Seize a Greenpeace ship in your EEZ? You might be a pirate!

[mr friendly guy]

That is not their argument, that is the definition of piracy under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 101 'definition of piracy' in case you'd like to see for yourself). Piracy has a very specific definition under international law and Greenpeace's action against the Russian oil platform does not qualify. If you take issue with that I suggest you tell the UN how you would like to see their definition of piracy amended.

This is batshit insane even for a Yellowpeace supporter. I expected people to disagree with me, but not to say that their justification for it is itself not an argument. Its like those movies where 2 characters are arguing with raised voices and when a third character asks them to stop arguing, one of them replies that they are not arguing, but having a conversation.

This was neither an argument made by The Netherlands nor a conclusion of the Court. The Court specifically states that boarding, seizure, and detention of a vessel in the EEZ on suspicion of hooliganism finds basis in international law, but only if the requirements of hot pursuit are satisfied. Which, it turns out, they were not, because the FSB boarded and seized the Arctic Sunrise the day after the protests at the platform and there was no pursuit prior to that moment.

Ahem

Third, and finally, the Tribunal noted that a coastal State has the right to take measures to prevent
interference with its sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of the non-living resources of
its EEZ. However, the Tribunal found that at the time it was boarded, the actions of the Arctic Sunrise
did not constitute an interference with Russia’s sovereign rights.

Do note that my statement was not in response to the hooliganism charge but to the right of a "coastal state to take measures to prevent interference with its sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of the non living resource of its EEZ." In other words it was a) no longer sending inflatables in and b) not in the 500 metre exclusion zone so it wouldn't constitute interfering with Russia's ability to exploit its EEZ resources, ie run the oil rig.

Thanks for making me read that shit again to quote that part.

What it actually says is that states are not allowed to seize a ship a day after it's stopped being a problem in your EEZ unless they were in pursuit since the act took place. In case you missed it, seizure of a ship sailing under a foreign flag is a big deal under international law and only allowed in very specific instances. If you feel this should not be the case, then I once again refer you to the UN. In the meantime, us here in the civilized world should probably continue to operate in accordance with established international law.

Oh please. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be pointing out that legality /= morality. The fact is Yellowpeace did interfere with a country's attempt to exploit economic resources within its EEZ because it had sent inflatables and people to board the oil rig. Because of the way the legality of the thing is structured as interpreted by the court, the main culprit ie the ship could remain free leaving Russia to catch only the small pawns (inflatable crews) by the time Russia managed to mobilise resources to go get the culprits.

I will be sure to remember people enthusiastic about the letter of the law when Russia or China commit an action within the letter of the law they don't like.

I hate Greenpeace more than you do - having been actively harassed and protested at my work a good half-dozen times over my career and seeing colleagues internationally lose research to their vandalism - but they are usually as careful as any tolerated criminal organization where it comes to this kind of thing. Arresting the clowns on the rig was reasonable, but chasing the boat the day afterwards was a mistake.

You misunderstand. I am talking about how people here use legality /= morality when its something Washington/Moscow/Beijing does. I mean people don't say, ah its not right to pursue Russia to extradite criminals because Russian law and all that, and civilise people follow laws blah blah blah. Anyone quoting Russian law to these guys would be met with legality /= morality arguments. And they are right to say that. So its 1 part disappointing and 9 parts hilarious that these people are now hiding behind such legalese interpretations when it suits them.

[Siege]

The problematic passage of the Dutch tribunal's writing is this:

It is not a "Dutch tribunal". The Permanent Court of Arbitration is an international organization established at the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899. There was only a single Dutch judge on the case, the other four hailed from Australia, Poland, Mexico and, in case of its president, Ghana. Incidentally, they ruled unanimously. You wouldn't call the International Court of Justice a 'Dutch court' either, would you?

What are the requirements of hot pursuit? For example, what if it takes longer than 24 hours for an investigation to conclusively determine that a specific ship was responsible for the action? Would that still qualify? (Not saying that is what happened in this specific instance, I am curious in the more general sense)

The conditions for hot pursuit are laid out in UNCLOS article 111. According to § 1: "Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted." § 2 says "the right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations".

My interpretation of this is that if after some actionable offense it takes a state takes 24 hours to start a pursuit and the ship in question has since traveled outside the contiguous zone or any declared safety zone, the state is shit out of luck even if the ship is still inside their EEZ. At that point properly registered vessels are subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag they fly. Bear in mind this is my interpretation, and I'm not a student of international law, even though this seems to follow the reasoning of the PCA.

