04 Apr Let’s Get Tough With Pirates – How About a Military Commission?
As we’ve noted, the U.S. Navy has become the ocean’s main anti-piracy force, especially off the dangerous Somali coast. These pirates appear undeterred, however, and recently captured a South Korean fishing vessel in international waters. U.S. and Dutch warships gave chase, but had to back off when the pirates threatened to shoot their hostages. The pirates then retreated into Somali waters.
In a perfect world, Somalia would arrest and punish these pirates. This is far from that world, however, and the Navy can’t enter Somali waters to arrest the pirates. Even if they did arrest them, it remains unclear how effective their punishment would be, since the U.S. has been turning pirates over to ineffective Kenyan prosecutors. How about a military commission? Isn’t that what these commissions are for?
In a perfect world, private Somali security providers would solve this problem, as they do on Somali soil (at least, according to what I’ve read). Unfortunately, I believe international law forbids private vessels from interfering in piracy – doesn’t it?
So I think your choices are:
1. rely on your government’s navy, if you have a government, and if it has a navy,
2. rely on the good will of other governments’ navies, if they happen to be around, or
3. successfully defend yourself (and I believe you then are required to turn your attackers over to the authorities in the nearest port – with the apparent caveat that it have a state).
All that said, if there’s no Somali state, what prevents the USN from going as close to shore as they care to in pursuit of pirates?
I’m not at all qualified to comment on the merits (or lack thereof) of Julian’s suggestion (to be sure, such a lack hasn’t always inhibited me) . However, if one wants an informative background article that gives a taste of the complexity, scope and urgency of a problem of which the Somali case is emblematic or illustrative, I would recommend William Langewiesche’s essay in The Atlantic Monthly of Sept. 2003 (Vol.292, No.2): ‘Anarchy at Sea.’ Those without scruples can find an unauthorized copy of it on the net without too much trouble.
Of course, as the first commenter alludes to, Somalia doesn’t have a government let alone a navy. But it is not certain that they are doing any worse than some of their undoubtedly governed neighbours.
Whether they are doing better than their neighboring states, they are apparently doing better than they were when THEY had a state: Peter Leeson’s paper Better Off Stateless.
Dan,
Thanks for the link to Leeson’s paper. It’s so nice to see statements, claims, arguments, etc. with some evidentiary support of sorts (although I realize we’re all just blogging here, there’s no reason we can’t aim a bit higher toward the goal of mutual enlightenment).
Best wishes,
Patrick
You’re welcome, Patrick. If your intersted in a cite re: the legality of private interference in priracy, I can probably dig that up (it’s either von Glahn’s Law Among Nations, 6th ed, or one of a couple of article I have bookmarked).
Also, thanks for the tip re: Langewiesche. I’m not an Atlantic subscriber and although my scruples are somewhat flexible, it looks like I’d have to work harder than I’m willing to in order to find an unauthorized copy of the article. Happily, it seems like the article was just a dry run for a book Langewiesche published the following year, so I think I’ll just buy that.
Dan,
The scruple thing was mentioned because I saw he requested his article not be posted by the magazine but I suppose the time elapsed makes some difference (and the book publication).
As for the legality of private interference in piracy (curious expression that, is it not? cf. the legality of private interference in plundering, looting, pillaging, etc.!) I would appreciate the cite but only at your leisure (my wife in particular wants to see it, as she’s aghast that such a law exists and is pestering me with questions as to its possible rationale, which I cannot provide her).
Thanks again,
Patrick
OK, I’ll try to dig it up and get it to you, but it might take me a day or two. The goings-on in East Africa are fascinating. I’ve been poking around a bit, and it looks like the pirates in question (called “militants” in some sources) assert they were defending Somali waters against “Pirate Fishing”:
I saw this on a news aggregration site that requires membership to see anything more than headlines – I’m still looking around for an article that’s not behind a subscription. In the month or two since this subject caught my interest, I’ve noticed a tremendous amount of pro-statist bias and a lot of unquestioned assumptions in the reportage I’ve seen.
Actually, it’s in von Glahn, so it was easy to find: Law Among Nations, An Introduction to Public International Law, 6th Edition, Revised, Gerhard von Glahn, 1992. Page 328: RIGHT OF SUPRESSION OF PIRACY In earlier times, even private individuals were tolerated as enforcers of the prohibition on piracy. Today any state may seize, on the high seas or in any other place outside the territorial waters of another state, a pirate ship or aircraft, or ship taken in piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The craft and prisoners are supposed to be taken to the nearest appropriate court of the arresting state, and that court decides on the penalties to be imposed and on the disposition of the craft and its contents. Although private vessels are not to hunt down pirates today, should a merchant vessel overpower its attacker, the “arrest” of the pirate craft and crew by the merchant vessel would be lawful. Normally the merchant vessel would then summon a warship to its assistance and turn the captured craft and crew over to the custody of that warship. Essentially, the capture of pirate craft may today… Read more »
Thank you Dan. Not at all as bizarre as it first sounded, indeed, quite reasonable (e.g. ‘should a merchant vessel overpower its attacker…,’ and the ‘authorization’ part).
All the best,
Patrick