Escalating fight between India and Italy UPDATE: Italy to return the Marines to India

[Dari]

If you can't leave it's a prison.

That's patently false. Is house arrest a "prison"? When the courts confiscate your passport and say you cannot leave the state or country, is the state or country a "prison"?

 

[davmat787]

They weren't in jail. They were in a hotel during this whole time...

And if the Italians come back? Don't get me wrong, I love Indian food, its nothing personal.

 

[LunarRay]

I'm not up on Indian Constitutional Law but do know they've adopted some interesting bits... among which are:

Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Those two (sort of like the US 4th and 14th Amendments) mention 'any person'... so our Italian friends ought to be fine spending the duration of this event in Italy... They could be tried in absentia and if found guilty extradition could be requested.


As an aside, India does have articulated Fundamental Rights... I suspect Mountbatten, while operating with Plenipotentiary authority, instilled a sense of Rights that were carried into the Indian Constitution...

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I didn't know that India and Italy could ever possibly get into a fight or have any sort of a conflict at all. As far as I knew, Indian forces keep away from Italy and vice-versa. Guess I was wrong.

 

[Dari]

Italy may try to spirit him out of the country.

India airports on alert over Italy ambassador Mancini

Airports across India have been told to stop Italian ambassador Daniele Mancini if he tries to leave the country, a home ministry official told the BBC.

It follows a Supreme Court order to Mr Mancini not to leave India after Rome's refusal to return two marines charged with the murder of two fishermen.

The court had allowed the marines to go home to vote in last month's elections.

Italy said on Friday it was seeking a "friendly agreement" with India to resolve the row.

The office of President Giorgio Napolitano said Italy wanted an agreement based on "international law".

The statement followed talks between Mr Napolitano and the defence, interior and foreign ministers.

Mr Mancini had personally assured the court the marines would return on time.

Home ministry officials said their advisory is just a routine follow-up of Thursday's Supreme Court order.

There has been no comment from the Italian embassy in Delhi or Ambassador Mancini.

The case of the Italian marines - Massimilian Latorre and Salvatore Girone - has led to a diplomatic row between India and Italy.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warned that "there will be consequences" unless Italy returned the marines.

In unusually strong language, the prime minister said Italy's refusal to do so was "unacceptable".

Rome's decision has come as a major embarrassment for the Indian government and opposition parties have been demanding their immediate return.

The marines are accused of shooting the fishermen in Kerala in February 2012. They said they mistook them for pirates.

Italy argues that because the case is now the subject of international maritime law, it had been decided that the pair will not return to India once the Supreme Court deadline has expired.

Rome says it wants its nationals to be tried in Italy. As the incident took place in international waters, Italy believes India has no jurisdiction in the case.

India however maintains that the fishermen were Indian and on board an Indian fishing boat at the time of the incident.

 

[Broheim]

So? Is Italy going to attack? With who, Berlusconi and his whores or the mafia?

yeah, and India could send all their rapists to fight them, but seeing as that would be the entire male population of India you would win that fight :awe:

 

[Orignal Earl]

I would bet this is playing out exactly as planned by the Indian and Italy govs

 

[Vic Vega]

That's patently false. Is house arrest a "prison"? When the courts confiscate your passport and say you cannot leave the state or country, is the state or country a "prison"?

My word you're stupid.

 

[Dari]

My word you're stupid.

No, I think you are. In your world, if the judge says you cannot leave this country until trial starts, then the country you've been in all your life is now a prison. Not because it actually is but because you "feel" it is, even though you've never left it. That's just a dumb way of thinking of prison.

In a real prison, you're told when to eat, sleep, exercise, etc... If you cannot tell the difference then you have no business discussing the two.

 

[GroundedSailor]

IDK, I was wondering the same thing. I can think of no good reason for a fishing boat getting close to a tanker. I can think of some pretty good reasons why you'd stay away.

It seems much more likely to me that the fishing boat approached the tanker. The article indicates the Indian fisherman shot was at the helm/wheel, meaning they were under way/moving.

Maritime rules dictate the smaller vessel give right of way to the larger vessel. I.e., the smaller vessel needs to stay away/get away.

Fern

Fishing boats have always tried to come close to ships as the turbulence in the ships wake appears to attract certain types of fish. It has always been an issue with ships trying to stay away from fishermen. (I have spent 25 years on ships, mainly tankers, including sailing as Master)

In these trigger happy days any innocent action by a fishing boat following fish can be construed as a threat - specially by military men who have been trained to view everything as a threat.

