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.
"Barrel of a gun" (but you may not know what that means). But also you didn't lay out what France has done in this hypothetical, but no.
In fact your thinking is absolutely Trumpian, where rules are just there to be manipulated. If not Putin-like, where everything comes down to respect and mafiosa stlye thinking.
Sounds like you have no idea about politics or geopolitics. Learn the basics:
That other guy is trying to defend the rights of an Authoritarian Russian regime that if they got the chance, would take away his rights in a heart beat.
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.
No, detaining a ship and then a state government having to admit that yes, it is actually theirs isn't piracy, because no wealth or resources were taken from the ship.
Not sure whether I follow, can you elaborate? If one detains a ship in international waters under Russian flag full of oil or whatever, how is this not a piracy? And if it is not, then what it is?
It wasn't "under a Russian flag"... hence them having to admit that it was their ship after all.
It is under European sanctions though, as Russia invaded Ukraine. That's why they've been running a "shadow fleet" in the first place. Because their are sanctions against Russian ships and trade. Sanctions from a federation of counties against the war.
Does it matter under what flag, though? As long as they are legally registered it shouldn't. TBH ships are usually registered in all sorts of shady countries.
Also if a group of countries declares sanctions, it doesn't allow them to stop the ships in international waters, does it?
43 Comments
inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 93d
ooooohhh nooooo pooor russia :(
"border on international piracy" is literally the wurst thing that could happen to international borders!
Думки та молитви
Murse@slrpnk.net · 21 pts · 93d
<90s sit com laugh track>
SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml · 17 pts · 93d
Yea, we do have laws. We're fresh out of enforcers. Have you tried staying in Russia? I see THAT as your biggest problem.
Pistcow@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 92d
I'm more of a Privateer.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 4 pts · 92d
This act seems to be.
Mihies@programming.dev · 4 pts · 93d
Aren't they technically correct, though? Please spare me with Russia bad, I'm talking technically.
i078@europe.pub · 13 pts · 93d
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.
oatscoop@midwest.social · 10 pts · 93d
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.
Mihies@programming.dev · 3 pts · 93d
I'm not a legal expert, but this definition sounds like it
Sure, we are talking about piracy in general, not Russian opinion.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 93d
It's not for private ends, the sanctions on Russia are very very public.
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 92d
So if Russia passes sanctions against France they can legally seize their freighters too.
Neat!
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 92d
No.
"Barrel of a gun" (but you may not know what that means). But also you didn't lay out what France has done in this hypothetical, but no.
In fact your thinking is absolutely Trumpian, where rules are just there to be manipulated. If not Putin-like, where everything comes down to respect and mafiosa stlye thinking.
Sounds like you have no idea about politics or geopolitics. Learn the basics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 91d
I know that video but under the name "The Rules for Rulers".
It's obviously not a video for anarchists.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 91d
Ideology is a false god.
Mihies@programming.dev · -1 pts · 92d
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 92d
Again, not for private ends
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 92d
Fuck off with your pro-Russia shit. Bot.
Mihies@programming.dev · 0 pts · 92d
Great argument, thanks.
oatscoop@midwest.social · 4 pts · 93d
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.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 92d
That other guy is trying to defend the rights of an Authoritarian Russian regime that if they got the chance, would take away his rights in a heart beat.
People like that never learn.
Mihies@programming.dev · -1 pts · 92d
It's any illegal acts of violence or detention, wasn't the latter the case?
Also what court has a jurisdiction over international seas?
oatscoop@midwest.social · 1 pts · 92d
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.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 8 pts · 92d
No. Piracy cannot be applied to actions of a state agency.
Mihies@programming.dev · 1 pts · 92d
WhoWhy not?ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 92d
Piracy by definition only applies to private entities.
Mihies@programming.dev · 1 pts · 92d
Ok, how do we call it when a state does piracy?
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 92d
We don’t, as it’s impossible for a state to commit piracy.
Mihies@programming.dev · 1 pts · 92d
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.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 92d
Depends what the foreign ship was up to. Could be drug interdiction, sanctions enforcement, warfare etc.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 93d
No, detaining a ship and then a state government having to admit that yes, it is actually theirs isn't piracy, because no wealth or resources were taken from the ship.
It has forced Russia to admit something though.
Mihies@programming.dev · 2 pts · 93d
Not sure whether I follow, can you elaborate? If one detains a ship in international waters under Russian flag full of oil or whatever, how is this not a piracy? And if it is not, then what it is?
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 93d
It wasn't "under a Russian flag"... hence them having to admit that it was their ship after all.
It is under European sanctions though, as Russia invaded Ukraine. That's why they've been running a "shadow fleet" in the first place. Because their are sanctions against Russian ships and trade. Sanctions from a federation of counties against the war.
Mihies@programming.dev · 1 pts · 92d
Does it matter under what flag, though? As long as they are legally registered it shouldn't. TBH ships are usually registered in all sorts of shady countries.
Also if a group of countries declares sanctions, it doesn't allow them to stop the ships in international waters, does it?
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 92d
Yes it does, and yes it does.
It matters that it's Russia (because they started the war).
...and it gives Europe the right to do anything they like to oppose Russia.
I'm not into people like YOU propagandistically "arguing the rights and freedoms of authoritarians and fascist".
You're a fucken idiot for defending and devils advocating these fucks. And you can fuck off away from me with your pro Russia BS. Loser.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 93d
*theirs