Bring back Privateers

So with piracy still an issue . If not on the increase and Naval forces facing cuts is there any way we could bring back Privateers in the 21st century . Merchant Protector forces to protect merchant shipping . If you can work a way round the political and legal ramifications you're not going to need huge ships for the majority of operations. So maybe a coastal forces tender and some gunboats .
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
You are going to need to overturn the 1958 Convention on the High Seas (Article 15) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article 101). They contain the identical wording:

(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—
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

They make no distinction between piracy and privateering (something that was always more a matter of whose ox was being gored even when privateers were fairly common).

Even when privateering was a going concern there were serious restraints on the practice. Privateers had to operate beyond what came to be known as "cruiser rules" in the year's leading up to the Great War. Privateers were REQUIRED to provide a safe and secure place for the crew and passengers of any vessel taken, not simply allow them time to get into ship's boats.

Under today's international law privateers would also fall under the heading of mercenaries or soldiers for hire. That puts them outside the protection of the Laws of Wars (the same mainly holds for PMC units, which is why they have to be included in any "Status on Forces" agreements).
 
Under today's international law privateers would also fall under the heading of mercenaries or soldiers for hire. That puts them outside the protection of the Laws of Wars (the same mainly holds for PMC units, which is why they have to be included in any "Status on Forces" agreements).

I think the closest thing we'll get is essentially PMCs acting as armed security on board ships in difficult areas.
 
I think the closest thing we'll get is essentially PMCs acting as armed security on board ships in difficult areas.
Question, can PMC working in security use anything heavier than standard small arms or can they us mounted weapons such as 20mm > Weapons?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think the closest thing we'll get is essentially PMCs acting as armed security on board ships in difficult areas.
Even that requires a good deal of finesse. There were some issues back when the Somali pirate crisis started to blow up with shipping lines loading up some bully boys without following all the rules.

One of the biggest issues is armament. Different countries gun control regulations have to be carefully followed and waivers received or things can get really shaky really fast. As an admittedly unlikely example - A ship's security element that was aboard when a ship docked in a U.S. port, and the master of the vessel, could be in instant violation of the 1968 Gun Control Act or 1934 National Firearms Act depending on the specific weapons the ship had on-board. There are exceptions in the law for visiting warships, but private vessels have a very different set of requirements. This is further complicated by the fact that, while underway, ships can go from international waters (where the laws of the nation of registry prevail) to national waters, where the laws of the individual nation-state take effect. Since many countries effectively ban all private gun ownership with relatively few exceptions (the UK being a good example, where most hunting weapons require special permits), or ownership of specific calibers (Mexico, as an example had a law that prohibited private ownership of firearms that used the same caliber round as was used by the Mexican military).

Things can get crazy complex.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Question, can PMC working in security use anything heavier than standard small arms or can they us mounted weapons such as 20mm > Weapons?
Depends on the country where they are operating. In Iraq U.S. PMC were, at one point, covered under the U.S. Status on Forces agreements. While that was in place they were carrying 40mm grenade launchers and gpmc, along with RPG. After a couple nasty incidents the Iraqi government pulled that permission and some of the PMC had to di di out of country.
 
If you want to stretch things somewhat with your definitions:

Somali pirates have justified their attacks with claims that they are just extracting compensation for the tradition of foreign vessels overrunning their traditional fishing grounds. I suppose Al-Shabaab or similar rebel group that has already alienated the international community could claim a certain pirate gang as its own privateers for legitimacy/income purposes. Obviously no one else would treat these "privateers" any differently, and it wouldn't change things elsewhere, but it technically fulfills the wording if not the spirit of the challenge.

And as we all know "technically correct" is the best kind of correct.
 
I found this on quora.com and think it pretty well sums up privateering and why we won't see it again.

"Privateers were essentially pirates with government protection in order to pursue less than legal goals in wealth, dominance, and control of the seas. Being a privateer was only legal in relation to the countries you had papers for. IE, if you were a privateer for the British Empire, you could basically do whatever you wanted until a Spanish ship found you, and then you were screwed." So basically a privateer working for the British was only protected from the British Royal Navy, but he was caught by Spain, he was still considered a pirate and treated as such.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If you want to stretch things somewhat with your definitions:

Somali pirates have justified their attacks with claims that they are just extracting compensation for the tradition of foreign vessels overrunning their traditional fishing grounds. I suppose Al-Shabaab or similar rebel group that has already alienated the international community could claim a certain pirate gang as its own privateers for legitimacy/income purposes. Obviously no one else would treat these "privateers" any differently, and it wouldn't change things elsewhere, but it technically fulfills the wording if not the spirit of the challenge.

And as we all know "technically correct" is the best kind of correct.
Which, of course, is why the system has long since failed.
 
So with piracy still an issue . If not on the increase and Naval forces facing cuts is there any way we could bring back Privateers in the 21st century .
Do the Privateers get to keep a percentage of their booty? That's the entire motivation.
 
I found this on quora.com and think it pretty well sums up privateering and why we won't see it again.

"Privateers were essentially pirates with government protection in order to pursue less than legal goals in wealth, dominance, and control of the seas. Being a privateer was only legal in relation to the countries you had papers for. IE, if you were a privateer for the British Empire, you could basically do whatever you wanted until a Spanish ship found you, and then you were screwed." So basically a privateer working for the British was only protected from the British Royal Navy, but he was caught by Spain, he was still considered a pirate and treated as such.

But the US Privateers who were captured by the Royal Navy were not treated as Pirates in 1812-15

Consider why--
During the War, the US Navy and Privateers together captured 30,000 prisoners, while the Army captured 6,000 British prisoners
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
But the US Privateers who were captured by the Royal Navy were not treated as Pirates in 1812-15

Consider why--
During the War, the US Navy and Privateers together captured 30,000 prisoners, while the Army captured 6,000 British prisoners
Things changed several times during the Age of Sail, the most important be the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856. The U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign it due to disagreement regarding neutral shipping (ironically, had the U.S. signed on, the British, and the RN, would have been required to treat Confederate Raider as pirate vessels since the CSA, as a successor state, would have been required to uphold the Declaration).
 
Things changed several times during the Age of Sail, the most important be the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856. The U.S. was one of the few countries not to sign it due to disagreement regarding neutral shipping (ironically, had the U.S. signed on, the British, and the RN, would have been required to treat Confederate Raider as pirate vessels since the CSA, as a successor state, would have been required to uphold the Declaration).

Something else we can pin on the unremitting incompetence of James Buchanan, I guess.
 
Something else we can pin on the unremitting incompetence of James Buchanan, I guess.

Neither Whig nor Democrat was onboard for signing that Paris treaty in 1856. Not even LBJ could have logrolled that thru.

Memories of 1812 were closer in 1856 than Vietnam is today, and the Privateers were among the few high points of that.
 
Top