rawls:They were the ones who were out there. If they had not been, then no potential or actual eco disaster would have happened in the first place.
Doesn't that apply to any ship on the ocean, whaling or not?
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
rawls:They were the ones who were out there. If they had not been, then no potential or actual eco disaster would have happened in the first place.
wardric:Doesn't that apply to any ship on the ocean, whaling or not?
AFAIK, Sea Shepard has been given no mandate. The United Nations, while they make a lot of noise at times, gives a mandate and establishes organizations to implement resolutions. Could you please provide a link to any UN document or source that provides such a mandate to Sea Shepard to enforce the Charter on Nature.
And you tell me that I'm stretching the meanings???Sadamune:Here you go tedtim,
The World Charter for Nature
U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982)
While I am not an expert on international law, I believe that Sea Shepherd derives their mandate in part from the following:
21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall: (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
If the United Nations specifically reviewed Sea Shepherd's activities and their legal claims I suppose it is possible that they might issue a resolution that approves/disapproves of Sea Shepherd's interpretation of The World Charter for Nature and/or revise the charter to clarify issues of legal authority in international waters. However, that hasn't happened yet and so I don't think there is a firm basis from which to affirm or deny the legality of their interpretation of the charter.
If anyone on ScubaBoard has any legal training/experience that could illuminate this murky subject matter, your input would be much appreciated.
However, even if Sea Shepherd's pretensions of legality are repudiated and their activities thus categorized as anarchist, there's nothing inherently bad about being anarchistic. On the contrary, there are many intelligent and moral people that recognize and espouse the virtues anarchism. As a label, 'anarchist' is not synonymous with 'bad guy'.
Sadamune
And you tell me that I'm stretching the meanings???
How does "Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction." translate into entering harbours and sinking boats?
...an organization that went around the country destroying SUVs they found parked in people's driveways. Would you describe this as "anarchist"?
Would you seek to justify such actions as somehow being laudable?
This is simply because since 9/11 people have sought to restrict the meaning of the word "terrorism". Terrorism isn't dependant on the numbers of people killed in order to qualify. If you are asking me if I consider Sea Shepherd to be up there with the WTC attack....of course not. However, in the same way that not all murderers are Ted Bundy, they can still be murderers under the true definition.Sadamune:However, I find it totally absurd to label an organization with benevolent goals and reverence for all life to be included in the same category as those who have murdered thousands of people. I hope that makes sense.
Sadamune
They have most certainly committed "violence or other harmful acts" against fishermen who weren't breaking any laws themselves...
Terrorism isn't dependant on the numbers of people killed in order to qualify.
Yes you are correct........that's exactly how I view it, and I also understand how you are viewing it. As you say....there's nothing more that can be said as these are simply differing points of view. We could continue to belabor the point here, but dead horses get boring. I think we have both been lucid enough that others can read, and draw their own conclusions from the arguments.Sadamune:If I may venture, you perceive that the potential for injury to humans associated with destructive acts is inclusive in the meaning of 'terrorism'. Personally, I think that demonstrable intent to inflict harm upon humans is necessary for such an appellation to be justified. I don't think anything more can be said about this particular matter.
OK, we can swap links. Try this one, especially the section that defines adoption of treaties and definition of chartersSadamune:Here you go tedtim,
The World Charter for Nature
U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982)
While I am not an expert on international law, I believe that Sea Shepherd derives their mandate in part from the following:
21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall: (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
<snipped>
Sadamune
rawls:As far as an eco disaster, it could have happened but it didn't. If it had, would I have been happy about it...No. But whose fault would that have been. What difference would it make whether I or anyone else was happy about it or not. They were the ones who were out there. If they had not been, then no potential or actual eco disaster would have happened in the first place.