Sure, but the original argument was that states could not engage in piracy, not that militaries couldn’t. The existence of privateers and their state mandates show that states can engage in it.
Yes they allowed them too, they gave them a list of who they could attack, and at times armed them. Thats very much the state being involved in it. Outsourcing doesn’t absolve culpability.
Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence by ship or boat-borne attackers upon another ship or a coastal area, typically with the goal of stealing cargo and valuable goods, or taking hostages.
The definition provided under international law is different. That seems more relevant to the conversation than the dictionary
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
That seems extremely irrelevant as we are not nation states, surely we should be operating under the human definition rather than a hyper specific legal framework we never interact with.
And of course states are going to say they can’t possibly be called out for it.
Did you forget we were directly talking about the actions of a nation state?
This also isn’t a new concept the UN invented. It’s how it’s been since the “golden age of piracy”.
But yeah a legal definition is always going to be more specific than a general definition provided by a dictionary. Diogenese had some opinions on using these simplistic definitions to view the world
Sure, but the original argument was that states could not engage in piracy, not that militaries couldn’t. The existence of privateers and their state mandates show that states can engage in it.
It’s more like a state allowing a private individual to engage in piracy.
Yes they allowed them too, they gave them a list of who they could attack, and at times armed them. Thats very much the state being involved in it. Outsourcing doesn’t absolve culpability.
I’m not saying they don’t retain liability or responsibility. We’re talking about the definition of piracy.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piracy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
What about it?
The definition provided under international law is different. That seems more relevant to the conversation than the dictionary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_piracy_law
That seems extremely irrelevant as we are not nation states, surely we should be operating under the human definition rather than a hyper specific legal framework we never interact with.
And of course states are going to say they can’t possibly be called out for it.
Did you forget we were directly talking about the actions of a nation state?
This also isn’t a new concept the UN invented. It’s how it’s been since the “golden age of piracy”.
But yeah a legal definition is always going to be more specific than a general definition provided by a dictionary. Diogenese had some opinions on using these simplistic definitions to view the world
Yes we are. Did you forget you’re a person?