128
Kremlin outraged by detention of Russian shadow fleet tanker, calls it "piracy" (www.pravda.com.ua)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 5 months ago (50 children)

Aren't they technically correct, though? Please spare me with Russia bad, I'm talking technically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 50 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago

    Depends, if the ship is sailing as russian and has all paperwork in order. Sure it might be piracy.

    More likely however, it’s doing shady shit and that’s a known factor before the boarding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago* (27 children)

    Every definition of piracy I've seen includes the fact it's a crime. Lawfully seizing a ship therefore isn't piracy.

    Now there are varying opinions on whether this detention is legal or not, but personally the Russian government is one of the last organizations I would trust in determining that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (26 children)

    I'm not a legal expert, but this definition sounds like it

    (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

    Now there are varying opinions on whether this detention is legal or not, but personally the Russian government is one of the last organizations I would trust in determining that.

    Sure, we are talking about piracy in general, not Russian opinion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (11 children)

    It's not for private ends, the sanctions on Russia are very very public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    So if Russia passes sanctions against France they can legally seize their freighters too.

    Neat!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    No.

    "Barrel of a gun" (but you may not know what that means). But also you didn't lay out what France has done in this hypothetical, but no.

    In fact your thinking is absolutely Trumpian, where rules are just there to be manipulated. If not Putin-like, where everything comes down to respect and mafiosa stlye thinking.

    Sounds like you have no idea about politics or geopolitics. Learn the basics:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    I know that video but under the name "The Rules for Rulers".

    It's obviously not a video for anarchists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Ideology is a false god.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Oh I quite agree with that. In the end only power matters, and that is what we're seeing in regards to Russia. The USA set a trap and Russia walked right into it. But just because a majority of people agree with something like sanctions, doesn't make it right or "legal". Only power does that, together with the propaganda to ensure everyone thinks the same.

    I mean imagine we treated the US like we do Russia lol. Inconceivable because of money of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    any illegal acts of violence or detention

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (13 children)

    (a) any illegal acts

    That's the single critical part on which the remainder of that definition rests.

    If a court operating within the confines of the law declares an act legal, then it is to anyone that subscribes to that system of law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    It's any illegal acts of violence or detention, wasn't the latter the case?

    Also what court has a jurisdiction over international seas?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago* (9 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    You are saying that a XY country could have a law where it says that it's fine to seize any ship in international waters and thus it's all good and legal then when it does so?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago* (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    That was not your question. Your question was if it was piracy and it is clearly not, based on your own legal quote. Are you ready to agree to that or still denying it?

    You are probably right that it's not piracy due to the private ends part, my bad, misunderstood. Hence the question what it is called then since is quite similar to piracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    It's literally in the headline and article. It's called detention. As a comparison, when police stop you it's called "being detained". They could seize it too, which is called seizure. Neither of those are piracy, though piracy does require detention or seizure. Obviously not every detention or seizure is piracy though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Ok, but still, in international water it is an illegal act, isn't it. When police detains you, it is usually legally.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's legal by whatever state is saying it's legal. If they say it's illegal for Russia to export oil, it is legal for them to detain a ship they suspect of doing so.

    That doesn't might it "right" or whatever, however you'd want to try and define that for something like this. It does make it not piracy though. Piracy isn't even necessarily "evil" either. It's a tool. States have sanctioned pirates against their opponent many times in the past. The difference is it isn't the state doing it then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    It’s legal by whatever state is saying it’s legal.

    Yes, but only within that state. In international waters it isn't. So it turns out that the said tanker, at least according to France, was not properly registered and thus was detained, not because of sanctions or whatever where emphasis on articles was. If that's really the case, then it was indeed a legal operation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    The international Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, following the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the big one, though in this case really only covers the manner one can legally seize a ship -- the how, not the why.

    For that you'd refer to the International Court of Justice (specifically Ukraine v. Russian Federation ), the International Criminal Court (This case in particular. ), and the United Nations General Assembly's United Nations Security Council Resolution 2623.

    And yes, those case are all linked and part of determining the legality of seizing Russian "shadow fleet" ships.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    No. Piracy cannot be applied to actions of a state agency.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (12 children)

    Who Why not?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Piracy by definition only applies to private entities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

    Ok, how do we call it when a state does piracy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    We don’t, as it’s impossible for a state to commit piracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    ie illegally according to international law seize a foreign ship in international waters and sell it's cargo for own profit. How do we call that? Not talking about this case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Depends what the foreign ship was up to. Could be drug interdiction, sanctions enforcement, warfare etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Let's say transporting oil. Nothing illegal according to international laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Depends on the ship. You may remember an incident a few months ago where the US intercepted a tanker departing Venuzuela. The tanker was trying to evade sanctions by flying a false flag. This made it stateless and therefore it was within the rights of the US to sieze it and its cargo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    US to sieze it and its cargo.

    Is it really? I get seizure and everything, but selling it - I guess that could be possible only if owner didn't pay a fine and wouldn't oppose it legally?

    OTOH what'd happen if the ship is in order and it still happened that? Or just seizure and torture of its crew just like happened with Global Sumud Flotilla?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Getting off topic here. The actions of a state may not be lawful or justifiable, but they aren’t piracy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

    No, detaining a ship and then a state government having to admit that yes, it is actually theirs isn't piracy, because no wealth or resources were taken from the ship.

    It has forced Russia to admit something though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Not sure whether I follow, can you elaborate? If one detains a ship in international waters under Russian flag full of oil or whatever, how is this not a piracy? And if it is not, then what it is?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    It wasn't "under a Russian flag"... hence them having to admit that it was their ship after all.

    It is under European sanctions though, as Russia invaded Ukraine. That's why they've been running a "shadow fleet" in the first place. Because their are sanctions against Russian ships and trade. Sanctions from a federation of counties against the war.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Does it matter under what flag, though? As long as they are legally registered it shouldn't. TBH ships are usually registered in all sorts of shady countries.

    Also if a group of countries declares sanctions, it doesn't allow them to stop the ships in international waters, does it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes it does, and yes it does.

    It matters that it's Russia (because they started the war).

    ...and it gives Europe the right to do anything they like to oppose Russia.

    I'm not into people like YOU propagandistically "arguing the rights and freedoms of authoritarians and fascist".

    You're a fucken idiot for defending and devils advocating these fucks. And you can fuck off away from me with your pro Russia BS. Loser.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •