In reply to <a href="https://cimsec.org/why-do-nations-voluntarily-limit-their-law-enforcement-jurisdiction-at-sea/#comment-358792">HB</a>. Hi HB. While I appreciate your engagement, I have to disagree with a number of your points. While maritime operations are undoubtedly difficult and expensive, countries are very interested in countering the maritime flow of narcotics which very often involves vessels of unknown nationality doing at-sea transfers in their EEZs or closer, i.e. not so "far from their land borders." This problem is so significant that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has undertaken a ton of initiatives (often underwritten by the U.S.) to deal with the problem. That includes the Maritime Crime Manual's overall focus on obtaining a legal finish (i.e. conviction) in maritime law enforcement (MLE) cases, with multiple chapters dedicated to the overriding requirement of jurisdiction; innumerable whole-of-government MLE trainings, workshops, and related engagements, both with individual nations or regional; and commissioned studies on individual nations' postures toward narcotics trafficking by stateless vessels in international waters. I recommend that you check out UNODC's activities and focus areas to get an idea of what that body considers to be significant. Also, in 2024 I had the opportunity to provide UNODC-sponsored training and workshops in three Indian Ocean East nations, as well as at a 5-nation Maritime Law Enforcement Dialogue in southeast Asia. Narcotics enforcement is front and center at such engagements, and problem areas such as hot pursuit, right of visit, and stateless vessels are recurring topics of discussion. This would seem like a bunch of wasted effort if "most countries do not consider it a worthwhile investment of their limited national resources to chase stateless traffickers" or "few countries provide any sort of due process to stateless individuals, particularly those suspected of crimes." As for that last assertion, first off, the focus is on the nationality of vessels, not individuals. Regardless, I can assure you that all of the IOE countries I interacted with last year had recent failed prosecutions (i.e. failed to achieve a legal finish) in maritime narcotics smuggling cases involving vessels of uncertain nationality operating in international waters where the interdicting State failed to clarify whether it was properly flagged foreign or was stateless. This demonstrates: (1) those States' interest in narcotics interdiction beyond their territorial waters; (2) the issues posed by an uncertain national legal regime related to vessel nationality and statelessness; and (3) a very robust "due process" relating to foreigners suspected of crimes - so robust that their prosecutions were dismissed.