New Article on Aiding and Abetting Piracy

piracy renaissance table of contents

My article on intentional facilitation and incitement to piracy has at long last been published in the Florida Journal for International Law. It argues that general principles of law as discerned from the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals may serve as the basis for the application of appropriate modes of responsibility for piracy. Ultimately, as applied to two piracy cases in the U.S. it concludes that aiding and abetting piracy may be perpetrated on Somali territory or territorial waters and still be subject to jurisdiction within the U.S. In view of the time-lapse between initial submission and publication (as is often the case in law review publishing), the editors graciously allowed me to append a postscript, updating the progress of two appeals in separate circuit courts which agreed in large part with my conclusions.

Reprinted with permission from the Florida Journal of International Law. 

Piracy Best Practices Adapt to West Africa’s Setting

The surge of piracy in West Africa prompted some of the main stakeholders in the maritime industry to develop interim guidelines for the protection against piracy in the region. The guidelines, endorsed by the IMO, aim to bridge the gap between the prevailing situation in West Africa and the advice currently available in the fight against piracy. They complement one another and are to be read in conjunction with the Best Management Practices (BMP4) originally adopted to address piracy in the Gulf of Aden.

Worthy of note is that the Guidelines identify the area off the coast of Nigeria, Togo and Benin as at major risk, although pirates are rather flexible in their operation and attacks have also occurred elsewhere. Significant is the absence in the region of regular patrolling missions by international navies, a designated group transit area or a specific information and coordination centre akin to the UKMTO or MSCHOA in the Gulf of Aden. In the event of a pirate attack, the main point of reference is currently the Regional Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre, run by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency in Lagos.

With regards to the pirates’ modus operandi, their activity is normally confined to armed robbery of valuables from the ship’s safe, IT equipment and personal effects while the ship is approaching or anchored off ports; and cargo theft, mainly directed at oil and chemical tankers and involving the ship’s hijack for several days until the cargo is transferred by well-organized and coordinated cartels. Pirates appear to possess intelligence-gathering and maritime skills. While kidnapping occurred on some occasions, generally in connection with cargo theft or in areas characterized by political instability, ransom does not appear to be among the pirates’ primary objectives. Although this is a significant difference with Somali pirates, the fact that a ship’s crew is not seen as a value might in turn heighten safety risks, which is consistent with the fact that West African pirates have shown a greater level of violence during attacks. Engaging in a fight with the pirates is therefore strongly discouraged.

Finally, while it is possible to obtain authorization to employ protective services such as military or  police as armed escorts, the use of private armed guards is problematic, given the diversity of the legal, security and administrative frameworks and particularly considering that attacks are likely to take place within the territorial waters of States in the region, which often do not allow the operation of private security companies.

Regional States Play Key Role in Fight against Piracy in West Africa

It has been some time since we first and last spoke about the escalation of maritime piracy and armed robbery at sea in West Africa. The United Nations Security Council recently issued a statement dedicated to the emerging threat of piracy in West Africa, calling for States in the region to play a key role in countering piracy and addressing its underlying causes:

“The Security Council stresses the importance of adopting a comprehensive approach led by the countries of the region to counter the threat of piracy and armed robbery at sea in the Gulf of Guinea, as well as related criminal activities, and to address their underlying causes. The Security Council recognizes the efforts of the countries in the region in adopting relevant measures in accordance with international law to counter piracy and armed robbery at sea and to address transnational organized crime, such as drug trafficking, as well as other measures to enhance maritime safety and security.”

With the technical support of specialized UN and regional agencies, West Africa’s heads of State have already taken steps to counter piracy, including the holding of a regional meeting in Yaoundé, Cameroon, which culminated with the adoption of the Code of Conduct concerning the Prevention and Repression of Piracy, Armed Robbery against Ships, and Illegal Maritime Activities in West and Central Africa and the establishment of a coordination centre for the implementation of a regional strategy for maritime safety and security. The centre should contribute to the implementation of multi-national and trans-regional mechanisms covering the whole region of the Gulf of Guinea.

