Activist Boards Japanese Whaler

[The Larch]

question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?

It would depend on where the attack takes place. If it's in some country's national waters, it'd depend on the national legislation. If it's in international waters, you have to refer to international treaties.

You can check UNCLOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and in particular the Convention of the High Seas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_High_Seas).

[grumbler]

question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?

Of course.  The problem is that only the Japanese government can act against people attacking/damaging Japanese ships (except in extremis), whereas everyone can (and, in fact, must) act against pirates.  Pirates are "at war with mankind" whereas the Sea Shepherds are mere criminals.

[Razgovory]

Japan is also at war with mankind so it's kind of a wash.

[Agelastus]

Strawman.  I suppose that I should have seen this coming: you have no case but outrage.

I am done, then.  Fulminate at will.

So Grumbler quits the field, abandoning an untenable position.

To recap.

(1) He asserted they ("Sea Shepherd") were a public body and thus could not be pirates, only to back down when it was pointed out that they were not.

(2) He asserted, producing a relevant legal passage, that "Sea Shepherd" were not pirates because despite being a non-public body they were taking action for no personal gain. The self-same passage establishes the principle that there are limits to which people can act for a public motive and avoid being called pirates, rendering his point moot.

Grumbler seems to believe that "Sea Shepherd" have not passed these limits, despite the fact that if they had carried out similar actions on land I cannot think of a jurisdiction where they would not have been arrested on the spot. He seems to believe that separate standards apply to criminal acts whether they are carried out on land or at sea, or at least that is the only implication that can be drawn from his position.

The passage also uses the phrase "personal ends" not "personal gains". Which of course would mean that personal ends can be considered to include non-monetary rewards.

The fact that the local maritime authorities are ignoring their duty for political reasons does not mean that "Sea Shepherd" are not pirates.

(3) When directly challenged to provide an alternate law under which their actions could be prosecuted, Grumbler quits the argument in a huff. After all, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps he is aware of an appropriate law that extends beyond territorial waters that allows them to be described as something other than pirates? I am only aware of the laws of Piracy, but I am always interested in learning more.



I am still interested in hearing from the lawyers on this board on this issue.

[Agelastus]

Of course.  The problem is that only the Japanese government can act against people attacking/damaging Japanese ships (except in extremis), whereas everyone can (and, in fact, must) act against pirates.  Pirates are "at war with mankind" whereas the Sea Shepherds are mere criminals.

I'm looking Grumbler, but I still don't find a section of international maritime law that actually lets Japan do that if they are not pirates. The more I look, the less adequate maritime law appears to be in regard to criminal acts.

I have found a site which gives a history of the organisation which lists a number of acts that look like piracy. Including where they have shot at ships.

http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/pr2001/ocean_warriors_confront_lucian_fishermen.htm

A History of Extremism

  The Sea Shepherd Society has a long history of extremist actions in pursuit of its stated aim of preventing fishermen around the world from hunting for whales of any kind. Since it was founded by Watson 24 years ago, it has chalked-up a string of attacks on whaling vessels around the world.

·          In 1979, a Sea Shepherd vessel rammed a whaling boat called "Sierra" but didn't succeed in sinking it.

·          A year later (1980) Sea Shepherd claimed responsibility for the sinking of the "Sierra" using limpet mined in the harbour of Lisbon, the capital of Portugal.

·          In 1981, Sea Shepherd claimed responsibility for sinking another two whaling boats, the "Ibsa I" and "Ibsa II" in the Spanish port of Viga.

·          In 1986, Sea Shepherd activists shot at Faroese police and tried to sink their rubber dinghies after being ordered to leave the harbour for trying to prevent or obstruct the annual Faroses Pilot Whale harvest.

·          Also in 1986, Sea Shepherd claimed responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik, Iceland and for causing malicious damage to a whaling station not far from the famous Icelandic town. Captain Watson has since been declared persona non grata in Iceland.

·          In 1991, an American crew member of a Mexican fishing vessel reported that a Sea Shepherd vessel rammed their vessel and caused it considerable damage after Sea Shepherd crew members boarded the fishing boat armed with rifles.

·          In 1992, Sea Shepherd vessels made unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa Rican vessels, shooting at the crew with bullets containing a red substance.

