さあ！諸君！捕鯨問題だ！

ついでだから、オランダ船籍のグリーンピース・シリウス号が公海領域で、
ベルギー船籍のFalco と Wadsy Tanker という二隻の船の弱酸性廃棄物
海洋投棄を妨害し、相手船に乗り移って器物破損にまで及んだので
ベルギーの最高裁で海賊認定されたという事件のさわりだけ、英文資料の
一部コピペしておきます。

【CASTLE JOHN AND NEDERLANDSE STICHTING SIRIUS v.
NV MABECO AND NV PARFIN】
Belgium, Court of Cassation. 19 December 1986

SOMMARY（概要）: The facts（事実関係）:
- 　 Members of the environmental group ”Greenpeace"
took action on the high seas against two vessels engaged in the discharge
of noxious waste, in order to attract attention to the harmful effects
of such discharge at sea. The action included boarding, occupying and
causing damage to the two vessels. The operators of the vessels instituted
proceedings before the Belgian courts for injunctions to prevent interference
with theirdischarge operations on the high seas. The judge at first instance
held that he had no jurisdiction to prevent interference with such operations
since vessels on the high seas were exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of
their flag State, in this case the Netherlands. The Court of Appeal of
Antwerp held, however, that the Belgian courts were entitled to exercise
jurisdiction over their own nationals in such circumstances because the
action at issue amounted to piracy for which the exclusive application of the
law of the flag State could not be claimed. The defendants appealed.

Held（判決）: 　 -The appeal was dismissed.
(1) Pursuant to Article 15 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas,
1958, piracy consisted, inter alia, of illegal acts of violence, detention or any
act of depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers
of a private ship and directed on the high seas against another ship.

(2) The action at issue had been taken in order to alertpublic opinion to
the dangers inherent in the discharge at sea of waste products harmful to the
environment. As such the acts were committed in furtherance of a personal
point of view on a particular problem, albeit with a political perspective,
rather than in the interests or to the detriment of a State or State system and
were therefore committed for private ends within the meaning of Article 15.

(3) Having resorted to violence and done so for private e^nds, in particular
the pursuit of the objects laid down in their articles of association, the
members of Greenpeace had committed piracy and were not, therefore,
entitled to claim the application of the law of the flag State of their vessel.

ソース：Castle John v NV Mabeco (19 December 1986) (188) 77 ILR 537.

当時まだ完全に適法だった弱酸性廃棄物の公海投棄に対して、グリーンピース
が危険性の立証を怠ったために、妨害すなわち公益という主張が出来なかった
という問題のようだね。

そのために一般世論への訴えという、主観的な意図が全面に出てしまって
プライベートな目的という解釈が可能になったということだな。

現在のシーシェパードの場合、IWCによる調査捕鯨の非致死調査への転換
勧告決議だとか、オーストラリアの最高裁判決を引き合いに出して、
実際に公益を履行するという意図を明言してるので、反対の解釈はより
困難になるでしょうね。