Raiding or Piracy?

SWM wrote:No one has claimed that Meyers is truly independent. It is de facto a satrapy of the OFS. But it is still nominally independent, and has it's own King. That means it is not a Protectorate.

Another Sollie POV:

Shadow of Freedom
Chapter Thirty-tree
Commodore Thurston POV
wrote:Despite which, he was about to go down in history as the first Solarian League naval officer ever to surrender a Solarian-claimed star system to an enemy.

ETA:

Michelle sat back with her coffee cup, studying him thoughtfully. Thomas Montview was officially the prime minister of King Lawrence IX, titular ruler of the Kingdom of Meyers, which covered about three quarters of the surface of the planet of Meyers. In fact, Lawrence Thomas and his entire family had been little more than figureheads ever since Frontier Security’s arrival in the Meyers System. Still, the House of Thomas had provided a useful interface, and the Thomases had survived better than most local dynasties who found themselves engulfed by the protectorates system. They’d actually retained a sizable percentage of the family wealth, and everything Michelle and Cynthia Lecter had been able to find in the local system databases suggested that Lawrence and his parents and grandparents had done their best to mitigate the weight of the OFS yoke for the population of Meyers. They’d been active in philanthropic pursuits, and they’d given a great deal of support to public education out of their private coffers.

Historically, a protectorate is a (nominally, at least) independent nation under the 'protection' of a greater power.

SWM wrote:

n7axw wrote:There is no realistic way that Meyers can be regarded as independent. The locals have to submit to OFS rather than being in charge of their own affairs. Their economy has been taken over by a trans-stellar of OFS's choosing. To be sure, they retain the trappings of government, but that is only the interface through which OFS acts to impose its will. Systems like Myers are independent in name only.

When Admiral Henke moved in on Meyers, she liberated the system rather than performing an act of piracy. IIRC, she acted only after news of the League's attack on Manticore reached her, establishing a defacto state of war with the League which I assume became a de jure state of war by act of Parliament.

Don

No one has claimed that Meyers is truly independent. It is de facto a satrapy of the OFS. But it is still nominally independent, and has it's own King. That means it is not a Protectorate.

Protectorates are officially under the control of the Solarian League. The Protectorates lie in a zone (semi-spherical) around Sol which is also called the Protectorates. Meyers is not a Protectorate, and lies well outside the zone which contains the Protectorates.

The discussion started when someone claimed that Manticore must have put embassies on the Protectorates, after gaining the Talbott Cluster. Since Manticore clearly did not place embassies on important star systems such as Meyes and Saltash (far closer to the Talbott Cluster than the Protectorates), it does not seem likely that they have embassies in the Protectorates.

Just as long as we keep the emphasis on that word nominally. There was someone who made the claim that Henke's move on Meyers could be regarded an act of piracy. My point in emphasizing Myers actual status was to point out that the attack on Myers was a move against the League with whom SEM was in at least a defacto, and more probably a de jure state of war, making Mike's action legal.

Don

n7axw wrote:Just as long as we keep the emphasis on that word nominally. There was someone who made the claim that Henke's move on Meyers could be regarded an act of piracy. My point in emphasizing Myers actual status was to point out that the attack on Myers was a move against the League with whom SEM was in at least a defacto, and more probably a de jure state of war, making Mike's action legal.

Don

I have used the word "nominally" every time, and I intend to keep doing so.

I've reviewed the text some more, spurred by Weird Harold's citations. I now concede that Meyers is an official protectorate. I found half a dozen references which seem to show that Meyers is a protectorate. For instance:

"Actually, Milady," Montview said after a moment, "our law officers formal oaths of office are sworn to the House of Thomas, not to the Solarian League or Frontier Security." It was his turn to show his teeth. "An unfortunate oversight on their part."

"Yes, it was," Michelle agreed.

It was also fairly standard operating procedure for the OFS, however. The legal fiction that the Protectorates were still independent star systems simply "under the protection" of the beneficent Solarian League required local regimes.

This makes it pretty clear.

Saltash, however, is not a protectorate.

"First, Mobius isn't a member of the Solarian League, and it's not an official protectorate, either. It doesn't even have an officially sanctioned OFS presence like Saltash."

Saltash has an officially sanctioned OFS presence, rather than being an official protectorate.

This is curious, given the astrography. My map shows that Meyers is way far out from the Solarian League, further than the Talbott Cluster, while Saltash is right next to the nominal border of the Protectorates. But that's what the text seems to indicate. We know that not all systems within the borders of the Protectorates are actually protectorates; many are independent. But even so, it appears that the Protectorates have extended a very long arm out past the southern edge of the Talbott Cluster, which was not apparent. No wonder the Talbott Cluster was certain they were next in line for assimilation.

Still, it's pretty clear that neither Meyers nor Saltash had Manticoran embassies of any kind.

My apologies for mistakenly saying that Meyers was not a protectorate--I couldn't imagine that it was, since I knew the text showed that Saltash was not.

I have not gone back and reread the engagement at Meyers

BUT, Mike did not engage with any of the Meyers forces (such as they are which is primarily planitary police and a small Army). She engaged the FF ships and the OFS ground forces plus whatever the OFS and FF had on the stations and in-system. The Manticorain forces then started working WITH the MEYERS government investigating corruption of the Transstellars and the OFS officials in the system
She then met with the "official" government of Meyers- in the person of the Prime Minister- and roughed out a framework for co-operation between the Kingdom of Meyers and the Empire of Manticore (subjectd to formal ratification by both) but essentially said Manticore supports the existing Royal Family and the Government of Meyers without the overlay and deep control imposed on it by OFS.

