Since the time of Grotius , a pirate has been considered to be hostis humanis generis , an enemy of mankind.
So write
Ilias Bantekas
and
Susan Nash
in their book
International Criminal Law
(2003). As a global enemy, the pirate was subject to prosecution in any country that managed to exercise jurisdiction over him—or, in the case of pirates like
Grace O’Malley
—her. Thus it’s a bit of a surprise to read that Britain, the country that once claimed to rule the waves, is shirking from seizure of the 21st-century pirates about whom my IntLawGrrl co-blogger, Naomi Norberg,
posted
earlier this month. London’s
Sunday Times
of London
reported
that the Foreign Office has instructed the Royal Navy “not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.” The
Times
’ Marie Woolf reports of the further concern regarding the “risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain.” This fear of inability to return the captives likely stems from Britain’s
nonrefoulement
obligations, explicit in treaty provisions such as Article 33 of the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
and Article 3 of the
Convention Against Torture
, and deemed implicit in provisions such as Article 3 of the
European Convention on Human Rights
and Article 7 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
:
The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.
Not all Britons share this view. The
Times
quoted
, a Conservative Member of Parliament:
‘These people commit horrendous offences. The solution is not to turn a blind eye but to turn them over to the local authorities. The convention on human rights quite rightly doesn’t cover the high seas. It’s a pathetic indictment of what our legal system has come to.’
No doubt the notion that even
hostes humanis
have human rights also will
trouble those who would use the old rule of free-rein-to-fight-pirates as a template for today’s treatment of persons caught up in what the Bush Administration calls its ”
.”
( Cross-posted at IntLawGrrls
blog; thanks to Berkeley Law student Lindsay M. Harris for the heads up on the
Times
story.)