This is batshit insane even for a Yellowpeace supporter. I expected people to disagree with me, but not to say that their justification for it is itself not an argument.

So an international court ruled in accordance with international law and you find that "batshit insane"? Are you for real?

Do note that my statement was not in response to the hooliganism charge but to the right of a "coastal state to take measures to prevent interference with its sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of the non living resource of its EEZ." In other words it was a) no longer sending inflatables in and b) not in the 500 metre exclusion zone so it wouldn't constitute interfering with Russia's ability to exploit its EEZ resources, ie run the oil rig.

In other words the Arctic Sunrise wasn't sending inflatables, it wasn't in the safety zone, and the conditions for hot pursuit were not met. Just like I said.

Oh please. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be pointing out that legality /= morality.

It apparently infuriates you to no end that the law protects those you dislike, but at least try to keep in mind that there are those of us who realize that international law, flawed and incomplete as it may sometimes be, is still the best way to resolve conflicts between states. Which is what this case was: Netherlands v. Russia, not Greenpeace v. Russia.

[bilateralrope]

The problematic passage of the Dutch tribunal's writing is this:

It is not a "Dutch tribunal". The Permanent Court of Arbitration is an international organization established at the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899. There was only a single Dutch judge on the case, the other four hailed from Australia, Poland, Mexico and, in case of its president, Ghana. Incidentally, they ruled unanimously. You wouldn't call the International Court of Justice a 'Dutch court' either, would you?

I wonder if the result would have been any different if Russia had sent someone to try and argue their side.

[LaCroix]

My interpretation of this is that if after some actionable offense it takes a state takes 24 hours to start a pursuit and the ship in question has since traveled outside the contiguous zone or any declared safety zone, the state is shit out of luck even if the ship is still inside their EEZ.

Depends on the situation - if the oil rig is so far removed from the next available vessel able to intervene that it actually takes 24 hours to arrive there (including necessary delays during leaving harbor, eg. recalling crew), it should be counted as immediate pursuit. After all, the oil rig cannot initiate a hot pursuit, itself, and can only call for help.

It also depends on how far the vessel has moved since hostilities have ceased. If they were on a steady course away from the rig ever since they stopped sending boarders, then I'd argue they abandoned the attack, too. But if they still linger around in the vicinity, this is a siege situation (as the rig is stationary and cannot evade at will), and I'd rather argue that hostilities have not ceased and criteria are still met.

[Simon_Jester]

The problematic passage of the Dutch tribunal's writing is this:

It is not a "Dutch tribunal". The Permanent Court of Arbitration is an international organization established at the first Hague Peace Conference of 1899. There was only a single Dutch judge on the case, the other four hailed from Australia, Poland, Mexico and, in case of its president, Ghana. Incidentally, they ruled unanimously. You wouldn't call the International Court of Justice a 'Dutch court' either, would you?

That was an error on my part and I apologize. Let me rephrase, to remove that particular incorrect detail so that we can focus on the actual point I was attempting to raise...

The problematic passage of the international tribunal's writing is this:

(i) Law enforcement measures
First, the Tribunal recalled that Russia initially charged the Arctic 30 with piracy. While noting that the Convention allows a coastal State to visit a ship on suspicion of piracy, the Tribunal also noted that the Convention defines piracy as an act directed “against another ship.” Since the Prirazlomnaya is not a ship, the Tribunal concluded that Russia’s measures could not be considered as an exercise of that right. "

Which appears to be denying that acts directed against an oil rig can be acts of piracy at all.

Now, just for the sake of clarity... do you have a response to this?

I mean, entirely separate from the question of who is making the ruling, if this ruling is taken at face value it's saying that attacking an oil rig isn't piracy. Which seems to me to be at odds with both the UNCLOS definition of 'piracy,' and the basic common sense definition that the international community has an interest in upholding.

The conditions for hot pursuit are laid out in UNCLOS article 111. According to § 1: "Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters, the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the territorial sea or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted." § 2 says "the right of hot pursuit shall apply mutatis mutandis to violations in the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf, including safety zones around continental shelf installations".

My interpretation of this is that if after some actionable offense it takes a state takes 24 hours to start a pursuit and the ship in question has since traveled outside the contiguous zone or any declared safety zone, the state is shit out of luck even if the ship is still inside their EEZ...

