What is the VFA?

US vehicles need not be registered in the PH

-It is a bilateral visiting forces agreement between the Philippines and

the United States which came into force on May 27, 1999. This
agreement sets the parameters regarding visitation of US armed
Forces and the treatment of US personel during these visitation
periods.

Article V - Criminal Jurisdiction

The Agreement Contains 9 articles along with its preamble .

The VFA breakdown:
Article I -Definitions
Military Personnel memebers of the US Army, Navy, Marie Corps,
Airforce and Coast Guard
Civillian Personel- individuals who are neither nationals of nor
ordinarily resident in the Philippines and who are employed by the
United States armed forces or who are accompanying the United
States armed forces, such as employees of the American Red Cross
and the United Services Organization.

Article II Respect for PH Law

Respect for Philippine Law.

The article defines the jurisdictions of the parties when it comes to

Criminal Justice.
1. Section 1 defines that the PH will have jurisdiction over US
personnel with respect to offenses which are comitted in the
PH which is againsts PH law;
The PH generally has primary right of Jurisdiction
2. It also gives the US the right to exercise criminal and
diciplinary jurisdiction comitted by US personnel in the PH.
The same goes for offenses relating to PH security. (treason,
Espionage, Sabotage or violations of laws relating to national
defense)
The Agreement contains various procedural safeguards which
amongst other things establish the right to due process and proscribe
double jeopardy.
*(double jeopardy does not apply for rulings in the Philippines vs the
US. Only US rulings vs PH)
CUSTODY:

Article III- Entry and departure

Entry and Departure-the agreement dictates that the Philippines will
facilitate in the departure and entry(expidited) of US personnel and
that no visa or passport restrictions be implemented against them.

The custody of any United States personnel over whom the

Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with
United States military authorities, if they so request, from the
commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings.
The Agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being tried
in Filipino religious or military courts.

Article IV - Transport
US issued official Drivers Licenses will be valid.

Article VI -Claims

Requires both governments to waive any claims concerning loss of

materials (though it does require that the U.S. honor contractual
arrangements and comply with U.S. law regarding payment of just
and reasonable compensation in settlement of meritorious claims for
damage, loss, personal injury or death, caused by acts or omissions
of United States personnel)

operate facilities on Philippine bases, for both American and

Philippine forces.

Article VII Import & Export

What is MDT?

US equipment, Materials, Supplies and other imported property are

exempted from duties or taxes

The Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the

Philippines and the United States of America was signed on
August 30, 1951 in Washington, D.C. between representatives of
the Philippines and the United States.

Article VIII Movement of Vessels and Aircraft

Upon approval of the PH government US Vessels and Aircraft are
given entry into PH territory .
No docking and landing fees shall be due.

-The EDCA is an agreement between the Philippines and the United

States which is envisioned to advance the implementation of the
Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT).

The overall accord contained eight articles and dictated that both
nations would support each other if either the Philippines or the
United States were to be attacked by an external party.
Is EDCA Constitutional?

VFA in relation to EDCA:

The VFA lays out the terms and conditions on the entry and visit of US
military personnel for military exercises. These provisions shall
likewise apply to the entry and temporary stay of US personnel under
EDCA.
Why do we need still need EDCA?
In advancing the benefits that could be derived from our defense
alliance with the United States, we needed to articulate the
parameters, modalities and mechanisms to a greater degree.
What is EDCA(Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement)?
- It is a 2014 agreement between the United States and
the Philippines that seeks to bolster the U.S.Philippine alliance. The
agreement allows the United States to rotate troops into the
Philippines for extended stays and allows the U.S. to build and

Yes.
On January 12, the Supreme Court voted 10-4-1 to declare
constitutional the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA), the military deal signed by the Philippines and the United
States in 2014.
The SC agreed with Malacaang in its position that EDCA is an
executive agreement and does not need the Senate's concurrence
So Is it a Treaty or an Executive agreement?
In declaring the EDCA constitutional, the SC noted the President's
power to enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities if it aims to implement an existing law or treaty, and
if it is not the very instrument that allows the presence and entry of
these foreign troops.
The high court pointed out that the law requires Senate concurrence
to a treaty and that an agreement can only be considered a treaty

when it serves as an instrument that allows the presence of foreign

military bases, troops or facilities.

1. Construction of facilities and infrastructure upgrades; and

2. Storage and prepositioning of defense and HADR equipment,
supplies and material.

The SC emphasized EDCA is not the instrument that allows US

troops or facilities to enter as the VFA already has done that, VFA
vailidity cited

Where will these structures be constructed? Does this mean that US

bases will be back in the PH?

The EDCA provides for arrangements to implement existing treaties

following entry of foreign military troops or facilities under the VFA and
the MDT, and thus may be in the form of an executive agreement
solely within the powers of the President and not requiring Senate
concurrence under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution,
When was EDCA signed?
The agreement was signed by Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire
Gazmin and U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg in
Manila on April 28, 2014.
*On January 12, 2016, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the
agreement's constitutionality in a 104 vote.
What is its purpose?
The EDCA is designed to promote the following between the
Philippines and its defense treaty ally the United States:

Interoperability
Capacity building towards AFP modernization
Strengthening AFP for external defense
Maritime security
Maritime domain awareness
Humanitarian assistance and disaster response (HADR)

How?
(Joint training exercises, such as the Balikatan, and undertaking
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief cooperation activities, i.e.,
during the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda)

-These will take place in designated areas within a few AFP bases to
be agreed upon by both Parties.
Agreed Locations Facilities and areas that are provided by he PH
govt throught the AFP and that the US can use.
Note that these are tempoary. Therefore the conccern that Permanent
bases in the PH is without merit. It is in the Preamble of EDCA
Affirming that parties share an understanding for the US not to
establish a permanent military presence or base in the territory of the
Philippines. Preamble, EDCA
Will EDCA give the US military blanket authority to build facilities
in AFP military bases? Will the Philippines have access to these
facilities? Who will own them?
Under EDCA, before constructions and other activities can be
undertaken, prior consent of the Philippines will have to be secured
through the Mutual Defense Board (MDB) and Security Engagement
Board (SEB) which were established under the MDT and the VFA.
The AFP base commander will have access to the entire area of the
facilities shared with the US military. The Philippines will also own any
building and similar infrastructure that will be built by the US military.
How long will EDCA be in effect?
DCA will have an initial term of 10 years. There will be regular bilateral
consultations on the implementation of the Agreement.
Will the entry of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and
biological weapons be allowed under the EDCA?

