Video: Royal Marines capture and sink pirate vessel

[Rino]

So your "average Somali" goes around the Indian Ocean with RPG's?   Stop being the BBS Devil's Advocate, you're sounding like Lasersailor right now and have for a while.   

      Maybe Die Hard's just pissed he won't get his deposit back on that boat 

[Masherbrum]

      Maybe Die Hard's just pissed he won't get his deposit back on that boat 

 

[humble]

While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.

So how much maritime law do you know? Proper conduct and policies on the sea's have been evolving for centuries and proper conduct specific to suspected piracy is well established. The problem is that most piracy laws date back to the 16th century and have no clear modern equivalent since the problem was dealt with in the 19th century for the most part. The US position is clear since its specifically covered in the constitution however international law gives any nation (or citizen for that matter) the legal right and authority to deal with piracy in international waters. A ships captain would be within his authority to catch and execute a pirate or pirates. Admiralty law specifically identifies piracy as treason and empowers summary execution at the Captains discretion....

So the royal navy had every right to board and inspect the vessel in question, if for any reason such a request is denied or the captain has reason to believe the vessel is in fact a pirate ship he is not only "allowed" to fire it up, he's obligated to under admiralty law.

[Die Hard]

I'm afraid both you and British Admiralty Law are outdated with regard to international law. Under customary international law, pirates were considered "hostis humani generis" or "the enemy of mankind" and any country could arrest and try them under their jurisdiction. The modern international law governing piracy is the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, and its successor, the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS defines piracy as:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

The same acts, when committed inside the territorial waters of a country, do not fall under the definition of piracy, but are simply considered "sea robbery" under international law, and are dealt with by the laws of that country.  Domestic laws seldom permit a vessel or warship from another country to intervene. Illegal acts committed for political rather than private ends also fall outside the international law definition of piracy.

Under UNCLOS, all signatory countries are required to cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas. Any country may seize a pirate ship or a ship taken by pirates, arrest the pirates, and that country's courts are entitled to decide on the penalties to be imposed. However, UNCLOS does not apply to sea robbery taking place within the territorial waters of a country, meaning that any rights and obligations it imposes are useless outside of the high seas.  Most piracy this year, particularly that taking place off the coast of Somalia, has occurred inside territorial waters and is not covered by UNCLOS.  This has left the victims of Somali piracy in a perilous situation, with no grounds to intervene under international law, and given the political climate in Somalia, no enforceable domestic laws to assist them.

To legally intervene against a ship on grounds of piracy the ship in question must have committed an act of piracy. Cruising around with a boatload of guns and rockets is not illegal, nor is it an act of piracy under international law - no matter how suspicious. What HMS Portland did was an illegal seizure and destruction of a privately owned Somali boat in addition to the illegal confiscation of cargo (weapons).

Disregarding the kindergarten antics this has been an interesting thread, but I think it has run its course.

[Vulcan]

What HMS Portland did was an illegal seizure and destruction of a privately owned Somali boat in addition to the illegal confiscation of cargo (weapons).

and I'd happily buy any of her crew a beer while watching you walk the plank.

I get the feeling 200 years ago you would've been the 'cabin boy'.

[Die Hard]

More kindergarten antics. Nice.

[humble]

Sorry but your  CLUELESS  on this. Any naval vessel can and will reserve the right to board and inspect a suspicious vessel both in territorial waters and on the high sea's. HMS Portland was acting in an anti piracy patrol function (along with the French, US, Indian and other nations) and acting exactly in accordance with international policies on piracy. UNCLOS in no way precludes any nation from safeguarding its legitimate interests in maritime matters. Under the circumastances the actions of the Portland were prudent and reasonable...

[Die Hard]

Cite the law.

UNCLOS supersedes any and all customary and older international laws. The United Kingdom is a signatory nation.

[Die Hard]

Article 106 of UNCLOS

"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure."

Britain signed this.

[Die Hard]

Article 110 of UNCLOS
"
Right of visit:

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by
treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than
a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96,
is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag
State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship
is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed
to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under
the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after
the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on
board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.
3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship
boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated
for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.
4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.
5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or
aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service."

Britain signed this.

[Die Hard]

"The warships patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean are doing so under the legal framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Security Council resolutions. "

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-08-voa67.cfm

[mechanic]

I watched the video. I think they need to practice their aim. 

[Vulcan]

Article 106 of UNCLOS

"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds,....

And so far it's you plus a couple of somali hobo's versus the rest of the world on the 'without adequate grounds'.

[thrila]

The UN defines a pirates ship as:

Article103

Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft

A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.

A pirate vessel does not need to have attacked another boat/ship to be considered a pirate vessel.




Diehard, have you even read the articles you are quoting? You are cherry picking words (highlighting) which are irrelevant in the context the article and other articles regarding piracy.

Article 110:

"a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than
a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96,
is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy"
-  there were reasonable grounds for suspecting piracy- 1 large boat tethered to 1 small, fast boat is the standard MO for piracy in this region.



Article 106:

Article 106 of UNCLOS

"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure."
-  There were adequate grounds for seizure- in the very least  they found ak47's, rpg's, grappling hooks and extra fuel.  Not your standard fishing items, they are however your standard items for commiting piracy.

[Masherbrum]

I watched the video. I think they need to practice their aim. 

No doubt Fink, we woulda vulched em if that was a CV.