A letter of marque and reprisal[a][b] was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a foreign state at war with the issuer, licensing international military operations against a specified enemy as reprisal for a previous attack or injury. Captured naval prizes were judged before the government’s admiralty court for condemnation and transfer of ownership to the privateer.
Hmm that’s a lot of state involvement for a purely private enterprise.
It was essentially tax on a private concern. It still holds in maritime law that piracy is only an offence that exists in a civilian context. Militaries by definition cannot commit piracy.
Sure, but the original argument was that states could not engage in piracy, not that militaries couldn’t. The existence of privateers and their state mandates show that states can engage in it.
Yes they allowed them too, they gave them a list of who they could attack, and at times armed them. Thats very much the state being involved in it. Outsourcing doesn’t absolve culpability.
Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence by ship or boat-borne attackers upon another ship or a coastal area, typically with the goal of stealing cargo and valuable goods, or taking hostages.
The definition provided under international law is different. That seems more relevant to the conversation than the dictionary
(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:
That seems extremely irrelevant as we are not nation states, surely we should be operating under the human definition rather than a hyper specific legal framework we never interact with.
And of course states are going to say they can’t possibly be called out for it.
I wouldn’t go that far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer
Privateer… hmm
Hmm that’s a lot of state involvement for a purely private enterprise.
It was essentially tax on a private concern. It still holds in maritime law that piracy is only an offence that exists in a civilian context. Militaries by definition cannot commit piracy.
It also legalised their piracy against declared enemy states.
Right so a privateer is still a private individual. A private individual sanctioned by the state to commit piracy on its behalf.
When a state’s military forces seize a foreign vessel that is not an act of piracy it is an act of war
Sure, but the original argument was that states could not engage in piracy, not that militaries couldn’t. The existence of privateers and their state mandates show that states can engage in it.
It’s more like a state allowing a private individual to engage in piracy.
Yes they allowed them too, they gave them a list of who they could attack, and at times armed them. Thats very much the state being involved in it. Outsourcing doesn’t absolve culpability.
I’m not saying they don’t retain liability or responsibility. We’re talking about the definition of piracy.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piracy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
What about it?
The definition provided under international law is different. That seems more relevant to the conversation than the dictionary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_piracy_law
That seems extremely irrelevant as we are not nation states, surely we should be operating under the human definition rather than a hyper specific legal framework we never interact with.
And of course states are going to say they can’t possibly be called out for it.