A letter of marque and reprisal[a][b] was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a foreign state at war with the issuer, licensing international military operations against a specified enemy as reprisal for a previous attack or injury. Captured naval prizes were judged before the government's admiralty court for condemnation and transfer of ownership to the privateer.

Hmm that's a lot of state involvement for a purely private enterprise.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It was essentially tax on a private concern. It still holds in maritime law that piracy is only an offence that exists in a civilian context. Militaries by definition cannot commit piracy.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago

It also legalised their piracy against declared enemy states.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Right so a privateer is still a private individual. A private individual sanctioned by the state to commit piracy on its behalf.

When a state's military forces seize a foreign vessel that is not an act of piracy it is an act of war

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's more like a state allowing a private individual to engage in piracy.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not saying they don't retain liability or responsibility. We're talking about the definition of piracy.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

the act of attacking ships in order to steal from them

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/piracy

an act of robbery on the high seas also : an act resembling such robbery

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

What about it?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_piracy_law

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes we are. Did you forget you're a person?

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Once again they are not absolved of all culpability. They are not guilty of piracy, yes. Instead they have committed a recognizable act of war against another nation. That's way worse than piracy