Home Blog Page 2

Ninjas on the Open Water: Understanding Pirates in Boruto – Next Generations

0
Funato Clan Flag

Introduction

In Boruto: Next Generations, the most recent concluded story arc sees Boruto Uzamaki traveling to and then dealing with the Land of Water’s largest threat to its sovereignty in recent years: the Funato Clan.

The Funato Clan is a small, but mighty clan that exists within the Land of Water’s territory. In the Land of Water, the Funato clan is treated as a pariah because the clan terrorizes the Land of Water on the open sea. It also has a reputation, that is substantiated, for having its members killed early on in their clan membership if they are perceived as possessing some form of “weakness.” This has led the Land of Water to have captured the Funato Clan’s leader to try and prevent larger conflict. This backfired.

Within Boruto’s time in the Land of Water we see the Funato Clan break out their imprisoned leader, see the Funato Clan recompose their forces and then assault the Land of Water. This leads us to ask a few questions. Is the Funato Clan a group of ninjas that are engaged in piracy? If so, does piracy fall under international law and how should the Land of Water approach their actions? Does the actions taken by Funato extend past simple piracy and escalate into a form of armed conflict? If so, what kind of conflict has formed and what are the constraints? This article will answer this question set.

Piracy

The Jolly Roger – the most famous pirate flag

We know from the show that the Funato Clan terrorizes their fellow citizens on the open water and has generated substantial fear amongst the citizens of the Land of Water. Before we can apply the label of “pirates” to the Funato Clan, we have to see if their actions check off a few boxes. These boxes are provided in Article 101 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The boxes are as follows:

  1. Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

a. on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

b. against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

  1. Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; and,
  2. Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

I will say that the idea of “private ends” within this UNCLOS definition of piracy is at best murky under international law and there is hot debate about if this should be read broadly or very narrow. This article will take the broader path and go with the idea that it represents private interests which can at times include political actions akin to insurgency.

The Funato Clan meets the piracy requirements laid out in Article 101 pretty easily. First, the Funato Clan regularly has its ships attack Land of Water’s ships, private trading companies’ ships, and has attacked Land of Water’s air vessels. These attacks are for the private gain of the Funato Clan as they seek to harm the Land of Water’s economy and to capture ships containing stored goods. Further, these attacks occur on the high seas outside of the jurisdiction of the Land of Water. Lastly, the Funato Clan members were aware of their actions and voluntarily participated in the actions. They are pirates. But, have they become something more?

Evolution of Status

In Boruto we see the Funato Clan evolve from pirates to something even more dangerous – a non-state terrorist organization. How does this happen?

The Funato Clan initially kept its attacks to ships and planes on the high seas with the mission to collect goods to re-establish its organization and maintain its “fearsome” reputation within the Land of Water. However, this shifted when it began to target the Land of Water’s political leadership, other nation’s military members, and attacked small villages within the Land of Water. Further, the Funato Clan seeks to advance political messages via fear and wants to topple the Land of Water’s government by eliminating the Mizukage (equivalent to a Head of State). Lastly, the Funato Clan holds an island that belongs to the Land of Water and uses that as a base of operations. With the Funato Clan now being a non-state terrorist organization, and recognizing that they have taken direct action against the Land of Water, we have to ask…have they created a form of armed conflict under international law?

The Land of Water’s Naval Fleet

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), there are two forms of armed conflict – international armed conflict (IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC). International armed conflict is where we have two sovereign states fight against each other (imagine Russia fighting Ukraine). NIAC is where a sovereign state fights a non-state actor (imagine the U.S. fighting the Taliban). But, at what level do we consider that a conflict is actually occurring? There is no bright line test that we can use to determine this threshold. Instead, practitioners look at the collection of facts to see if the state government due to the level of intensity has to use its armed forces to combat the non-state terrorist organization. Some of the factors practitioners consider are: number, duration, intensity of armed encounters, number of casualties, the kinds of weapons used in the fights, the types of units used in the fights, etc. Here, the Funato Clan has deployed multiple units against the Land of Water’s Mizukage, its private sector, and against multiple civilian villages.

