Pirates?

JustAMom:

"I heard on a news report that one reason why many merchant vessels don't carry any weapons is that they travel to ports all over the world and in some cases can't enter ports with weapons on board as it would violate the gun laws of some nations.
Does that sound plausible?"

Here is a WSJ article addressing this very subject. I am almost positive that they are not as knowledgeable as LineInTheSand, however, they are definitely much more enjoyable to read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940951424510221.html
 
wilbur5672 said:
JustAMom:

"I heard on a news report that one reason why many merchant vessels don't carry any weapons is that they travel to ports all over the world and in some cases can't enter ports with weapons on board as it would violate the gun laws of some nations.
Does that sound plausible?"

Here is a WSJ article addressing this very subject. I am almost positive that they are not as knowledgeable as LineInTheSand, however, they are definitely much more enjoyable to read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123940951424510221.html
Click to expand...



There is nothing in that article about international law. It is also important to remember, in general I'm talking about small arms, not mounted deck guns. Also, you can read, they are talking about opposition from unions, not the IMO. You can determine all of this without even having to read in between the lines...yes it's that easy. :eek:
 
LineInTheSand said:
There is nothing in that article about international law. It is also important to remember, in general I'm talking about small arms, not mounted deck guns. Also, you can read, they are talking about opposition from unions, not the IMO. You can determine all of this without even having to read in between the lines...yes it's that easy. :eek:
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=why aren't ship crews armed&type=

Directly addresses this issue of unarmed ship crews.. first result under video results
 
This is the portion of the WSJ article I was referencing - nothing to do with international law but of ports allowing ships to enter.


Many ports would balk at allowing in armed commercial ships. The U.S. government worries commercial shipping with armed sailors could pose a terrorism risk in U.S. ports.
Shipowners also maintain that unless they arm seafarers with heavy weaponry, they'd be no match for pirates, who have been known to carry rocket-propelled grenades and automatic rifles.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the video Goose115th. Interesting - I am sure being inspected in every port would significantly slow down a ship. The video does make a good point that a couple of hand guns are no match for an AK-47 or a RPG.
 
Last edited:
There's also nothing to suggest that some unsavory members of a ship's crew may not be a concern.
 
LITS - you leave me more confused.

Are you saying the comments on the video by the Merchant Marine Captain are incorrect?
Again, can you explain better what the concept of "innocent passage" is?
 
Mma admeral gurnon

EMAIL to us cadets at MMA From MMA Admeral Gurnon.

Hallelujah! All members of the extended Massachusetts Maritime Academy family are relieved that Captain Richard Phillips has been delivered safely to the U. S. Navy warships that have been guarding him these past 5 harrowing days. We rejoice with the Phillips family as we all anxiously await this sailor’s return from the sea.
We salute the outstanding work of the officers and crew of the USS Bainbridge and USS Boxer who, along with the FBI, saved the life of our captain in a dramatic rescue. It is a great day to be associated with the maritime services!
Despite the joy of this great news, we continue to pray for the families of the mariners still held hostage. Their future depends upon the continued focus of the international community on the problems that foment piracy and lawlessness in Somalia. We can not forget their plight nor can we stop our efforts at securing the waters of the world for the free and unmolested travel of the ships of all nations.
 
Yes, I am saying that the captain is incorrect. He very well could have come off witht he answer because surrounding comments were not included, but yes, he is wrong.

Innocent passage:

"The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary by force majeure or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress."

Let me explain. "Continuous and expeditious" means they are not stopping and starting. They are not weaving in and out. They are going from point A to point B. Territorial seas typically extend 24 NM out from the baseline. Force majeure is the concept of a vessel having to seek refuge from the elements (think ship entering harbor of refuge due to hurricane). Having small arms onboard does not somehow make this movement any less innocent.

Think of it like this. When you were a kid you would walk to school. On the way home, you would cut through the yard of the house at the top on the street on the corner. You would just walk on through, to your final destination. You didn't stop to start a fire, set up a tent for camping, or anything else, you were just walking through.

While we're in the mood for videos, here's one from ABC that involves an interview with the Coast Guard Commandant, ADM Thad Allen. The question of arming ships comes up. You will notice in the answer, there is no mention of international law. He does mention there is no internation REQUIREMENT to arm the crews, however. I'm going to put more stock in his expertise than that of the merchant captain in the previous video (however, I think the way the the channel editted the clip may have a part in that).
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7317451
 
Last edited:
The Captain was not explaining "innocent passage" that was from post #8 by KPMarineopsdad, but thanks for the explanation. Going forward, it might be helpful to remember that when replying and correcting a post on a forum such as this, an explanation can educate folks who are don't have the knowledge that you do.

View the video again the Captain spoke of international law and the dangers of weapons aboard.
 
I understand the captain was not talking about innocent passage, I was answering your question.