This issue of "piracy or not piracy" (i.e. legal actions against a belligerent enemy) could hinge on perspective as well. When Crandall invades Spindle Mike notes that her actions "could be considered piracy on a grand scale" because there has been no declaration of war by the SL. What I wanted to ask was, do both sides not only have to vote out a declaration but formally acknowledge the other sides' declaration for everything to be officially legal?

Even if there was an off-screen GA declaration of war against the SL, would that legalize Mike's actions at Meyers in the eyes of the SL? I get the feeling that whether or not all of the legal niceties have been followed, anything the GA does militarily against the SL is going to be "unjustifiable" from Sol's perspective. On the flip side, I think the GA would be more pragmatic and/or sanguine about such things if only because their member star nations have more experience with such matters.

Amaroq wrote:This issue of "piracy or not piracy" (i.e. legal actions against a belligerent enemy) could hinge on perspective as well. When Crandall invades Spindle Mike notes that her actions "could be considered piracy on a grand scale" because there has been no declaration of war by the SL. What I wanted to ask was, do both sides not only have to vote out a declaration but formally acknowledge the other sides' declaration for everything to be officially legal?

Even if there was an off-screen GA declaration of war against the SL, would that legalize Mike's actions at Meyers in the eyes of the SL? I get the feeling that whether or not all of the legal niceties have been followed, anything the GA does militarily against the SL is going to be "unjustifiable" from Sol's perspective. On the flip side, I think the GA would be more pragmatic and/or sanguine about such things if only because their member star nations have more experience with such matters.

One side declaring war is probably enough for it to be considered a state of war in the legal sense. Whether by action (the SL here) or by declaration (by Admiral Harrington's declaration to the SL commander at the Second Battle of Manticore (I cannot recall his name off the top of my head atm). Just one side would satisfy any legal considerations, unless you're a lawyer type that likes to tie things up in unimportant minutia. Such as political types that could/would hold up any funding on the basis that only one side has declared war, so it might not be an 'official' war in their eyes. Stuff like that.

I imagine the GA and its member nations and most of the rest of human settled space, will consider actions like the SL has been doing (in large or small) as an act of war no matter what. A formal declaration of war is just that. A formal declaration. War can and would still exist even if there was no formal declaration.

Zakharra wrote:

Amaroq wrote:This issue of "piracy or not piracy" (i.e. legal actions against a belligerent enemy) could hinge on perspective as well. When Crandall invades Spindle Mike notes that her actions "could be considered piracy on a grand scale" because there has been no declaration of war by the SL. What I wanted to ask was, do both sides not only have to vote out a declaration but formally acknowledge the other sides' declaration for everything to be officially legal?

Even if there was an off-screen GA declaration of war against the SL, would that legalize Mike's actions at Meyers in the eyes of the SL? I get the feeling that whether or not all of the legal niceties have been followed, anything the GA does militarily against the SL is going to be "unjustifiable" from Sol's perspective. On the flip side, I think the GA would be more pragmatic and/or sanguine about such things if only because their member star nations have more experience with such matters.

One side declaring war is probably enough for it to be considered a state of war in the legal sense. Whether by action (the SL here) or by declaration (by Admiral Harrington's declaration to the SL commander at the Second Battle of Manticore (I cannot recall his name off the top of my head atm). Just one side would satisfy any legal considerations, unless you're a lawyer type that likes to tie things up in unimportant minutia. Such as political types that could/would hold up any funding on the basis that only one side has declared war, so it might not be an 'official' war in their eyes. Stuff like that.

I imagine the GA and its member nations and most of the rest of human settled space, will consider actions like the SL has been doing (in large or small) as an act of war no matter what. A formal declaration of war is just that. A formal declaration. War can and would still exist even if there was no formal declaration.

My guess on how it works in the Honorverse, based on historical practice and international law here on Earth:

I think that not only does one side have to declare war, but the side declaring war on another has to give notification of that declaration of war prior to commencing active hostilities.

For example, when the Japanese declared war on the United States in World War II, due to many different factors, the declaration was given by the Japanese ambassadors to the US State Department after the attack on Pearl Harbor had begun.

After the war, some of the Japanese involved were tried and convicted of war crimes because of this failure to give notice of the declaration of war before commencing active hostilities.

Vince wrote:My guess on how it works in the Honorverse, based on historical practice and international law here on Earth:

I think that not only does one side have to declare war, but the side declaring war on another has to give notification of that declaration of war prior to commencing active hostilities.

For example, when the Japanese declared war on the United States in World War II, due to many different factors, the declaration was given by the Japanese ambassadors to the US State Department after the attack on Pearl Harbor had begun.

After the war, some of the Japanese involved were tried and convicted of war crimes because of this failure to give notice of the declaration of war before commencing active hostilities.

Historically, a formal declaration of war wasn't necessary. The declaration is a nicety, not a necessity. A war doesn't have to be declared for it to be a war (examples are the multitude of small wars raging around the world now and down through the centuries). Often times the first notice of war was the first attacks, not a declaration. A formal declaration can be looked upon as something stupid, like giving advanced notice of intent to attack. I think if the Japanese declaration had been delivered on time, it still would have pissed off the US since the timing of it meant that the attack would have already been launched. Even if no declaration had been given, it's not like the US then could have denied it wasn't in a state of war against the Japanese Empire at the time. It was at war, official declaration or not.