The Funato Clan has used land forces, special forces (the unit used to break the Funato Clan leader out of his cell in prison), and armed naval vessels. The Funato Clan has killed many civilians and military individuals. Safe to say, that an armed conflict is occurring, specifically, a NIAC as the Funato Clan is a non-state terrorist organization fighting a sovereign state – the Land of Water.

When it comes to armed conflicts under IHL, the four Geneva Conventions and the two accompanying additional protocols come into play. However, NIACs do not get the same level of treatment as IACs and a much smaller portion of the Geneva Conventions apply…namely additional protocol two (APII). Here, APII sets the parameters on how the Land of Water can deal with the Funato Clan in terms of protections, targeting, etc. One of the central concerns is what classification would fall upon the Funato Clan during the NIAC because different classifications either provide certain protections and some negate most protections. The classification of members of non-state actors flips between combatants (they get all protections) and unprivileged belligerents (who get the bare minimum of protections) and the debate continues to rage. To be classified as a combatant there are four elements that the members have to meet: they need to carry arms openly, adhere to a chain of command, wear a symbol openly, and follow IHL rules. I would argue that the Funato Clan does not meet this threshold: namely, they fail the final prong as they have openly attacked civilians which is a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Therefore, they are unprivileged belligerents who get minimal protections. The Land of Water must therefore hold the Funato Clan accountable for its violations of IHL. But how?

Accountability Measures

The Land of Water has two vehicles where they can hold the Funato Clan accountable: UNCLOS and the Geneva Conventions. First, universal jurisdiction under UNCLOS gives us the means to hold the Funato Clan accountable for their actions as pirates. Universal jurisdiction is the idea that any state can hold the organization, individual accountable because the action(s) committed violate a jus cogens norm, a norm that all states agree should not happen – here, piracy.

The Geneva Conventions allow us to hold them accountable as a non-state terrorist organization. Here, the Land of Water can directly hold them accountable in their national courts because the Funato Clan violated the Geneva Conventions when it attacked and killed civilians, when they attacked government facilities and leaders. The Funato Clan members as unprivileged belligerents in a NIAC do not get absolved for their actions and can and should be held liable to the fullest extent of the Land of Water’s justice system.

In re: Ezra Bridger’s Lightsaber

0
“True, he constructed it, and by all accounts, it served him well. Then he passed it on to you. You have since made your own modifications. So it is now your lightsaber.” – Huyang

In the final episode of Star Wars: Rebels, Ezra handed his lightsaber to Chopper before sneaking off to surrender to Thrawn. Chopper gave it to Sabine, and she used it to help the rebels escape the Imperial Command Center.

By the beginning of Ahsoka, Sabine had modified Ezra’s lightsaber. In Episode 2 of Ahsoka, Huyang remarks that, after her modifications, the lightsaber is now Sabine’s. While I certainly share Huyang’s enthusiasm for lightsabers, I would respectfully disagree with Huyang’s take on property law.

A photograph of Sabine's lightsaber from Ahsoka, displayed in a museum-like glass case
Exhibit A: The lightsaber in question (Lucasfilm booth, SDCC July 2023)

Gift

If Ezra had gifted the lightsaber to Sabine, then she would be entitled to do as she pleased with it, including modifying it to her heart’s content. Gifting an item of personal property transfers title to the property from the giver to the recipient, who thereafter owns the property outright. See Cal. Civil Code § 1146.

As an aside, the circumstances of Ezra’s relinquishment of his lightsaber raise an interesting question about the nature of the gift. On one hand, if Ezra meant merely to gift the lightsaber as a sign of affection, the gift would be inter vivos, an ordinary gift between living parties. On the other hand, if Ezra expected that his gambit with Thrawn’s ship and the purrgil would cause his death, the gift would be a gift causa mortis, which is sort of a quasi-testamentary gift given under an apprehension of imminent death.