Except that in this case, mutatis mutandis would suggest that §1 would be interpreted to read:

"Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the [EEZ] of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the [EEZ] if the pursuit has not been interrupted." Since the pursuit was initiated in the Russian EEZ, this condition is satisfied.

If we use an interpretation where the Russian Navy can't chase ships that commit offenses in its EEZ except as a "hot pursuit," then there is effectively no way to ever enforce laws against any outrage committed against ships or personnel in the EEZ. Because the pursuit of the offending ship will always begin in the EEZ, some interval of time after the offense is committed, unless a patrol vessel just happens to be right there at the instant the offense takes place.

At that point properly registered vessels are subject to the jurisdiction of the state whose flag they fly. Bear in mind this is my interpretation, and I'm not a student of international law, even though this seems to follow the reasoning of the PCA.

I'm not a student of international law, but "mutatis mutandis" means "the necessary changes having been made," and I'm pretty sure that substituting "EEZ" for "territorial waters" in both parts of the sentence is a "necessary change" in this case.

So an international court ruled in accordance with international law and you find that "batshit insane"? Are you for real?

Personally I would argue that the court's interpretation sounds to me like a tortured interpretation of the laws you're quoting. I cannot understand how one could interpret the law in this way, without giving people the right to randomly pillage other people's oil platforms and other fixed maritime installations at will.

It apparently infuriates you to no end that the law protects those you dislike, but at least try to keep in mind that there are those of us who realize that international law, flawed and incomplete as it may sometimes be, is still the best way to resolve conflicts between states. Which is what this case was: Netherlands v. Russia, not Greenpeace v. Russia.

Well, there's another issue here- that if Greenpeace is going to make a habit of committing illegal acts against the property of other nations, I'm not sure a sensible country would want to allow Greenpeace ships to fly their merchant flag.

Because Greenpeace is, as we see, quite capable of triggering an international incident.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You misunderstand. I am talking about how people here use legality /= morality when its something Washington/Moscow/Beijing does. I mean people don't say, ah its not right to pursue Russia to extradite criminals because Russian law and all that, and civilise people follow laws blah blah blah. Anyone quoting Russian law to these guys would be met with legality /= morality arguments. And they are right to say that. So its 1 part disappointing and 9 parts hilarious that these people are now hiding behind such legalese interpretations when it suits them.

Who, exactly, are you referring to, anyway? Where did people make these arguments?

And why do you keep calling them "Yellowpeace"? I understand that it's some arbitrary and petulant sign of your disdain, but why?

[bilateralrope]

Personally I would argue that the court's interpretation sounds to me like a tortured interpretation of the laws you're quoting. I cannot understand how one could interpret the law in this way, without giving people the right to randomly pillage other people's oil platforms and other fixed maritime installations at will.

How many times have you seen a court case where one side doesn't turn up that doesn't produce a result that heavily favours the other side ?

[Simon_Jester]

I don't actually have a problem with the court ruling in the plaintiff's favor.

I do have a problem with the court making a decision, one which for all I know might be used as legal precedent in a later case, which bends the law into pretzels and violates the interests of just about every nation with a coastline.

Such as ruling that fixed resource extraction platforms in your EEZ don't count as "ships," so attacking them wouldn't be piracy.

[Thanas]

You are being too pedantic and miss the relevant facts. Greenpeace did not try to steal, they did not attack, they did not make off with a ton of oil and the mess girls. They protested. They made operations hard for a few hours. Boohooo. Poor Russians. Declaring them pirates was a political tactic to cover what was clearly a disproportionate response to an ordinary activity each civilized nation should be able to handle in an adult manner. FFS, we had them chaining themselves to nuclear facilities or lying down on train tracks. This is nothing new, nor does it make them robbers, which would be the equivalent argument to Russia's claim here.

Only an utter idiot would consider this piracy in the first place.

[Siege]

Now, just for the sake of clarity... do you have a response to this?

Piracy as the UNCLOS defines it by definition takes place on the high seas or in places outside the jurisdiction of any state. I see no issue with this definition excluding installations such as oil platforms, because as we've already established states have the option to enact and enforce various safety measures within their EEZs. These installations are therefore not outside the jurisdiction of any state. So I don't see what problem would be solved by broadening the legal definition of piracy.

Except that in this case, mutatis mutandis would suggest that §1 would be interpreted to read:

"Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of its boats is within the [EEZ] of the pursuing State, and may only be continued outside the [EEZ] if the pursuit has not been interrupted."

I disagree with this interpretation but since we both admit we're not scholars on this subject I feel this is a fruitless line of argument to pursue and am not inclined to follow it further.

