The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
License to kill?
User Name v2
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
This is probably a very stupid question, but its been bugging me for a bit, so here goes:
Are there modern day...uh...I guess the best word to describe them would be privateers?
I mean a ship with a license from its government to attack enemy ships and pirates. And I am specifically referring to those Somalian pirates.
I mean, if an able-bodied crew with a solid ship approached a government, could it get a license to legally attack and kill these pirates or the enemy in a time of war?
I know about companies like Blackwater, but what about naval versions of that?
Thanks.
Are there modern day...uh...I guess the best word to describe them would be privateers?
I mean a ship with a license from its government to attack enemy ships and pirates. And I am specifically referring to those Somalian pirates.
I mean, if an able-bodied crew with a solid ship approached a government, could it get a license to legally attack and kill these pirates or the enemy in a time of war?
I know about companies like Blackwater, but what about naval versions of that?
Thanks.
User Name v2 on
0
Posts
Also, that's not what Blackwater does. Well, not what they are supposed to do, anyway.
Hard to say who could approve of the action in international waters. I'm not up to speed on the regulatory bodies at work there.
Actually, Blackwater has recently announced an interest into moving into the naval realm, but I'm not aware if anyone has taken them up on it yet.
edit - To be clear, I think there would be a distinction between what the OP is describing (after-the-fact search/rescue/destroy missions against pirates that have already hijacked ships) and the services Blackwater and other companies provide (hired security escort, basically), though of course I imagine that's subject to some blurring if the money's right and the firm is willing.
edit 2 - here's also a long article on the subject by the AP. Blackwater has evidently received at least 15 inquiries from companies thus far. I'm sure there are other less well-known companies offering, or attempting to offer, this kind of thing as well.
edit 3 - and here's the actual link to that AP article...
The problem with a private company trying to retake a ship that has been taken by pirates is that the ship would probably be scuttled by the pirates and destroyed, and then the private company would have a very pissed off ship owner on their hands. Owners would much rather pay a ransom than risk an armed recapture followed by the ship sinking.
As it is, there are probably only two organizations in the world, US Navy SEALS and British SAS, who have the capabilities and training to successfully retake a ship at sea. It's not an easy task.
The French have pulled it off recently (possibly GIGN), and the Canadian JTF-2 supposedly train for Naval operations as well.
Although the U.S. is not a direct signatory to the Declaration, it submits itself to the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea, of which the Paris Declaration is related (and in some sense, apart of) to. So if you wanted to be a privateer, the U.S. Congress (presuming you are American) would have to withdraw from the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea, and then rescind the edicts made during the Civil War (which indicated that although the US government wasn't a signatory to the Paris Declaration, it would abide by its principles), before finally issuing a Letter of Marque.
But it is doubtful any foreign maritime nation would ever recognize you as being a privateer, and would most certainly treat you as a simple pirate (summary execution on capture).
You're SOL on this one.
Also, Executive Outcomes (and companies like them, such as Blackwater, etc) are in really nebulous territory legally. They are basically mercenaries, and the usage of mercenaries is also outlawed under international law. Using mercenaries opens you up to very bad things in terms of international sanction and prosecution at the Hague, and being one isn't much better - soldiers of nations or national militaries are protected in how they are treated and are afforded the status of Prisoner of War (POW) when captured; they must be repatriated, and they cannot be charged with murder for actions on the battlefield if caught.
None of that applies to mercenaries. You can be caught and charged with murder for your actions on the battlefield, you are can summarily executed, you are not entitled to be repatriated, you are not entitled to any sort of legal representation, nothing. You are basically a criminal or a terrorist and there are no protections internationally for you.
