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

[Siege]

Way back in the year of 2013 Russian authorities arrested environmental activists from Greenpeace during a protest over an arctic oil platform. It was suggested on this board that they might be pirates, and indeed the activists were initially threatened with head-meltingly draconian piracy charges.

Fortunately common sense eventually prevailed. The charges were lowered, then dropped; the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ordered the ship's return, and after more tiresome Russian bluster eventually the crew was released on bail and the ship returned. Turns out maybe they weren't pirates after all.

Now, two years on, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ordered Russia to pay compensation for seizing the Arctic Sunrise:

A court in the Netherlands has ordered Russia to pay compensation for seizing the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise during a protest against an offshore oil platform two years ago, a ruling which Moscow dismissed as lacking legal authority.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration, which resolves disputes between states, said the decision was taken unanimously on Aug. 14, but it was not published until late Monday.

It found that by arresting and seizing the Arctic Sunrise and its crew of 30, without the consent of the Netherlands, Russia had breached its legal obligations.

The case has added to already strained diplomatic relations between Russia and the Netherlands, which came to a head over the July 17, 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine.

In the Arctic Sunrise case, the Netherlands is entitled to compensation with interest for costs and damages, the court found. The amount was to be set at another hearing.

Of course Russia, being Russia, claims it does not recognize the court's authority (even though Russia is party to the Convention for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1907).

Considering what's transpired since 2013 one suspects sensible folk didn't exactly require any further evidence to be convinced of the Russian government's piratical hooliganism and general farcical awfulness, but there it is anyway.

[K. A. Pital]

Russia will most likely ignore this. Seizing the ship was a huge PR win in Russia internally, as I've mentioned already. People were like, "good, that'll teach 'em not to mess with our rigs".

[Lagmonster]

They were never pirates, but that's just a squabble about what to call it. The term I use is "Assholes".

But I've become annoyed, in retrospect, that Russia decided to treat them seriously at all. They should have just rounded them up, drawn dicks on their foreheads with a sharpie, laughed, and sent them away. Capturing their vessel and trying to treat them like threats probably makes them much happier than if they were treated like the useless clowns that they are.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They were never pirates, but that's just a squabble about what to call it. The term I use is "Assholes".

But I've become annoyed, in retrospect, that Russia decided to treat them seriously at all. They should have just rounded them up, drawn dicks on their foreheads with a sharpie, laughed, and sent them away. Capturing their vessel and trying to treat them like threats probably makes them much happier than if they were treated like the useless clowns that they are.

The trouble is that these Greenpeace fellows tried to scale the rig. At that point, they go from useless clowns to abject nuisance.

[Simon_Jester]

So if my citizens harass your citizens in your nation's EEZ, I have to get your permission to arrest them?

[mr friendly guy]

Greenpeace are allowed free passage through a nation's EEZ. No one else, not even China disputes this concept. However with an oil rig there is a certain distance they must be kept away from the rig. Being so close that you can scale it is too close. If only Russia could do what China does - send in a coast guard with water cannons. That would keep Yellowpeace whiners out.

[Esquire]

A question - why are Greenpeace allowed free passage through national EEZs? I'm assuming that it's under some sort of lawful-use provision of international law, but what's lawful use would vary by jurisdiction, no?

[biostem]

If these Greenpeace people did indeed scale the oil rig without permission, then Russia had every right to detain them. Though, at that point, they should have turned them over to some international court or somesuch.

[Grumman]

A question - why are Greenpeace allowed free passage through national EEZs? I'm assuming that it's under some sort of lawful-use provision of international law, but what's lawful use would vary by jurisdiction, no?

The basic gist of it is that the exclusive economic zone has the same right to free passage as international waters, and the same right to exploitation of resources as territorial waters. Greenpeace had the right to sail in Russia's EEZ, but so does Russia, and Greenpeace's boarding of a Russian vessel was in clear violation of the law.

Even if Greenpeace's actions do not rise to the level of piracy (and so does not give Russia jurisdiction), the Netherlands did have jurisdiction, and they should have held Greenpeace accountable for the crimes committed sailing under a Dutch flag. That a Dutch court has instead declared that Russia owes them money is a clear sign of corruption, in my view.