Because Greenpeace is, as we see, quite capable of triggering an international incident.

It is my belief that it was Russia who triggered an international incident by reacting in the authoritarian manner that we've unfortunately come to expect of it to an otherwise mostly harmless protest.

[Grumman]

Piracy as the UNCLOS defines it by definition takes place on the high seas or in places outside the jurisdiction of any state. I see no issue with this definition excluding installations such as oil platforms, because as we've already established states have the option to enact and enforce various safety measures within their EEZs. These installations are therefore not outside the jurisdiction of any state. So I don't see what problem would be solved by broadening the legal definition of piracy.

If your argument is that Russia has jurisdiction over incidents on oil platforms in their EEZ and not over incidents in international waters, then them having jurisdiction should mean they have more right to prosecute boarders, not less. You cannot both claim that Russia has jurisdiction so it's not piracy and that because it's not piracy, the Netherlands has jurisdiction because the Arctic Sunrise is a Dutch-flagged ship.

Because Greenpeace is, as we see, quite capable of triggering an international incident.

It is my belief that it was Russia who triggered an international incident by reacting in the authoritarian manner that we've unfortunately come to expect of it to an otherwise mostly harmless protest.

Authoritarian? Would you expect any better if you were caught sneaking into a Canadian power plant?

[K. A. Pital]

Attempting to seize an industrial floating installation is different from interfering with operations; I only wonder if there is a way to clearly distinguish between the two.

Is boarding a rig an attempt to seize it and control its operations? If yes, the fact that nothing was stolen is irrelevant. If no, then it raises interesting problems. When a group of people boards a ship without permission, at what point this becomes a takeover attempt?

I see people saying that this was an authoritarian response - to be fair, France went way further and sunk the Greenpeace ship. Russia could have done so as well. They would be fined anyway, so why release it? I think Russia could have scored even more internal PR by being dicks to the end and sinking the Arctic Sunrise.

[Thanas]

Just because France was even more of a panicky asshole does not make the Russian response any less authoritarian.

[K. A. Pital]

Just because France was even more of a panicky asshole does not make the Russian response any less authoritarian.

How is releasing the ship for no real reason (the population was screaming "sink it" and "let 'em try to get it back") more authoritarian than preemptively sinking a ship? I mean, Russia won't pay the fines anyway, so why care? Sinking the ship would have been appropriate if they wanted to appease the population's wishes. Where the idea that Greenpeace is a Western ploy to interfere with Russia's economic revival has been firmly planted into the heads, I can assure you.

[Siege]

If your argument is that Russia has jurisdiction over incidents on oil platforms in their EEZ and not over incidents in international waters, then them having jurisdiction should mean they have more right to prosecute boarders, not less. You cannot both claim that Russia has jurisdiction so it's not piracy and that because it's not piracy, the Netherlands has jurisdiction because the Arctic Sunrise is a Dutch-flagged ship.

I refer you to my previous statement: "The Court specifically states that boarding, seizure, and detention of a vessel in the EEZ on suspicion of hooliganism finds basis in international law, but only if the requirements of hot pursuit are satisfied." "Nations need to meet very specific criteria before boarding of a ship and detaining of its crew is legally allowed, and Russia at the time essentially met none of those criteria."

Authoritarian? Would you expect any better if you were caught sneaking into a Canadian power plant?

I certainly wouldn't expect to be brought up on piracy charges.

Let the record state furthermore that I believe the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was also an act of authoritarian thuggery.

[Thanas]

Just because France was even more of a panicky asshole does not make the Russian response any less authoritarian.

How is releasing the ship for no real reason (the population was screaming "sink it" and "let 'em try to get it back") more authoritarian than preemptively sinking a ship?

Sorry, I phrased that badly. "Any less authoritarian" means that it was still authoritarian, the French actions were even moreso, but Russia is still acting like a thug here.

[mr friendly guy]

You misunderstand. I am talking about how people here use legality /= morality when its something Washington/Moscow/Beijing does. I mean people don't say, ah its not right to pursue Russia to extradite criminals because Russian law and all that, and civilise people follow laws blah blah blah. Anyone quoting Russian law to these guys would be met with legality /= morality arguments. And they are right to say that. So its 1 part disappointing and 9 parts hilarious that these people are now hiding behind such legalese interpretations when it suits them.

Who, exactly, are you referring to, anyway? Where did people make these arguments?

