Privateering: Seamanship and Lawyering

[Roland]

I hope this isn't too political. It addresses a topic of interest to everyone here - privateering. A recent proposal would have the US Congress exercise its constitutional authority to issue letters of marque in order to take possession of Russian oligarchs' super-yachts. The author explores the original context of privateering and explains why its 21st-century revival would be a bad idea.

Let’s Not Revive Privateering to Take Russian Superyachts
https://www.thebulwark.com/lets-not-revive-privateering-to-take-russian-superyachts/

[corsair91]

Privateering Letters of marque was in times of war only.
The US is not currently in a declared war with Russia, so doesn't apply.

Russian oligarchs' super-yachts would be moored in
various marinas in territorial waters and an attempted seizure
without that country's legal court order, would be considered a
robbery criminal offence.

Oligarchs' could afford large battalions of lawyers,
and sue for compensation.


Privateering was abolished in 1856 under International law

Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

The US has always complied with the provisions of the Paris Declaration
even though it never signed it (claimed a small navy back then,
and last issued Letters of Marque probably back in the war of 1812)

WW1 & WW2 surface raiders were Navy crewed ships
and fought as warships under Battle Flags
(may have used false flags to sneak into an initial position to attack)


Geneva Convention

Any civilian activity which amounts to "direct participation in hostilities" temporarily suspends their presumptive civilian protection and exposes them to both direct targeting as a legitimate military target and prosecution for their unauthorised participation in hostilities.

[fleetp]

Interesting article.
I don't think the article is political.
Very respectfully,
fleetp

[Roland]

[Pirate]

Mercenaries are soldiers for hire. I’d expect it would depend on who hired you for instance if I joined Al-Qaeda then probably so if I enlisted in he Ukrainian army to fight the Russians then probably not. Might could lose my citizenship if I became a officer but that’s just a possibility not exact. Fighting for another nation that is fighting your nation definitely is a no no even if the pay is better. That’s treason a serious offense.

[corsair91]

Mercenaries may have a code of saving the last bullet for themselves
as want to avoid falling into the hands of local militias.

If there is something to be gained, they would probably be put on trial
Regular militaries may not over exert themselves trying to take Mercenaries alive

Mercenaries are typically regarded more as criminals rather than as military
under international law.

In Iraq and Afghanistan Wars the US extensively used Mercenaries to reduce the number of deployed US Military (and Military casualties)
The US may have sought legal indemnities from those countries for American Mercenaries. (Still illegal under International law).

When conducting a counter-insurgency campaign "Hearts & Minds"
using Mercenaries is a quick way to lose the campaign as enrages the local populace and undermines the domestic will to fight.

" Hell no, we won't go! , we won't fight for Texaco!" type sentiments

[themodelcitizen]

US and Russian forces have shot at each other in Syria a few times I think, they like to keep it under wraps where possible. And in many cases they're - officially at least - there to provide support and assistance, and only permitted to shoot at enemies if they're in danger. Of course, the reality is slightly different.

I believe that volunteers/Americans fighting under the Ukrainian flag are, legally, considered as part of Ukrainian forces. While that does mean they can engage in combat without triggering a war between NATO and Russia, it also means that their home country won't necessarily help get them out of danger - including prisoner exchanges