Greenpeace piracy?

[gumboot]

The international community can't even be bothered with going after Assad for gassing thousands of people. If they can't do that for a Russian client state how the hell are they going to be bothered with Russia itself over this? The international community and what army? Winter is coming up, people in western Europe will want that Russian natural gas to keep warm. They'll dance to Putin's tune to get it. Thanks in no small part to Greenpeace much of Europe has shut down their nuke plants and stopped building new ones, they're more dependent on Russia than ever before. Oh, the irony!

That is not going to stop them holding the ship and putting them on trial

Look, guys, I completely agree with everything you're saying. Don't even get me started on the joke we like to pretend is an "international community". I'm well aware of what Russia's doing, and I'm well aware that no one is going to do anything about it.

That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it doesn't mean I have to excuse violations of international law. If you guys want to shrug your shoulders feel free, but you're a hypocrite if you ever criticise any other country for running rough-shod over international law.

 

[gumboot]

That rule doesn't mention what happens if the Russians suspect.

They don't get to do anything. Not legally, anyway. That's why they've charged them with piracy. It's the only scenario in which their actions are legal.

Frankly my guess is after two months they'll just release them all. The piracy charge means they can hold them for up to two months before bringing them to trial, and that will be their punishment.

It will take the Netherlands more than two months to bring any legal action against Russia in the International Tribunal, and Russia will paint itself the merciful, generous party for "changing its mind" about prosecuting the nasssty greenpeaces.

 

[cullennz]

They don't get to do anything. Not legally, anyway. That's why they've charged them with piracy. It's the only scenario in which their actions are legal.

Frankly my guess is after two months they'll just release them all. The piracy charge means they can hold them for up to two months before bringing them to trial, and that will be their punishment.

It will take the Netherlands more than two months to bring any legal action against Russia in the International Tribunal, and Russia will paint itself the merciful, generous party for "changing its mind" about prosecuting the nasssty greenpeaces.

That is what I meant by long trial.

Im sure the activists won't mind.

They'll get all the publicity towards their cause

 

[cullennz]

I wonder if some unknown gang no one can identify steals their ship and scuttle it

 

[arthwollipot]

I wonder if some unknown gang no one can identify steals their ship and scuttle it

*cough*

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe they should ask the French to sneak into the Russian Harbour and blow the ship up.


As for stopping ships at sea to look for drugs.

When I was in the RN on Caribbean Guard ship we stopped and boarded a Panamanian ship on a tip off. We didn't ask permission from the Flag country.

 

[cullennz]

The way I see it (and I could be completely wrong) is international waters rules mostly seem to be based on old stuff when piracy was going on and haven't really been updated apart from a few bits about drugs.

Maybe Russia is testing whether they set a presedant

 

[Andy_Ross]

Piracy is still going on!

 

[gumboot]

As for stopping ships at sea to look for drugs.

When I was in the RN on Caribbean Guard ship we stopped and boarded a Panamanian ship on a tip off. We didn't ask permission from the Flag country.

Where were you at the time?

 

[gumboot]

The way I see it (and I could be completely wrong) is international waters rules mostly seem to be based on old stuff when piracy was going on and haven't really been updated apart from a few bits about drugs.

Maybe Russia is testing whether they set a presedant

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was written in 1982.

 

[gumboot]

I wonder if some unknown gang no one can identify steals their ship and scuttle it

You can't scuttle someone else's ship.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was on deck launching the Rigid Raider that was being used to transport a Royal Marine Detachment over to the ship. We were in International Waters.

I am quite confident that our 'Old Man' wouldn't have thought twice about opening fire if the hadn't allowed us to board.

 

[fuelair]

I wonder if some unknown gang no one can identify steals their ship and scuttle it

Or a mysterious group of beret wearers blows it up - leaving only traces of wine, cheese and crusty bread crumbs behind them.

 

[fuelair]

You can't scuttle someone else's ship.

