Is something located outside of territorial waters protected by an international law?
<p>When reading about the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Rose_Island" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Republic of Rose Island</a> (a micronation implanted in 1968, 500m outside Italian territorial waters), I learned that it was attacked, then destroyed by the Italian police forces.</p>
<p><strong>Isn't this an act of piracy?</strong></p>
<p>I was expecting that entities that are on international waters are protected by some international law, and that it is not expected that a country would freely attack them.</p>
<p>Or is it just that Italy could not care less about possible retorsions?</p>
<p><sub><em>This question is at the edge of SE Law and SE Politics but I am interested in the legal aspects of such coercive actions, more that the political ones.</em></sub></p>

<p>Whatever else it may be, it isn't piracy.  Piracy is covered by the <a href="https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Part VII</a>, and Article 101 defines it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Piracy consists of any of the following acts:</p>
<p>(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of
depredation, <strong>committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers
of a private ship or a private aircraft</strong>, and directed:</p>
<p>(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against
persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;</p>
<p>(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside
the jurisdiction of any State;</p>
<p>(b) 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;</p>
<p>(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act
described in subparagraph (a) or (b).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note the clause I've bolded.  The raid on Rose Island was carried out by Italian government forces, not by &quot;the crew or the passengers
of a private ship or a private aircraft&quot;, and for purposes of enforcing government policy, not &quot;for private ends&quot;.</p>

<p>I cannot find the Italian Criminal Code from 1968 to see whether they had, or had not, <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction" rel="nofollow noreferrer">extraterritorial jurisdiction</a> for the alleged offence of avoiding national taxation, but I have found <a href="https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-practitioners-guide-global-investigations/2021/article/italy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this more modern reference</a> that suggests they might have it nowadays if the conditions are right:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Italy does not have general extraterritorial jurisdiction, although there are specific cases in which it will exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction (e.g., bribery involving Italian public officials and market abuse on financial instruments admitted on an Italian regulated market, even if the offences are committed abroad). Moreover, extraterritorial jurisdiction could be raised – under certain conditions – <strong>by dint of the Italian nationality of the perpetrator</strong> or the victim, <strong>or even when a crime against the Italian state is committed.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
<p>Is something located outside of territorial waters protected by an
international law?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>International law is relevant only to the extent that particular national governments with the practical ability to implement their will take action to enforce it. Might makes right, and international law in the absence of might is just a basis upon which to criticize a country diplomatically, something that many countries don't care about.</p>
<p>There are &quot;law of the sea&quot; treaties which cover various topics (like who has right of way when ships interact and pollution in the form of dumping things into the ocean). But, it is hardly comprehensive and large parts of international law are not really analogous to domestic law and case law.</p>

<p>It was not piracy, but Italy did technically start a war that was illegal under international law. Also, the destruction the Italian military did to the island counts as a war crime, according to the United Nations.</p>

international law-of-the-sea