Pirates - still a pain in the legal backside

Pirates have been around for donkey years (as long as Peter Pan at least) but the law still hasn't really caught up with them.

Ah, those Somalian devils. With an AK47 slung across their back, they count the cash which probably came via DHL from London. Lloyds' of London - ever since its inception in a small coffeehouse in around 1688 - has led the insurance sector into securing against pretty much anything - vocal chords, hair, space flights and of course pirates. But why has international law lagged behind in attempting to punish these outlaws in the Gulf of Aden?

This BBC article shows how difficult it has been to get international consensus on how to convict captured pirates. Which laws? Which jurisdictions? Which due processes? Without money, time and most importantly political will, the steps towards a trial and conviction will continue to be painfully slow.

Of course there must be impartiality before the law but the pirates have got major international powers into a political quandary. With the US, EU, China, Russia - among others - having a vested interest into the safe passage of cargo ships in the area and the criminal convictions of those thwarting this business, it will only be at the political level that any legal processes can actually work.

Lloyds' of London: where pirates get most of their hard-earned ransom money from.

It was also revealed by the BBC a few months ago, that the British government is actually blocking a sanction at the UN to take action against two suspected pirate organisers. This is nothing to do with human rights; this purely hinges on a legal technicality - in the UK, paying a ransom is not a criminal offence. Coming back to the famous Lloyds' insurance, I wonder how much they are responsible for this particular legal development - since most ransom negotiations with the pirates currently go through London?

But this opens up a wider question on jurisprudence in the developed world. International law is comprehensive enough but by no means anywhere near pervasive or complete, and frequently relies on political nous to work at a practical level. Furthermore, when the laws of the developed West clashes with those in the less developed world - where talk of legal culture is much more widespread than law in its strictest sense - it can cause widespread problems. Observers of the wealthy Gulf states would know that 'petro-dollars' have a considerable influence as to how law in these countries is being developed. Borrowing bits of English and New York Law, commercial transactions laid forth by legal whizzkids have to skilfully skirt around the traditional condemnation of debt and interest in Islamic law and finance.

Whereas the West likes to think that it works by democratic consensus, institutionalised safeguards and with due process, it is struggling to understand how developing countries with astronomical growth rates could laugh at this rule-of-law 'drivel'. The Chinese especially have quite a different view on what the law means. Their Legalist school of thought is particularly revealing - which advocates for a common focus on strengthening the political power of the ruler, of which law is only one part. You won't see (m)any Chinese quoting from their Constitution which advocates freedom of speech or religion!

It's not only wigs that makes the law as we know it look a bit ridiculous sometimes.

The West has long prided itself on its economic power and legal integrity, but for all its development in the philosophies of law, society and politics, those pirates are still finding enough loopholes for a few people in the political/legal elite to look a bit silly.

Incidentally, I wonder what pirates think of the law? I'm not sure but they might be smiling like this:

See relevant links:
Wikipedia entry on the Chinese philosophy of Legalism