No according to EDCA;
Among the Materials the US may bring shall not include nuclear
weapons, in compliance with the Philippine Constitution. EDCA also
reaffirms the two countries respective obligations under the
Convention on Chemical Weapons and Convention on Biological
Weapons.

SIS: Is the Islamic State

Really a State?
The Islamic State (also known as "ISIS", "ISIL", and Daash) is a
terrorist organization that developed initially under the patronage of alQaida. Its activities have taken the violence of terror organizations
and the threat they pose to democratic countries to new heights.
Against this background, many questions arise concerning the
activities and status of the organization. In this article, IDI experts on
terrorism and democracy address a basic legal question: What criteria
must the caliphate of the Islamic State meet in order to be considered
a State under international law?

Introduction
The Islamic State is a terrorist organization that developed
under the auspices of al-Qaida. It is also know by the name ISIS
(an acronym for The Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria),
ISIL (an acronym for The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant"),
and Daash (an abbreviation of the organization's name in
Arabic, ad-dawla al-islamiyya fil-Iraq wa-sham). The Islamic

State has succeeded in taking over large swaths of territory in

Iraq and Syria and has declared a Muslim caliphate in the
conquered territory, employing methods of fighting so brutal that
even al-Qaida denounced the organization. As it enjoys new
military successes and gains more supporters, the threat it
poses to the Middle East region grows stronger with each
passing day.
The Islamic State's methods of fighting involve infliction of
severe harm to human life, physical integrity, and property
resulting in systematic violations of human rights. This raises
serious concerns within the international community and calls
for a strong reaction against the Islamic State. About a month
ago, the organization captured media headlines when it was
accused of committing acts of murder, abduction, expulsion,
rape, and other human rights violations against the Yazidi
minority in Iraq. The plight of the Yazidi, who found temporary
refuge on a mountaintop in the Sinjar region, prompted the
United States to attack strategic targets of the organization.
These attacks were also intended to prevent the organization's
advance into additional areas in Iraq in which American citizens
are present.
In response to the American attacks, some four weeks ago, the
Islamic State released a video clip documenting the beheading
of American journalist James Foley. In the last moments before
his execution, Foley was forced to denounce the U.S. actions
and to even accuse his brother, a pilot in the U.S. Army, of being
directly responsible for his impending death.
The video also showed Steven Sotloff, another journalist held by
the organization, and sent a warning to U.S. President Barack

Obama that continued action against the Islamic State would

seal the fate of other captive journalists and other American
citizens
throughout
the
world.
After continued attacks by the U.S. against Islamic State
militants, an additional video was released, this time
documenting the beheading of Sotloff. Just before his brutal
murder, Sotloff too was forced to denounce the U.S. action
against the Islamic State. In the video, the organization again
showed another captive, this time a British citizen, David
Haines, as a warning to other States against joining the U.S. in
its fight against the organization.

The Criteria for Defining a State

Last week, the Islamic State released a third video, in which

David Haines was executed, following Britain's decision to
cooperate militarily with the United States. This time, Haines
was forced to make accusations against Prime Minister David
Cameron prior to being murdered, and the video showed
another British captive held by the organization.

The definition of what constitutes a State in international law has

been influenced over the years by important developments,
such as the decolonization of States in Latin America, Africa,
Asia, and the Middle East, and the development of the right to
self-determination. Other important developments include the
dissolution of State blocs (such as the Soviet Union) and States
(such as Yugoslavia), attempts to annex territories (such as
Russia's activity in the Crimean Peninsula and in eastern
Ukraine), and the need to cope with unique (sui generis) cases,
such as the Palestinian- controlled territories. These
developments have triggered extensive academic debate on
how to define a State in international law, and almost every new
development has led to new proposals for addressing the issue
in
a
unique
manner.

The activities of the Islamic State have taken campaigns of

terror to new heights. Although the Islamic State has succeeded
in generating headlines on a daily basis, it is still unclear how it
will continue to evolve and how the international community will
respond to its activities. Against this background, many
questions have been raised concerning the organization's
activities and its status. In this article, we will seek to address a
basic legal question: What criteria must the caliphates of the
Islamic State meet in order to be considered a State under
international law, and why could its legal categorization as a
State have a meaningful impact on the policy choice available to
the international community in its fight against the Islamic State?

In recent years, international law has developed considerably

and now includes broad recognition of the legal rights and
duties of individuals, non-State actors, and other entities.
Nonetheless, as in the past, States remain the most important
actors in international law today, endowed with broader sets of
legal rights and obligations that those available to any other
international legal actor. Thus, discussing the question of
whether an entity is considered a State under international law
still has enormous legal significance.