Nowhere in the maritime rules does it state that the smaller vessel gives right of way to the larger vessel. At sea size does not generally matter. According to rule 18:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
Rule 18
A tanker is a power driven vessel. If anything, the tanker should have taken action to avoid the fishing boat. It has always been a pain to keep away from fishing boats specially when they are tying to get close to the wake.

Typically when a ship is in international waters the flag state of the ship has jurisdiction on the issue, but with Indian nationals being killed, specially within the Indian EEZ, India certainly has the right to bring the the killers to their courts to try them.

Typically if a fishing boat is approaching a big ship will try to move out of its way and take other evasive measures. Shooting is the last option to scare away the boat. I do believe the marines were trigger happy in this case.

Also, as posted by pulsar, fishing vessels are noisy boats and may not have heard the shots fired by the tanker.


.

 

[iGas]

Italy may try to spirit him out of the country.

India airports on alert over Italy ambassador Mancini

I would let Italy spirit their Ambassador out of the country, because it would prove that Italy is an untrustworthy country. And, that would make India the better guy on the world stage if India decide to break ties with Italy.

 

[Dari]

I would let Italy spirit their Ambassador out of the country, because it would prove that Italy is an untrustworthy country. And, that would make India the better guy on the world stage if India decide to break ties with Italy.

Still doesn't change the fact that the families of the dead won't get justice...

 

[iGas]

Still doesn't change the fact that the families of the dead won't get justice...

I agree that there is poor justice if it happens. However, I believe a weak justice is served because the families of the dead excepted the cash deal from the Italian (Italian avoided civil court). What The Italian did was that they renegade and disrespected the criminal court of India.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17825300

Italy has agreed to pay compensation to the families of two Indian fishermen shot dead by Italian marines who allegedly mistook them for pirates.
The families will each receive 10m rupees ($189,000; £117,013), officials said. In return they have withdrawn court cases against the marines.

 

[Dari]

India-Italy marines row: 'No legal immunity' for envoy Daniele Mancini

India's Supreme Court has said Italy's envoy does not have legal immunity, in an escalating row over Rome's refusal to return two marines charged with murdering two Indian fishermen.

India's Chief Justice Altamas Kabir said the court had "lost trust" in Italy's ambassador Daniele Mancini.

The court reiterated last week's order for him not to leave the country.

The marines were allowed to go home to vote in last month's polls on condition that they return to stand trial...

 

[piasabird]

What makes Italians want to fire at an Indian boat? Do they smuggle people into Italy or something?

 

[CanOWorms]

As an aside, India does have articulated Fundamental Rights... I suspect Mountbatten, while operating with Plenipotentiary authority, instilled a sense of Rights that were carried into the Indian Constitution...

Yes, the noble British man, operating in a regime responsible for the massacre of hundreds of millions in the country in one of the bloodiest atrocities of human history, instilled a sense of rights into those barbarians!

 

[werepossum]

Fishing boats have always tried to come close to ships as the turbulence in the ships wake appears to attract certain types of fish. It has always been an issue with ships trying to stay away from fishermen. (I have spent 25 years on ships, mainly tankers, including sailing as Master)

In these trigger happy days any innocent action by a fishing boat following fish can be construed as a threat - specially by military men who have been trained to view everything as a threat.

Nowhere in the maritime rules does it state that the smaller vessel gives right of way to the larger vessel. At sea size does not generally matter. According to rule 18:
(a) A power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing;
(iv) a sailing vessel.

(b) A sailing vessel underway shall keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver;
(iii) a vessel engaged in fishing.

(c) A vessel engaged in fishing when underway shall, so far as possible, keep out of the way of:
(i) a vessel not under command;
(ii) a vessel restricted in her ability to maneuver.
Rule 18
A tanker is a power driven vessel. If anything, the tanker should have taken action to avoid the fishing boat. It has always been a pain to keep away from fishing boats specially when they are tying to get close to the wake.

Typically when a ship is in international waters the flag state of the ship has jurisdiction on the issue, but with Indian nationals being killed, specially within the Indian EEZ, India certainly has the right to bring the the killers to their courts to try them.

Typically if a fishing boat is approaching a big ship will try to move out of its way and take other evasive measures. Shooting is the last option to scare away the boat. I do believe the marines were trigger happy in this case.

