7 Comments

What are the legalities of allowing merchant vessels to arm themselves in order to repel pirates?

Well, I guess that the British, historically known for their staunch stance agaisnt piracy, and have in yesteryear fired upon pirate ships and hanged the survivors on the spot, will have to call in the Indian navy who seems to be the only country now willing to use military force to curb piracy on the high seas.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-somalia_20nov20,0,4913179.story

In response to (1), merchant vessels could legally arm themselves, but they probably would not want to. The reason shipping and hence the cost of imported goods is so cheap is that a crew of 15-20 can run a modern cargo ship transporting millions of dollars of merchandise. These ships, even if armed, would stand no chance against an attack by pirates.

If the various navys and other military were allowed to go after these pirates in earnest, the problem would be solved.

The great thing about the trial for piracy is that it is so open and shut. There is no plausible explanation that a defendant could provide to explain their presence on the pirated vessel as mere accident of happenstance. The only possible innocent caught up in the sweep might be the occasional crewman so despised by his shipmates that they all claim that he too was with the pirate boarding party.
Hang ’em all, or toss them overboard to the fishes.

#3 is somewhat correct. But some or all of the pirates may swear they were forced to participate. And their companions should back them up.

With conflicting stories doubt will be raised and some may be acquitted. Some will not because the ship’s crew can testify against them.

But putting game theory aside, the real problem is that piracy must be controlled before a ship is taken. Once pirates are in control it can be very costly in lives and material to capture them.

The only method I see is simply to designate zones where naval patrols may stop any ship or boat without cause and search. The patrols would be authorized by the UN and exemption from legal review would be given.

If weapons are found and the navy commander concludes they are pirates then execute them on the spot.

If a vessel will not stop for inspection then fire upon it and use escalating force.

Purists may harp about innocents getting killed but in reality the navies involved will make few if any mistakes in sorting out who intends piracy and who does not.

Re (2): I’m not so sure about that. The majority of attacks thus far have been made by small boats, have they not? Surely aquiring and installing some surplus military weapons of some sort (such as mounted machineguns) and training crews in their use should prove adequate to fend off the majority of attackers.

Granted, it would be moderately expensive, but then, once upon a time, many merchant vessels carried cannons, did they not? I can’t imagine it would be as expensive as having to shell out for an entire new ship.

Don’t expect a shoot solution from the PC weenies of Britain or the US. Pure balderdash!

“To begin with, common criminals cannot be targeted with military force. There are other issues as well. Last April the British Foreign Office reportedly warned the Royal Navy not to detain pirates, since this might violate their “human rights” and could even lead to claims of asylum in Britain. Turning the captives over to Somali authorities is also problematic — since they might face the head and hand-chopping rigors of Shariah law. Similar considerations have confounded U.S. government officials in their discussions of how to confront this new problem of an old terror at sea.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122704656624238791.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

My proposed negotiation scenario:

Pirate: “Wee want $20 million.”

Neg.: “I have a better idea-you vactate the ship, and we’ll let you live.”

Pirate: “Hmm. Well, OK We’re leaving.”

U.S. Navy: “Sorry, we didn’t get the memo. Fire at will!”