Try to scale a Russian oil platform? You might be a Pirate

[TimothyC]

MOSCOW, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Environmental activists who protested at a Russian Arctic offshore oil platform last week will be prosecuted and could face piracy charges punishable by up to 15 years in prison, Russian investigators said on Tuesday.

They said the "attack", in which Greenpeace activists tried scaling the Gazprom-owned Prirazlomnaya platform, Russia's first offshore Arctic oil platform, violated Russian sovereignty.

"When a foreign ship full of electronic equipment intended for unknown purposes and a group of people, declaring themselves to be environmental activists, try to storm a drilling platform there are legitimate doubts about their intentions," the investigators said in a statement.

The protest ended in the arrest of the 30 activists on the ship and the detention of the Netherlands-registered icebreaker, Greenpeace said. The Arctic Sunrise, towed by authorities, anchored on Tuesday outside the Arctic port city of Murmansk.

Greenpeace, which says it aims to draw attention to the threat oil drilling poses to the fragile Arctic ecosystem, has denied allegations of piracy, saying its protest was peaceful, and said Russia's actions violated international law.

A spokesman for Russia's border officials said diplomats from the activists' home countries would be allowed on board to meet the protesters at 3:00 p.m. local time (1100 GMT).

Greenpeace says the activists have been denied access to lawyers and consular officials for four days. Spokeswoman Maria Favorskaya said they had not been formally charged.

The environmental advocacy group said it along with some 50 other non-governmental organisations had signed a statement calling for the activists' release.

Russia called the Dutch ambassador last week for an official protest over the incident since Greenpeace is registered in the Netherlands.

Greenpeace says scientific evidence shows that an oil spill from Prirazlomnaya would affect more than 3,000 miles of Russia's coastline.

Onshore drilling is well established, but significant offshore work is in its infancy despite numerous attempts to make it work and relatively shallow waters.

A decade of high oil prices, scarcity of opportunities elsewhere and a shrinking ice cap has led companies to look to unexploited parts of the Arctic in recent years.

Global majors including ExxonMobil, Eni and Statoil have agreed deals with Russia's state-owned Rosneft to enter Russia's Arctic offshore waters. (Editing by Steve Gutterman and Alistair Lyon)

I think we all know my opinion of pirates (both conventional and ecological).

[Purple]

I think we all know my opinion of pirates (both conventional and ecological).

I don't.

[Irbis]

Arctic platform? From map:



It looks like it was deep within Russian coastal zone, not in 'Arctic'...

Edit: closer map, it looks like it might 'just' be international waters, but surrounded from all sides by Russian islands and coastline. IMHO calling this 'Arctic' waters is very debatable.

[Thanas]

I fail to see where they got alongside and made off with the cargo.

Oh wait, charges are what Putin thinks they are, not what reality and common sense say.

[Borgholio]

If anything it could be trespassing on government property, but piracy is defined as theft and murder on the high seas. If they didn't steal, murder, or attempt to steal or murder, then sorry Ruskies...it's not piracy.

[Irbis]

Oh wait, charges are what Putin thinks they are, not what reality and common sense say.

Seriously?

I wonder what common sense, also known as United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has to say:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(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;

No, unless you argue their act was legal, not on high seas, not an attempt to seize/disrupt activities of Prirazlomnaya (which is legally a ship), and not committed by private ends, huh, Putin might just have a case there.

What a state can do against pirates?

Article 105

Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

Article 106

Liability for seizure without adequate grounds

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft for any loss or damage caused by the seizure.

Article 107

Ships and aircraft which are entitled to seize on account of piracy

A seizure on account of piracy may be carried out only by warships or military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect.

Gee, I wonder if FSB border guard ship fulfills the 'ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service' and how the 'every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board' action is illegal under international law

Now, if courts find it to be unlawful detention for any reason, Russia is liable to pay reparation, but I fail to see what FSB did is illegal under international, much less Russian law.

[Lagmonster]

Oh wait, charges are what Putin thinks they are, not what reality and common sense say.

Reality and common sense should tell one not to attempt to illegally board a Russian oil derrick in order to live out some ideologically worthless hero fantasy. In fact, I'd argue that any combination of 'fucking with' and 'Russia' is, to Westerners, culturally entrenched as being ill-advised.

[Irbis]

Oh wait, charges are what Putin thinks they are, not what reality and common sense say.

