United Nations Resolutions & Piracy

[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

[Blue Stocking]

Honestly?- you wouldn't expect more from that waste of time and money-would you?
Read "Shake hands with the devil" , by Lt Gen. Rome'o Dallaire, the Canadian Officer sent in to stop the Rwanda genocide.
The abandonment of his objectives and lack of support, by the UN, was a disgrace to mankind.

[Doodles]

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

I suspect what you are missing is a lot of the politics behind the two resolutions. At first blush one might appear stronger or weaker than the other, but without really understanding the nitty gritty of the two resolutions I'm not sure one could really know. For example, who sponsored the two resolutions? What prompted the changes? Which countries were the major players and why? Both were passed unanimously so that tells me there wasn't probably much opposition, if any ... but maybe not. Too many unknowns for me. IMHO (I'm not a lawyer, I'm one of the good guys!)

More research is needed Bill.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by svBeBe

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

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

My understanding is that its pretty straightforward.


There was a real legal problem with what the deployed navies could or would do with any pirates they captured. And if they were only allowed to 'catch and release', there was no real point in doing anything.

It was easy in the case where a vessel (commercial or yacht) was observed to be pirated by a navy vessel of the same flag, then the pirate could be prosecuted under in that country's courts. But other than that rare situation, the Navies apparently had no real legal process to do anything with the pirates.

So, it was determined that removing/solving this one major stumbling block was the key to getting effective maritime enforcement.

The militaries have been quite reluctant to indiscriminately shoot up Somali harbours and open fire on Somali fishing vessels. Because of the risk of both 'civilian' and hostage casualties, and because they (And their political minders) don't want to turn the population ashore even more against us and make the pirates into local heroes. I think those are justified concerns. You loose asymmetric wars when you turn the local population actively/emotionally against you and actively/emotionally for your enemy.

Compared to asymmetrical warfare ashore, the pirates have two points of vulnerability - they need motherships and safe harbours. The normal program would be: blockade of the harbours, mandatory inspection (and tracking) of any vessel that could be a mothership (sinking any that are discovered armed), and spec ops raids on the currently held vessels (which are anchored in these harbours). Q ships offshore would be a useful addition. It would work, and it avoids the sort of 'in country' exposure for our military that had such a bad outcome last time. I would not want to be one of the current hostages while it was going on, but the pirate disease is spreading and now is better than later to cure it.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

... The normal program would be: blockade of the harbours, mandatory inspection (and tracking) of any vessel that could be a mothership (sinking any that are discovered armed) ...

Sink any armed vessel?

[hummingway]

Please do not post to this thread unless you actually wish to discuss the subject. Gratuitous comments on the UN or anything else will be deleted. If you don't believe there is any merit in discussing this then the solution is simple, don't. It is a simple mark of respect to allow others to carry on the discussion.

Thank you.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Sink any armed vessel?

"blockade of the harbours, mandatory inspection (and tracking) of any vessel that could be a mothership (sinking any that are discovered armed)"

Perhaps my writing was not clear. I meant stop and search and monitor (surveillance) any potential motherships leaving/entering Somalia harbours, and sink any that are armed.

My understanding is that under international maritime law we do already have the right to sink pirate ships, we just need a mechanism (ROE) to 'legally' distinguish 'pirate' ships from legit fishermen, and (per the UN resolution) we need a US process to deal with the people we catch who were not directly observed pirating a US flagged vessel (Which we do not have today).

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by hummingway

Please do not post to this thread unless you actually wish to discuss the subject. Gratuitous comments on the UN or anything else will be deleted. If you don't believe there is any merit in discussing this then the solution is simple, don't. It is a simple mark of respect to allow others to carry on the discussion.

Thank you.

Can we delete this thread? Not that I disagree entirely with the below but there's no way we're going to have a discussion about the particulars of international relations without it falling into "the UN sucks! the UN is great!" arguments.

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Honestly?- you wouldn't expect more from that waste of time and money-would you?
Read "Shake hands with the devil" , by Lt Gen. Rome'o Dallaire, the Canadian Officer sent in to stop the Rwanda genocide.
The abandonment of his objectives and lack of support, by the UN, was a disgrace to mankind.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

Can we delete this thread? Not that I disagree entirely with the below but there's no way we're going to have a discussion about the particulars of international relations without it falling into "the UN sucks! the UN is great!" arguments.

There seems to be some willing to discuss this reasonably and it would be unfair to them to close the thread.

[sailorboy1]

All I get out 1918 is that the UN wants each country to have anti-pirate laws for THEIR waters. It doesn't seem to address the international waters issue that seems to be the real problem. But it does say there are to be further discussion about how to deal with this.

So in the end it appears to be words saying something should be done.

Can not even get agreement about the problem here on CF so it is doubtful the UN is going to do better.

[Kalinka1]

Sometimes the UN works, Sometimes it doesn't just like local, Provincial and Federal Governments Families and any bearocracies. I think the bottom line though is that if something isn't done now or soon the problem will get worse and will be harder to deal with when the time finally comes. The sooner you deal with a problem the sooner it is no longer a problem.

[boatman61]

Blockading the coast of a Rogue State and conducting stop and search patrols is an easily achievable thing... and could be done by any country/s or NATO... but if there's no will... there'll always be the excuses...
In the 60's my ship was based out of Simonstown and we conducted 3mth long patrols along the Mozambique coast and port of Beira to stop and search shipping for illegal cargo's bound for Ian Smiths Rhodesia... ahhhh... day after day from border to border with that lazy oily swell... then back for two weeks R&R in SA....
Now this was a blockade carried out off/in another countries waters (Portugal at the time).... so any excuse is just that.... an excuse..

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

All I get out 1918 is that the UN wants each country to have anti-pirate laws for THEIR waters. It doesn't seem to address the international waters issue that seems to be the real problem. .

Thats not how I read it (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/...C?OpenDocument):

It starts:
"Affirming that the failure to prosecute persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia undermined international anti-piracy efforts, the Security Council called on all States this morning to criminalize piracy under their respective domestic laws.

Unanimously adopting resolution 1918 (2010) the Council also called on all States to consider favourably the prosecution of piracy suspects and the imprisonment of convicted pirates apprehended off the Somali coast."

Seems pretty clearly aimed at the Somali pirate situation.

As I said in a post above, I believe the intent is to ask member states to give the deployed navy's legal procedures to deal with suspect/detained Somalia pirates, which they do not have today.

[sailorboy1]

Could be right. I read it again and I think I mixed part 1 of 2 of it together. Guess to me it's not really clear what the scope they are looking to be enacted.

[goboatingnow]

I think the tipping point is approaching and military action will become more overt. Whether or not it solves anything remains to be seen The historical precedents are not good

As an aside I've just read that the commander of the EU naval task force now considers the area unsuitable for yachts and has grave concerns for the various rallies scheduled to traverse the area.

Dave