MARITIME PIRACY

AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Pirates are common enemies of human race. Being scorners of law of nations, they ought to be
vanquished by all nations. Contemporary maritime piracy has transitioned from a few armed
fishermen into complex orchestrated criminal operations. With the world witnessing continuous
repercussions of maritime emergencies caused by piracy, in particular the security of navigation
& commerce and the welfare of seafarers suffer threat by this offence the cost of which is
extensive. The term piracy in the field of international criminal law first appeared in the Geneva
Convention on the High Seas 1958 and subsequently in the other convention on the United
Nations Convention on Law of the Sea 1982. But these conventions have suffered from some
procedural difficulties which have been studied conscientiously. Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Convention 1988 was the result of such lacunae that was exposed in the United Nation
Convention on Laws of the Sea 1982. A special reference is also given to the most piracy prone
strait of the Malacca and the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. However, with all the
conventions averring this offence as an International Crime, Piracy has been surviving or
thriving especially due to lack of monitoring mechanisms and a failure in maintaining the
governmental efficiency of the coastal states. Recent happenings have made it perspicuous that
piracy and threats to maritime security can no longer be ignored. This paper seeks to highlight
the offence of piracy under maritime international law and briefly under municipal law,
explaining the universal jurisdiction exercised by the states and the rights and duties of states
under international instruments and fills recommendations for dealing with the offence in
International canvass.
 I. INTRODUCTION
Acts of piracy imperil maritime security by endangering, in particular, the security of navigation
and commerce and the welfare of seafarers .The repercussions of these criminal acts include
physical harm or hostage-taking of seafarers, loss of life, significant obstruction to navigation
and commerce, increased insurance premiums and security costs, financial losses to ship owners,
increased costs to consumers and producers, and injury to the marine environment. Pirate attacks
can have predominant ramifications, including preventing humanitarian assistance and enlarging
the costs of future shipments to the affected areas.1

Molley in his book- A Treatise of Affairs Maritime and of Commerce defines a Pirate as : A
Sea Thief or hostis humani generis (the enemy of the whole human race) who to enrich himself
either by surprise or open face sets upon merchants or other traders by seas.

In Moores Digest of International Law, a pirate is defined as one who without legal
authority from any state, attacks a ship with the intention to appropriate what belongs to it. The
pirate is a sea brigand. He has no right to any flag and is justiciable by all. Thus, a pirate is
outlawed by the law of all nations, his act being one directed against the whole body of civilized
states.2

1
Piracy under International law, DIVISION OF OCEAN AFFAIRS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA UNITED
NATIONS available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy.htm last seen on 7 January 2017
2
Dino Kritsiotis, The Contingencies Of Piracy, 41 CALIFORNIA WESTERN INTERNATIONAL LAW
JOURNAL
 II. PIRACY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
"A pirate is deemed, and properly deemed, hostis humanigenen. because he commits hostilities
upon the subjects and property of any or all nations, without any regard to right or duty, or any
pretense of public authority.3

Piracy has long held a place in international law. As contemporary international trade routes
matured throughout the Seventeenth century, leaden-footed undefended ships were a plain-
sailing target for pirates set on looting and plunder. Throughout the Nineteenth century a legal
regime developed in response to the peril of piracy and customary international law advanced
which made piracy in effect the first universal crime over which all states had the capacity to
arrest and prosecute.

A. CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: JURISDICTION OF PIRACY4

Under International Law, Pirates traditionally have been considered hostis humanis generis--or,
enemies of the human race. At the outset, pirates gained notoriety and special immunities-if not
outright state support-for their exploits at sea5.However, when the sport began to interfere with
major shipping lanes, thereby disrupting the flow of commerce, punishment began. Most, if not
all, nations possessed an interest in putting an end to such interference. As ninety percent of
world trade is conducted through maritime channels, states continue to have an interest in
stopping piracy6. For this reason, it is not surprising that piracy, attributed jus cogens status,
enables states to exercise universal jurisdiction.7. As a jus cogens crime, piracy is punishable by
all nations, wherever the culprits may be found, without regard to where the offence occurred8.
Specifically, "state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for certain offenses
recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern, such as war crimes , attacks on
or hijacking aircraft ,piracy, slave trade, genocide and perhaps certain acts of terrorism.9.