And why do you keep calling them "Yellowpeace"? I understand that it's some arbitrary and petulant sign of your disdain, but why?

Thanas and Siege of course, from previous threads. I am sure Thanas in a lot of threads criticising US policy and Siege in a thread about Beijing and Hong Kong. Now I agree that legality /= morality. I find it amusing Siege is hiding behind legality now and pontificating about being "civilised" because of following the law.

Thanas and Siege understands why I call them Yellowpeace. It was from the previous thread when I argued it (and they argued against me). Essentially Greenpeace in the 80s did confront foes more powerful than they did. In recent memory they target hapless farmers growing GM crops with vandalism or destroy the work of scientists in such crops, ie people who aren't capable of fighting back. At the same time they get all self righteous against Sea Shepherd who actually did more to stop Japanese whaling than Greenpeace ever did. Their objection, Sea Shepherd is violent. Now I linked to it in the previous thread when this first came up.

This seems asinine when Greenpeace itself uses violence against property destroying $$$ worth of GM crops, which makes me think there is another reason for their actions. Crops or terrorised farmers aren't able to fight back unlike Japanese Whalers. Japanese Whalers of course have rammed Sea Shepherd ships, and destroyed one in a collision a few years back. Hence I noted in that other thread that targeting a Russian oil rig is a step up for Greenpeace, because unlike hapless farmers, Russia can and will fight back. However one act of targeting a stronger foe, doesn't quite undo all the other acts Greenpeace does against weak targets. Greenpeace isn't a David any more, its a Goliath and those farmers or charity organisations or researchers dealing with GM crops aren't even a David.

[mr friendly guy]

So an international court ruled in accordance with international law and you find that "batshit insane"? Are you for real?

My, my, my. Reading comprehension seems to have eluded you. I found YOUR statement batshit insane. You know the one that says "its not piracy because its not a ship" as NOT an argument. Good grief.

In other words the Arctic Sunrise wasn't sending inflatables, it wasn't in the safety zone, and the conditions for hot pursuit were not met. Just like I said.

Circular logic. Brilliant. Hint 1 - you can't appeal to the Court's own decision, when we discuss the morality of it as a justification in and of itself.

Hint 2 - its not that I disagreed that's what the court said, I disagreed with its implications where Yellowpeace is allowed to this and get away with it under certain conditions. Hence I mocked its implications, you know the one that says I can have a ship 501 metres out from the oil rig, send in inflatables then pull them back before Russia can respond and then cry "barleys", I am not doing anything any more so tough shit. Apparently you found my objections to those implications unfair, but strangely enough don't want to actually dwell on them.

It apparently infuriates you to no end that the law protects those you dislike, but at least try to keep in mind that there are those of us who realize that international law, flawed and incomplete as it may sometimes be, is still the best way to resolve conflicts between states. Which is what this case was: Netherlands v. Russia, not Greenpeace v. Russia.

So legality = morality now? Or only when it suits you? Do tell.

Wait, you're going to cry I hate Greenpeace thus I am bias. Right? I mean your statement was a thinly veiled appeal to motive fallacy with the subtlety of Sheldon Cooper in a social gathering.

[Thanas]

You misunderstand. I am talking about how people here use legality /= morality when its something Washington/Moscow/Beijing does. I mean people don't say, ah its not right to pursue Russia to extradite criminals because Russian law and all that, and civilise people follow laws blah blah blah. Anyone quoting Russian law to these guys would be met with legality /= morality arguments. And they are right to say that. So its 1 part disappointing and 9 parts hilarious that these people are now hiding behind such legalese interpretations when it suits them.

Who, exactly, are you referring to, anyway? Where did people make these arguments?

And why do you keep calling them "Yellowpeace"? I understand that it's some arbitrary and petulant sign of your disdain, but why?

Thanas and Siege of course, from previous threads. I am sure Thanas in a lot of threads criticising US policy and Siege in a thread about Beijing and Hong Kong.

Next time, don't be a pathetic coward and call me out directly, because that will at least make it clear to people other than you that you are doing so. Now, I also suggest you find the part where I was arguing legalese as regards to the court decision or concede I said no such thing.

I also don't think there is anything inconsistent in my position that morality should in some cases trump legality, especially when said legality is nothing but a thin veneer the people apply whenever it suits them and ignore when it does not.

[Siege]

My, my, my. Reading comprehension seems to have eluded you. I found YOUR statement batshit insane. You know the one that says "its not piracy because its not a ship" as NOT an argument. Good grief.

