The Shiprider Shadow: Situating U.S.-Caribbean Interdiction Agreements within the Law of the Sea Cassidy Gale JD Candidate, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada Introduction Law does not exist in a vacuum. It is a function of its greater social, political, and customary context. This paper seeks to provide that context for bilater- al ship interdiction agreements (shiprider agreements)1 between the United States and various Caribbean States. Interdiction is used to describe a two-step process: the detainment, boarding, and search of vessels at sea that are sus- pected of illicit drug trafficking; and the subsequent arrest of the vessel, per- sons, or cargo aboard should those suspicions prove valid.2 These agreements, though somewhat varied across their numerous bilateral iterations, each provide for greater U.S. jurisdiction in drug-trafficking opera- tions than the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) affords. As a basic summary, the agreements allow for U.S. entry into foreign territorial seas when engaged in hot pursuit; the placement of foreign law en- forcement personnel on U.S. Coast Guard ships to facilitate accelerated board- ing procedures; permission for U.S. law enforcement aircraft to patrol foreign airspace; authorization to exercise criminal jurisdiction against suspect vessels in signatory States’ territorial seas; and consent to board suspect vessels bear- ing a signatory flag on the high seas. The objective of this paper is to situate the U.S.-Caribbean agreements within their wider legal context. An analysis of relevant international conven- tions, bilateral agreements, and State practices will be used to determine if the Shiprider agreements demonstrate compliance with international law in both † Editors’ Note.—This article was the winning entry in the 2016 Ocean Yearbook Student Paper Competition. 1 Throughout this paper, shiprider agreements, interdiction agreements, and U.S.-Caribbean agreements are used interchangeably. 2 D. Guilfoyle, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 4. Ocean Yearbook 31: 418–451 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi �0.��63/9789004347�37_0�6 <UN> U.S.-Caribbean Interdiction Agreements 419 form and principle. The paper is structured along two guiding lines of inquiry: to what extent are these agreements respectful of the sovereign equality of States, and do they represent an effective problem-oriented approach to the use of law? To fully articulate the state of the law on ship interdiction and these agree- ments, this article will begin with a discussion of the social, strategic, and geo- graphic considerations underlying the Caribbean-U.S. agreements. It will then proceed through an analysis of UNCLOS. Both a broad view, looking at general principles, and a focused discussion of relevant articles will be undertaken. To build a comprehensive view of the agreements’ basis in international law, the next step will be a consideration of the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, with a particular focus on Article 17. The historical development of drug-trafficking interdiction agree- ments will provide the foundation for analyzing the U.S. Model Agreement. Finally, an exploration of the academic discourse around the implementation of the U.S.-Caribbean treaties, and the American approach to negotiation and implementation, will serve as the basis for concluding remarks. Part 1: Social and Strategic Context Social Context As bilateral agreements, the U.S.-Caribbean arrangements are situated within the wider social context of both parties. For the United States, the agreements are a function of the larger war on drugs; in the Caribbean, cartels represent a daunting social threat.3 An overview of the social factors underlying these agreements thus merits discussion to better understand the initial negotiating positions of both States in the arrangement. For the United States, the Shiprider agreements represent an attempt to stem the flow of illicit drugs from Latin American and the Caribbean into America. The foundational assumption is that these regions are substantial sources and key trans-shipment points for the flow of drugs into the United States, specifically cocaine and cannabis.4 American statistics support this assumption. The focus on extraterritorial counter-narcotics measures was sparked by events in the 1970s: in the early 3 G. Premnath, “The weak sovereignty of the post-colonial nation-state,” in World Bank Litera- ture, ed. A. Kumar (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 2003), p. 256. 4 S. Vasciannie, “Political and policy aspects of the Jamaica/United States shiprider negotia- tions,” Caribbean Quarterly 43, no. 3 (1997): 34–53 at 35-. <UN>.