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
My point is that the legal definition is irrelevant to us, we should be using the common meaning of the word that has existed for hundreds of years.
The meaning as defined by dictionaries capturing the intent of the common person, not legal texts with hyper-specific requirements. Nation States have legally defined the word in a way that absolves them of any culpability, their meaning is inherently biased and flawed.
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?
You are making absolutely no sense at this point.
Me being a person has very little to do with whether or not the United States is committing piracy. International law however does matter.
My point is that the legal definition is irrelevant to us, we should be using the common meaning of the word that has existed for hundreds of years.
The meaning as defined by dictionaries capturing the intent of the common person, not legal texts with hyper-specific requirements. Nation States have legally defined the word in a way that absolves them of any culpability, their meaning is inherently biased and flawed.