3
United States v. Brig MalekAdhel, 43 U.S. 210, (1844, Supreme Court of the United States ).
4
Customary international law's treatment of piracy is extremely relevant, as not all states have ratified existing
conventions that deal with piracy.
5
Jack A. Gottschalk Et Al., Jolly Roger, The Rise And Threat Of Modern Piracy 19 (2000).
6
Barry Hart Dubner, Recent Developments in the International Law of the Sea 33 INT'L LAW. 627 (1999).
7
Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law Of The United States 404 (1986).
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
Extensive jurisdiction results from international recognition of piracy's threat to commerce10.
Despite extensive jurisdiction to legislate against and enforce provisions against piracy, defining
the actual crime has proven problematic. No authoritative definition of "piracy" exists under
customary international law.11. Disagreements about whether piracy includes intent to rob,
whether insurgents fighting against their government should be exempted from piratical status,
and whether the act must involve two or more ships have contributed to the lack of a cohesive
definition.12 Besides a common usage free of any international legal implications, Lawrence
Kahn contends that a cursory examination of treaty articles and municipal statutes reveals at least
five different meanings of "piracy": 1) an international legal meaning pertaining to states whose
governments are not empowered at international law to authorize the sort of public activity that
is questioned; 2) an international legal meaning related to unrecognized belligerency; 3) an
international law meaning related to the private acts of foreigners against other foreigners in
circumstances enabling extension ofjus cogensjurisdiction; 4) various international law meanings
derived from particular treaty negotiations; and 5) various municipal law meanings defined by
the statutes and practices of individual states."13

Brierly adopts a much wider conception of piracy, asserting, "it is ...the essence of a piratical act
to be an act of violence, committed at sea or at any rate closely contiguous with the sea, by
persons not acting under proper authority." Under Brierly's definition, piracy is not restricted to
the high seas and does not have to occur between two vessels. The common theme between
traditional sources and Brierly's definition is the commission of an act without proper
authorization. 14 .

Another element often associated with piracy is intent to plunder, or animo furandi. Yet,
unauthorized acts of violence lacking intent to plunder have been deemed piratical." For
example, mutiny and subsequent conversion of the vessel and goods have been considered
piratical despite the absence of a second vessel. Likewise, unauthorized acts of violence,
10
Lawrence J. Kahn, Pimtes, Rovers, and Thieves. New Problems with an Old Enemy, 20 TUL. MAR. L.J. 293,
(1996).
11
Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy, and IMO Convention on Maritime
Safety, 82 AM. J. INT'L L. 272 (1988).
12
Ibid.
13
Lawrence J. Kahn, Pimtes, Rovers, and Thieves. New Problems with an Old Enemy, 20 TUL. MAR. L.J. 295
(1996).
14
Harvard Research in International Law, Comment on the Draft Convention on Piracy, 26 AM. J. INT'L. L. 749,
(1932)
including murder aboard an attacked vessel or destruction of property, without intent to plunder,
have been considered piratical." Despite these recognized exceptions, there is no correspondence
concerning the scope of such exceptions 15 Likewise, the treatment of acts of violence undertaken
by insurgents fighting for independence has a weathered history under customary international
law involving piracy.16

B. THE 1958 GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE HIGH SEAS AND THE 1982 LAW OF
THE SEA CONVENTION- JURISDICTION AND DEFINITION

Unlike customary international law, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the 1982
Law of the Sea Convention clearly define "piracy.17

Article 101 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention provides:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(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:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such
ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(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;

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

subparagraph (a) or (b).18

15
H. Lauterpacht , L. Oppenheim, International Law 272 (8th ed. 1955).
16
Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy, and IMO Convention on Maritime
Safety, 82 AM. J. INT'L L. 275 (1988).
17
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, repinted in 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 (1982), art. 101,
1833 U.N.T.S. at 436; Geneva Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, reprinted in 13 U.S.T. 2312, 450
U.N.TS. 82 (1962) ,art. 15, 13 U.S.T. at 2317, 450 U.N.T.S. at 90.
This article from the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (Convention) adopted the wording of
article 15 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas verbatim.19 An analysis of the
Harvard Research Draft (Harvard Draft), upon which the 1958 High Seas Convention was
modeled, reveals an expeditious decision to exclude political acts from piracy.20 Such exclusion
thereby precluded application of piracy provisions to various acts of terrorism. The Harvard
Draft defines "piracy" as such:

Any act of violence or of depredation committed with intent to rob, rape, wound, enslave,
imprison or kill a person or with intent to steal or destroy property, for private ends without bona
fide purpose of asserting a claim of right, provided that the act is connected with an attack on or
from the sea or in or from the air.21

During the era in which the Harvard Draft was created, exclusion of political activities made
sense. First, states were concerned with piracy only insofar as it interfered with commercial
shipping and transportation.22. As concern lay with commercial interference, little attention was
paid to the possibility of piracy being used to further political interests. Second, the Harvard
Draft emerged in the aftermath of World War II, an era when colonial empires were being
dismantled and the United Nations was establishing Permanent Mandates23.

The exclusion of political acts of violence during such a transitional time narrowed the scope of
consideration for piratical acts, necessarily narrowing potential application of the law resulting
from signatories obligations to enforce the law of the sea.24

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the foundation
for the suppression of piracy under international law, in particular in its articles 100 to 107 and

18
UNCLOS, art. 101, 1833 U.N.TS. at 436.
19
UNCLOS, art. 101, 1833 U.N.TS. at 436; Barry Hart Dubner, Human Rights and Environmental Disaster- Two
Problems That Defy the 'Worms" of the International Law of Sea Piracy, 23 SYRACUSE J. INT'L L. & CoM. , 16
(1997).
20
Barry Hart Dubner, Human Rights and Environmental Disaster- Two Problems That Defy the 'Worms" of the
International Law of Sea Piracy, 23 SYRACUSE J. INT'L L. & CoM. 1, 16 (1997).
21
Harvard Research in International Law, Comment on the Draft Convention on Piracy, 26 AM. J. INT'L. L. 749,
750 (1932) (quoting J. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS 154 (1928))
22
ibid
23
Martin Ira Glasner, Political Geography 261(2d Ed. 1996).
24
Tina Garmon, International Law of the Sea : Reconciling the Law of piracy and terrorism in the wake of
September 11th
110. It sets out the legal frame applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well
as other ocean activities.

PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES UNDER THE CONVENTION

Piracy under the Convention presents two procedural difficulties.25

First, the Convention restricts the label of piracy to acts of maritime violence occurring outside
the jurisdiction of any state. That is, piracy must occur on the high seas, making it a truly
international crime.

Problematically, most piratical acts-or at least those registered with and deemed to be piracy by
the International Maritime Organization (IMO)26-occur within a state's territorial waters or
exclusive economic zone (EEZ)27.Therefore, unless a coastal state has municipal legislation
defining and punishing piracy, the offenders will not be considered pirates.28 As a result,
enforcement action against piracy is generally left to individual states whose coastal or territorial
waters have been affected.29

To that end, the international law on piracy does not apply to incidents occurring within a coastal
states adjacent waters, it has been left to those countries that have been faced with offshore
pirate type attacks and incidents of sea robbery within their jurisdiction to utilise their own
criminal justice systems to police and patrol their waters and ultimately enforce their criminal
laws through prosecutions. As a result, a somewhat uneven legal regime has developed which is
dependent upon the capability of and consistency in the fulfilment of these functions by directly
affected States. The international community retains its rights of regulation and enforcement of
traditional acts of piracy on the high seas, rare as they may be given the developments in the
law of the sea and maritime crimes: very little true high seas piracy actually takes place. The vast
majority of global pirate attacks take place within relatively enclosed waters within the territorial
sea of the adjacent coastal State, and therefore within the responsibility of the relevant coastal

25
Barry Hart Dubner, Human Rights and Environmental Disaster- Two Problems That Defy the 'Worms" of the
International Law of Sea Piracy, 23 SYRACUSE J. INT'L L. & CoM. 16 (1997).
26
1999 Annual Report, Imo Reports On Acts Of Piracy And Armed Robbery Against Ships, 942, Mar. 17, 2000;
2000 Annual Report, Imo Reports On Acts Of Piracy And Armed Robbery Against Ships, 991, Mar. 31, 2001.
27
2000 ANNUAL IMO REPORT, ibid.
28
Lawrence J. Kahn, Pimtes, Rovers, and Thieves. New Problems with an Old Enemy, 20 TUL. MAR. L.J. 293
(1996).
29
John E. Noyes, An Introduction to the International Law of Piracy, CAL. W INT'L L.J. 105 (1990).
State. However, not all States have an equal capacity to ensure maritime security within their
waters and this is highlighted by the current situation in Somalia.30

