United Nations Resolutions & Piracy

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

it's not really clear what the scope they are looking to be enacted.

I happen to know first hand that senior people have been very frustrated because they have the international law of the sea which theoretically states they can sink pirate vessels and prosecute pirates, BUT in actual practice the military's have Geneva code issues with firing on civilians (unless fired on first), not even 'strongly suspected' thugs/pirates, and when they capture suspected pirates they call home for direction on what to do with them, they are told there is no way to prosecute them unless there is direct evidence these specific individuals pirated a home country flagged vessel, and to release them. So, the imperative to move forward was determined to be that the major countries providing naval forces needed to enact laws and ROE and procedure to allow capture, prosecution and imprisonment of suspected pirates.

Its all about 'rule of law' and due process. Important things but slow as molasses. An immediate on-site military tribunal with an immediate death penalty would get the job done faster, but that is viewed as violating due process (no appeal) and fundamental human rights by many.

[ozskipper]

Originally Posted by svBeBe

I am currently researching UN Resolutions and actions regarding the resolutions that have to do with Piracy.

The UN passed unanimously Security Council Resolution 1851 in Dec 2008 which was submitted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It authorized all countries to engage in operations defeating piracy and armed robbery off Somalia’s coast by deploying and using land operations, naval vessels and military aircraft, and through seizure and disposition of boats and arms used in the commission of those crimes.

On April 27, 2010, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1918 was adopted unanimously after recalling resolutions 1814 (2008), 1816 (2008), 1838 (2008), 1844 (2008), 1846 (2008), 1851 (2008) and 1897 (2008) on Somalia. The Council's resolution called on countries to criminalize piracy within their national laws. Resolution 1918 simply called on countries to write new criminal laws regarding piracy.

We went from a resolution that authorized and invited military force to root out piracy to a new resolution that calls on countries to write new laws to criminalize piracy...the change also recalled the first resolution #1851.

Makes no sense to me. What am I missing here?

Any legal eagles out there?

Best,

Bill
s/v BeBe

Here's my take on it.

Firstly, the laws of every nation exist and are enforceable on any of its registered vessels regardless of where they are on the planet.

Lets say um Switzerland (to use a poor example) has no piracy laws. If one of its vessels picked up pirates, it would have difficulty detaining them as the pirates arent doing anything illegal under Swiss Law (only internation law). The captain would then have to rely on a complicated international system.

If memory serves me right, the Russians have already had to release a band of priates, due to the innability to detain them legally.

So, as I understand it, having clear laws from the country of registration will alow easy detainment of any person committing and act of pairacy. The pirates can then be charged and jailed under any nations laws and in any nations jails.

Cheers
Oz

[goboatingnow]

Err no. Firstly under modern criminal law proof must be obtained. Hence pirates currently have to caught red handed . Outside of that all you can really do Is relieve them of illegal arms and let them on their way

After that we are looking at a suspension of civil law ( as in extra ordinary rendition etc) and in effect applying martial law. Whereupon anything is legal ( or illegal).

ROE and procedure to allow capture, prosecution and imprisonment of suspected pirates.

A civil society does not imprison " suspected" criminals. Only convicted ones ( or should we reopen gitmo)

It's is somewhat nonsensical to argue the pros and cons of civil law as it's applies to Somali pirates. The western navies will eventually suspend such niceties and act. However I'm not sure that will solve the problem

Dave

[boatman61]

Seeing as the majority if not all the motherships are hijacked foriegn vessels..
or so its claimed... problem solved...
illegal papers... arrested and held till vessel identified and registration state verified... job done
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law... you've got em outa the way for a while

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

all you can really do Is relieve them of illegal arms and let them on their way

I am not sure what constitutes 'illegal arms' in international waters? Do you?

A civil society does not imprison " suspected" criminals. Only convicted ones ( or should we reopen gitmo)

Yes, agreed. You will note that I did include 'prosecute' before imprisoned in my sentence.

It's is somewhat nonsensical to argue the pros and cons of civil law as it's applies to Somali pirates. The western navies will eventually suspend such niceties and act.

As i said before, an immediate military tribunal and immediate death penalty would be 'easier', but we still need a legal basis and framework for this which we don't have today - witness the gitmo problems in the supreme court.

However I'm not sure that will solve the problem

I guess it depends what you mean by "solve". It will certainly not solve the root causes, but it could restore the safety of innocent passage across this body of water.

.....

[bljones]

Ask Romeo Dallaire how much relevance the UN has in a land where the only law is that which is cast in lead.

[sailorgal]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Err no. Firstly under modern criminal law proof must be obtained. Hence pirates currently have to caught red handed . Outside of that all you can really do Is relieve them of illegal arms and let them on their way

After that we are looking at a suspension of civil law ( as in extra ordinary rendition etc) and in effect applying martial law. Whereupon anything is legal ( or illegal).


A civil society does not imprison " suspected" criminals. Only convicted ones ( or should we reopen gitmo)

It's is somewhat nonsensical to argue the pros and cons of civil law as it's applies to Somali pirates. The western navies will eventually suspend such niceties and act. However I'm not sure that will solve the problem

Dave

I just linked this in another thread, but I think it's appropriate here. I think disarming and sending them on their way the way the Russians did recently is not a bad idea. I guess they technically followed the law in dealing with the "suspects."

Somali ambassador defends Russian treatment of pirates | Russia | RIA Novosti

[goboatingnow]

I am not sure what constitutes 'illegal arms' in international waters? Do you?

No and neither does the navies either, grey area



It's is somewhat nonsensical to argue the pros and cons of civil law as it's applies to Somali pirates. The western navies will eventually suspend such niceties and act.