Also, as posted by pulsar, fishing vessels are noisy boats and may not have heard the shots fired by the tanker.


.

That's the first time I have ever heard anyone allude to tankers attempting to maneuver away from fishing boats. I've only heard tankers referred as ships with limited ability to maneuver, from which smaller craft are required to keep clear. (Depending on size, a tanker's turning radius can easily be a mile.) This is a big issue in the Gulf of Mexico, where smaller vessel captains are taught to stay out of the way of tankers and bulk cargo ships because they simply cannot turn or stop quickly enough to keep from crushing you. I'd also be interested to know if the Indian vessel was engaged in fishing when it was attacked, as generally speaking one cannot rapidly approach other ships under way when either trawling or line-fishing. I suspect the Indian boat was approaching the tanker to drop nets or lines in its wake, catching disoriented fish and/or those larger fish which gather to prey on them, rather than engaged in fishing during the incident. A ship certainly doesn't become master of the seas when it leaves the dock just because its business is fishing. That clause is in place to reflect that when actively fishing, ships and boats have restricted mobility. Would be interesting to know the relative speeds (including maximum) at the time of the incident though; if the tanker was cruising at 11 kts but has a maximum loaded speed of 20 kts and did not attempt to speed up (if applicable, depending on closing relationships) then a good lawyer could make the case that the Marines used deadly force in preference to burning more fuel. Although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Marines were simply stuck out on deck without a good means of communicating with the crew.

What makes Italians want to fire at an Indian boat? Do they smuggle people into Italy or something?

Thought that they were pirates. Marines were working as private security on a tanker; the Indian boat was approaching that tanker, the Marines fired warning shots and then fired at the fishing boat. Sounds like these Marines were poorly trained in what to expect and mistook a fishing boat's commonplace actions as a assault. I suspect as well that the Italians were not clear on their rights and obligations; generally speaking, a civilian ship is not allowed to open fire merely on the basis of behavior it considers aggressive or suspicious. In addition, as Pulsar pointed out a fishing boat (especially a poorly maintained one) may well be too noisy for the fishermen to hear warning shots and they would naturally be concentrating on the tanker and its wake, not looking up at the deck just in case anyone was shooting at them; given those reasonable assumptions, the warning shots were likely not enough to prove a reasonable attempt to avoid. Given the very strong pro-Indian bias in Indian courts, these Marines would no doubt have been convicted in an Indian court of murder, but they might well be convicted in other courts as well.

With the rise of piracy, this matter is very much at the forefront of maritime thought, especially so since the Master may well be held civilly or even criminally liable for security personal hired by the ship's owners. A ship or boat on an apparent interception course may well be moving in a straight line which happens to bisect your path, or trying to capitalize on your wake, or trying to sell you something (probably not an issue on tankers LOL but a big issue on smaller private yachts.) Guess wrong and you've either murdered some innocent, or are dead or kidnapped. Goes to show that if you're security on a ship or an armed crewman or owner. you need thorough training before you fire on anyone who is not actually boarding your craft.

With regards to India not allowing the Italian ambassador to leave the country, I do not believe there is any such right, but anyone is free to search the UN treaty that applies. Unlike maritime self defense law the treaty is pretty clear, so arm chair lawyers can dig right in. http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf
As quoted in this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-21787357,

The Vienna text states that diplomats "shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention".

Complicating this matter is that one of the leaders of India's ruling party is of mixed Italian and Indian ancestry and is currently attempting to gain a free trade agreement with the EU, so as a matter of internal politics some Indians are using this to attack the ruling party and kill the free trade agreement. And let's be honest, that's probably dead by now; too much ammunition for dissenters on both sides. Italy can't be trusted! India can't be trusted! This domestic political subtext guarantees that while the Marines have apparently bought themselves out of hot water, the issue itself probably has legs.

 

[cirrrocco]

What makes Italians want to fire at an Indian boat? Do they smuggle people into Italy or something?

This was near the indian coast well within the indian EEZ. To suspect foul play by the marines, the VDR [black box of the ship] has been conveniently tampered with

http://www.reidbsprague.net/1/post/2012/03/enrica-lexie-vdr-data-missing.html

 

[Rifter]

I dont see the issue.

Marines doing job, indians ignore warning shots and still close on tanker. Indians get shot for not following law(large boats have right away) and ignoring warning shots.

Granted italy could have handled this better but i really dont see what the big deal is.

