Den Haag: Laws of the High Sea

Desertfox · April 22, 2007, 01:44:52 PM

New Switzerland agrees to to this document.

Phoenix · April 23, 2007, 11:21:33 AM

The Middle Kingdom abides by the consensus.

Walter · April 23, 2007, 01:07:51 PM

Japan agrees.

Korpen · May 02, 2007, 03:07:40 AM

Chairman Veerbruggen:
"Very well Gentlemen, so far The Confederated States of America, The Deutcher Kaiserreich Brandenburg, The Republic of France, The Empire of Austria, The Empire of Iberia, The Empire of Japan, The Middle Kingdom, The Kingdom of the united Netherlands, The Kingdom of Rohan, The Empire of Russia, The Republic of New Switzerland and The United Norman Kingdom has agreed to sign this document. The convention will remain open for further signatories."

The Rock Doctor · May 02, 2007, 06:29:21 AM

The Republic of Gran Colombia will sign this document.

Desertfox · June 11, 2007, 10:27:41 PM

Read the whole document, and in no case has New Switzerland yet broken it. In fact under Article 17 and 20, NS actions where completly legal.

Borys · June 11, 2007, 11:50:34 PM

Lies, lies and Falsehood! These were peaceful Peruvian merchants on an errand for the Most Holy Caliphate and Exalted Sultanate of Firanj! The Glorious Infidel Franks were providing an escort of Honour. There was no flea infested pirate dog Mars - may his dates shrivel and his seed be no more - amongst those Honorable merchants!

Korpen · June 12, 2007, 12:00:45 AM

Quote from: Desertfox on June 11, 2007, 10:27:41 PM
Read the whole document, and in no case has New Switzerland yet broken it. In fact under Article 17 and 20, NS actions where completly legal.

In fact not, you demanded the ships on the grounds of suspect passengers, something that is not allowed.
It should have been immediately obvious that the ship was a pirate vessel, no matter the disorder of its papers, and then let go.

Also, by telling the Franji to "come and get" the ships, you are clearly implying that the legal basis for your entire operation is non-existent.

Desertfox · June 12, 2007, 08:33:45 AM

QuoteArticle 20

1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters a foreign merchant ship on the high seas is not justified in boarding her unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting:

(a) That the ship is engaged in piracy; or

(b) That the ship is engaged in the slave trade; or

(c) That though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.

2. In the cases provided for in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above, the warship may proceed to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.

3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.

The passenger in question was accused of Piracy and owned the vesssels. That is a legitimate reason to stop and search. A quick search revealed missing papers and lots of gold. That required per #2 a further examination on board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration. However since it was no longer safe to do so in the high seas, the ships where taken to a safe island. This was underscored by the Dutch attack.

As to the "come and get it" what do you expect? Send an escort to get attaacked again in a 'rescue' operation? Or let them free and if they dissapear get blamed for it? The only safe course is let them go under either a neutral or Farinj escort.

maddox · June 12, 2007, 08:40:15 AM

Then the question is , why would the French escort a know pirate?

Desertfox · June 12, 2007, 08:55:57 AM

Maybe the French don't see him as a pirate. There's that 'Peace' Fleet incident when the attack occured exacly when Greater Napoleon was missing...

Then again I originaly labled the French ships 'rouge'.

Borys · June 12, 2007, 09:01:34 AM

Ha! The Austrian Secret Service was right after all! The French cruisers had been taken over by subversives and painted red!

maddox · June 12, 2007, 09:11:05 AM

Agrival gassed the Moulin Rouge. I don't believe France would forgive him that....

OOC the attack on the peace fleet..... you could ask Battle of the Pyramids about the truth of that.... in other words, the old Habsburg emperor...

Desertfox · June 12, 2007, 09:15:44 AM

I knew there was a conection between the cruisers and Agrival! A pity color film hasn't been invented yet, I could make a killing selling movies of "Red" ships sinking in Austria!

What actually happened and what is actually known are two different things. All NS knows is the Greater Napoleon was not present, and that France has had its share of shady dealings (ie Brazil).

The Rock Doctor · June 12, 2007, 09:19:53 AM

QuoteAgrival gassed the Moulin Rouge. I don't believe France would forgive him that....

If that saves future generations from a certain musical movie, I think we should all forgive him for that.