Talk:Aquarius Dignitus

Requirements of the "Law" in 9/2018

An IP user put the statement in the article, that the Aquarius crew refused an order from a Libyan coast guard ship to transfer migrants since that would have contradicted principles of international law, notably the one saying that people rescued at sea should be disembarked in a place of safety. That statement was sourced with refworld.org citing a UNHCR- position-paper. That left the reader with the impression, that the private NGO was acting according to binding laws, which it didnt do. The "place of safety" is in these cases not chosen by the Master of the vessel, but by the country responsible for the SAR-zone. Human Rights Watch has collected information on the matter, including the acknowledgement of IMO [1] for the Libyan SAR-zone. The NGO HRW picks examples to show that the Libyans are not very good at searescue, and HRW closes its document by pointing to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which may, or may not, make the EU responsible for what the Libyans are doing, but there is, at this point, still no binding law which requires NGOs to take people from Libyan SAR-waters to Europe. Alexpl (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alexpl - tricky stuff. As per UNCLOS, the nation responsible for the upkeep of safety and security in its waters also takes the responsibility for SAR in those waters. This limit (of distance from the coastline) is different for each country, as the coastal waters, contiguous zone and EEZ are different for each nation, decided by that nation and negotiated with others in the vicinity. Thus while India carries out SAR in waters upto 270 miles from its coastline, great Britain does it only for 24 miles. Libya - unsure as it is currently a puppet state, but the UNCLOS website has this official distance. This is then done in collaboration with navy and SAR ships and merchant ships sailing in that region, irrespective of flag (under SOLAS regs). The ship Master never decide this - it is the coastal state that takes on the role of the OSC (on scene commander) as per the International SAR convention and decides this. Thus Aquarius does nto get to decide this - it remains the OSC only till a SAR vessel (in this case belonging to Libya) take over the role of the OSC.

Thanks Notthebestusername, but we cant solve that here. The groups will just keep insisting that Libya, at any given time, isn’t a "safe place", based, not only on the civil war, but on the impossibility to get access to fair asylum-procedures in Libya. Of course those procedures also aren’t available in any other med. costal nation but in those who are E.U.-Members, so this can never be concluded. Maybe the Global Compact for Migration (24/a) will help, but i doubt it. Alexpl (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alexpl, Exactly. Wikipedia is a website where information is given, just as the Encyclopedia books published by Brittanica did a few decades back. Where there are different perspectives, it gives all of them as facts. It is not a place for activism or for people to proclaim their ideas of what is wrong with laws and conventions. . There are blogs and opinion pieces in news papers for that, and in developed countries like those of EU, there are politicians to whom its citizens are supposed to speak so that they in turn speak at UN level and address the need to change / amend international regulations. until then, everyone follows the law, and if people don't (as in this case), they have full right to do so - only Wikipedia is not the place for them to vent / change the narrative. I just found it strange that an existing page on MV Aquarius (which I had added some sections to) suddenly changed into a page on a hypothetical ship called "MV Aquarius 2" with far feewer facts and more of activist dialogue. Notthebestusername (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did the ships name change to Aquarius 2?

When did this ships name change from Aquarius to Aquarius 2? Its official blog shows its name as Aquarius. So do all photos of its tern and sides of the bridge. DW, Guardian, all report its name as Aquarius. Is there any reliable citation where this name change is given?

Guardian (2 Nov 2018) - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/nov/02/race-against-time-flag-revoked-for-aquarius-migrant-rescue-ship
DW - https://www.dw.com/en/aquarius-migrant-rescue-ship-returns-to-libyan-coast/a-44904769
BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45622431
Oficial blog of the ship - https://sosmediterranee.com/our-mission/bord-diary/

Notthebestusername (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

resolved - found that as per Equasis and IHS Maritime, the ship changed to a dual flag (Germany and Gibraltar) and changed its name to Aquarius 2 from 1 September 2018. Added information with citation on the main wiki. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]