Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: danny on October 30, 2011, 17:35:23
-
According to our primeminster,
Vessels flying the British flag will be able to have armed gaurds onboard when sailing through pirate invested waters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15510467
-
Well, finally a navy is putting armed men on vessels...
-
Hmm :evil: lol
-
Other flag states have allowed this fo some time.
Personally, while I think that his is a step in the right direction it will, at best, divert attacks away from ships with guards to ships without and at worst encourage the pirates to become more heavily armed to be able to outgun the security staff.
Really the problem needs to be dealt with at source by military force in Somalia, these people need to se that if they act like this the international community will not only act to protect shipping, but to punish those responsible.
-
Clanky, can you settle an argument from elsewhere for me? (and Angus opinion too if he sees this)
I understand under multilateral maritime agreements that the Master of a vessel has the legal right to authorise leathal force at any time in international waters if the safety of his vessel, crew or cargo (inc. 'self loading/two legged cargo) is threatened by mutineers or piracy.
The use of force need not be limited to the actions of the Master, but any officer or crewman acting under his direct orders is automatically exempt from prosecution provided the above criteria is met.
But I was recently told this is not true and a Master faces the same problem that say a house/business owner does when defending himself and he will face the same trial to establish "reasonable force".
Opinions? (Mine btw is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6)
-
Have never heard of any such agreement Stu.
-
Really the problem needs to be dealt with at source by military force in Somalia, these people need to se that if they act like this the international community will not only act to protect shipping, but to punish those responsible.
That would seem like the most logical thing to do,
However, somalia is already a "failed state" in many respects. This has led to various terror groups setting up shop there. As a result, if the west even mentioned going into somalia, the potential for all hell to brake loose would be stupidly high.
But as you said, armed gaurds are a step in the right direction, Although I feel that allowing vessels to be able to mount MG's (IE 50cal) onboard would have been a better solution.
-
Hello Stu,
This is from Wiki ..
Quote
Self protection measures and increased patrol
First and foremost, the best protection against piracy is simply to avoid encountering them. This can be accomplished by using tools such as radar.
In addition, while the non-wartime 20th century tradition has been for merchant vessels not to be armed, the U.S. Government has recently changed the rules so that it is now "best practice" for vessels to embark a team of armed private security guards. In addition, the crew themselves can be given a weapons training, and warning shots, less-lethal ammunition, … can be fired legally in international waters and/or when sailing under Israeli or Russian flag. Finally, similar to weapons training, remote weapon systems can be implemented to a vessel.
Other measures vessels can take to protect themselves against piracy are implementing a high freewall and vessel boarding protection systems (e.g., hot water wall, electricity-charged water wall, automated fire monitor, slippery foam).
Finally, in an emergency, warships can be called upon. In some areas such as near Somalia, naval vessels from different nations are present that are able to intercept vessels attacking merchant vessels. For patrolling dangerous coastal waters (and/or keeping financial expenses down), robotic or remote-controlled USVs are also sometimes used. Also, both shore-launched and vessel-launched UAVs are also used by the U.S. Army.
Unquote
.... and this one is from UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas)
Quote
Article27
Criminal jurisdiction on board a foreign ship
1. The criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage, save only in the following cases:
(a) if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State;
(b) if the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea;
(c) if the assistance of the local authorities has been requested by the master of the ship or by a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State; or
(d) if such measures are necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
2. The above provisions do not affect the right of the coastal State to take any steps authorized by its laws for the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea after leaving internal waters.
3. In the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2, the coastal State shall, if the master so requests, notify a diplomatic agent or consular officer of the flag State before taking any steps, and shall facilitate contact between such agent or officer and the ship's crew. In cases of emergency this notification may be communicated while the measures are being taken.
4. In considering whether or in what manner an arrest should be made, the local authorities shall have due regard to the interests of navigation.
5. Except as provided in Part XII or with respect to violations of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with Part V, the coastal State may not take any steps on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea, if the ship, proceeding from a foreign port, is only passing through the territorial sea without entering internal waters.
Unquote
Makes me wonder if "nicking off" pirates is considered as a "crime" by the U.N.O.
Regards
vin_sun
-
Have never heard of any such agreement Stu.
Thanks Clanky. Perhaps I've taken it out of context. Obviously no Court is ever going to find against a crew that used 'reasonable' force to repel those intent on causing mischief, but I did think that unlike land law the use of "reasonable force" was more clearly defined.
Vin_Sun,
I suspect here in Britain any ship "nicking off" pirates would probably fall under the ridiculous eu human rights laws.
I suspect that India is more likely to send a gunboat out to support its ships that are attacked than navel gaze as we do here.
And since we invented the phrase "gunboat diplomacy" I am really narked that our government holds our Royal Navy and Royal Marines back all the time, when they are itching to kick some transoms...
Shame pirates can't hang from the mast any more.
-
armed guard on ships
i think you may need to read a small print as there are too many ships passing dangerous waters
-
I suspect that India is more likely to send a gunboat out to support its ships that are attacked than navel gaze as we do here.
The Indian Navy did step in ......
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/indian-navy-catches-61-pirates-91506
-
Good on India! About time some Countries with backbone started fighting back. We're too worried about political correctness here to intervene.
(see RFA Wave Knight...)