Further jurisdictional problems concerning the application of piracy provisions arose with the
creation of an EEZ.31 The EEZ can extend up to two hundred miles from the baseline of a coastal
state, although the state is free to define a lesser scope"32. Jurisdictional questions arise due to the
Convention's restriction of piratical acts to the high seas33. Strict coastal state jurisdiction over
application of the EEZ would preclude acts of piracy from occurring in narrow straits such as the
Malacca Strait.

Second, the Convention restricts piracy to private acts.34 Ostensibly, political acts are precluded
from the definition of "piracy"35 But what exactly is a private act? The Harvard Draft, which was
relied upon heavily by the International Law Commission when it drafted the 1952 Geneva
Convention on the High Seas, failed to provide for "private ends."" However, commentary to the
Harvard Draft suggests that drafters did intend piracy to be limited by an intent to rob. In his
presentation of the Harvard Draft to the International Law Commission, the rapporteur specified
that "animus furandi," intent to plunder, was not required.' However, the expeditious decision to
limit piracy to private ends narrowed signatory states' ability and willingness to assert universal
jurisdiction over politically motivated acts. To combat such narrow strictures, Malvina
Halberstam suggests a broad interpretation of "private interests."" Based upon her analyses of the
Harvard Draft, Malvina Halberstam argues that "private interests" include personal motives
arising from "real or supposed injuries done by persons or classes of persons or by a particular
national authority."36

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES UNDER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Article 100 of UNCLOS provides that All States shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in
the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any
30
Donald R. Rothwell, MARITIME PIRACY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, available at
http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/maritimepiracyandinternationallaw/
31
UNCLOS, arts. 55-59, 1833 U.N.TS. at 418-19;
32
UNCLOS, art. 57, 1833 U.N.T.S. at 418
33
UNCLOS, art. 100, 1833 U.N.T.S. at 436.
34
UNCLOS, art. 101, 1833 UN.T.S. at 436.
35
Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy, and IMO Convention on Maritime
Safety, 82 AM. J. INT'L L. 269 (1988).
36
Ibid.
State. The General Assembly has also repeatedly encouraged States to cooperate to address
piracy and armed robbery at sea in its resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea. For example,
in its resolution 64/71 of 4 December 2009, the General Assembly recognized the crucial role of
international cooperation at the global, regional, subregional and bilateral levels in combating, in
accordance with international law, threats to maritime security, including piracy.37

Article 102 of the UNCLOS, 1982 lays down that the acts of piracy committed by a warship,
government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship
or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by 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 referred to in Article 101. The same applies if the
ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of
the persons guilty of that act..

In addition to this, Article 104 of UNCLOS lays down that a ship or aircraft may retain its
nationality although it has become a pirate ship or aircraft. The retention or loss of nationality is
determined by the law of the state from which such nationality was derived. Article 105 of
UNCLOS lays down that on the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any
state, every state may seize a pirate ship or aircraft or a ship aircraft taken by piracy and under
the control of pirates and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the
state which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also
determine the action to be taken with regard to ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of
the third parties acting in good faith. Moreover, Article 106 of UNCLOS lays down that where
the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion on piracy have been affected without adequate
grounds, the state making the seizure shall be liable to the state the nationality of which is
possessed by the ship or aircraft, for any loss or damage caused by seizure and Article 107 of
UNCLOS states that a seizure on account of piracy may only be carried out by warships or
military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on
government service and authorized to that effect.

37
Kristen E. Boon, Douglas C. Lovelace (Jr.), Piracy and International Maritime Security: Developments Through
2011
 C. CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF THE CRIME OF
PIRACY

By universal jurisdiction in respect of a crime , it is generally meant that all states exercises
jurisdiction in respect of that crime. When a crime is against the interests of international
Community (i.e., Delict Jure Gentium) then all the states are entitled to apprehend and punish
persons accused of such crimes. Persons accused of committing crime of Piracy may be
apprehended and punished because they are regarded as enemies of the whole mankind. In words
of Judge Moore : A pirate is treated as an outlaw , as the enemy of mankind- hostes humane
generis- whom any nation may in the interest of all capture and punish38.