[Siege]

So if my citizens harass your citizens in your nation's EEZ, I have to get your permission to arrest them?

The Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled out that the 3 nautical mile 'safety zone' Russia declared around the oil platform was not valid or enforceable under the Convention of the Law of the Sea, and Russia had no other legal basis to seize the vessel without the consent of the Netherlands. Turns out international law says nations don't get to declare large areas of sea outside their territorial waters off-limits no matter how much they dislike the people that want to go there.

A question - why are Greenpeace allowed free passage through national EEZs? I'm assuming that it's under some sort of lawful-use provision of international law, but what's lawful use would vary by jurisdiction, no?

No, it is determined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is a part of international law and thus above local jurisdiction.

If these Greenpeace people did indeed scale the oil rig without permission, then Russia had every right to detain them. Though, at that point, they should have turned them over to some international court or somesuch.

The ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration is available online. I suggest having a look at it, it's eminently readable, not very long and is well worth perusing, because it destroys the apparently widespread idea that Russia had the right to detain the Arctic 30 at the time that it did. 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. Turns out Russia, going by the standards of international law, bungled the whole operation. Who would have guessed, right?

[bilateralrope]

From the ruling Siege linked:

In its Award, the Tribunal noted that Russia did not participate in the arbitration.

Russia didn't bungle the operation. They simply didn't give a fuck about the arbitration.

[Siege]

No shit, it is after all Russia, the tantrum toddler of states. Hence my earlier comment about piratical hooliganism and general farcical awfulness.

[mr friendly guy]

Lets see the summary. Let the board decide the merits of it. Whether its legal sheenanigans or using the letter of the law against the spirit.

1. Its not piracy because the Russian oil rig is not a ship, and piracy can only occur against ships.

I am not kidding. That is their argument.

2. The rig is allowed a 500 metre safety zone. The Yellowpeace ship was outside the 500 metre safety zone at the time Russia boarded. Presumably the inflatables used to get those activists close enough to scale the rig were within this zone, but the ship itself was not.

So I could theoretically park a ship 501 metres away from an oil rig, send in inflatables and nah nah nah, you can't touch my ship.

3. Russia may take measures to prevent interference with its sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of the non-living resources of its EEZ, but.... the Yellowpeace ship must be interfering at that moment. At that time Russia boarded the ship was running away.

So I can send in the inflatables stop when Russia comes a calling and say "barleys, ha ha ha."

***********************************************
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.

[Lagmonster]

Greenpeace supporters (also termed "assholes") like to keep talking about the boarding and seizing of the ship while it was away from the rig, because it means that they don't have to talk about the boarding action itself, which was defiantly stupid to the point that nobody would have batted an eyelash if they'd been accidentally killed.

From a PR standpoint in the West, this whole thing was probably a win for Greenpeace, because the West already doesn't like Russia, so it creates a conflict where westerners see supporting Greenpeace as the preferable option. Greenpeace did the exact same thing with the exact same ship to a coal hauler in Ontario a few years ago, and it ended poorly by comparison - both times arrests were made, etc., but there was far less international outcry. Most people probably never even heard about it.

[mr friendly guy]

A question - why are Greenpeace allowed free passage through national EEZs? I'm assuming that it's under some sort of lawful-use provision of international law, but what's lawful use would vary by jurisdiction, no?

UNCLOS allows free passage through an EEZ. No country in the world rejects this AFAIK, not even the PRC despite what the US claims.

You however cannot exploit the economic resource of a country without that nation's permission. There are a few other points of contention such as limiting a ships ability to do maritime surveys in an EEZ without that nation's permission. China applies this to both military and civilian ships, the US feels military ships are exempt.

[Lagmonster]

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.

[Siege]

1. Its not piracy because the Russian oil rig is not a ship, and piracy can only occur against ships.

I am not kidding. That is their argument.

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.

2. The rig is allowed a 500 metre safety zone. The Yellowpeace ship was outside the 500 metre safety zone at the time Russia boarded. Presumably the inflatables used to get those activists close enough to scale the rig were within this zone, but the ship itself was not.