In this short article, we will focus on the most accepted

requirements for determining the existence of a State in
international lawthe criteria stipulated in the 1933 Montevideo
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. The four criteria

of this Convention are: a) a permanent population, b) a defined

territory, c) an effective government, and d) a capacity to enter
into relations with other States. Beyond that, we will address two
additional requirements that are customarily raised in relation to
an entity seeking recognition as a State by the international
community: independence and legitimacy. We will examine the
possibility that these criteria can be fulfilled in the case of the
Islamic State.
1. A Permanent Population
The requirement of a permanent population stems from the fact
that a State is a means of realizing the shared aspirations of
groups that have united due to cultural, religious, historical or
other characteristics they have in common. There is no
threshold of a minimum number of nationals necessary for a
State. All that is necessary is a permanent population that
identifies itself as citizens of the nation that makes up the State.
This requirement is fulfilled when the population ties its fate to
the place in which the entity has been established and exercises
its power of governance.
It is still too early to determine whether the caliphate established
by the Islamic State meets this requirement. After all, the
citizens of Iraq and Syria who are now in territory controlled by
the caliphate did not choose to tie their fate to that of the Islamic
State; rather, they found themselves in their current situation
because of the Islamic State's journey of conquest. Moreover,
the citizens of Iraq and Syria who are under the organization's
rule cannot oppose the organization without risking their lives;
consequently, it is impossible to say that they chose to be

citizens of the caliphate and that they are interested in realizing

their shared aspirations within that State.
Another possibility that could result in the population
requirement being met in the future is if the thousands of
members of the organization, who identify completely with the
caliphate, were to be considered the citizens of the new State.
The depth of the identification of members with the caliphate
can be seen both from symbolic acts that they have performed,
such as burning the passports of their States of origin, and from
more concrete actions, ranging from active participation in
activities of the Islamic State through sacrificing their lives for
the common cause. However, this possibility must be qualified
because at this stage, the extent to which the members of the
organization have chosen to permanently tie their fate to the
fate of the territory under their control is unclear.
2. A Defined Territory
The interpretation of "defined territory" under international law is
also quite flexible. The principal requirement of this condition is
that the entity must exercise effective control over a particular
piece of land. There is no minimum requirement for scope of
territory, as we can learn from the fact that States with very
small territory, such as Monaco, have been recognized as
States. Permanent borders are also not necessary in order for
the existence of a territory to be recognized; for example,
although the borders of the State of Israel were not explicitly
recognized when the State was established, and some of them
remain in dispute until this very day, this does not detract from
Israel's legal status as a State under international law.

In the case of the caliphate established by the Islamic State, it is

clear that the organization is exercising control over a broad
swath of land, which is likely to continue growing. However, if
the boundaries of territory under the caliphate's control were to
shrink or become unstable, this would diminish the chances that
this requirement will be fulfilled. More importantly, the manner in
which the Islamic State acquires territoryby use of force and
gross violations of international lawis problematic with regard
to the question of the State's legitimacy, as will be discussed
below.
3. An Effective Government
While an effective government is required for State status,
international law does not dictate a preferred form of
governance. That is, both a democratic government and a
dictatorial government can equally meet the requirement of
effective government. From the perspective of international law,
as long as the ruling entity exercises governmental authority
within the territory, e.g., by collecting taxes and regulating the
judicial system, this requirement is met.
The Islamic State uses tough and brutal means in order to
establish its governmental authority in the territory it controls.
These include beheading opponents and using extreme
violence against those who refuse to accept the Islamic faith.
The caliphate exercises governmental authority over varied
facets of life in the territory it controls, ranging from regulating
local businesses to impacting personal status. In addition, there
are reports that in certain cases, the organization allows nonMuslims living under its rule to pay a poll tax (in Arabic: jizya)

that enables them to continue living in the caliphate, albeit as

second-rate citizens. It is reasonable to assume that the
organization also collects other taxes from the general
population.
Based on the above, it seems that the caliphate indeed
exercises governmental authority in the regions under its
control. If there are areas of life in which the Islamic State has
yet to impose its authority, it is reasonable to assume that this
will happen in the near future. While there are military forces
that are fighting against the Islamic State for control of the
territory, it seems that these forces are concentrating on the
hostilities at the moment and are not exercising competing
governmental authority in areas controlled by the Islamic State.
The requirement of effective government may be even more
clearly fulfilled in the near future if the caliphate succeeds in
exercising governmental authority in a consistent and stable
manner.
4. Capacity to Engage in Relations with Other States
The capacity to engage in relations with other States seems to
be the least important requirement of the Montevideo
Convention. This criterion pertains to the entity's ability to
conduct foreign relations; it does not necessarily mean that
other States agree to maintain diplomatic, economic, or other
relations with it. In other words, a State that is not recognized by
most States in the world can still theoretically meet this criterion.
History has shown, however, that when a State is not
recognized by most countries, such as in the case of

Somaliland, the existence of the State becomes largely

meaningless.
In the current context, it is not clear whether or not the caliphate
seeks to conduct relations with other States. Similarly, it seems
that the States of the world are not interested in recognizing the
caliphate or in conducting any sort of relations with it.
Nonetheless, in light of the considerable abilities the Islamic
State has demonstrated in a number of areas, including military
capability and measures designed to influence public relations,
it appears that if it were to decide to do so, it would be able to
establish relations that would be sufficient to meet this
condition.
5. The Independence of the Islamic State
In addition to the four requirements of the Montevideo
Convention discussed above, some international lawyers add
another criterion: whether the State is independent. The
requirement of independence refers to the State's ability to
operate as a State within the international community. This
independence could be, for example, economic or political.
While it has been argued that the Islamic State receives funding
from certain States, its operational success is strengthening its
economic independence with each passing day. Members of the
organization, inter alia, plunder territories they invade,
appropriating funds from banks and valuables from privately
owned safe deposit boxes. The organization has also taken
over oil fields in Iraq and Syria, and generates substantial
revenue from the sale of natural resources. With regard to
political dependence, it seems that the Islamic State does not

