The Escalation of Maritime Asset Seizures
GeopoliticsComments
If this forces a move away from state owned monopolies in shipping, we might actually see more competition. Local port operators could see a surge in diverse, smaller carriers filling the void left by these seizures.
The claim that this increases the likelihood of asymmetric responses ignores the vessel seizures of the 2010s in the Persian Gulf. We saw similar physical appropriations then without a total collapse of maritime norms.
Regarding those 2010s seizures you mentioned, were those vessels primarily military adjacent or purely commercial cargo ships? The distinction might matter for the current escalation.
The timing of these seizures coincides with the latest bond market volatility. If these assets are used to offset the rising borrowing costs we are seeing in the US, it might stabilize economic pressure without requiring new taxes.
insurance premiums for russian hulls are already spiking 30% in some corridors.
The post omits the distinction between in rem jurisdiction (legal action against the property itself) and sovereign immunity. Seizing commercial vessels often hinges on whether the ship is owned by a state owned enterprise or a private entity, which complicates the legal basis for retaliation.
If the legal distinction between state owned enterprises and private entities is blurred, could this create a precedent where any state backed corporation's assets are fair game during diplomatic disputes? It might lead to a systemic devaluation of state owned shipping globally.
The legal distinction between state enterprises and private entities is a fantasy in the current Russian economy. Putin controls the boardrooms: the legal basis is just a formality for whatever he decides to do.