The concept of Universal Jurisdiction has been accepted and adopted in the 1958 Geneva
Convention on the High Seas. Article 19 of the this Convention has been retained without any
change in Article 105 of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

There is a great controversy in respect of the property of the ship thus seized. According to the
practice of states in the seventeenth century, the property of such a ship became the property of
the state which seized the ship. But in the eighteenth century, it was generally accepted that the
seized ship and its property should be returned to the real owners. This rule is called pirata non
mutat dominium. It is still a prevalent rule. But if it is not clear as to who is the owner of the ship
and its property, they become the property of the state which seized them39.

D. THE 1988 CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLAWFUL ACTS

AGAINST THE SAFETY OF MARITIME NAVIGATION ("SUA CONVENTION")

After the UNCLOS, it did not take long for the perceived gaps or lacunae to be exposed or for
the provisions of UNCLOS to be tested. The supposed gap resulted in the Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts. It is pertinent to note, however, that unlike UNCLOS, which is
considered as reflective of customary international law, the SUA Convention is only binding on
State parties to the Convention.40

38
The Lotus Case, P.C.I.J, Series A, No. 10( 1927) Pg.70
39
H. Lauterpacht, L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 616 ( 8th ed )
40
Dr. Lawrence Azubuike, International Law Regime Against Piracy
In Following a hijacking and murder aboard the ACHILLE LAURO, Italy proposed a
convention against maritime terrorism41. Completed in Rome on March 10, 1998, the
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
(Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts) sought to eliminate threats of maritime
violence42. The ultimate provisions of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts were
based upon a draft submitted by Austria, Italy, and Egypt43. The Preamble of the Convention
expressed deep concern about "the world-wide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms,
which endanger or take innocent human lives, jeopardize fundamental freedoms and seriously
impair the dignity of human beings."44

While none of the treaties address the boarding of suspect ships, and thus maintain the traditional
rule of the exclusivity of flag state jurisdiction, the 2005 Protocol to the 1988 SUA Convention
contains a comprehensive regime for seeking and obtaining the flag states confirmation that the
suspect vessel is registered, and authorization to board, search, and detain the vessel45.

The SUA Convention proscribes acts that include one of the basic elements of the crime of
piracy: seizing or exercising control over a ship by force or threat of force or any other form of
intimidation, and injuring or killing any person in connection with the commission or attempted
commission of that offense, but does not require that the acts involve two ships46. Other
proscriptions include performing an act of violence against a person on board a ship if the act is
likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship, a requirement not found in piracy law. Still
other proscribed acts are similarly conditioned47. But the geographic scope of appli-cation of the
SUA Convention, unlike that of the law of piracy, is not limited to the high seas and the EEZ. It
applies if the ship is navigating, or is scheduled to navigate into, through or from waters beyond

41
Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy, and IMO Convention on Maritime
Safety, 82 AM. J. INT'L L. 269 (1988).
42
Mar. 10, 1988, 27 I.L.M. 668 (1988) [hereinafter Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts].
43
Halberstam, Supra note 41
44
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
45
Protocol to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, art.
8, Oct. 14, 2005.
46
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Convention, art. 3(1)(a).
47
Ibid, art. 3(1)(b)(f ).
the outer limit of the territorial sea of a single State, or the lateral limits of its territorial sea with
adjacent States.48

To the extent that the offenses committed by suspected pirates meet the requirements of the SUA
Convention, it is a particularly useful instrument because it creates a framework under its
Articles 7, 8, and 10 that authorizes masters of ships to deliver suspected SUA offenders to a
coastal state party. That party, in turn, is obliged both to accept custody unless it can articulate
why the Convention is not applicable, and to extradite the offenders to an interested state or
submit the case to its own authorities for prosecution.