see itself as subordinate to any other State, and that other

extremist Sunni organizations, such as al-Qaida and Hamas,
see it as a distinct entity that should be denounced.
6. Legitimacy
The last requirement found in international law literature that we
will address, which is one of the most important aspects of our
discussion, is the requirement of legitimacy. In the past,
especially in the decolonization of African States, entities were
created that did not completely fulfill the conditions stipulated
above, but the fact that they received international legitimacy
and recognition from other States served as the basis for their
legal status as States. On the other hand, there are entities
such as Somaliland, which meet the criteria discussed above in
a more substantial way, but have not received legitimacy since
they were not established in accordance with international law
principles, and have not been recognized by other States. As a
result, such "illegitimate entities" cannot function as States in
the international community by, for example, joining the United
Nations.
Entities receive legitimacy when they are regarded as a form of
realization of the right to self-determination of the people in the
territory they control. For example, it has been claimed by some
rebel groups that people in a particular region have the right to
secede from a sovereign State in order to realize their right to
self-determination. However, since the sovereignty of the State
is a fundamental principle and cornerstone of international law,
the ability of regional groups to realize the right to self-

determination is generally limited by the overriding right of

existing States to preserve their territorial integrity.
In the case at hand, we must determine whether the caliphate is
a legitimate realization of a people's right to secede from an
existing State, in particular from parts of Iraq and Syria.
Generally speaking, secession from an existing State violates
the sovereignty of that State, but in some cases it can be
justified. Examples of such cases include situations in which a
people is subject to colonial rule, cases in which there is a racist
regime, or cases in which a people is suffering from severe and
ongoing violations of basic human rights. There are also those
who believe that secession from a State can be legitimate when
the seceding group is excluded from participating in the exercise
of national government and does not have access to means that
will enable it to develop politically, economically, socially, or
culturally.
In the case of the caliphate, it cannot be argued that the
establishment of the State was based on one of the scenarios
that would justify the secession of a group from a region that is
under the sovereignty of Iraq or Syria. In fact, it seems that it is
actually the new regime that is systematically violating the
human rights of the people in the territory, including the right to
life, the right to liberty, freedom of religion, and freedom of
expression.
Another question related to the caliphate's lack of legitimacy is
the way in which the Islamic State has established its control.
Throughout history, States acquired territory through the use of
force. A substantial part of the territory of the States of the world
has been acquired in this way. Nonetheless, since the

establishment of the United Nations, which enshrined a

prohibition against the use of force between States in its charter,
it has become customary to say that territorial acquisition is
inadmissible through the threat or use of force. This rule has
been invoked many times, for example in UN Security Council
Resolution 242, which was adopted after Israel's Six Day War.
This also clarified that sovereignty cannot be extended to
territories conquered in war.
The caliphate of the Islamic State controls territory that was
acquired using brutal force that is almost indescribable. Perhaps
the international community would view the situation differently if
the Islamic State had established its control via legitimate
means, such as elections. However, the activity of the Islamic
State is characterized by violations of international law, and
specifically war crimes and crimes against humanity. Some
argue that the organization's actions against the Yazidi minority
constitute genocide or an attempt to commit genocide. In
addition, the territories under the Islamic State's control are part
of the sovereign territory of Iraq and of Syria; and so long as
these States have not formally disintegrated or surrendered
sovereignty over parts of their territory through one of the
methods accepted under international law (such as an
agreement), their right to sovereign integrity remains in force.
Accordingly, at this stage, the caliphate does not have
international legitimacy and is not recognized by the States of
the world. Even if the caliphate were to meet the
aforementioned condition, it will find it very difficult to function as
a State in the international community. A change in this situation
could occur if Iraq or Syria officially dissolve, as was the case in

the former Yugoslavia. The events in Iraq and Syria can actually
be seen as the start of a process of dissolution; at the current
stage, however, it seems that the international community is not
interested in encouraging or recognizing such a process.

Conclusions
It is too early to declare that the caliphate established by the
Islamic State meets the requirements of a State under
international law. The primary barrier the caliphate faces, and
apparently will continue to face in the near future, is its lack of
legitimacy in the eyes of the international community and the
unwillingness of States to recognize the Islamic State as a State
under international law and to conduct political, economic,
cultural, or other relations with it.
At present, there is no uniform and unified international
response to the Islamic State. Clearly, the right to sovereignty,
and probably also the right to self-defense, entitles Iraq and
Syria to take military action against the organization. In addition,
it appears that the United States is relying on Iraq's request for
assistance in military activity aimed at reclaiming control of the
territories captured by the Islamic State. The international
community has refrained so far, however, from taking practical
action against the atrocities that are being committed by the
Islamic State.
On the practical level, since the Islamic State's actions violate
international law, other States should not cooperate with the
organization in a way that would legitimize its wrongdoings.
Other States could justify military action against the Islamic
State under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, which

seeks to stop severe and systematic violations of human rights

or humanitarian law; this was the justification invoked by NATO
for its military intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Further
justification for military action against the Islamic State can be
drawn from the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, which was
recognized by the UN General Assembly in 2005 and was used
to justify the international military intervention in Libya during the
revolution against Qaddafi's regime. At the moment, it does not
appear that there is a State or group of States that seek to base
their action on this specific doctrine. Perhaps the Islamic State's
advancement toward Jordan, Lebanon, or other States will lead
to a change in this regard.
From an institutional perspective, it seems that the correct and
proper course of action would be for any international
intervention to be backed by a resolution of the UN Security
Council, which is entrusted with maintaining peace and security
in the world. The Security Council is authorized to determine
that the Islamic State is a threat to peace, and, consequently, to
impose economic sanctions on the organization and even
approve the use of military force against the Islamic State in the
name of the international community. Against the background of
the severe damage to life and property, and together with the
organization's growing military strength due to its achievements
and the swelling ranks of those who wish to join it, it seems that
the threat posed by the Islamic State transcends borders,
religions, and cultures, and is becoming more serious every day.
Therefore, decisive and united international response should be
taken against it.

CTBT
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is the
international instrument to end all nuclear testing in a verifiable way. Nuclear
testing has essentially screeched to a halt with the adoption of the CTBT on
19 November 1996, which forged an international zero-tolerance stance
against nuclear testing. The CTBT bans all nuclear explosions on earth
whether for military or for peaceful purposes. It comprise a preamble, 17
articles, two annexes and a Protocol with two annexes. Currently 183 States
have signed the Treaty, including Philippines.
Why North Korea is still conducting its nuclear test at present?