Also, before we all indulge in knee-jerk Putin attacks, let me quote what he said:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the Greenpeace activists detained over a protest at an oil rig in the Arctic were not pirates, but did break international law. Authorities on Wednesday put 30 arrested activists from the environmental group in pre-trial jails after questioning several campaigners over a protest against Arctic oil exploration, the group said.

Speaking about the 30 detained Greenpeace activists at an international forum on Arctic exploration in the northern Russian city of Salekhard, Putin said it was “obvious they’re not pirates,” but added that they had been trying to seize the rig and authorities had responded with due concern for security.

“Our law enforcement authorities and border guards didn’t know who might be trying to seize the rig under the guise of Greenpeace activists,” Putin said in remarks televised by the state-run Rossia 24 television.

On Tuesday, Russia opened a criminal probe into suspected piracy by four Russian and 26 foreign Greenpeace activists who could face up to 15 years in jail if the case comes to trial.

So, yeah, he has a point, much better one than people quoting colloquial, not legal meaning of piracy to ridicule Russian border patrol. Plus, there is one additional paragraph of Law of Sea that Arctic Sunrise broke:

Article 60

Artificial islands, installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

(c) installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

2. The coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such artificial islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.

3. Due notice must be given of the construction of such artificial islands, installations or structures, and permanent means for giving warning of their presence must be maintained. Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation, taking into account any generally accepted international standards established in this regard by the competent international organization. Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States. Appropriate publicity shall be given to the depth, position and dimensions of any installations or structures not entirely removed.

4. The coastal State may, where necessary, establish reasonable safety zones around such artificial islands, installations and structures in which it may take appropriate measures to ensure the safety both of navigation and of the artificial islands, installations and structures.

5. The breadth of the safety zones shall be determined by the coastal State, taking into account applicable international standards. Such zones shall be designed to ensure that they are reasonably related to the nature and function of the artificial islands, installations or structures, and shall not exceed a distance of 500 metres around them, measured from each point of their outer edge, except as authorized by generally accepted international standards or as recommended by the competent international organization. Due notice shall be given of the extent of safety zones.

6. All ships must respect these safety zones and shall comply with generally accepted international standards regarding navigation in the vicinity of artificial islands, installations, structures and safety zones.

So, yeah, not only they tried to illegally board the rig, but also violated its safety zone, which Russia had every right to establish.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed, it is a clear case of Russia being right. Knee-jerking doesn't help here at all. Piracy it is not, but certainly it breaks naval laws as they stand now. Either correct the laws to make way for random attacks of vessels by Greenpeace, or admit that law-breaking it was, but - say - in the name of greater good.

[Thanas]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not. Glad Putin agrees.

Nobody denied they broke laws of the sea, so anybody quoting them is massively missing the point.

[slebetman]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not. Glad Putin agrees.

Nobody denied they broke laws of the sea, so anybody quoting them is massively missing the point.

Regardless of what Putin or you say, the "law of the sea" that they broke define what they did as piracy. People committing piracy are technically pirates. They may not be evil, malevolent pirates but they are pirates nonetheless. And they were indeed arrested for piracy since that's the specific law that they broke and can be arrested for.

[Mr Bean]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not. Glad Putin agrees.

Nobody denied they broke laws of the sea, so anybody quoting them is massively missing the point.

Regardless of what Putin or you say, the "law of the sea" that they broke define what they did as piracy. People committing piracy are technically pirates. They may not be evil, malevolent pirates but they are pirates nonetheless. And they were indeed arrested for piracy since that's the specific law that they broke and can be arrested for.

There is a clear legal area where the term pirates needs to be carefully applied. Because 90% of piracy laws are about crimes where it's still legal to take prisoners give them a fair trial and a quick bullet before dumping them over the side.

Or to say it another way if they are charged with out and out piracy (Attempting to cease a vessel or naval installation) then fifteen years is on the low side. If that's what they were being charged with it should be "Up to and including firing squad" not just fifteen years.

With that said the last thing I want is idiot Greenpeace activists on an oil platform be it American, Russia or any other countries. Oil rigs are places that are only safe because we only let people on them who know what they are doing. The possibility for accidental or deliberate damage is incredibly ease. I know at least two ways these idiots could have caused a major accident if all they intended to do was climb to the crew areas and take photos and go back.

[TimothyC]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not. Glad Putin agrees.

The Reuters article that I quoted noted that at the time of it's writing, they might be charged with piracy. Given that, I simply referred to them as such, and included the conditional in the thread title. I currently stand corrected.

I think we all know my opinion of pirates (both conventional and ecological).