Jurisdictionally, crimes committed on the high seas are not punishable unless the vessel
perpetrating the act was scheduled to navigate through a signatory coastal state's territorial
waters or the victim was a national of a signatory state wishing to enforce the Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts. Jurisdiction over offenses occurring upon the high seas may be
enforceable by a particular state so long as the state is a party to the Convention and the vessel is
located within the state's territorial waters. Due to restrictive enforcement jurisdiction, the
essence of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts is confined to its "extradite or
prosecute provision.49

III. PIRACY UNDER MUNICIPAL LAW

There is difference in the concept of piracy under International Law and Municipal Law . some
states may declare crime those acts of violence, detention or depredations, which are not crimes
under international law. On the other hand, states may also declare crimes lesser acts of violence
than those declared by international law. For example, in England every British citizen who
assists the enemy of the king or queen or transports slaves in the high seas, is treated as a pirate.
But foreigners can be treated as pirates only in accordance with the rules of international law.
Thus the concept of piracy in municipal law is different from that of international law.

48
Ibid., art. 4.
49
Malvina Halberstam, Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy, and IMO Convention on Maritime
Safety, 82 AM. J. INT'L L. 269 (1988).
 IV. THE ESCALATION OF PIRACY IN THE GULF OF
ADEN AND IN THE STRAIT OF MALACCA
Recently, the international community has been inundated, almost daily, with reports of piracy.
While this rise is spread across the globe, two parts of the world have received the most focus:
(1) the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Somalia, and (2) the Strait of Malacca which is located
within the territorial waters of the coastal States of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.50

The United Nations Security Council has had to become aware of the menace of piracy in the
Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. The Security Council Resolutions encourage states to
cooperate with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TPG) to repress piracy, and, for
that purpose, after notifying the Secretary General of the United Nations, may enter the territorial
waters of Somalia to exercise any rights in order to repress piracy51. The fact of the matter is that
a situation where ships are being daily waylaid on the seas demanded a fairly robust and decisive
action. It implicated international peace and security, and appeals to cooperate with the
government of Somalia, which seemed not really in charge of anything, were not the best
response. piracies. No matter that the pirates are armed with sophisticated weapons, the single
most important factor encouraging them has been that they had been operating unchallenged for
a long time. If they have to fight or defend against a national or international force every time
they undertake their nefarious activity, their cost-benefit analysis would be different.52

The Strait of Malacca, the coastal states of Indonesia and Malaysia have resisted the involvement
of foreign or outside forces on the basis of respect for their sovereignty. However, they must
realize that they also have responsibility. If they continue to fail to repress piracy, they implicate
their international responsibility.53Those states whose nationals and or ships fall victim to the
pirates in the Strait of Malacca should be able to make and maintain claims against the two states
for failing in their duty to repress and prevent piracy in their territorial waters.

50
Sittnick, State Responsibility and Maritime Terrorism in the Strait of Malacca: Persuading Indonesia and
Malaysia to Take Additional Steps to Secure the Strait, 14 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y 743 (2005).
51
See for example UNSC Resolution 1816 (2008); UNSC Resolution 1846 (2008).
52
Dr. Lawrence Azubuike, International Law Regime Against Piracy
53
Supra note at 50
 V. CONCLUSION
The twentieth century has seen the rampant overshadow by the international crime such as that
of Piracy. The international community has accorded the problem a kin to various other
international crimes. Piracy has not only been a topic of historic international interest but the
growth of the modern piracy has alarmingly endangered the International community. Piracy has
been surviving or thriving especially due to lack of monitoring mechanisms and a failure in
maintaining the governmental efficiency of the coastal states.

Some have argued that empowering the treaties/ conventions with powers such as enlarged
jurisdiction over the matters of Piracy in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention would result in the elimination of bar of jurisdiction
and increase cohesion among states and would result in eliminating their disparities. Moreover,
even if a state were not a party to the Conventions grant of universal jurisdiction recognized
under international law for piracy would be extended to cover such acts.

Though, the response of the international community to this peril has been rather haphazard. A
more coordinated approach is pledged, with a view to the resolution of the legal issues identified
herein. To this end, the International Law Commission may see fit to revisit the definition of
piracy. However, there are other recourse to both individual States and the international
community. Recent incidents have made it lucid that piracy and threats to maritime security are
impossible to avoid. The development of a robust and universally applicable legal regime to deal
with the problem ought to form an indispensible part of any effective response.