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.
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:
Oh I quite agree with that. In the end only power matters, and that is what we’re seeing in regards to Russia. The USA set a trap and Russia walked right into it. But just because a majority of people agree with something like sanctions, doesn’t make it right or “legal”. Only power does that, together with the propaganda to ensure everyone thinks the same.
I mean imagine we treated the US like we do Russia lol. Inconceivable because of money of course.
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.
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.
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?
Aren’t they technically correct, though? Please spare me with Russia bad, I’m talking technically.
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.
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.
It’s not for private ends, the sanctions on Russia are very very public.
So if Russia passes sanctions against France they can legally seize their freighters too.
Neat!
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
I know that video but under the name “The Rules for Rulers”.
It’s obviously not a video for anarchists.
Ideology is a false god.
Oh I quite agree with that. In the end only power matters, and that is what we’re seeing in regards to Russia. The USA set a trap and Russia walked right into it. But just because a majority of people agree with something like sanctions, doesn’t make it right or “legal”. Only power does that, together with the propaganda to ensure everyone thinks the same.
I mean imagine we treated the US like we do Russia lol. Inconceivable because of money of course.
Again, not for private ends
Fuck off with your pro-Russia shit. Bot.
Great argument, thanks.
Hard to argue with someone who is ignoring central arguments.
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.
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.
It’s any illegal acts of violence or detention, wasn’t the latter the case?
Also what court has a jurisdiction over international seas?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Their comment history is kinda sus.
*theirs