So I could theoretically park a ship 501 metres away from an oil rig, send in inflatables and nah nah nah, you can't touch my ship.

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.

3. Russia may take measures to prevent interference with its sovereign rights for the exploration and exploitation of the non-living resources of its EEZ, but.... the Yellowpeace ship must be interfering at that moment. At that time Russia boarded the ship was running away.

So I can send in the inflatables stop when Russia comes a calling and say "barleys, ha ha ha."

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.

[Simon_Jester]

1. Its not piracy because the Russian oil rig is not a ship, and piracy can only occur against ships.

I am not kidding. That is their argument.

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.

I think you can make a legitimate case that the definition of "ship" for piracy purposes in the UNCLOS should be amended to include drilling rigs and other fixed maritime installations.

After all, there is very little practical difference between pirates boarding an oil rig and pirates boarding a mobile ship. And it would be ridiculous for a bunch of pirates to be able to claim immunity because they only attacked fixed floating installations, not mobile ships.

[Thanas]

I think you can make a legitimate case that the definition of "ship" for piracy purposes in the UNCLOS should be amended to include drilling rigs and other fixed maritime installations.

After all, there is very little practical difference between pirates boarding an oil rig and pirates boarding a mobile ship. And it would be ridiculous for a bunch of pirates to be able to claim immunity because they only attacked fixed floating installations, not mobile ships.

I am pretty sure boarding something illegally is already covered under the various trespassing laws anyway.

What Russia did however was above and beyond detaining trespassers, it went after the Greenpeace ship.

[Simon_Jester]

Assuming for the sake of argument that it was valid to interpret the Greenpeace boarders as pirates for their actions on the oil rig, what should the Russians have done?

[Batman]

Treat the actual boarders as pirates and not go after the ship a day after the actual boarding?

[Sea Skimmer]

I think you can make a legitimate case that the definition of "ship" for piracy purposes in the UNCLOS should be amended to include drilling rigs and other fixed maritime installations.

Irrelevant. The text already covers 'property' as a distinct item. Ships, aircraft, people, property may be affected by piracy carried out by the crews of ships and aircraft in terms of what those clauses are defined as. Pirates remember have a very long history of attacking stuff on land in the first place. It is the treaty on the law of the sea, not the law of ships, for this and many other reasons. The EEZ definitions and other bits of text explicitly refer to fixed platforms, and artificial islands too when relevant. Including that building an artificial island doesn't let you expand your EEZ, as China is now trying to assert.

[biostem]

Treat the actual boarders as pirates and not go after the ship a day after the actual boarding?

I think this is a big part of the charges levied against Russia - if they had detained the boarders then immediately gone after the ship, for having launched/sent said borders, then it wouldn't have looked like retaliation.

[Simon_Jester]

I think you can make a legitimate case that the definition of "ship" for piracy purposes in the UNCLOS should be amended to include drilling rigs and other fixed maritime installations.

Irrelevant. The text already covers 'property' as a distinct item. Ships, aircraft, people, property may be affected by piracy carried out by the crews of ships and aircraft in terms of what those clauses are defined as. Pirates remember have a very long history of attacking stuff on land in the first place. It is the treaty on the law of the sea, not the law of ships, for this and many other reasons. The EEZ definitions and other bits of text explicitly refer to fixed platforms, and artificial islands too when relevant. Including that building an artificial island doesn't let you expand your EEZ, as China is now trying to assert.

Er... do you think that attacks against fixed platforms should, or should not, be classed as piracy? I would think that they should. In which case an attack on an oil rig can indeed be piracy. And my reading of UNCLOS supports that.

The problematic passage of the Dutch 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.

Treat the actual boarders as pirates and not go after the ship a day after the actual boarding?

I think this is a big part of the charges levied against Russia - if they had detained the boarders then immediately gone after the ship, for having launched/sent said borders, then it wouldn't have looked like retaliation.

Does it not count as legitimate antipirate activity if you don't get around to boarding the pirates' ship until the next day?

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

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)