Either way, a legal gift requires intent, delivery, and acceptance, and the circumstances in the Rebels finale raise questions regarding at least intent and delivery. Burkle v. Burkle, 141 Cal. App. 4th 1029 (2006). First, it seems unlikely that Ezra intended to gift the lightsaber to Chopper, to whom he delivered the item. One shudders to contemplate the havoc that Chopper could inflict with such a weapon, but more than that, astromechs like Chopper are more frequently mere custodians (see, e.g., Return of the Jedi). If anyone, it’s more likely Ezra intended it to be a gift for Sabine, who had already demonstrated her aptitude with the Darksaber and with whom Ezra shares a close, affectionate relationship. But in that case, it’s curious that he did not give it to her directly even though he had the opportunity when silently communicating with her in the Rebels finale his intent to sneak off and surrender. So even if Sabine could establish intent, notwithstanding Huyang’s comment that Ezra “passed it on to you,” the lightsaber was probably not a legal gift as Ezra arguably did not actually or symbolically deliver it to Sabine’s possession. See Cal. Civil Code § 1147 (for unwritten gifts, requiring actual or symbolic delivery of object to recipient).

In any event, Sabine herself does not seem to interpret the transfer as a gift, as she still refers to it as “Ezra’s lightsaber” in Ahsoka. Under these circumstances, Sabine would have no right to alter Ezra’s personal property, and the modifications certainly would not result in transferring title to her.

Gratuitous Deposit

Alternatively, personal property left in the physical custody of another raises the issue of bailment, where the owner transfers possession but not title to a bailee. The lightsaber’s bailment here would be best described as a situation where the bailee, Sabine, receives the benefit of possession, and the owner, Ezra, receives no reciprocal benefit, such as a rental fee. California regards this kind of bailment as a “gratuitous deposit” under Civil Code section 1844. California law requires a bailee of this kind of deposit to “use, at least, slight care for the preservation of the thing deposited.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1846(a).

Framing Sabine’s possession of the lightsaber as a gratuitous deposit would be better for her in terms of avoiding trouble for its modifications. She could argue that adding embellishment to the nozzle and polishing up the hilt did not impair the lightsaber’s function or value. She could argue that the modifications added value given her reputation and skill as an artist and reflected “at least, slight care” for the lightsaber’s preservation while in her custody.

However, as with all deposited property, California law would require Sabine to return the lightsaber to the owner when demanded. So assuming that her and Ahsoka’s quest is successful, what happens if Ezra is unhappy with the modifications to his lightsaber while it was in Sabine’s care?

This triggers a concept called accession, which is the addition of value to bailed property by the expenditure of labor or the addition of new materials. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1025 et seq. Since Ezra owns the principal lightsaber, Ezra would be entitled to entirely reclaim the newly embellished lightsaber, although he may be obligated to reimburse Sabine for her effort and materials. Id. § 1025. Alternatively, he could demand that the new ornamentation be removed and his property restored to its original condition. Id. § 1026.

However, given that Sabine’s modifications likely do not exceed the value of the overall lightsaber, the modifications would not result in transferring ownership to her, despite Huyang’s evaluation.

What will Ezra think of Sabine’s additions to his lightsaber? Will he ultimately gift it to her in a way that results in an effective transfer of title? It looks like Sabine, Huyang, and Ahsoka will have to travel to a galaxy even farther, farther away to answer these and many other questions.

This post was composed during the 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. We acknowledge that this show would not exist without the labor of currently striking artists and are grateful for their hard work.

San Diego Comic Con 2023 Panels for The Legal Geeks

0

We are returning to San Diego Comic Con! You can see us Thursday and Saturday at 700 pm each night! Below is our panel schedule.

Thursday 

@thelegalgeeks

See you at San Diego Comic Con for Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Lawsuit!

♬ original sound – TheLegalGeeks

7:00PM – 8:00PM Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Lawsuit You throw me the idol, I throw you the whip, is the beginning of legal analysis for Dr. Indiana Jones. Did Indy and Marion Ravenwood have a valid partnership agreement to find the Ark of the Covenant? Did Satipo breach his fiduciary duty to Indiana at the Temple of the Chachapoyan Warriors? Does the insanity defense apply to anyone who drank the Blood of Kali? Did Germany actually declare war on Dr. Jones Senior and Junior? And if the US Government classifies the Ark of the Covenant as Top Secret, what is necessary to declassify it for a FOIA request? This is the time when a fedora is proper courtroom attire, so join our team of lawyers and judges for fortune and glory, featuring Circuit Judge John B. Owens (9th Circuit Court of Appeals), US Magistrate Judge Steve Chu, Christine Peek, Mark Zaid, Michael Dennis, and Joshua Gilliland. Presented by The Legal Geeks. Room: Grand 12, Marriott Marquis San Diego Marina

