private navies?

[type 209]

are private navies practical. in days gone by pirates, privateers, explorers were armed and fought with navies of various nations and each other. is this practical today. I just saw a news article today about some pirates firing on some U.S. ships with rpgs on small boats. of course they failed to do any real damage, but it made me think that someone who put some real money to it could probably do some real damage.

[Gaenth]

I think shoulder-launched missiles, modern explosives, remote-controlled kits and all those cool gimmicks you can mail-order or buy in the black market make "private navies" more feasible today than ever. Unfortunally, those are owned and operated by the bad guys. Drug dealers have such ammounts of cash and man power that they can build submarines in places quite far from the coast, launch them in no-time and then use them to smuggle drugs or people, or buy boats that are faster than any coast-guard patrol boat. Another example: USS Cole. Those are clear examples of the "asymetrical-warfare" we hear of so much these days, and these "navies" are really a pain in the back for most navies in America.

[alexsa]

The adoption of UNCLOS makes the use of a Private Navy quite unlikely as the power to seize (and as a consequence attack) pirate vessels rests the 'state' not the private individual (article 105). Article 107 states that such seizures may be carried out by ships or aircraft whcih need not be warships but are clarealy identifed as being in government service and authorised to carry out such operations.

This is the mechanisn used in regards to the MV Oceananic Viking which is chartered to the Australian Customs Service and is identifed as such. It is armed and carries customs officers.

If a private vessel was armed and in another parties waters it would be subject to their jurisdiction (i.e. if you were in the Malacca Strait Malaysia or Indonesia could sieze your ship for being in breach of domestic legislation). Only warships or government ships have any immunity in this regards.

Even on the high seas where a private vessel attacks a vessel of another flag state (even where it is alleged to be a pirate vessel) that flag state may come to its aid and is entitled to do so. Again only government ships and warships have immunity in this regards.

Sorry to rabbit on but IMHO this is definately a non starter.

[MIGleader]

Al Quaeda has its own private navy in a sense. It owns no ships itself, it relys on smuggling weapons and bombs to other countries on civilian cargo liners. Thus, every civilian transport in the world could potentially be part of al-quada's navy. Thats why theres been such a fuss over the ports lately.

al-quadas navy also uses small suicide ptrol craft, as with the U.ss cole incident.

[alexsa]

Originally Posted by MIGleader

Al Quaeda has its own private navy in a sense. It owns no ships itself, it relys on smuggling weapons and bombs to other countries on civilian cargo liners. Thus, every civilian transport in the world could potentially be part of al-quada's navy. Thats why theres been such a fuss over the ports lately.

al-quadas navy also uses small suicide ptrol craft, as with the U.ss cole incident.

I think these guys would qualify as the pirates rather than thos trying to stop them which appears to be the thrust of Type 209's tread.

[type 209]

this thread is not geared just at private inividuals trying to stop pirates but also at privateers(which are outlawed) and any private individuals trying trying to impose thier beliefs on others by the use of maritime action i.e. sea shepard, rebels, terrorists, pirates, etc.

[alexsa]

Originally Posted by type 209

this thread is not geared just at private inividuals trying to stop pirates but also at privateers(which are outlawed) and any private individuals trying trying to impose thier beliefs on others by the use of maritime action i.e. sea shepard, rebels, terrorists, pirates, etc.

Noted, I misinterpreted your tread. However, the fact is that be they sea shepherds or bad guys where a private individual arms a vessel and starts to interfere with other vessels they are going to contravene either domestic legislation when in teritorial waters or the contigous zone or UNCLOS when on the high seas.

So where the private navy is seeking to protect shipping on the high seas there is the probability that any warship of government vessel of any country could act against them as they are operating in contravention with International law. If they did this in territorial waters I would say they are definately asking for it.

Sounds like an occupation with a reasonable level of risk associated with it and one that should not be undertaken by law abiding mariners.

[type 209]

yes I agree but Sea Shepard is not a plural its an organization that protects the environment by means of force sorry if i mislead you by not using caps before