I don't.

Pirates are the enemies of all civilized peoples and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[Gandalf]

Pirates are the enemies of all civilized peoples and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Are you just using the legal definition of pirate, or some other one?

[Thanas]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not. Glad Putin agrees.

Nobody denied they broke laws of the sea, so anybody quoting them is massively missing the point.

Regardless of what Putin or you say, the "law of the sea" that they broke define what they did as piracy. People committing piracy are technically pirates. They may not be evil, malevolent pirates but they are pirates nonetheless. And they were indeed arrested for piracy since that's the specific law that they broke and can be arrested for.

There is a clear legal area where the term pirates needs to be carefully applied. Because 90% of piracy laws are about crimes where it's still legal to take prisoners give them a fair trial and a quick bullet before dumping them over the side.

Or to say it another way if they are charged with out and out piracy (Attempting to cease a vessel or naval installation) then fifteen years is on the low side. If that's what they were being charged with it should be "Up to and including firing squad" not just fifteen years.

With that said the last thing I want is idiot Greenpeace activists on an oil platform be it American, Russia or any other countries. Oil rigs are places that are only safe because we only let people on them who know what they are doing. The possibility for accidental or deliberate damage is incredibly ease. I know at least two ways these idiots could have caused a major accident if all they intended to do was climb to the crew areas and take photos and go back.

What Bean said?

[TimothyC]

Pirates are the enemies of all civilized peoples and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Are you just using the legal definition of pirate, or some other one?

The legal one.

[Irbis]

in the name of greater good.

You know, had it been really deep in the Arctic, I could maybe agreed with them, but doing that right next to Russian coastline just waters down real protests that will happen down the line.

Plus, I long lost any respect for Greenpeace for their mugging people on the streets and insane 'kill atom first' policy.

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not.

The thing is, what they did does fit UN legal definition of piracy, even if it doesn't fit colloquial one. Law is fun like that, you should know that best.

[Thanas]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not.

The thing is, what they did does fit UN legal definition of piracy, even if it doesn't fit colloquial one. Law is fun like that, you should know that best.

How is UN law applicable here? Last I checked this happened on a Russian platform.

[Grumman]

Timothy said they were pirates. They are not.

The thing is, what they did does fit UN legal definition of piracy, even if it doesn't fit colloquial one. Law is fun like that, you should know that best.

How is UN law applicable here? Last I checked this happened on a Russian platform.

So? Doesn't every case of piracy happen on a vessel from some nation or another?

[Thanas]

So? Doesn't every case of piracy happen on a vessel from some nation or another?

Ships are considered to be territory of the nation where it is flagged in. Which is why pirates who attacked German ships are currently on trial in Germany according to the German laws which deal with piracy.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed, but the UN naval laws apply to the general conduct at sea, don't they? The pirates will be tried according to the laws of the nation whose ship they attacked, but the case for piracy may very well be built on UN laws of the sea.

[RogueIce]

I think that the main difference would be if it happened in international waters (is that what the UN convention means when it says "high seas"? It later specifies "outside the jurisdiction of any State" which I'm pretty sure means IW) or in Russia's EEZ. That's my take from what Irbis has posted in here.

[slebetman]

I think that the main difference would be if it happened in international waters (is that what the UN convention means when it says "high seas"? It later specifies "outside the jurisdiction of any State" which I'm pretty sure means IW) or in Russia's EEZ. That's my take from what Irbis has posted in here.

Basically yes. Also, although the original laws of the sea predates the UN, the current one as it stands is what gives nations jurisdiction of their vessels in the same way that UN conventions define where a nation's border (economic zone) is at sea. So the violation of international law gives the Russians the right to arrest them under Russian law (which may have a different definition of "piracy"). But in this case, if the platform is within Russian borders, the Russians may just do whatever Russian law dictates.

[Patroklos]

I think that the main difference would be if it happened in international waters (is that what the UN convention means when it says "high seas"? It later specifies "outside the jurisdiction of any State" which I'm pretty sure means IW) or in Russia's EEZ. That's my take from what Irbis has posted in here.

A country only has control over specific things in the EEZ, specifically economic things generally concerning resources unsurprisingly. I would imagine piracy would not count, which is why the EEZs of the Arabian Sea are not really important to piracy there.

Regarding the post immediately above a countries border (territorial waters) and EEZ have nothing to do with each other.

[Thanas]

Well, so much for Putin's promises: they have all been charged with piracy.