If you dont want to die it might be a good idea to pay attention to the people firing warning shots at you as you approach their tanker.

 

[werepossum]

I dont see the issue.

Marines doing job, indians ignore warning shots and still close on tanker. Indians get shot for not following law(large boats have right away) and ignoring warning shots.

Granted italy could have handled this better but i really dont see what the big deal is.

If you dont want to die it might be a good idea to pay attention to the people firing warning shots at you as you approach their tanker.

GroundedSailor made a pretty good argument that the tanker did not necessarily have the right-of-way. I'm not sure he is correct, but in his experience tankers have routinely taken evasive action to avoid fishing boats. I find it ludicrous that a fishing boat would expect a tanker to alter course to avoid them (unless they are actually fishing at that moment, in which case their maneuverability is less than the tanker's and they thus have the right-of-way) but it may be that this is common practice and thus the fishermen would have expected that. It's also possible that this is common practice in this area but not where the Italians normally sail.

Regardless, a civilian vessel does not have the right to shoot anyone who refuses to keep what they think is the proper distance. Sucks in this day of piracy and suicide bombers, but then getting shot is no picnic either. Either way, unless one is a lawyer schooled in maritime law and has all the facts, I don't think we can say with any certainty which side was wrong. Given that, a case with people shot dead is a big deal.

 

[cirrrocco]

I dont see the issue.

Marines doing job, indians ignore warning shots and still close on tanker. Indians get shot for not following law(large boats have right away) and ignoring warning shots.

Granted italy could have handled this better but i really dont see what the big deal is.

If you dont want to die it might be a good idea to pay attention to the people firing warning shots at you as you approach their tanker.

so if cuba shoots up a couple of US fishing boats in US EEZ, it is ok then. No big deal right?

 

[Rifter]

so if cuba shoots up a couple of US fishing boats in US EEZ, it is ok then. No big deal right?

If they ignored warning shots and radio brodcasts and still kept closing then yes.

 

[Dari]

Italy capitulates. It's sending the men back to India out of fear of setting a precedent

Two Italian marines accused of murdering two Indian fishermen, in a case that has sparked a diplomatic row, are to be sent back to Delhi for trial.

The Indian government had allowed them to return to Italy to vote in last month's election.

But when they failed to return, India's Supreme Court ruled Italy's ambassador was barred from leaving the country.

The Italian government said it had received assurances about the men's treatment and their human rights.

The marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone, are accused of shooting the fishermen off the Kerala coast in February 2012. The marines had been guarding an Italian oil tanker and said they mistook the fishermen for pirates.

The marines, who had been out on bail awaiting trial, were allowed to fly back to Italy for the February 2013 general election on condition that they returned to stand trial by 22 March.

Italian ambassador Daniele Mancini gave his personal assurance that they would return within four weeks.

But then Rome decided that they would not fly back to Delhi, arguing that India was violating international law by putting them on trial, as the shooting had taken place in international waters.

Rome proposed putting them on trial in Italy.

The day before the men's licence was due to expire, the office of Prime Minister Mario Monti issued a statement saying that the marines had agreed to return, during a meeting with Mr Monti and other ministers.

'Responsibility'
The BBC's Bethany Bell in Rome said the decision was a turnaround by the Italian government.

It had received "ample assurances" from Delhi, the statement from Mr Monti's office said.

"The marines agreed to this decision," the statement said, adding that it was also in the men's interest.

President Giorgio Napolitano said he appreciated their "sense of responsibility" and said Italy would remain by their side.

The Italian foreign ministry's decision 10 days ago not to return the two men had prompted a bitter diplomatic row, with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warning of "consequences" if it was not reversed.

Then the Delhi Supreme Court ordered Rome's envoy not to leave the country and airports across India were put on alert to stop him flying out.

Italy said restricting its ambassador's movements violated diplomatic conventions.

 

[Farang]

I think it's unfortunate the marines will not get a fair trial in India, but it beats them not facing any justice in Italy. From the informative posts here (really interesting stuff, thanks guy) it seems to me they were not within their rights to kill the fisherman. I could only speculate the marines were not well versed in maritime procedures or were bloodthirsty.

 

[Jaskalas]

If they ignored warning shots and radio brodcasts and still kept closing then yes.

The fishing boat might not turn on a dime or move very fast.

"and still kept closing" is a dubious claim. The tanker can approach an object holding still, and from their perspective the victim "closed" on them when in reality they didn't give them time to move.