Raiding or Piracy?

While Candell's and Filareta's attacks on SEM space have led to a de facto state of war between the SEM and the SL, neither side has as yet issued a declaration of war. Mike has attacked, seized and/or liberated several SL planets, again without a formal declaration of war. The SLN is contemplating a raiding strategy against the SEM, still without a formal declaration of war.

Using the People's Republic of Haven's (as opposed to the actions of the RH) or the SLN's actions as a meter stick, Mike's actions are "legal". She is simply following the same pattern they did. More successfully than the SLN and with less side effects than the PRN, but still in the same mold.

Under interstellar law, are these actions "acts of war" or are they simply piracy on a grand scale? What draws the line between legitimate acts against an acknowledged enemy and simple theft? Is it the actual declaration of war or is it when one side or the other recognizes that there is a de facto war on their hands? What is the actual legal status of Mike's actions and what would be the legal basis for seizing privately owned shipping of an SLN company?

I realize that the SEM recognizes Mike's actions as legal, but are there any actual laws that cover the situation? Or is Mike simply one of the most successful pirates since Blackbeard haunted the Caribbean?
However, the SLN's raiding strategy seems to have no major historical equivalent (in the Honorverse). While such a strategy would fall within the guidelines of a declared war, where do they fall in an undeclared war? Are they acts of war or are they acts of piracy?

KNick,
Mike is acting on the de facto state of war in the region; her attacks are a direct response to the SLN 'raid' on Spindle and Filareta's actions. At worst, she has exceeded her authority. It is similar to the situation faced by the US and England after the Battle of New Orleans - the war had already 'ended' but neither commander knew that fact. She's not a pirate; she still acknowledges the EOM authority to disavow her actions. You might make a case for privateer - but she doesn't have a letter of marque.
Ultimately, Mike's actions are those of an active, aggressive field commander in response to enemy provocation. She has struck only SLN targets and/or responded to third party requests for relief under the provisions of the Eridani Edict. Normally people would call for the SLN, but AFIK the Edict binds all signatories to respond and investigate an alleged infraction - even one by the SLN.
She's covered unless Elizabeth decides otherwise. I can see the de facto becoming de jure in short order, at least on the GA side. An unprovoked attack on the homeworld can galvanize even the most fractuous population.
Anyhow, just my two centicreds.
Dave

Lazalarlives wrote:KNick,
Mike is acting on the de facto state of war in the region; her attacks are a direct response to the SLN 'raid' on Spindle and Filareta's actions. At worst, she has exceeded her authority. It is similar to the situation faced by the US and England after the Battle of New Orleans - the war had already 'ended' but neither commander knew that fact. She's not a pirate; she still acknowledges the EOM authority to disavow her actions. You might make a case for privateer - but she doesn't have a letter of marque.
Ultimately, Mike's actions are those of an active, aggressive field commander in response to enemy provocation. She has struck only SLN targets and/or responded to third party requests for relief under the provisions of the Eridani Edict. Normally people would call for the SLN, but AFIK the Edict binds all signatories to respond and investigate an alleged infraction - even one by the SLN.
She's covered unless Elizabeth decides otherwise. I can see the de facto becoming de jure in short order, at least on the GA side. An unprovoked attack on the homeworld can galvanize even the most fractuous population.
Anyhow, just my two centicreds.
Dave

I realize all of that. I must have phrased my questions poorly. At what point is the legal boundary between the two?

I can see Elizabeth never declaring war on the SL. Doing so frees the Mandarins from to many of the constraints they are currently working under. Granted, they are working around those constraints anyway, but the formal declaration of war means they no longer have to try to hide what they are doing. Without the formality, at least some of what they are trying to do is illegal. As soon as war is declared, their actions become legal.

Is Mike in the same situation? Absent the declaration, is what she is doing (other than investigating Edict violations) strictly legal?

I realize I am picking at nits here, but it is an important nit to me. Could Mike's actions be considered piracy? All she has done to the SL so far is seize their ships and personnel. Every other action she has taken has involved nominally independent polities and she has also done her best not to infringe upon their rights. She has done her best to minimize her direct impact, even though the indirect effects will be huge.

So, while there is a de facto state of war, without the de jure recognition of that fact, what exactly is Mike's legal status? It is my (limited) understanding that seizing ships of a foreign power without a formal declaration of war is piracy. How is Mike's action different?

Or does Mike's decision to treat Crandell's people as POWs, in effect, legitimize everything that follows as acts of war?

Sorry I misunderstood the question, KNick.

Let me see if I can work through it (my reference here is the Law of Land Warfare, AR 27-10, by the way. I'm a bit rusty on it, but here goes).

