杏十八新茶分享

 

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Admiralty
  • Date Filed: 02-25-2013
  • Case #: 12-35266
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Chief Circuit Judge Kozinski for the Court; Circuit Judge Tashima; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Circuit Judge M. Smith

A piracy claim requires acts "committed for private ends... [which] include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds." Belief that your actions serve the public does not insulate them from piracy claims.

The Institute of Cetacean Research (鈥淐etacean鈥) is a group of 鈥淛apanese researchers who hunt whales in the Southern Ocean.鈥 Hunting whales is illegal unless conducted pursuant to a research permit issued under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Cetacean has a valid permit. Despite this valid permit, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (鈥淪ea Shepherd鈥) has rammed Cetacean ships, 鈥渉url[ed] glass containers of acid, drag[ed] metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders,[and] launch[ed] smoke bombs and flares with hooks鈥 in an effort to slow down and stop Cetacean from hunting whales. Cetacean brought suit in district court 鈥渦nder the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C.搂1350? which provides relief for torts 鈥渃ommitted in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.鈥 Specifically, 鈥淐etacean argue[d] that Sea Shepherd鈥檚 acts amount[ed] t piracy and violate[d] international agreements regulating conduct on the high seas.鈥 The district court dismissed Cetacean鈥檚 piracy claims and denied requests for a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit determined that the district court, in addressing the merits of a piracy claim, relied on an 鈥渆rroneous interpretation of private ends and violence.鈥 The Ninth Circuit held that 鈥減rivate ends include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds, such as Sea Shepherd鈥檚 professed environmental goals.鈥 Sea Shepherd鈥檚 belief that their actions served a higher public good does not insulate them from a piracy claim. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the district court鈥檚 denial of Cetacean鈥檚 preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit found that 鈥淪ea Shepherd鈥檚 activities clearly violate the UNCLOS, the SUA Convention and the COLREGS;鈥 putting Sea Shepherd 鈥渁t loggerheads with the public interest of the United States and all other seafaring nations in safe navigation of the high seas.鈥 REVERSED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top