Because has still not come into force, because some country
refused to sign and some held its ratification.

United Nations Convention on the Law of Treaties

Signed at Vienna 23 May 1969, Entry into Force:
Article 14 - Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by ratification, acceptance or approval
1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:
(a) the treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification;
(b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that ratification should
be required;
(c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or
(d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full
powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
2. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under
conditions similar to those which apply to ratification.

Currently, there is a voluntary moratoria (defacto moratorium) on

testing imposed by many nuclear-armed States. But moratoria are no
substitute for a CTBT in force. The four nuclear tests conducted by the DPRK
are proof of this.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, pointed out that nuclear
weapons and nuclear testing had a dangerous and destabilizing impact on
global security, as well as a negative impact on the environment. Now, only
(DPRK) that had violated the moratorium on nuclear testing. Action was still
needed to secure the future of the Treaty as a firm legal barrier against
nuclear testing and the nuclear arms race, he said.
Now is the time, he argued, to make the final push to secure the
CTBTs entry into force, as well as to achieve its universality.
However, significant national security decisions were made in good
faith, with the expectation that the Treaty would become legally binding, in

line with international law. But how close or how far away are we from the
CTBT coming into force?
History of nuclear weapons

Statement of war
World War I towards its end, was the era of battleship
World War II ended with the emergence of nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons possess enormous destructive power from nuclear

fission or combined fission and fusion reactions. During the 1930s, the
United States, the United Kingdom and Canada collaborated to counter the
suspected Nazi German atomic bomb project.
On August 6, 1945, a uranium-based weapon, Little Boy, was detonated
above the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a plutonium-based
weapon, Fat Man, was detonated above the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
The atomic bombing raids killed at least one hundred thousand
Japanese civilians and military personnel outright, with the heat, radiation,
and blast effects. Many tens of thousands would later die of radiation
sickness and related cancers. Truman promised a "rain of ruin" if Japan did
not surrender immediately, threatening to systematically eliminate their ability
to wage war. On August 15, Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's surrender.
On August 29, 1949, the USSR tested its first fission bomb, dubbed "Joe-1"
by the U.S., years ahead of American predictions. The news of the first
Soviet bomb was announced to the world first by the United States, which
had detected the nuclear fallout it generated from its test site in Kazakhstan.
The loss of the American monopoly on nuclear weapons marked the first titfor-tat of the nuclear arms race. Throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s
the U.S. and the USSR both endeavored, in a tit-for-tat approach, to prevent
the other power from acquiring nuclear supremacy. This had massive political
and cultural effects during the Cold War.
Later, United Kingdom declared its new nuclear power and begun to develop
nuclear weapons too.
By the 1960s, both the United States and the Soviet Union had
developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could be launched from
extremely remote areas far away from their target. They had also
developed submarine-launched ballistic missiles, which had less range but
could be launched from submarines very close to the target without any radar
warning. This made any national protection from nuclear missiles

increasingly impractical. Subsequently, the worlds nuclear weapons

stockpiles grew.
The climax of brinksmanship came in early 1962, when an American U-2 spy
plane photographed a series of launch sites for medium-range ballistic
missiles being constructed on the island of Cuba, just off the coast of the
southern United States, beginning what became known as the Cuban Missile
Crisis.
After stepping so close to the brink, both the U.S. and the USSR worked to
reduce their nuclear tensions in the years immediately following. The most
immediate culmination of this work was the signing of the Partial Test Ban
Treaty in 1963, in which the U.S. and USSR agreed to no longer test nuclear
weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in outer space. Testing
underground continued, allowing for further weapons development, but the
worldwide fallout risks were purposefully reduced, and the era of using
massive nuclear tests as a form of saber-rattling ended.
In 1963, all nuclear and many non-nuclear states signed the Limited Test
Ban Treaty, pledging to refrain from testing nuclear weapons in the
atmosphere, underwater, or in outer space. The treaty permitted
underground tests. But even then, a lot of nuclear testing occurred.
Initial proliferation

Chinese made rapid progress and tested an atomic bomb on October 16,
1964, at Lop Nur. They tested a nuclear missile on October 25, 1966, and a
hydrogen bomb on June 14, 1967.
Chinese nuclear warheads were produced from 1968 and thermonuclear
warheads from 1974. It is also thought that Chinese warheads have been
successfully miniaturised from 2200 kg to 700 kg through the use of designs
obtained by espionage from the United States. The current number of
weapons is unknown owing to strict secrecy, but it is thought that up to 2000
warheads may have been produced, though far fewer may be available for
use. China is the only nuclear weapons state to have guaranteed the nonfirst use of nuclear weapons.
After World War II, the balance of power between the Eastern and Western
blocs and the fear of global destruction prevented the further military use of
atomic bombs. This fear was even a central part of Cold War strategy,
referred to as the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. So important was
this balance to international political stability that a treaty, the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (or ABM treaty), was signed by the U.S. and the USSR in 1972
to curtail the development of defenses against nuclear weapons and the
ballistic missiles that carry them. This doctrine resulted in a large increase in
the number of nuclear weapons, as each side sought to ensure it possessed
the firepower to destroy the opposition in all possible scenarios.

In the fifties and sixties, three more countries joined the "nuclear club."
The first UK nuclear weapon on 11 October 1956 at Maralinga, South
Australia. Later came a missile, Blue Steel, intended for carriage by the V
Force bombers, and then the Blue Streak medium-range ballistic
missile (later canceled). Anglo-American cooperation on nuclear weapons
was restored by the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement. As a result of
this and the Polaris Sales Agreement, the United Kingdom has bought United
States designs for submarine missiles and fitted its own warheads. It retains
full independent control over the use of the missiles. It no longer possesses
any free-fall bombs.