Saturday

@thelegalgeeks

At San Diego Comic Con, on Saturday, 7:00PM – 8:00PM, Lawyermania – Guardians of the Law – It’s time to shrink down complex legal issues from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 and Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantiumania with lawyers and judges! What was the legal justification for the Council of Kangs to sentence Kang the Conqueror to the Quantum Realm? Did Kang and Janet Van Dyne have an enforceable contract to repair Kang’s ship? Was there a deed of title for the sale of Knowhere? Is building a city in the corpse of a Celestial desecration of a corpse? Join our team of legal heroes for their analysis of the latest films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, featuring Judge Carol Najera, Crystal Swanson, Stephen Tollafield, Kathy Steinman, Nari Ely, and Joshua Gilliland.  Presented by The Legal Geeks. Room: 25ABC. #sandiegocomiccon #sdcc

♬ original sound – TheLegalGeeks

7:00PM – 8:00PM, Lawyermania – Guardians of the Law – It’s time to shrink down complex legal issues from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 and Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantiumania with lawyers and judges! What was the legal justification for the Council of Kangs to sentence Kang the Conqueror to the Quantum Realm? Did Kang and Janet Van Dyne have an enforceable contract to repair Kang’s ship? Was there a deed of title for the sale of Knowhere? Is building a city in the corpse of a Celestial desecration of a corpse? Join our team of legal heroes for their analysis of the latest films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, featuring Judge Carol Najera, Crystal Swanson, Stephen Tollafield, Kathy Steinman, Nari Ely, and Joshua Gilliland.  Presented by The Legal Geeks. Room: 25ABC

A tortured trope in Star Trek – Strange New Worlds, “The Broken Circle”

0

(Spoilers ahead for SNW S2E1, “The Broken Circle”)

I mean we’ve all been there. You’re just about to take some time off work when you get a last-minute email from a coworker who asks you to steal the company car, help them infiltrate a shady criminal gang, and prevent an intra-galactic war.  You know, a typical Friday afternoon.

Wait, we’re missing happy hour for this?

However, among the many highly relatable scenes in S2E1 of Strange New Worlds, one sequence was conspicuously out of place, both in the Star Trek universe and in the real world.

On the ore-rich planet of Cajitar IV, Dr M’Benga and Nurse Chapel are helping to care for several civilians who were poisoned during a mishap which likely had something to do with the activities of an unscrupulous mining syndicate. They’re then kidnapped by some Klingon members of the syndicate and brought to the group’s hideout deep within the mine. After jumping to conclusions carefully considering their options, M’Benga and Chapel agree that the only way they can escape and uncover the syndicate’s dastardly plans is to shoot up some super-soldier serum and absolutely wreck anyone who gets in their way. 

First, do no harm…

During a brief pause in a well choreographed hallway fight, Beast-Mode-M’Benga finds a Klingon underling and proceeds to beat the ever-living daylights out of him in order to find out what his friends are up to. At some point during the interrogation, the surprised underling says “I know about your Federation rules against torture” and expects the beating to stop. M’Benga continues and the underling soon relents, conveniently giving the good doctor all the information he requested in a timely fashion. Chapel makes a few attempts to rein M’Benga in, but is otherwise a willing accomplice.  

While it is debatable whether a Klingon would even be susceptible to torture (they might actually enjoy it – after all this is the culture that invented the Rite of Ascension), it nevertheless should be clear that torture is unethical and illegal, no matter the circumstance. 

But you didn’t visit this blog for the TL;DR, so let’s break down how this situation relates to the law in real life!

The legal framework applicable to this situation depends on whether a situation of armed conflict existed at the time of the offence and whether M’Benga and Chapel were acting in an official capacity. If they were acting under orders during an armed conflict, then their actions would violate International Humanitarian Law and could amount to a war crime under the grave breaches regimes of the Geneva Conventions – or under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), if the ICC has jurisdiction. 