·          In 1993, Sea Shepherd made an unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the combined Minke whaling and fishing vcessel "Nybraena" while moored in the Lofoten islands.

·          Also in 1993, Captain Watson ordered the crew of the Sea Shepherd vessel "Edward Abbey" (a former US Navy vessel) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel. Yet another unsuccessful attempt was made to scuttle the combined Minke whaling and fishing vessel "Senet" while moored at the port of Gressvik. By the end of that year, Sea Shepherd claimed it had sunk eight ships and rammed and damaged a further six.

·                In November 1998, four Sea Shepherd members were arrested after provoking an incident with the Makah Indians of Washington state who were about to resume hunting of Grey Whales at an internationally approved rate of two of those particular species of whales per year for four years. The Sea Shepherd's anti-whaling activists had anchored near the Makah Indian Reservation's harbour for over a month and moved in to engage in physical violence against the tribal fishermen on the day they were to resume a centuries-old tradition that had been halted in 1920 when that species almost became extinct.

·                In September 2000, Captain Watson was found guilty by a court in the Faroe Islands for violation of immigration laws and illegal entry into Faroese waters. The Danish Government supports the right of the Faroese fishermen to fish for Pilot Whales. But like is the case in St. Lucia, Pilot Whales are not on the endangered species list protected by European and International Law.

Expelled From the IWC
After the sinking of the Icelandic whaling vessels in 1986, Sea Shepherd lost its status as an observer at the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

In February of 1994, IWC Secretary Ray Gambell reiterated – after Sea Shepherd claimed it was merely enforcing IWC rules – that "the IWC and all its members ardently condemn Sea Shepherd's acts of terrorism."

Use of Weapons
Apart from Caribbean fishermen fearing for their lives, security officials are also said to be concerned about Sea Shepherd's use of weapons during its protests.

Watson admits there are arms aboard Sea Shepherd vessels.

In April 1992, he told the Los Angeles Times: "We confront dangerous people...I have prepared myself for the responsibility of defending my crew... I will use firearms, fist to intimidate and then to defend."

[Savonarola]

Like Judgment at Nuremberg but about whales:

New Zealand hints at legal action

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

New Zealand may lodge a complaint against Tokyo with the International Court of Justice in The Hague if diplomacy fails to stop Japan's whaling, according to Monday's online edition of the New Zealand Herald.

It cited a statement by the country's foreign minister, Murray McCully, which comes after Australia voiced similar sentiments.

Prime Minister John Key told a news conference the same day that "if the diplomatic solution fails, and the only option is a court action, at that time we will consider" the matter.

However, he warned that it was too early to assume that New Zealand would join Australia in taking court action.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said he would propose a phasing out of Japanese research whaling to the International Whaling Commission.

Were the whaling ship captains: only following orders? 

[The Minsky Moment]

The man comitted physical damage to a vessel while illegally boarding a ship at sea.

That's not what the story says. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I have found a site which gives a history of the organisation which lists a number of acts that look like piracy. 

And yet despite the fact that law enforcement actions were taken in a number of those instances, on no occasion was the organization or any of its members charged with (much less convicted of) piracy.

[Martinus]

There is a body of case law according to which you do not need to be acting on behalf of a state in order to act "not for private ends", Agelastus. In general, any political goal that is not associated with personal interest or enrichment has been considered not to constitute piracy. This is similar to a concept of "public interest", which applies to private individuals as well (e.g. journalists acting out of public interest can do more when it comes to violating privacy laws).

Furthermore, based on general rules of legal interpretation, it would be fallacious, imo, to consider "private ends" to encompass anything that is not "done on a public authority". The law on piracy is part of the criminal law, and one of the fundamental rules of criminal law is that it must be interpreted narrowly - any grey areas and ambiguities must be interpreted in favour of the potential perpetrator. So rather than proving the activist was not acting for "public ends", you will have to prove that he was acting for "private ends" - something that is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, imo.

If you protest at sea, that is fine. If you place your ship between a whaler and a whale, that is fine. After all, that is no different to a freedom of speech march or a picketing of Huntingdon Life Sciences or Greenham Common.

