01 Jul A Pirate-Hunting Vacation?
I don’t know whether one should believe this or not; via Megan McArdle, via Newmajority.com, which links to a news-service I have occasionally read, Avanova, but whose page comes up empty on my browser. I’m going to ask Eugene Kontorovich what he thinks (delighted to have Eugene guest-blogging with us!). Is this remotely plausible or urban legend? So, with all those caveats:
Luxury ocean liners in Russia are offering pirate hunting cruises aboard armed private yachts off the Somali coast.
Wealthy sportsmen pay upwards of $5,000 per day to patrol the most dangerous waters in the world hoping to be attacked by raiders.
The story as it’s written suggests the clients are already engaging Somali pirates with grenade launchers, machine guns and rocket launchers.
An AK-47 assault rifle goes for $8.50 a day, 100 rounds of ammo is $11.50, are they are also protected by a squad of ex-special forces troops.
The yachts travel from Djibouti in Somalia to Mombasa in Kenya, cruising deliberately close to the coast at a speed of just five nautical miles in an attempt to attract the interest of pirates.
Sounds unbelievable to me. Russian plutocrats don’t have to go so far to find people to kill, or expose themselves to such risk. Someone is probably just trying to raise attention for their cruse businesses.
If it were true, it would be illegal, unless it is self-defense; and “pirate hunting” doesn’t sound like self-defense.
UNCLOS Art. 107 provides only warships can seize pirates; one could extrapolate that that would be true of killing them too.
Indeed, what the alleged pirate hunters are doing meets the definition of piracy!
Professor Kontorovich is mistaken. The activity described is privateering — not piracy. For example, chapter 7 of title 33 of the US Code authorizes such operations when undertaken by vessels owned by US citizens.
I don’t think it is privateering. That requires a letter of marque from a sovereign state (see 33 USC § 386), and my impression was these alleged pirate hunters don’t have one, or if they do, it wasn’t mentioned in the news report.
UNCLOS 107 also requires that privateers be “clearly marked” as being on government service.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the story was real, however. If Russia is willing to sell rides in MiG fighters and space capsules, why not pirate baiting? It’s not like Russia has to worry about being sanctioned by the Security Council for violating UNCLOS, after all.
Only 5k per day to hunt the “greatest game”? Sign me up!
Reports like that went over German news networks about a week ago and referred to pages like http://www.somalicruises.com/ which are obviously satirical.
In response to Prof. Kontorovich . . . . A privateer can wage war against both pirates and other belligerent parties, such as enemy states. A privateer does not need a letter of marque and reprisal; s/he just needs lawful authority from one of the belligerent parties by means of, e.g., a statute (such as 33 USC sec. 383-385 in the case of piracy). Furthermore, a letter of marque and reprisal applies to interstate conflicts, not piracy.
I’m sure for a bit of cash, one could acquire a letter of marque and reprisal from the Russian government.
That being said, I think the whole thing is fake.
I second M Gross comment as to the practicalities. Unfortunately I find it all too plausible. in fact I have difficulty not believing it!
Response…One cannot acquire a letter of marque from the Russia government. Russia was one of the original state parties to the 1856 Paris Declaration on Maritime Law which formally abolished privateering. The declaration, which eventually accumulated more than 50 parties has long been considered declaratory of customary international law. It is, in fact, the oldest document appearing in Adam Roberts & Richard Guelff’s Documents on the Laws of War, collecting effective agreements defining the current state of the law of war.
While some traditional elements of prize law remain potentially effective law, it is only naval forces that could still benefit from them. (The United States barred its naval personnel from any further access to prize money in an 1898 statute which equalized the pay of American soldiers and sailors for the first time – until then sailors were paid less under the expectation that they could reap financial rewards during time of war and the last prize cases that I’m aware of were adjudicated by federal courts as a result of events in the Spanish-American war just before the statute took effect.)
…I think it sounds a little phony but who knows,just in case I’m in to.