
But the territorial seas median line has never been agreed between Iran and Iraq, making it a de facto rather than de jure boundary.
"If either of those Iranian points are correct then there can be arguments made either way as to whose waters they are in," Pratt said.
He noted that the first set of Iranian co-ordinates were one numeral different from the second set -- possibly a mere typographical error.
"With different charts likely to be depicting different low water lines, because that is difficult to define and varies, there may be different and equally valid median lines," Pratt explained.
Furthermore, Iran has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), meaning it might therefore argue that it is not bound by their provisions regarding territorial sea delimitation.
Doctor Kaiyan Kaikobad, an expert on territorial boundary law and the law of the sea, told AFP that Iran not being party to the conventions would make "not a jot of difference" to independent international lawyers examining the case, because customary international law is enshrined in UNCLOS.
"Unless you're in a state of war, all you can do is ask a ship to leave. There is no question of boarding, seizing, arresting or detaining," Kaikobad said.
Pratt said any repetition of the dispute could be avoided if Iraq and Iran agreed to sort out boundary issues.
"It would help if they sat down and confirmed they both still recognise the 1975 treaty and for everybody's sake, in the very least if they could agree on a provisional working maritime boundary."
He added: "It's a salutory reminder that not having defined boundaries can be a risky strategy."
04/04/2007 13:47 GMT