And you watch the news report with an interview from ADM Allen. I'm not sure how to "show" you anymore, when I'm saying there is a LACK of international law, I'm pointing to the absence of a law. I wish I could pull something out, but I trust after you watch the video, you will have an idea of what the concerns are (hint: it's not from the IMO).

Again, watch http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7317451 .
 
Listen to the video again. Adm Allen is saying there is no international law or treaty to require ships to be armed. In fact, he sounded like he was against it - that it would pose more problems.

The "international law" in the previous posts was more referring to the port requirements of different countries. That an armed ship entering some ports would face difficulties due to local gun laws. That some might be prevented from entering altogether and others would be required to undergo time consuming thorough inspections.

As far as small arms - hand guns and such, I would think they would be no match against these pirates who have shoulder-fired grenade launchers and AK-47's.

Is IMO - International Maritime Organization?

What I got from Adm Allen's concluding remarks is arming the ships is not the answer but providing protection for them is.
 
JustAMom, I think you have solved the issue. International law can be very confusing. Not only is it laws by the ILC, United Nations, IMO, etc. where a nation must be a member for it to apply, but also customs, treaties, resolutions, declarations, etc. both explicit and implicit. I have also heard the term "international law" used to generally describe laws of other nations. While Timbucktoo's law not to allow firearms aboard vessels entering it's ports might not construe international law in its most strict sense, it would apply in the definition that the USMMA Captain seemed to use. So, instead of getting wrapped up in definitions, I suppose it would be safe to say that some countries do not allow foreign vessels to enter their country with firearms aboard. Actually, since 9/11, I think the US might be one of those.
 
wilbur5672 said:
JustAMom, I think you have solved the issue. International law can be very confusing. Not only is it laws by the ILC, United Nations, IMO, etc. where a nation must be a member for it to apply, but also customs, treaties, resolutions, declarations, etc. both explicit and implicit. I have also heard the term "international law" used to generally describe laws of other nations. While Timbucktoo's law not to allow firearms aboard vessels entering it's ports might not construe international law in its most strict sense, it would apply in the definition that the USMMA Captain seemed to use. So, instead of getting wrapped up in definitions, I suppose it would be safe to say that some countries do not allow foreign vessels to enter their country with firearms aboard. Actually, since 9/11, I think the US might be one of those.
Click to expand...

The last sentence is not correct.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Listen to the video again. Adm Allen is saying there is no international law or treaty to require ships to be armed. In fact, he sounded like he was against it - that it would pose more problems.

The "international law" in the previous posts was more referring to the port requirements of different countries. That an armed ship entering some ports would face difficulties due to local gun laws. That some might be prevented from entering altogether and others would be required to undergo time consuming thorough inspections.

As far as small arms - hand guns and such, I would think they would be no match against these pirates who have shoulder-fired grenade launchers and AK-47's.

Is IMO - International Maritime Organization?

What I got from Adm Allen's concluding remarks is arming the ships is not the answer but providing protection for them is.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to speak for ADM Allen, however, the concern for arming crews is a concern of the private sector. I did not take, nor did others in my office, that ADM Allen was giving an opinion on arming ships. We already know some carry fire arms, in fact it's expected, and is considered when boarding a vessel. I also don't think you understand what is generally being inspected.

As I have said now, multiple times, and I hope it's starting to clear this up, the concern is with the private industry, and involves training and insurance. There is NO international law restricting the presence of small arms on a merchant vessel.

And yes, IMO is the International Maritime Organization. International law and local law are not the same.
 
"Talking to terrorists/pirates should NEVER be an option; other than the initial communication of: "Dude, you screwed up. Release the hostage right now or get ready to be blown to hell". And make the statement clear so others decide in the future that it's probably not a good idea to do similar actions."
That's pretty much how I feel.

I was under the impression that merchant ships weren't allowed to have 'heavy' weaponry (for me 'heavy' = mounted turrets; not AK-47s, handguns, and the like); wasn't one of the main reasons we got involved in WWII because we started mounting guns on our merchant ships -- who were all being sunk and raided by pirates and Axis forces? I may have the wrong world war.
 
bmorris244 said:
"Talking to terrorists/pirates should NEVER be an option; other than the initial communication of: "Dude, you screwed up. Release the hostage right now or get ready to be blown to hell". And make the statement clear so others decide in the future that it's probably not a good idea to do similar actions."
That's pretty much how I feel.

I was under the impression that merchant ships weren't allowed to have 'heavy' weaponry (for me 'heavy' = mounted turrets; not AK-47s, handguns, and the like); wasn't one of the main reasons we got involved in WWII because we started mounting guns on our merchant ships -- who were all being sunk and raided by pirates and Axis forces? I may have the wrong world war.
Click to expand...

I think the big "thing" that did it was the attack of Pearl Harbor for WWII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top