Ok buddy, if you say so. The fact of the matter is that an international court stuck to the definition of piracy under international law. You can proceed to stamp your feet as much as you please.

Circular logic. Brilliant. Hint 1 - you can't appeal to the Court's own decision, when we discuss the morality of it as a justification in and of itself.

However I can and will use the law to explain what acts are legal or illegal. Which is what I've been doing.

Hint 2 - its not that I disagreed that's what the court said, I disagreed with its implications where Yellowpeace is allowed to this and get away with it under certain conditions.

I can safely say I don't give a flying fuck about whether or not you disagree with the implications of the case.

So legality = morality now? Or only when it suits you? Do tell.

I will argue (and have argued) against laws I find unjust, however I'm quite satisfied with this particular law. Does this confuse you?

Wait, you're going to cry I hate Greenpeace thus I am bias. Right? I mean your statement was a thinly veiled appeal to motive fallacy with the subtlety of Sheldon Cooper in a social gathering.

This from a man who called me a "Yellowpeace supporter" earlier. You try so hard you're almost comical. Keeping raking up arguments from 11 months ago, I'm sure it'll help!

[InsaneTD]

You've listed the the needs for a hot pursuit, but what ACTUALLY counts as "pursuit" under international law?

[mr friendly guy]

Next time, don't be a pathetic coward and call me out directly, because that will at least make it clear to people other than you that you are doing so. Now, I also suggest you find the part where I was arguing legalese as regards to the court decision or concede I said no such thing.

So you're saying you disagree with the Court's decision? Could have fooled me considering how triumphant you were last time when Russia finally let the Greenpeace thugs go.

I also don't think there is anything inconsistent in my position that morality should in some cases trump legality, especially when said legality is nothing but a thin veneer the people apply whenever it suits them and ignore when it does not.

Precisely. Legality should not triumph morality. I should point out Siege made a big show about being civilised because he follows international law.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok buddy, if you say so. The fact of the matter is that an international court stuck to the definition of piracy under international law. You can proceed to stamp your feet as much as you please.

No, you said so. Which was insane to say their argument isn't their argument, and then proceed to say the same thing I summarised about one of their arguments.

However I can and will use the law to explain what acts are legal or illegal. Which is what I've been doing.

Let me dumb it down for you. When one's argument is the law is an ass, you can't appeal to the law to say why its not an ass. That's circular reasoning. Since the only thing you got from my mockery was that I didn't like the ruling, rather than the actual substance of why, I will lay it out for you.

The ruling allows a ship who actively interfered with someone doing their legal economic activity (ie by sending inflatables out and having people on those inflatables scale an oil rig and disrupt the rig's activity) to escape any legal censure on the grounds that by the time the relevant authority managed to mobilise resources to detain it, it was no longer doing said activity. This would be akin to me organising someone to commit a crime, having my involvement discovered, but having no legal censure against me because I was not actively organising that crime by the time the police come to serve me a warrant.

I can safely say I don't give a flying fuck about whether or not you disagree with the implications of the case.

Then why did you argue with me on that point which you apparently didn't give a shit about? Who are you fooling here?

I will argue (and have argued) against laws I find unjust, however I'm quite satisfied with this particular law. Does this confuse you?

Then kindly explain why this law is just, without appealing to the law and utilising circular logic. Also while you're at it, if following laws in and of themselves don't make one civilised, (but depending on what you consider just) how can you pontificate on being "civilised" for following laws.

This from a man who called me a "Yellowpeace supporter" earlier.

Only problem is, my argument is not dependent on the fact you're a Yellowpeace supporter because I actually took the time to explain what was wrong with your position, after the insult. Yours however is dependent on me being bias, hence its fallacious. And yes you haven't bothered to counter it because you proudly state, and I quote that "you don't give a flying fuck," in regards to that point. Do you understand these not so subtle differences?

[mr friendly guy]

Too late to edit.

Well I felt given how the last thread went previously, that I was referring to Siege and Thanas, I will apologise to Thanas for not making it clear who I was referring to.

[Thanas]

Next time, don't be a pathetic coward and call me out directly, because that will at least make it clear to people other than you that you are doing so. Now, I also suggest you find the part where I was arguing legalese as regards to the court decision or concede I said no such thing.

So you're saying you disagree with the Court's decision? Could have fooled me considering how triumphant you were last time when Russia finally let the Greenpeace thugs go.

No, I quite agree with that as it was the morally correct choice to let the protestors go and immoral to side with Russia.