Letter of marque

From Citizendium
Revision as of 11:28, 17 April 2009 by imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Clarifications (reprisal v. marque) and current legal/operational concerns)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.
For more information, see: piracy.

A letter of marque is an authorization given to a private ship owner and/or ship's captain by a government. The authorization allows the ship to act as a ship of war in naval engagements with the ships of another nation. A letter of marque would allow, for example, a private ship to engage a cargo ship and sink it, seize its cargo, or take its crew prisoner (or any combination of these).

The ability to grant letters of marque and reprisal is granted specifically to the U.S. Congress in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and also specifically denied to the states in both documents. The ability to grant a letter of marque is noted as one of the War Powers. While the two are similar, the concept of reprisal developed earlier, as an authorization for private ships to arm themselves for self defense. A letter of marque authorizes the vessel to take offensive action against ships either of pirates or national enemies, the latter when a full state of war might not exists.

U.S Congressman Ron Paul has proposed using letters of marque to fight terrorism and piracy, most recently in response in response to the attack on the MV Maersk Alabama in April of 2009.[1][2]

The Declaration of Paris of 1856 effectively abolished privateering amongst its signatories. The United States was not a signatory and thus technically remains able to issue letters of marque.


Modern maritime conditions and naval tactics may make the concept less practical. A privateer might be authorized, but its movement, on radar or other sensors used by military ships, might appear be that of a pirate. The privateer might be intercepted, wasting time, or even taken under fire.

Further, just as there is question of the status of both defined mercenaries and of private military contractors under the Third Geneva Convention, it is not at all clear that an independently operating privateer would meet the requirements of being a lawful combatant.

References

  1. Press Release:Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism. The Office of U.S Representative Ron Paul (October 11, 2001).
  2. Jasper, William F. "Piracy Solution: Letters of Marque and Reprisal". New American. Retrieved on 2009-04-17.