A very interesting series of posts at The Volokh Conspiracy today. It seems the Ninth Circuit Court has overruled a lower court ruling, and held that the Sea Shepherds, the anti-whaling group with their own cable program, committed piracy on the high seas in their attacks on Japanese whaling vessels. I have decorated it with some "suitable" illustrations of pirates...
Here is the opening of Judge Kozinski’s opinion, reversing a lower court ruling and issuing a preliminary injunction in an Alien Tort Statute suit against the Sea Shepherd’s attempts to interfere with Japanese whaling vessels on the high seas:Whenever I've seen the Sea Shepherds in action on the tube, I've had exactly that same reaction, if somebody was attempting the kind of crap they pull on the whalers on me, and I had a harpoon gun on hand...
You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.
As little sympathy as I have for whaling, this sort of conduct on the high seas is dangerous and should be dealt with firmly.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal of a district court decision ruling that actions by Sea Shepherd against Japanese whaling vessels could not constitute piracy because they did not satisfy the “private ends” requirement is obviously correct. (Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepard Conservation Society.) The district court’s analysis always struck me as strange and disconnected with piracy practice and caselaw. In this post, I’ll discuss the relevance of the decision to Alien Tort Statute issues, and in a subsequent one, I’ll examine the merits.Yes, Sea Shepherd Engages in Piracy Under International Law
The Ninth Circuit was right to reverse the district court in the Sea Shepherd Case. The district court erroneously read “private ends” as excluding political ends like saving the whales. But the “private ends” requirement has never been understood to inject a subjective element to the piracy inquiry. It does not turn on whether the actor’s motives are pecuniary, political, operating under mistake of fact, or simply insane. Private ends are those ends held by private parties. The converse is also true: a government-owned ship in government service cannot commit piracy even if it attacks another vessel solely to enrich itself.
The rule is clear as both a matter of customary international law and the Law of the Sea Convention. On the latter score, the “private” ends requirement of the UNCLOS Art. 101 (which defines piracy) has to be read in conjunction with Art. 102, which distinguishes between “warship” or “government ship” – which cannot commit piracy while under governmental control and “private” ships, which are the kind that can be pirates. Thus “private” clearly means “non-governmental,” rather than selfish or not selfish...
The necessity for this rule is clear. Motives are often mixed and not transparent. The Irish pirates of prior centuries attacked British ships for gain, but also for politics. Similarly, British pirates against the Spanish in the early 1700s stole – and had political motives. Today’s Somali pirates are said to be motivated in part by foreign overfishing in Somali waters; some pirate bands have manifestly political names (National Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia). (Ironically, Greenpeace argues that the foreign fishing fleets are the real “pirates,” who have caused the problem in Somalia.) Yet in not one of the dozens of Somali pirate trials around the world has this been even considered as even potentially defeating liability.
Indeed, even saving the whales is not clearly political: it could be selfish, in the sense that some people, like the defendants, are happier knowing there are whales in the world, some people are not. Indeed, redistribution from the rich is itself a political agenda, and such a political motive would make all pirates mere Robin Hoods.
Judge Kozinski has gotten considerable criticism from liberals for ruling that Sea Shepherd is involved in piracy under international law. A subsequent post will provide additional support for the decision on the merits. Here, I’d like to look at the big picture and suggest that liberals should be thanking Kozinski: a contrary ruling would have torpedoed two liberal causes – the U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty, and a broad construction of the Alien Tort Statute.
A ruling that politically motivated attacks are exempt from piracy would certainly add weight to conservative skepticism of the Law of the Sea Treaty. The root of this skepticism is a concern that the meaning of international legal instruments is actually quite uncertain, and unforeseen vagaries will later be used against the U.S., which will have no monopoly on interpreting the law that applies to it. The retort is that such fears are paranoid; the treaty is clear, by now well-worn, and pretty harmless.
Well if the piracy provisions – which have not been the ones causing conservative anxiety – are actually highly disputed in their meaning on basic definitional points, there may be more to worry about than previously thought. Lets say the meaning of “private ends” is in fact undefined, with both interpretations open. The U.S.’s ability to treat maritime terrorists as international pirates will thus probably depend on what a bunch of professors and European foreign ministry lawyers say “private ends” means.
In short, string 'em up!
A look at the legislative history does not support the notion of a subjective, political exemption for politically-motivated pirates.
Kevin Jon Heller’s argument that political motives are excluded from piracy rests less on the Law of the Sea Treaty itself than on its intellectual predecessors, the League of Nations Report of 1927 and the Harvard Draft Convention of 1932. The ILC Commentary to the Law of Sea Treaty specifically endorses the latter, saying that “in general” it agrees with the Draft Convention (it does not provide such deference to the former.
The Harvard Draft supports the lack of any subjective, motive-based inquiry. Here is exactly what it says in its commentary on the “private ends” part of the definition of piracy:
[A]lthough it is true that the typical pirate of fiction and tradition was an indiscriminative plunderer, expediency and not traditional epithets or the fancy of traditional concepts should direct the definition of the common jurisdiction over piracy, and every consideration of certainty in prosecution and of assured protection in places outside the territory of all states argues that the jurisdiction to seize and to punish a robber or a killer for private ends should not depend on whether the offender had by acts or words displayed an intent to plunder or slay only once or oftener, or on whether he intended to attack only the citizens of certain states and their ships and other property, or to prey on the people and commerce of all nations indiscriminately. Such matters of collateral intent of an offender (often uncertain and indistinct) and of his transactions other than those involved in the case at hand, are very unsatisfactory as elements in a basis of state jurisdiction.
Rule 5 Sunday (Snowed Out at the the Tax Mines) done come on Wednesday at The Other McCain this week. Wombat-Socho had some lame excuse about having a real job or weather or something.
HOW NOT TO REPEL PIRATES
ReplyDeletehttp://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/HOWNOTTOREPELPIRATES.html