otb,

"...It costs a small fortune for the naval vessel to escort even for a short distance and as said before, it has its own priorities."

Yes, and considering that, it's most interesting to note the choofing around the navy did with those people on board.

"....In the case of a naval ship trying to ensure that the crew and passengers were safely shipped to land and preferably the port the vessel departed from..."

They didn't end up anywhere near their port of departure. After being ferried about a bit, they were pushed off with no provisions,and just enough fuel to guarantee they weren't "safely shipped to land".

The only "provision" rendered was wads of cash as bribery to the captain and crew....which you appear to think is a wonderful way to conduct business with the smugglers.

"....speculative gossip without proof from a credible source..."

Lol! I hope you're not alluding to the premise that the present Australian govt could be deemed a credible source.

.......

SM,

Your conditions "1" and "3" would only be permissible if consent of the flag state of the vessel was granted.

Poirot,

As I said, I answered your questions as a hypothetical, not directed at any particular instance you might be claiming at the time. With respect, that saves dealing with the constantly moving goal posts and the game of tit-for-tat, where you constantly boob.

The short answer remains, apply the same standard of proof that you require for those you support to the allegations you are making against others you obviously don't support. Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

I am not taking sides when I say that I see no legal impediment to the captain of any navy vessel doing what you allege the Australian Navy did. The better question is why certain Asian countries are not minding their shops in keeping with international expectations and being good citizens in the region.

P,

Professor Rothwell is partially correct. There is written and accepted law within the 24Nm contiguous zone. However, in international waters, there are certain things that are forbidden, but the rest are based on precedent, and there is plenty of precedent for intercepting people traffickers. Other countries such as the USA and the EU nations have been intercepting people smugglers or illegal immigrants for decades.

As they departed from Indonesia, they can lawfully be returned to Indonesia, as can travellers with invalid visas travelling by air.

As for the intended destination of the boat, I still don't believe that they were headed for NZ, but simply that it was convenient to make that claim to fend off interception.

Sorry, o sung wu. I've been trying to get back to you, but it's been a bit like this on the other thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4CizzE-zZo

I'll see what I can find.

John Key New Zealand's conservative PM and Abbott buddy, is furious that Abbott would pay off people smugglers, that were engaged in smuggling people to NZ. Key's described such payments as "illegal". so much for the buddy stuff!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1506/S00249/paying-people-smugglers-is-pretty-illegal-mr-key.htm

Paul,

What twaddle, your link is to a statement by the greens trying to say what John Key should say.

This is what he actually said:

"Mr Key said there had been no official confirmation, and the issue was a matter for Australia and "I wouldn't critique that, anymore than I would critique Australian tax policy".
"You can make the case [for paying people-smugglers] both ways," Mr Key told the Paul Henry show. "Once a boat gets in your territorial waters, there is nothing you can do."