Second nuclear age

France had been heavily involved in nuclear research before World War II
through the work of the Joliot-Curies. This was discontinued after the war
because of the instability of the Fourth Republic and lack of finances.
However, in the 1950s, France launched a civil nuclear research program,
which produced plutonium as a byproduct.

After the collapse of Eastern Military High Command and the disintegration of
Pakistan as a result of the 1971 Winter war, Bhutto of Pakistan launched
scientific research on nuclear weapons. The Indian test caused Pakistan to
spur its programme, and the ISI conducted successful espionage operations
in the Netherlands, while also developing the programme indigenously. India
tested fission and perhaps fusion devices in 1998, and Pakistan successfully
tested fission devices that same year, raising concerns that they would use
nuclear weapons on each other.

In 1951, China and the Soviet Union signed an agreement whereby China
supplied uranium ore in exchange for technical assistance in producing
nuclear weapons. In 1953, China established a research program under the
guise of civilian nuclear energy. Throughout the 1950s the Soviet Union
provided large amounts of equipment. But as the relations between the two
countries worsened the Soviets reduced the amount of assistance and, in
1959, refused to donate a bomb for copying purposes. Despite this, the

The second nuclear age can be regarded as proliferation of nuclear

weapons among lesser powers and for reasons other than the AmericanSoviet-Chinese rivalry.
India embarked relatively early on a program aimed at nuclear weapons
capability, but apparently accelerated this after border war with China in
1962. India's first atomic-test explosion was in 1974 with Smiling Buddha,
which it described as a "peaceful nuclear explosion."

All of the former Soviet bloc countries with nuclear weapons (Belarus,
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan) returned their warheads to Russia by 1996.

South Africa also had an active program to develop uranium-based nuclear

weapons, but dismantled its nuclear weapon program in the 1990s. Experts
do not believe it actually tested such a weapon, though it later claimed it
constructed several crude devices that it eventually dismantled. In the late
1970s American spy satellites detected a "brief, intense, double flash of light
near the southern tip of Africa." Known as the Vela Incident, it was
speculated to have been a South African or possibly Israeli nuclear weapons
test, though some feel that it may have been caused by natural events or a
detector malfunction.
Israel is widely believed to possess an arsenal of up to several hundred
nuclear warheads, but this has never been officially confirmed or denied
(though the existence of their Dimona nuclear facility was confirmed
by Mordechai Vanunu in 1986).
Public pressure and the research results subsequently led to a moratorium
on above-ground nuclear weapons testing (non-proliferation treaty),
followed by the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by John F.
Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev.
In January 2004, Dr A. Q. Khan of Pakistan's programme confessed to
having been a key mover in "proliferation activities", seen as part of an
international proliferation network of materials, knowledge, and machines
from Pakistan to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
North Korea announced in 2003 that it also had several nuclear explosives
though it has not been confirmed and the validity of this has been a subject
of scrutiny amongst weapons experts. The first claimed detonation of a
nuclear weapon by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was the 2006
North Korean nuclear test, conducted on October 9, 2006. On May 25, 2009,
North Korea continued nuclear testing, violating United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1718. A third test was conducted on 13 February 2013.
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
In the five decades between that fateful day in 1945 and the opening
for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996,
over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world.
Why test?
The purpose of nuclear testing for military purposes is multifaceted. From a
technical point of view, nuclear testing provides information on how well
nuclear weapons work, how they behave under various conditions and how
adjacent structures react to nuclear explosions. However, there is also the
political aspect: that is, the importance of making a political statement of
national, scientific and military preeminence.
Different testing purposes

Nuclear tests have been categorized by the purpose of the test itself. Tests
designed to glean information about how well the weapons work were called
weapons-related tests, while those conducted to gain information about the
weapons effects on structures or organisms were known as weapons effects
tests. Additional types of nuclear tests have been considered possible as well
(e.g.
nuclear
tests
as
part
of
anti-ballistic
missile testing).
Breaking the de facto moratorium
About seven nuclear tests were conducted between 1998 and 2013: two by
India and two by Pakistan in 1998 and one by the Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea (DPRK) in each2006, 2009 and 2013, thus breaking the
de facto moratorium that the CTBT had established.
Now, DPRK is the only country to have conducted nuclear tests in this
century - on 9 October 2006, 25 May 2009 and 12 February 2013. All three
events were quickly, reliably and precisely detected by the verification
regime. After each of the tests, the UN Security Council unanimously
adopted sanction resolutions. The DPRK's actions were met with nearuniversal expressions of concern, including for violations of the letter and
spirit of the CTBT
Today, other nuclear arms states, China, India, and Pakistan, in particular,
are all pursuing new ballistic missile, cruise missile, and sea-based nuclear
delivery systems. In addition, Pakistan has dangerously lowered the
threshold for nuclear weapons use by developing tactical nuclear weapons
capabilities to counter perceived Indian conventional military threats. North
Korea continues its nuclear pursuits in violation of its earlier denuclearization
pledges. These arsenals, although smaller in number, are dangerous and
destabilizing.
1996: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT): a norm against
nuclear testing
With the CTBTs opening for signature on 24 September 1996, a de-facto
international norm on nuclear testing was established. While all States
Signatories to the CTBT have observed it, only three non-signatories have
not: the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 as well as those of the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 2006, 2009 and 2013
have all provoked universal condemnation including unanimously adopted
sanctions by the U.N. Security Council.