But in this case, a situation of armed conflict does not (yet) exist. In peacetime, the prohibition of torture is covered by (among other treaties) the UN Convention Against Torture, under which States must put into place measures to ensure their officials do not commit torture.  Under this treaty, “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture” (Article 2(2)). 

One potential complication with applying anti-torture laws to this case is that it is debatable whether M’Benga and Chapel were actually acting as agents of Starfleet at the time M’Benga tortured the underling. Those who have seen the episode will recall that the crew stole the Enterprise from space-dock and did not have orders to be on their mission. Therefore, one could credibly argue that the duo were working completely outside of their official capacity at the time the incident occurred. That said, Starfleet did not pursue the Enterprise after it was stolen and Admiral April took no action against the crew upon their return for going rogue – he even seemed to allow Spock to negotiate a treaty with the Klingons on the Federation’s behalf while drunk! All this suggests that while the crew were acting outside their official capacity, they did so with the tacit approval of Starfleet and the Federation.  

Spock, you rebel!

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that M’Benga and Chapel were not undertaking any official Starfleet business (with either the actual or tacit approval of their chain of command), but instead were acting completely in their personal capacity. In real life, this would be akin to military personnel committing a crime while on leave or while AWOL (absent without leave). In many countries, the military justice system can prosecute service personnel even when they commit crimes in a personal capacity and even when they do so abroad. Assault and battery are crimes under military law just as they are under civilian law and if M’Benga and Chapel were members of the UK Armed Forces, there would be some further military-specific offences under the UK’s Armed Forces Act 2006 which could be relevant, including:

  • Unfitness or misconduct through alcohol or drugs (i.e. for taking the super-soldier serum) 
  • Fighting or threatening behaviour
  • Disgraceful conduct of a cruel or indecent kind 

So, even if they were not charged with torture, per se, military law could still come down hard on M’Benga and Chapel for their actions. In addition, they could face serious professional consequences for violating medical ethics. In many countries, medical professionals must be registered or licensed in order to practice medicine and when doctors or nurses do not meet the high ethical standards demanded of their profession, national regulatory bodies can suspend their registration/licence – or even bar them from practicing ever again.   

Aside from being illegal and unethical, torture has been shown not to be effective and it can even cause psychological harm to the torturer. But despite all of the harmful effects of torture (to both the tortured and the torturer), depictions abound in popular culture where the hero is successfully able to get credible information from a bona fide Bad Dude after a few well-placed punches. This is a shame because such casual (and inaccurate) depictions of torture can erode popular support for its prohibition in all circumstances. Indeed, a fairly recent International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) report found that among millennials, “41 per cent believe that torture is acceptable under some circumstances [and e]ven after having the UN Convention against Torture explained to them, 37 per cent still believe torture is acceptable under some circumstances.”

While this episode of Strange New Worlds may have missed the mark, Star Trek generally has a good track record of approaching the subject of torture in a well-considered way. Many fans will recall the deeply moving two-episode arc of Next Gen entitled “Chain of Command” (TNG S6E11 & S6E12), where Captain Picard is tortured to the point that he is about ready to accept any version of reality his torturer puts in front of him. Indeed, if you haven’t come across Sebastian De Tomas’ post over at startrek.com on how these episodes resonated with what he knew of people who suffered under military rule in Argentina, it is well worth a read. 

Hopefully this season of Strange New Worlds will revisit what M’Benga and Chapel did on Cajitar IV – and perhaps they will indeed experience some negative consequences in future episodes for torturing the Klingon underling, regardless of how well things worked out at the end of this episode. However, considering Spock’s hangover was his only punishment for stealing Starfleet’s flagship, I fear neither of them will be facing a general court-martial anytime soon!

Sorry Q, another time perhaps?

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily represent the British Red Cross or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Secret Invasion Podcast Series

0

Join us for our analysis of Secret Invasion.


The Mandalorian Season 3 Podcasts and Video Review

0

Join us for our analysis of The Mandalorian, season three.

Star Trek Picard Season 3 Podcasts

0

Join us for our legal analysis of Star Trek Picard season 3.