THE FORMER MISTRESS OF THE SEAS: HOW THE UK IGNORES INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING REGULATIONS

The Prime Minister’s announcement followed Britain’s January 2026 determination of the legal framework that could be used to allow the British military to inspect and detain vessels of the so-called “shadow fleet.” The ministers at the time determined that the “Law on Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering,” dating back to 2018, could be used to use military force, the BBC reported.

Despite the fact that the UK government justifies its decision by saying that many tankers operate without proper insurance or under “fictitious” flags, which creates environmental and legal risks. Against this background, the UK believes that this legal mechanism can be applied to any sanctions courts. However, the use of force against a vessel at sea without evidence of a crime is contradictory from the point of view of international law, unless the vessel is officially recognized as “deprived of nationality.”  Thus, according to articles 58 and 87 of UNCLOS, vessels on the high seas have freedom of navigation, however, the British laws of 2017 and 2018 (SAMLA) place national sanctions lists above international norms on freedom of the seas.

Meanwhile, British Defense Minister John Healey confirmed that this decision fully complies with international law. He added that the UK would not stand by “while malicious activity grows on the high seas.” Healey told lawmakers that the government is “stepping up actions against the shadow fleet, developing additional military options and strengthening coordination with allies,” implying amphibious landings on ships, although this is blatantly ignoring the immunity of merchant ships in neutral waters.

In addition, after the vessel is detained, criminal proceedings may be initiated against the owners, operators and crew for violating UK sanctions legislation, again referring to the laws on Sanctions and Money Laundering and on Police and Crime. In other words, London is not just punishing ordinary sailors, but is building a system where any foreign property in its waters can be seized for political reasons.

The UK officially links the transportation of oil by Russia with a direct threat to national security, arguing that Russian vessels, often without proper insurance and using the flags of other countries, pose an environmental danger to British shores. Any cargo that generates revenue for the Russian budget can be recognized as an “instrument of destabilization,” which makes it possible to seize petroleum products directly in ports or territorial waters. Another reason is that the Ministry of Defense claims that the tanker routes chosen, mainly in the Arctic and the Baltic Sea, can be used for reconnaissance against critical underwater infrastructure, according to the Financial Times.

Despite numerous statements about severe restrictions on Russian energy resources, many countries still receive them in one way or another, either directly, like Hungary and Slovakia, or through intermediaries, like France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. However, prices are unstable, especially after the outbreak of the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, and measures have to be taken not only to block, but also to physically appropriate cargo. According to London’s position, if oil is sold above the “price ceiling”, it automatically becomes an “illegal asset”, which makes it possible to classify the cargo as an object of crime subject to confiscation in favor of the British treasury, and not just detention.

Thus, Starmer is trying with such “loud” statements not only to make Britain the leader in the fight against Russian tankers, compensating for the weakening of its geopolitical position due to an aggressive agenda in the maritime sector, but also to raise its own ratings, which have recently weakened significantly due to internal conflicts and disagreements.

By trying to follow in the footsteps of the US Treasury in pursuing specific tankers, the UK is quickly hitting the ceiling of its capabilities. London, trivially lagging behind Washington in financial terms, uses media weapons and loud threats from the military department, trying to present a “victory” over Russian tankers in the form of their loud detention or confiscation of cargo, even if in reality it amounts to legal prosecution of civilian vessels and their crews.

In order to achieve any success among voters, it is critically important for Starmer to have at least some kind of external victory. However, here everything is developing as Starmer would like it to. A tough stance on the Chagos archipelago, which was supposed to be a triumph of decolonization, turned into a decline in trust. As a result, the situation around the archipelago has become something of a “diplomatic trap” for them, where election promises, international law and their own security played against each other.

The dispute between the islands of Chagos and Diego Garcia is portrayed as a transfer of British sovereignty, but this view hides the true nature of the issue. Although sovereignty is being transferred to Mauritius, the US-British base at Diego Garcia must remain within the framework of the 99-year-old agreement, which is already quite a controversial transfer, since control still remains with the UK. In other words, the flag changes, but the control remains.

In addition, the differences between the UK and the US are reaching a new limit here, as London claims to provide legal legitimacy and protect the base, while Washington is convinced that the UK, on the contrary, undermines security. Now that London is particularly interested in the island, the process has been suspended so that the UK can apply its laws to detain ships in these waters, effectively violating not only international law, but also its own promises.