To date, most of the worlds countries (see Treaty status map) have signed
and ratified the CTBT, including the three nuclear weapon States France,
United Kingdom and Russia.
In parallel to the opening of the Treaty for signature, the Preparatory
Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
(CTBTO) was created, whose mandate is the establishment of the CTBTs
verification regime and the promotion of signatures and ratifications of the
Treaty
so
that
it
can
enter
into
force.
When complete, the IMS will consist of 337 monitoring facilities. It will be
complemented by an intrusive on-site inspection regime applicable once the
Treaty has entered into force. Already today, the CTBTOs experts are
confident that their system can detect and identify any militarily relevant
nuclear test anywhere on the planet.
Updated: October 2015
The United Nations Security Council has adopted four major resolutions
since 2006 that impose and strengthen sanctions on North Korea for
continuing to develop its nuclear weapons program and call on Pyongyang to
dismantle its nuclear program in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible
manner" and refrain from ballistic missile tests. The first two resolutions were
passed shortly after North Korean nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. The third
came a month after North Korea successfully launched a satellite
in December 2012. North Korea is prohibited from such launches under
previous UN Security Council Resolutions because the technology in a
satellite launch vehicle has potential dual use applications to ballistic missile
development. The fourth was passed after North Koreas most recent nuclear
test in February 2013. The resolutions since 2009 furnished UN member
states with interdiction authority, calling upon states to inspect North Korean
cargo within their territory, and subsequently seize and dispose of goods
prohibited by UNSC Resolutions.
All four resolutions were passed unanimously by the Security Council under
Chapter VII, Article 41 of the United Nations Charter. While legally binding,
states are prohibited from using force to carry out the obligations of the
resolutions. The resolutions call upon North Korea to rejoin the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), which it acceded to in 1985 but withdrew from in
2003 after U.S. allegations that the country was pursuing an illegal uranium
enrichment program. The Security Council also has called for North Korea to
return to negotiations in the Six-Party Talks, which include South Korea,
North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. The talks began in
2003 and aim to peacefully dismantle North Koreas nuclear weapons

program. Little progress was made until September 2005, when the six
parties achieved a breakthrough and issued a joint statement on agreed
steps for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Pursuant to the joint
statement, in February 2007 negotiators reached an agreement with North
Korea to shut down its nuclear program in exchange for humanitarian
aid. Progress on this front broke down, however, in 2009 when North Korea
completely withdrew from the talks in response to international condemnation
of its attempt to launch a satellite in April 2009.
To this date, UN Security Council resolutions have been largely unsuccessful
in preventing North Korea from advancing its nuclear weapons and ballistic
missile programs, although the sanctions have slowed development in these
areas. The United Nations continues to closely monitor these
programs. The 1718 Committee, established by Security Council Resolution
1718 in 2006, oversees implementation and enforcement of sanctions
against North Korea. The committee mandate has been renewed on an
annual basis and is now extended until April 2016. A Panel of Experts,
established by Security Council Resolution 1874 in 2006, produces regular
reports to the Security Council on the status of the sanctions and
enforcement. In the February 2015 report , the Panel found that the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea continued to defy Security Council
resolutions by persisting with its nuclear and ballistic missile
programmes and also found no evidence that the country intends to cease
prohibited activities. The panel also offers recommendations to strengthen
enforcement of the sanctions.
The sanctions-enacting resolutions since 2006 are preceded by Security
Council resolutions condemning North Korean nuclear and missile
proliferation. In response to North Koreas announcement of intent to
withdraw from the NPT, the Security Council passed Resolution 825 in 1993,
urging North Korea not to withdraw from the NPT to and honor its
nonproliferation obligations under the treaty. Resolution 1695 was passed in
2006 in response to ballistic missile launches in July, and calls on North
Korea to suspend activities related to its ballistic missile program. Additional
Security Council resolutions on North Korea serve to extend the 1718
Committee mandate.
INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST NUCLEAR TESTS
In December 2009, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously
declared 29 August as the International Day against Nuclear Tests (see
also UN Website and messagefrom UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon).
This day was proposed by Kazakhstan as it marks both the closure of the
former Soviet Semipalatinsk Test Site in 1991 in modern-day Kazakhstan
and the date of the first Soviet nuclear test conducted there in 1949.

According to the resolution establishing it, the International Day against

Nuclear Tests aims to prevent more of the devastating and harmful effects
on the lives and health of people and the environment caused by nuclear
testing.

Piracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about maritime piracy. For unauthorized use, copying,

modification or distribution of content, see Copyright infringement. For
other uses, see Pirate (disambiguation).
"Pirate ship" redirects here. For the amusement ride, see Pirate ship
(ride).

British sailors boarding an Algerine pirateship and battling the pirates;

colored engraving by John Fairburn (17931832)
French pirate Jacques de Sores looting and burning Havana in 1555
Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. Those who
engage in acts of piracy are called pirates. The earliest documented
instances of piracy were in the 14th century BC, when the Sea Peoples,
a group of ocean raiders, attacked the ships of

the Aegean and Mediterranean civilizations. Narrow channels which

funnel shipping into predictable routes have long created opportunities for
piracy,[1] as well as for privateering and commerce raiding. Privateering
uses similar methods to piracy, but the captain acts under orders of the
state authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy
nation, making it a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors.
[2]
(For a land-based parallel, compare the association of bandits and
brigands with mountain passes.[3]) Historic examples include the waters of
Gibraltar, the Strait of Malacca, Madagascar, the Gulf of Aden, and the
English Channel, whose geographic strictures facilitated pirate attacks. [4]
While the term can include acts committed in the air, on land (especially
across national borders or in connection with taking over and robbing
a car or train), or in other major bodies of water or on a shore, this article
focuses on maritime piracy. It does not normally include crimes
committed against people traveling on the same vessel as the perpetrator
(e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). Piracy or
pirating is the name of a specific crime under customary international
law and also the name of a number of crimes under the municipal law of
a number of states. In the 2000s, seaborne piracy against transport
vessels remains a significant issue (with estimated worldwide losses of
US$16 billion per year in 2007),[5][6] particularly in the waters between the
Red Sea and Indian Ocean, off the Somali coast, and also in the Strait of
Malacca and Singapore. Modern pirates favor using small boats and
taking advantage of the small number of crew members on modern cargo
vessels and transport ships. They also use large vessels to supply the
smaller attack/boarding vessels. The international community is facing
many challenges in bringing modern pirates to justice, as these attacks
often occur in international waters.[7]

Legal aspects[edit]

United Kingdom laws[edit]

A Merchant seaman aboard a fleet oil tanker practices target shooting
with a Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun as part of training to
repel pirates in the Strait of Malacca.