Hiding acts that endanger human life behind a facade of "preventing cruelty to animals" (which is how I assume they get the NGO tax exemptions in the USA which allows Grumbler to state they are a "public body" against the meaning of the term) is legitimate, then, in your eyes? Violation of privacy laws by a legitimate journalist does not exactly equate to tossing acid on to the deck of a manned ship. Martinus, I strongly believe you need a better perspective here.

Other than piracy laws, how should their violent and destructive actions be punished, then? Are their any other laws that can be applied to these acts when committed outside international boundaries?

Fact. The Japanese whalers are not breaking the law.

Fact. "Sea Shepherd" is breaking the law, in a particularly dangerous fashion; they will manage to get someone killed if they continue their actions.

They publically claim to have sunk 10 whalers, destruction of property on a scale that would get them jailed if, for example, they were attacking land based institutions such as Huntingdon Life Sciences. You get a free pass to commit criminal damage at sea? No, you don't, which is why their is a law of piracy.

Canadian intelligence calls them eco-terrorists, and they are not a whaling nation. Would you be OK then if I called for them to be arrested under anti-terrorist laws, rather than the law of piracy?

I thought the question we were debating was whether this is an act of piracy (which it apparently isn't as several people have pointed out), not whether this breaks any laws.

[Martinus]

question: Is there any maritime law other than piracy laws that do cover attacks on vessels by non-government entities?

It would depend on where the attack takes place. If it's in some country's national waters, it'd depend on the national legislation. If it's in international waters, you have to refer to international treaties.

Actually, no. Most countries extend their jurisdictions to acts committed on board of their sea and air vessels, meaning an act committed on a ship in international waters would fall under the jurisdiction of the country of origin of the ship.

[Martinus]

I'm looking Grumbler, but I still don't find a section of international maritime law that actually lets Japan do that if they are not pirates. The more I look, the less adequate maritime law appears to be in regard to criminal acts.

Because you won't. Maritime law is not there to regulate every single event that could possibly happen at sea, but to provide a common ground for some events that are in the interest of the international community to be regarded in the same way by all countries. For the most part, acts committed on board of a ship in international waters fall under the jurisdiction of the country of origin of the ship.

The purpose of submitting piracy to international law is not really about crime and punishment, but about giving countries certain rights (such as a right to continue pursuit into territorial waters of another country) that normally would not exist if this was about a crime falling under domestic jurisdictions. I suppose Japanese criminal code has laws against unlawful entry or (if this happened) damage to property. That does not mean this is piracy under international law, nor that if it isn't, you can essentially do anything you want and go unpunished.

[Agelastus]

That does not mean this is piracy under international law, nor that if it isn't, you can essentially do anything you want and go unpunished.

Actually, that's exactly what this is an example of.

Since the country of origin of Sea Shepherd or their boats are taking no notice of the criminal actions of these crews (and that the actions are criminal are about the only thing that you, me and Grumbler seem to agree upon) and Japan cannot board or do anything to stop these boats unless they are pirates (which you and Grumbler disagree with me on) then that's about as close to a "free pass to commit crime" as I've ever come across in real life or the law.

[Agelastus]

The man comitted physical damage to a vessel while illegally boarding a ship at sea.

That's not what the story says.

Actually. that's exactly what the story says.

"Captain Bethune boarded a Japanese whaling fleet security ship at high speed in total darkness, breached the spikes and anti-boarding nets and is presently onboard," he said.

Even if you don't believe that from the wording used, other stories on the web make clear that he had to cut his way in through what very much sound like wire mesh. Now, one can argue whether or not that qualifies as part of a ship (since it is not essential to the actual functioning of the boat) but "damage" is still "damage".

[The Minsky Moment]

"Breached" does not mean "commit physical damage".  It just means he managed to get through in some form.  You are making assumptions about how that happened, without any factual basis.

In any case, merely cutting some netting or mesh on the side of a ship does not constitute piracy, and I assume you would not argue that it does.   Fisherman have been known to cut each others nets from time to time and while such actions may be chargable minor vandalism, it doesn't turn them into pirates.

[grumbler]

...Japan cannot board or do anything to stop these boats unless they are pirates...

And why is this, again, exactly?  I assume you have some source that says Japan has no authority to stop crimes at sea other than piracy?