Every definition of piracy I’ve seen includes the fact it’s a crime. Lawfully seizing a ship therefore isn’t piracy.
Now there are varying opinions on whether this detention is legal or not, but personally the Russian government is one of the last organizations I would trust in determining that.
(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;
Now there are varying opinions on whether this detention is legal or not, but personally the Russian government is one of the last organizations I would trust in determining that.
Sure, we are talking about piracy in general, not Russian opinion.
You are really trying hard to bend very clear language into you desired outcome. The sentence clearly states “illegal acts of”, if the act is not illegal it can’t be an “illegal act of violence or dedention”. Also, official state forces cannot commit piracy, if acting according to orders from the state. Read your own quote.
You are saying that a XY country could have a law where it says that it’s fine to seize any ship in international waters and thus it’s all good and legal then when it does so?
That was not your question. Your question was if it was piracy and it is clearly not, based on your own legal quote. Are you ready to agree to that or still denying it?
Words mean something. Funnily enough not even Russian propaganda is making that claim that it was actual piracy.
That was not your question. Your question was if it was piracy and it is clearly not, based on your own legal quote. Are you ready to agree to that or still denying it?
You are probably right that it’s not piracy due to the private ends part, my bad, misunderstood. Hence the question what it is called then since is quite similar to piracy.
ie illegally according to international law seize a foreign ship in international waters and sell it’s cargo for own profit. How do we call that? Not talking about this case.
Aren’t they technically correct, though? Please spare me with Russia bad, I’m talking technically.
Depends, if the ship is sailing as russian and has all paperwork in order. Sure it might be piracy.
More likely however, it’s doing shady shit and that’s a known factor before the boarding.
Every definition of piracy I’ve seen includes the fact it’s a crime. Lawfully seizing a ship therefore isn’t piracy.
Now there are varying opinions on whether this detention is legal or not, but personally the Russian government is one of the last organizations I would trust in determining that.
I’m not a legal expert, but this definition sounds like it
Sure, we are talking about piracy in general, not Russian opinion.
That’s the single critical part on which the remainder of that definition rests.
If a court operating within the confines of the law declares an act legal, then it is to anyone that subscribes to that system of law.
It’s any illegal acts of violence or detention, wasn’t the latter the case?
Also what court has a jurisdiction over international seas?
You are really trying hard to bend very clear language into you desired outcome. The sentence clearly states “illegal acts of”, if the act is not illegal it can’t be an “illegal act of violence or dedention”. Also, official state forces cannot commit piracy, if acting according to orders from the state. Read your own quote.
You are saying that a XY country could have a law where it says that it’s fine to seize any ship in international waters and thus it’s all good and legal then when it does so?
That was not your question. Your question was if it was piracy and it is clearly not, based on your own legal quote. Are you ready to agree to that or still denying it?
Words mean something. Funnily enough not even Russian propaganda is making that claim that it was actual piracy.
You are probably right that it’s not piracy due to the private ends part, my bad, misunderstood. Hence the question what it is called then since is quite similar to piracy.
The international Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, following the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the big one, though in this case really only covers the manner one can legally seize a ship – the how, not the why.
For that you’d refer to the International Court of Justice (specifically Ukraine v. Russian Federation ), the International Criminal Court (This case in particular. ), and the United Nations General Assembly’s United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623.
And yes, those case are all linked and part of determining the legality of seizing Russian “shadow fleet” ships.
No. Piracy cannot be applied to actions of a state agency.
WhoWhy not?Piracy by definition only applies to private entities.
Ok, how do we call it when a state does piracy?
We don’t, as it’s impossible for a state to commit piracy.
ie illegally according to international law seize a foreign ship in international waters and sell it’s cargo for own profit. How do we call that? Not talking about this case.
Depends what the foreign ship was up to. Could be drug interdiction, sanctions enforcement, warfare etc.
Let’s say transporting oil. Nothing illegal according to international laws.
A state can’t do piracy itself, so nothing. Define your question in words that are not self contradictory.