whose belligerent character has been recognised; unless indeed
the acta committed are beyond the scope of the authority in
question.
(3) Doubts have been expressed whether piracy can be committed
in regard to a given vessel by persons forming part of her
crew or passengers or whether the offence is not confined to
aots committed by one vessel against another (29). In the
opinion of the writer, however, it is perfectly legitimate
and indeed desirable to regard piracy jure gentium as not being
limited to the latter class of acts, and that any legislation
could properly cover acts of a piractical nature committed on a
vessel from within her. In any case such nots if accompanied
by robbery are already piracy jure gentium in ⠀nglish la”
(800 R v. Dawson and A.G. v. Kwoka Sing and footnote 13
above (30).
(4) Finally, it seems to fellow from all that has been
said that persons merely cruising the seas as "pirates"
and with the intention of committing piracies ought not to be
treated as pirates unless and until they have actually
committed.
82
29. See for instance Fauchille loc cit. pp. 74-5, and
author ties there cited.
ed
30. The position seeme adequately safeguard by the re-
quirement that there Should be both (a) an intention to proceed against the vessel (b) with the object of gain. Thus if a orea seizes the ship for political reasons or merely on account of the harshness of the captain it is not piracy neocrding to the view suggested in this memorandum. It is the existence of such oases which seems to have crused the doubts referred to. The aggament that the seizure of a ship by its own crew is best left to be dealt with by the country to which the ship belonge secme irrelevent. All acts of piracy jure gentium could be left to be so deal with. since all are committed on or produce their effects in some ship. But in both cleme of caces the offenders are unlikely to place themselves within reach of the courts of the country to which the ship belongs.