As i said before, an immediate military tribunal and immediate death penalty would be 'easier', but we still need a legal basis and framework for this which we don't have today - witness the gitmo problems in the supreme court.

Many of teh navies are from countries where the death penalty is illegal. I am not a fan of the death penalty, throw them in Gaol for a long time sure. ( what an immediate death penalty, I think most deaths are fairly immediate.)

I guess it depends what you mean by "solve". It will certainly not solve the root causes, but it could restore the safety of innocent passage across this body of water.

I dont know if it will, it may supress the situation and then its a waiting game , ie will govs keep their navies permanetly in the GoA, hmmm. Until a law and order is restored in Somalia and they deal with the problems internally , the temptation will remain. Remeber it would be easier to just "ban" yachts from the area and concentrate on commercial shipping ( they can pay).

Seeing as the majority if not all the motherships are hijacked foriegn vessels..
or so its claimed... problem solved...
illegal papers... arrested and held till vessel identified and registration state verified... job done
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law... you've got em outa the way for a while

doesnt work, third party law enforcement problems. ( cant prosecute)

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

( what an immediate death penalty, I think most deaths are fairly immediate.)

I meant on board the navy vessel, immediately after tribunal (Assuming it finds guilt).

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Remeber it would be easier to just "ban" yachts from the area and concentrate on commercial shipping ( they can pay).

Not a fan of that 'solution'. The piracy would likely continue and expand to an ever greater area, and also don't think it would be easy to implement - hard to define 'yacht'. And there are a reasonable number of 'yachts' that could in fact hire armed merc if they were readily available and legal.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

doesnt work, third party law enforcement problems. ( cant prosecute)

So I can go out and steal a boat... make up false papers and get caught/found out in the Caribbean I can't be prosecuted because it was originally a German boat thats now UK flagged on SSR and I'm in the USVI...
Is that right...??

[goboatingnow]

So I can go out and steal a boat... make up false papers and get caught/found out in the Caribbean I can't be prosecuted because it was originally a German boat thats now UK flagged on SSR and I'm in the USVI...
Is that right...??

If stopped in international waters yes. ( which is the issue in the GofA),

Dave

[goboatingnow]

I meant on board the navy vessel, immediately after tribunal (Assuming it finds guilt).

Cant see this ever flying, looks like a show trial, only works if country has death penalty, id just Gitmo them, avoids creating matyrs.

Not a fan of that 'solution'. The piracy would likely continue and expand to an ever greater area, and also don't think it would be easy to implement - hard to define 'yacht'. And there are a reasonable number of 'yachts' that could in fact hire armed merc if they were readily available and legal.

Well as reported in yachting world

"A spokemans for EUNAVFOR..........what we are saying is that the risk in the northern Indian Ocean is very high and the threat is greater then its ever been. We would strongly encourage these rallies to reconsider their route"

This was said before the Quest tragedy and is very close to a "ban" is it not.

Dave

[svBeBe]

OK, I started this.

I read both Resolutions. I understand each of them. What is not understandable is: Why was resolution 1851 recalled at the same time that resolution 1918 was passed?

• The first resolution said - go get the pirates using everything you have
• The second said - stop going after the pirates (recalling 1851) and pass laws.

----------------------------------------

• The first resolution, 1851, was introduced by the US Secty of State Condoleezza Rice
• The second resolution, 1918, was introduced by Russia

I was hoping that in resolution 1918 that there was some sort of legal mumbo jumbo or legal trickery that made things better for us and worse for pirates. But, I have to assume that some nations simply wanted to get out of 1851. I think it is strange that 1918 (with its recall of 1851) was introduced by Russia, but my guess is that when we built the UN building we also included some back rooms for closed door negotiations...not transparent...know what I mean.

Anyway, I did not intend to stir up the snakes nest, BUT,
I did intend to get everyone thinking about this.

We all want a solution to the Piracy Problem, but as you can see their are too many countries and politicians that would just rather let you, me and the insurance companies deal with it.

Yes, I placed the posting to stir things up and get you thinking...Now that you are listening, write your Congressman and/or any other politician...call your friend at the news media...do something!

Best,

Bill
s/v BeBe, Amel 53, Currently Cochin, India
Facebook: Quest Never Forget

[Laidback]

Read Article 105 of UNCLOS

The Convention on the Law of the Sea

High Seas

"Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith."

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by svBeBe

OK, I started this.

I read both Resolutions. I understand each of them. What is not understandable is: Why was resolution 1851 recalled at the same time that resolution 1918 was passed?

Sorry to be blunt, but if you are still asking that you clearly do NOT understand the situation. Please read the article on the Russian pirate capture linked to above. Consider it. The Russians started down the path described in 1851. Then the Russians captured pirates "in the act" on a non-Russian flagged vessel, and were told by their command they had to let the pirates go because they did not have any legal authority in Russian law to prosecute them. And the Russians are typically not bothered by small legal niceties. So, 1851 was not an effective framework and not implementable without new legal frameworks in the involved naval countries.

The US navy clearly has a similar but even stronger legal constraint. You will not that it has only taken effective action in the case of the two American flagged vessels (the MerskAlabama and the Quest). This is not 'war' and the militaries really do have trouble shooting up civilians and they are not law enforcement agencies.

As an aside, I think we should all be glad that these militaries are constrained from shooting up civilians - it is causing a difficulty solving this immediate problem, but in the bigger picture its a good thing.

Originally Posted by Laidback

Read Article 105 of UNCLOS

The Convention on the Law of the Sea

" . . . . The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith."

This is the problem. The States have no current legal framework to prosecute these pirates unless they are caught in the act on a vessel with the same flag as the navy vessel that catches them.