But, you can sure make it look scuttled!!!

 

[gumboot]

I was on deck launching the Rigid Raider that was being used to transport a Royal Marine Detachment over to the ship. We were in International Waters.

I am quite confident that our 'Old Man' wouldn't have thought twice about opening fire if the hadn't allowed us to board.

What was the mission under which the ship was operating?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Caribbean Guard Ship.
There is always a Royal Navy Destroyer or Frigate stationed in the Caribbean.
It sails around visiting islands, stopping drug runners, assisting after hurricanes and generally 'flying the flag'

 

[gumboot]

Caribbean Guard Ship.
There is always a Royal Navy Destroyer or Frigate stationed in the Caribbean.
It sails around visiting islands, stopping drug runners, assisting after hurricanes and generally 'flying the flag'

This is presumably done with the approval and cooperation of Caribbean Nations?

ETA. My point is, nations combine their efforts to address mutual areas of concern, such as combating the narcotics trade, and often establish the nature of this cooperation with pre-existing agreements. There are numerous cooperative agreements relating to anti-narcotics efforts in the Caribbean. I'm not familiar with the UK's agreements with Caribbean nations, but if RN ships are boarding flagged vessels in international waters in the Caribbean it will be because they have pre-existing agreements with those nations that permit them to board vessels flying their flag to search them for narcotics. It's not because the Royal Navy are violating international law by boarding foreign-flagged vessels without permission.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes but you were mentioned

Russia's violation of Dutch sovereignty by illegal boarding and seizing a Dutch vessel on the high seas.

Just because a ship is 'flagged' in a certain country doesn't make stopping or boarding that ship a 'violation of sovereignty'
How log do you think it is going to take for the Captain of Frigate in the Caribbean to signal the Admiralty and for the Admiralty to approach the Foreign Office and get them to approach the foreign Govt and get permission from whatever authority to board a ship?
It's up to the Captain on the spot to get on with it. If it is within the orders given to him by the Admiralty when he set sail he will do it.
Smaller vessels like fishing boats were and are boarded all the time, some are even arrested and detained without asking the flag country.

 

[gumboot]

Yes but you were mentioned

Just because a ship is 'flagged' in a certain country doesn't make stopping or boarding that ship a 'violation of sovereignty'

It does if you don't have permission.

How log do you think it is going to take for the Captain of Frigate in the Caribbean to signal the Admiralty and for the Admiralty to approach the Foreign Office and get them to approach the foreign Govt and get permission from whatever authority to board a ship?

If your nation has a pre-existing agreement with the nation under whose flag the vessel is flying, permission has already been granted.

You're acting like countries haven't thought about these issues in advance. The US anti-narcotics agreement in the Caribbean, for example, requires signatory nations to provide expedient confirmation of the flagged status of their vessels to ships conducting anti-narcotics operations.

Protocols and facilities are established such that operational vessels can confirm the validity of a flagged vessel's status in a matter of moments.

It's up to the Captain on the spot to get on with it. If it is within the orders given to him by the Admiralty when he set sail he will do it.

It has been well established that armed forces personnel have a legal duty to refuse to follow unlawful orders. Boarding the flagged vessel of a foreign nation in international waters without the permission of that nation is illegal. (Obviously if you're at war with that country it's another matter!)

Smaller vessels like fishing boats were and are boarded all the time, some are even arrested and detained without asking the flag country.

See my previous comments. Also:

Article 110

Right of visit

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:

(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;

(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;

(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;

(d) the ship is without nationality; or

(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.

5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service.

There are several options here;

1. The Royal Navy routinely violates international law.

2. You were not privy to all communications that occurred between your vessel and the flag nations of ships of interest.

3. You were not familiar with all treaties existing between the UK and the flag nations of ships of interest.


It's pretty obvious which is the least likely explanation.

 

[cullennz]

That is awesome Gumboot, but do you actually think that will stop Russia putting them through a court case?