Comments for Communis Hostis Omnium

Comment on When the Use of Force is Lawfull: The 100 Series Rules are Released by The International Criminal Law Bureau – 100 Series Rules for the Use of Force Published

Thu, 09 May 2013 09:22:39 +0000

[...] http://piracy-law.com/2013/05/05/when-the-use-of-force-is-lawfull-the-100-series-rules-are-released/ [...]

Comment on Kiobel Postscript by Roger L. Phillips

Roger L. Phillips — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 01:04:09 +0000

Thanks for your comment Joshua. I am more concerned about whether the court considers piracy to be limited by the old common law rather than customary international law. No treaty provisions are incorporated by 18 USC 1651.

Comment on Report From the Piracy Contact Group, Working Group 2, Meeting in Copenhagen by Report From the Piracy Contact Group, Working Group 2, Meeting in Copenhagen « IntLawGrrls

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:12:14 +0000

[...] Cross-posted on Communis Hostis Omnium [...]

Comment on Italian Marines to be tried in Special Court in Delhi for Enrica Lexie Incident by Guptan Veemboor

Guptan Veemboor — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:36:03 +0000

Sir,
Much water has flown down Ganges. I could not get a more recent post by you on this topic. Hence I am using this to communicate to you.
The Italian Marines returned on 22nd of March on the last day they were supposed to comeback to India and a big diplomatic row was avoided. On April 2nd Supreme Court ordered that the restriction on the movement of the Italian ambassador is removed and he is free to go anywhere. In a matter of two days and that too on a week end Indian government designated a special court to try the case of this Italian Marines, which they could not do for the last two months. Then a week or back it asked the National Investigation Agency which had been constituted to pursue the cases related to terrorism to investigate this case of the Italian Marines. In what way this case is connected to terrorism , I am not able to fathom.
Now a problem had cropped up. While the marines were in Italy and the Italian government was refusing to send them back the diplomatic channels were busy and during the negotiations India assured that if the marines are tried here in India and found guilty of killing the fishermen they will not be awarded death sentence. It is said that on that assurance only the marines were sent back to India.
Now the Indian government is caught in a dilemma. National Investigating Agency will go after the marines armed with the Suppression of Unlawful Act which if applied the marines can be awarded capital punishment if found guilty. And India has assured that they will not be awarded capital punishment. Now they are toying with the idea to hand over the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigations which will go after the marines armed with Indian Penal Code which can be ‘bent’ not to award capital punishment if they are found guilty of murder.
My question is ‘ how the same crime can draw two different punishment just because two different laws are applied’. The gravity of the crime is not changed. Is it right to give different punishment to the same crime just because two different laws give different opinion? Will it not be a miscarriage of justice?

Comment on From New Delhi to Rome (and Back) via Hamburg or The Hague: the Enrica Lexie Incident and the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism by Guptan Veemboor

Guptan Veemboor — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:28:44 +0000

Sir, The Italian Marines returned on 22nd of March on the last day they were supposed to comeback to India and a big diplomatic row was avoided. On April 2nd Supreme Court ordered that the restriction on the movement of the Italian ambassador is removed and he is free to go anywhere. In a matter of two days and that too on a week end Indian government designated a special court to try the case of this Italian Marines, which they could not do for the last two months. Then a week or back it asked the National Investigation Agency which had been constituted to pursue the cases related to terrorism to investigate this case of the Italian Marines. In what way this case is connected to terrorism , I am not able to fathom.
Now a problem had cropped up. While the marines were in Italy and the Italian government was refusing to send them back the diplomatic channels were busy and during the negotiations India assured that if the marines are tried here in India and found guilty of killing the fishermen they will not be awarded death sentence. It is said that on that assurance only the marines were sent back to India.
Now the Indian government is caught in a dilemma. National Investigating Agency will go after the marines armed with the Suppression of Unlawful Act which if applied the marines can be awarded capital punishment if found guilty. And India has assured that they will not be awarded capital punishment. Now they are toying with the idea to hand over the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigations which will go after the marines armed with Indian Penal Code which can be ‘bent’ not to award capital punishment if they are found guilty of murder.
My question is ‘ how the same crime can draw two different punishment just because two different laws are applied’. The gravity of the crime is not changed. Is it right to give different punishment to the same crime just because two different laws give different opinion? Will it not be a miscarriage of justice?

Comment on One Step Closer to a Pirate Amnesty by Roger L. Phillips

Roger L. Phillips — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 01:23:51 +0000

Hi Bob,
Thanks for you comment. Do you think the Somali amnesty without job training and job creation will be effective at preventing individuals from engaging in future acts of piracy? Or do you think it is perhaps a useless exercise? It seems to me there is a direct linkage between mass unemployment and the willingness of some Somalis to engage in high-risk criminality. If that is the case, is not job creation part of the solution?

Comment on One Step Closer to a Pirate Amnesty by Bob Haywood

Bob Haywood — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:29:10 +0000

The sentence ” For Somalia, the lesson is that an amnesty must be accompanied by job training and job creation to be effective.” makes little sense. In Nigeria the amnesty offer was coupled directly with a government offer to provide training and jobs to rebels who accepted the amnesty. When the government failed to deliver of the promise, the rebels felt free to continue their crimes. The amnesty in Somalia is not coupled with such an offer, and does not apply to future crimes. As stated, the offer of amnesty does not bind other governments who have a right to prosecute. Therefore the offer is only that the government of Somalia will not proscecute for past crimes of piracy.

Comment on EUCAP NESTOR: Bolstering the Rule of Law to Counter Piracy in the Horn of Africa – Interview with David HAMMOND by The International Criminal Law Bureau – EUCAP NESTOR: Bolstering the Rule of Law to Counter Piracy in the Horn of Africa

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:40:41 +0000

[...] The full interview is available here. [...]

Comment on Chatham House Report on Piracy by http://hippieland.freehostingcloud.com

http://hippieland.freehostingcloud.com — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:00:40 +0000

It’s hard to find well-informed people on this subject, however, you sound like you know what you’re talking
about! Thanks http://hippieland.freehostingcloud.com

Comment on Chatham House Report on Piracy by Coral

Coral — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:35:23 +0000

Hi there, everything is going fine here and ofcourse every one
is sharing information, that’s really fine, keep up writing. Coral