As laid out by Fred C. Iklé in today’s WaPo, based on the international right of self-defense,
It is naive to assume that the millions paid annually in ransom to pirates merely enables them to purchase villas and fancy automobiles. Somalia is a country without government, where anarchy is being exploited by terrorist organizations. Although the threat that pirates pose to commercial ships is increasingly known, little is being done to combat it. And we must consider the bigger picture: Terrorists are far more brutal than pirates and can easily force pirates — petty thieves in comparison — to share their ransom money.
We already know that Somalia is an ideal fortress and headquarters for global terrorist activity. The United States has learned the painful lesson that Somalia is not an easy place for our military to establish law and order; two of our interventions there became embarrassing defeats — in 1993 and more recently in support of Ethiopian forces.
So why do we keep rewarding Somali pirates? How is this march of folly possible?
Start by blaming the timorous lawyers who advise the governments attempting to cope with the pirates such as those who had been engaged in a standoff with U.S. hostage negotiators in recent days. These lawyers misinterpret the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and fail to apply the powerful international laws that exist against piracy. The right of self-defense — a principle of international law — justifies killing pirates as they try to board a ship.
…
The international right of self-defense would also justify an inspection and quarantine regime off the coast of Somalia to seize and destroy all vessels that are found to be engaged in piracy. These inspections could reduce the likelihood that any government will find itself engaged in a hostage situation such as the one that played out in recent days. Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council should prohibit all ransom payments. If the crew of an attacked ship were held hostage, the Security Council could authorize a military blockade of Somalia until the hostages were released.
Sadly, the UN Security Council won’t do such thing.
Law professor Eric Posner looks at the piracy question,
In the meantime, governments will have to employ an unsatisfactory combination of carrots and sticks—mounting expensive patrols that spot and pick off pirates on occasion, while paying ransoms to those pirates who succeed.
Dave Schuler, however, sees seven options.
The problem will continue, and will likely get worse.
UPDATE
Phyllis Chesler looks at the cpnflicting narratives of our times.
According to the UN Convention on Law of the Seas the definition of piracy is pretty straight forward. Article 105 also makes it clear that those captured as pirates are not to be returned to their own country for trial or even to any international tribunal but rather to be held and tried in the country that affectd the capture. There is no mention of the death penalty as the consequence of piracy. I would assume since the MV Maersk Alabama is US flagged and captured then there is little doubt the US can try them. It simply remains to be decided by who, the Feds or Virginia, though both have the death penalty the US hasn’t executed anyone since McVeigh while Virginia has executed 103 since reinstituting the death penalty in 1982.
The problem is, is piracy a capitol offense and eligible for the death penalty by Federal or Virginia law? What little I can gather suggests there may be some difficulty in procuring the death penalty in either jurisdiction. Abduction is considered a Class 5 Felong in Virginia, 1-10 yrs and monetary penalties. A death has to occur to make it a capitol, Class 1 Felony, offense. And since the 1970’s a string of decisions by SCOTUS have made kidnapping a Federal crime that is not eligible for capitol punishment.
Let the party begin!