The whole situation with Blackwater et al. in Iraq has been orchestrated through a bunch of unique (and dubious) legal conditions; such as the suspension of certain provisions of the Geneva convention in the way the U.S. deals with 'enemy combatants' as well as making PMCs immune from Iraqi law (and, by extension, immune from U.S. law, since they mostly operate outside of US sovereign territory). It's doubtful, and, indeed, probable, as evidenced by the treatment of Executive Outcomes a few years ago, that companies like Blackwater will be able to operate outside of the US or the countries they occupy without major legal ramifications.
Actually, the U.S. is not party to the Law of the Sea. There have been some politicians trying to get it ratified lately, notably Alaskan ones, because it will likely be important as new shipping and fishing routes become available in the Arctic Circle due to ice decline.
However, the U.S. has not ratified and is not part of the Law of the Sea treaty, yet.
I thought the French paid them off then shot/arrested/reclaimed the monies them once they'd left the ship? They definitely did that as well.
Legally shaky, but at least currently, they don't quite fit the UN's definition of mercenary (though there has been pressure to further amend the definition).
Spoilered for long:
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
Currently, 1c primarily protects these companies, since their employees are US nationals (indeed, I think most if not all are ex-military themselves).
Anyway, as Yog pointed out, what the OP is describing would be more maritime bounty hunting/mercenary activity than privateering. Privateers were pirates flying a national flag - they were authorized to attack any vessels belonging to other nations and take their cargo for their patron monarch.
I really doubt that pirates would have the manpower, or capability to scuttle a ship. What they would be much more likely to do is attempt to murder the hostages, and then flee. which ostensibly I'd consider worse.
It's true that we haven't ratified UNCLOS. I'm only vaguely familiar with the issues, but wiki confirms what I had in the back of my head - that we generally support UNCLOS, we would enter into it with a few reservations, and the problem is the advise and consent process - why we don't treat it as an executive agreement and just get a majority of the house and senate, i don't know. Probably because it's a UN treaty.
In any event, for most provisions - including this one - the behavior of the executive branch, including the relevant departments here, defense and state, generally behave as if we signed the treaty with reservations about parts of the treaty not at issue here. Our positions towards the Paris Convention and UNCLOS for so long are likely immutable, and at this point the no-privateering rule probably would be considered customary international law (which is fully binding) even if we never signed a single treaty.
This is definately not true. Plenty of applicable statutes have extraterritorial effect. Before the Blackwater thing got such a high profile, the USG used parts of the patriot act which extend jurisdiction to civilians at overseas US military facilities to nab people who were abusing prisoners. Now, certainly, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdictions Act covers military contractors. There's a great collection of memos at: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/dss/meja/
The real problem is that, because Blackwater oftne provides security (quite effectively) to the State Department, it's unclear whether PMCs are "accompanying US forces" when answering to secstate rather than secdef.
Are you sure that mercenaries have -no- protection as POWs? The whole point of this detainee mess is that Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions applies to every battlefield prisoner, regardless of their status.
It's also clear that PMCs aren't going anywhere for a while. The ICRC put out a 'best practices' that countries have contributed to and broadly agree to - the Montreux document. http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/montreux-document-170908/$FILE/Montreux-Document.pdf ICRC is invariably more liberal than any position the US would take, so for them to acknowledge the issue as one needing regulation, rather than taking the incorrect view that PMCs should be prohibited, means that they'll be with us for a long time yet.
Furthermore, PMCs inhabit every corner of the battlespace. Lots of logistics and support functions are run by PMCs, though little combat is. And Blackwater only runs defensive operations - they escort people and things, they don't go out looking for a fight. In Iraq, one would come to find them, but firing in self-defense is a whole nother ROE.
Blackwater would not be able to operate in other countries that outlawed PMCs (which I believe is what happened to EO in south africa), were it not for the routine status of forces agreements whih the United States signs with countries it places personnel and troops in. Those provide for legal protections for both service members and civilian members of the US force, i.e., contractors. So every country in which there is an invited United States military presence (South Korea, the European Union, Japan - and now Iraq with the signing of their status of forces agreement), a SOFA protects the rights and freedoms of both uniformed and civlian US personnel.