Mike is, and understands herself to be in, a grey area as far as the law goes. She has undertaken actions that if disavowed by the crown will be considered piracy and barratry. If, however, the crown endorses her decisions, they represent an action taken in defense of the EOM in a de facto war situation. As such, the crown will request a declaration of war and Mike will be vindicated and (notionally) immune to prosecution for piracy.

Simply stated, she could be charged with piracy, should the SLN catch her prior to a declaration of war by the Star League. Pending that (unlikely) result, she must wait for Parliament to vote out the war resolution and the crown to vindicate her actions to date.

Note that Honor was in a similar situation when tried in absentia by the PRH. A de facto state of war existed then, but realpolitik stopped it from being a de jure situaion. She was convicted of piracy, IIRC.

The short answer is that the SLN will always consider Mike a pirate or worse, no matter what else goes on. On the flip side, HRH has endorsed (and is likely to continue to do so) Mike's actions and will be pressing to legitimize them with a declaration of war. So far, Elizabeth has granted legitimacy to Mike's actions by endorsing them as necessary acts under the initiative of local command, required to retain security in the region. Even the attack on Mesa falls under this, since Mike has been able to trace the agent provocateur to Mesa.

And though the Star League may bleat about it, Mike has only acted against them on one occaision not directly related to the immediate defense of the Talbot Quadrant - the removal of the OFS satrapy. Everything else, including Mesa, has been actions on behalf of allied nations and/or spoiling attacks on enemy operational hubs.

And if you want to get down to it, she's not really pirating. She's doing the whole Conquistador thing - to the point of using locals to hold the rear and sides while she's off slaughtering the Aztec lords like Cortez did.

That's an image for you, if any. Though I don't know how to get an afro under one of those Spanish helmets...

Dave

Unfortunately international law tends to be very fluid and defined by rough consensus of the stronger nations. The USA hasn't had a declaration of war since WW2. But how many wars have we been in?

Don

n7axw wrote:Unfortunately international law tends to be very fluid and defined by rough consensus of the stronger nations. The USA hasn't had a declaration of war since WW2. But how many wars have we been in?

SCOTUS has ruled at least once that a congressional vote to use military force IS a declaration of war for all legal purposes.

Remember the correspondence to the Mandarins in ART and in MOH and Honor's quotes to Filaretta that his appearance in Manticore was considered by Manticore not just as an act of war but as a declaration of war. Manticore was clear in both correspondence and action that it considered themselves to be at war with the league if and when Filaretta's fleet appeared in the Manticore system. The war was De Facto through Crandall and Lacoon II, but became De Jure with Filaretta proceeding despite the direct warnings both to SOL leadership and to Filaretta.

Regarding interstellar law in the Honorverse, I suggest reviewing The Honorverse and Interstellar Law in its entirety, as it covers a lot of information about nation-states, their relations, interstellar law and war.

Also some historical sayings and quotations:

"We therefore repeat our proposition, that war is an act of violence, which in its application knows no bounds; as one dictates the law to the other, there arises a sort of reciprocal action, which in the conception, must lead to an extreme." Clausewitz, ON WAR.

"History is written by the victors."

ksandgren wrote:Remember the correspondence to the Mandarins in ART and in MOH and Honor's quotes to Filaretta that his appearance in Manticore was considered by Manticore not just as an act of war but as a declaration of war. Manticore was clear in both correspondence and action that it considered themselves to be at war with the league if and when Filaretta's fleet appeared in the Manticore system. The war was De Facto through Crandall and Lacoon II, but became De Jure with Filaretta proceeding despite the direct warnings both to SOL leadership and to Filaretta.

yep Mike should be in the clear

“I hereby inform you, Admiral, that you are in violation of Manticoran territorial space. I further inform you that the Star Empire of Manticore considers your presence here, given the many previous instances of blatant and unprovoked Solarian aggression against the Star Empire, an act of war. Should you not immediately depart Manticoran territorial space, Her Majesty’s Navy and its allies will respond to that act of war with deadly force. Should you cross our hyper limit after this warning, I am instructed to inform you that Empress Elizabeth and her government will take it as incontrovertible proof that, despite its pious diplomatic protestations and posturing, the Solarian League in fact actively desires a state of war between it and Manticore. Should that be the case, we will certainly give you one.”

kzt wrote:

n7axw wrote:Unfortunately international law tends to be very fluid and defined by rough consensus of the stronger nations. The USA hasn't had a declaration of war since WW2. But how many wars have we been in?

SCOTUS has ruled at least once that a congressional vote to use military force IS a declaration of war for all legal purposes.

That would pretty well have to be the way that it is. The Supreme Court seems to serve the role of slowing things down, with the judges reflecting the biases of the administrations that nominated them. Undeclared wars have a history going all the way back to the clash with the Barbary pirates. Perhaps all of this is a good thing.

Don