Section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837 creates a statutory offence of

Piracy committed by or against aircraft

aggravated piracy. See also the Piracy Act 1850.

See section 5 of the Aviation Security Act 1982.
In 2008 the British Foreign Office advised the Royal Navy not to
detain pirates of certain nationalities as they might be able to
claim asylum in Britain under British human rights legislation, if
their national laws included execution, or mutilation as a judicial
punishment for crimes committed as pirates.[143]
Definition of piracy jure gentium

Sentence
The book "Archbold" said that in a case that does not fall within
section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, the penalty appears to be
determined by the Offences at Sea Act 1799, which provides
that offences committed at sea are liable to the same penalty as
if they had been committed upon the shore.[144]

See section 26 of, and Schedule 5 to, the Merchant Shipping

and Maritime Security Act 1997. These provisions replace the
Schedule to the Tokyo Convention Act 1967. In Cameron v HM
Advocate, 1971 SLT 333, the High Court of Justiciary said that
that Schedule supplemented the existing law and did not seek
to restrict the scope of the offence of piracy jure gentium.
See also:

Re Piracy Jure Gentium [1934] AC 586, PC

History
William Hawkins said that at common law, piracy by a subject
was esteemed to be petty treason. The Treason Act
1351 provided that this was not petty treason.[145]
In English admiralty law, piracy was classified as petit
treason during the medieval period, and offenders were
accordingly liable to be drawn and quartered on conviction.
Piracy was redefined as a felony during the reign of Henry VIII.

Attorney General of Hong Kong v Kwok-a-Sing (1873) LR 5

PC 179

In either case, piracy cases were cognizable in the courts of

the Lord High Admiral. English admiralty vice-admiraltyjudges
emphasized that "neither Faith nor Oath is to be kept" with

Jurisdiction
See section 46(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section
6 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878. See also R v
Kohn (1864) 4 F & F 68.

pirates; i.e. contracts with pirates and oaths sworn to them were
not legally binding. Pirates were legally subject to summary
execution by their captors if captured in battle. In practice,
instances of summary justice and annulment of oaths and

contracts involving pirates do not appear to have been common.

Dutch drew a line separating the Straits into two halves. The

[citation needed]

agreement was that each party would be responsible for

United States laws[edit]

In the United States, criminal prosecution of piracy is authorized
in the U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 10:
... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the

combating piracy in their respective half. Eventually this line

became the border between Malaysia and Indonesia in the
Straits.

Law of nations[edit]
International Maritime Organization(IMO) conference on capacity-building
to counter piracy in the Indian Ocean.

high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Piracy is of note in international law as it is commonly held to
Title 18 U.S.C. 1651 states:
Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as
defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or
found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

represent the earliest invocation of the concept of universal

jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus
cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm that
states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas,
inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are

Citing the United States Supreme Court decision in the year

considered by sovereign states to behostis humani

1820 case of United States v. Smith,[146] a U.S. District Court

generis (enemies of humanity).[148]

ruled in 2010 in the case of United States v. Said that the

definition of piracy under section 1651 is confined to "robbery at
sea." The piracy charges (but not other serious federal charges)
against the defendants in the Said case were dismissed by the
Court.[147]

For a different opinion on Pirates as Hostis Humani Generis see

Caninas, Osvaldo Peanha. Modern Maritime Piracy: History,
Present Situation and Challenges to International Law. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the ISA ABRI JOINT
INTERNATIONAL MEETING, Pontifical Catholic University, Rio

International law[edit]

de Janeiro Campus (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jul 22,

Effects on international boundaries[edit]

2009

During the 18th century, the British and the Dutch controlled
opposite sides of the Straits of Malacca. The British and the

Because of universal jurisdiction, action can be taken against

pirates without objection from the flag state of the pirate vessel.

This represents an exception to the principle extra territorium

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship

jus dicenti impune non paretur ("One who exercises jurisdiction

or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship

out of his territory is not obeyed with impunity").

or aircraft;

[149]

International conventions[edit]
Articles 101 to 103 of UNCLOS[edit]

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act

described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
ARTICLE 102

British Royal Navy Commodoregives a presentation on Piracy at the

MAST 2008 conference.

Articles 101 to 103 of the United Nations Convention on the Law

Piracy by a warship, government ship or government

aircraft whose crew has mutinied

of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982) contain a definition of piracy iure

The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101,

gentium.

committed by a warship, government ship or

[150]

They read:

ARTICLE 101

government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and

taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to

Definition of piracy

acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

ARTICLE 103

(a) 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

Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft

A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft
if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to
be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against

referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship

persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place

long as it remains under the control of the persons

outside the jurisdiction of any State;

guilty of that act.[151]

This definition was formerly contained in articles 15

the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or

to 17 of the Convention on the High Seas signed at

any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in

Geneva on April 29, 1958.

furtherance of that act.[154]

[152]

It was drafted

[153]

by

the International Law Commission.[150]

Uniformity in Maritime Piracy Law[edit]

A limitation of article 101 above is that it confines

Given the diverging definitions of piracy in

piracy to the High Seas. As the majority of piratical

international and municipal legal systems, some

acts occur within territorial waters, some pirates are

authors argue that greater uniformity in the law is

able to go free as certain jurisdictions lack the

required in order to strengthen anti-piracy legal

resources to monitor their borders adequately.

[citation

needed]

IMB definition[edit]

The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines

piracy as:

instruments.[155]