Recently, I discussed the latest pirate attack in Somalia’s territorial waters and asked a series of questions about possible responses to it. My questions have been answered:
In February, the United Nations adopted a resolution urging member states with ships and aircraft adjacent to the coast of Somalia to be vigilant about any incidents of piracy and to protect merchant shipping, particularly involving humanitarian aid. Several nations, including the United States, are now seeking U.N. approval to go beyond international waters into Somalia’s territorial waters.The U.S. and France introduced a draft resolution to Security Council members at a closed meeting Monday afternoon. It is co-sponsored by Britain and Panama, according to AP. The resolution allows nations to enter Somalia’s territorial waters to board, search and seize and arrest those onboard ships suspected in engaging in piracy, according to AP. Under international law, territorial waters generally extend about 14 miles from a sovereign country’s shores.
While this is not as much new as a formalization of the status quo based on Somalia’s decades of anarchy, it is a potentially important precedent whereby the UN, spearheaded by the West, infringes upon the sovereignty of a country when that country is unable to properly police and control its territory. How many more such resolutions may we see regarding other African or Asian nations?
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Jamestown on Abkhazia
- » Can’t we all just get along?
COMMENTS / 6 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Bye Bye Sovereignty added these pithy words on Jun 03 08 at 6:34 am[...] countries to violate Somalia’s territorial waters in pursuit of pirates (as discussed before here) has [...]
Simon added these pithy words on 03 May 08 at 8:29 amSlippery slop if you ask me.
IJ added these pithy words on 03 May 08 at 9:26 amIt would certainly be a precedent if these rules were passed. But even then it is worth examining why protection passed in 2005 was not adopted. That required international intervention, subject to approval by the UN Security Council, if states failed to protect their own populations from abuse.
The abuse was defined as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rwanda was one of the global catastrophes that prompted R2P.
What’s holding up R2P? Essentially differing views at the UN Security Council on whether the ‘international community’ can violate the sovereignty of nation states to achieve the above aims. Moreover R2P is perceived by many governments as a ‘Western’ interventionist instrument.
Apologies, not very pithy.
IJ added these pithy words on 03 May 08 at 12:20 pmDifferent views at the Security Council on peacekeeping?
As at March, the five permanent members of UNSC contributed troops to Sudan: China 444, Russia 123, UK 2, France 0, US 0.
jon added these pithy words on 05 May 08 at 4:17 pmI see this as a return to the past. It was the Royal Navy that ended the last great era of piracy. It did this chasing the pirates to their bases, it didn’t matter where they were.
To them, the fact that piracy was based in your territory meant, either that you unable or unwilling to stop it. The former meant you really couldn’t be considered wholly sovereign, the latter meant you were lucky all the British wanted to do was wipe out the pirate bases.
I’m not advocating going after the regimes, that would put western forces in the middle of the hornets’ nest after it was poked a few times. If we stay a sea except for raids to destroy pirate infrastructure we can minimize the risks of a new Mogadishu.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