Piracy in West Africa has emerged as an additional threat to safety and trade in the region, with the number of reported attacks now surpassing those off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden. While piracy in Somalia was borne out of the collapse of State institutions and their failure to counter insecurity and enforce the rule of law, West Africa is characterized by more stable governments with enforcement powers on their territory through naval and military assets. West African States are therefore in a position, and have a duty, to play a more direct role in the fight against piracy in the region. Piracy in West Africa, however, shows links with organized transnational criminality, such as drugs, natural resources and people smuggling and thrives through corruption at both the local and central administration level, which, in turn, creates discontent and lack of trust amongst the population. Independence movements have also degenerated into committing acts of terrorism. For some time, these phenomena have plagued the region and provided the conditions for the resurgence of piracy. Among the main challenges in combating piracy in the Gulf of Guinea is therefore the development of a coordinated approach driven at the regional level, bringing together costal States as well as regional organizations and encompassing the sharing of resources, intelligence and information within the framework of a common plan of action. While fundamental distinctions remain in the pirates’ modus operandi between West and East Africa, this approach can build upon some of the lessons learned in the so far successful strategy to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden, including the modernization and harmonization of national criminal codes, upgrading of detention facilities and other infrastructures and other training or capacity building initiatives.

Somali Piracy Conference

Piracy Conference Brochure TitlePiracy Conference devoted to the discussion of maritime piracy issues will take place at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law this Friday, September 6th.  The conference will unite prominent piracy scholars, NGO activists, international organization members and government officials, to discuss topics such as the treatment of juvenile pirates, the necessity to prosecute piracy organizers and financiers, new trends in the global combat against piracy, as well as operations and law enforcement issues related to the apprehension of suspected pirates.  The keynote address will be delivered by Senator Romeo Dallaire of Canada, founder of the prominent Child Soldier Initiative at Dalhousie University.  The conference is open to the public and will also be available via webcast.

Upcoming Event: At Third Dubai Counter-Piracy Conference, Focus is on Rebuilding Somalia

The United Arab Emirates will host its third International Counter-Piracy Conference on 11-12 September 2013. The UAE has since long engaged in counter-piracy initiatives in the Gulf of Aden and the larger area of the Indian Ocean. The event, which will be held in Dubai, UAE is entitled “Countering Maritime Piracy: Continued Efforts for Regional Capacity Building” and follows prior conferences convened in April 2011 and June 2012. We have covered last year’s event here and here.

While the previous Conferences brought together stakeholders from both the public and private sectors to devise a framework strategy to combat piracy, at that time at its peak in the Gulf of Aden, this year’s conference will build upon the current successes against piracy and focus on developing the capacities of Somali institutions to strengthen security and long-term economic growth.

The key themes of the Conference will be:

  • Continuing to build awareness about the humanitarian and economic cost of piracy, including extending support to seafarers who are suffering from maritime piracy on the frontline;
  • Injecting a new momentum in the common search for an effective and enduring solution to piracy through collaboration across political, military, financial and legal arenas;
  • Encouraging a comprehensive, inclusive approach that can deliver a long term, sustainable solution to counter piracy, including land-based solutions;
  • Highlighting the significance of enhancing industry-government cooperation in addressing the issue through joint strategies emphasising sustainable long term solutions.

The official website of the Conference can be found here. A draft agenda as well as some of the main presentations and position papers are already available, giving a preview of the forthcoming debate.

The 100 Series Rules: An International Model Set of Maritime Rules for the Use of Force – An Update

A guest post by David Hammond. For a background, see also our previous post on the publication of the 100 Series Rules. 

David Hammond is the Head of Maritime Practice at 9 Bedford Row International Chambers London, author of the 100 Series Rules, a former frontline Royal Marines’ Officer and former head maritime lawyer to the United Kingdom’s Chief of Joint Operations for counter-piracy matters. He is an Associate Research Fellow of the Greenwich Maritime Institute and international speaker on maritime Rules for the Use of Force. The comments within this post comprise the personal opinion of the author and do not constitute any measure of formal legal advice whatsoever and howsoever read. Formal legal advice may be obtained on instruction.

Also posted at All About Shipping and the Bridge.

Background

Over the past two years, the 100 Series Rules (“the Rules”) have been conceived, researched, drafted and finally published in soft-copy form as of May 3, 2013 as a first edition. They are a first for the commercial maritime industry and go one step further than simple guidance for the drafting Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) and guidance as to where responsibility lies for producing RUF as an inclusive part of a commercial contract. At the time of writing, the 100 Series Rules have been short-listed in support of one of the five finalists for the Lloyds List Global Awards 2013 Maritime Lawyer of the Year.

At the very least, the Rules provide a lawful core set of principles and RUF for use by emerging companies. At best, they provide a point of reference that can be relied upon as a robust legal interpretation for the lawful use of force by international organisations and State entities, enabling auditing, standardisation and accountability in any chain of events where force is lawfully used at sea in self-defence.

The Rules have been developed for the benefit and use of the entire maritime industry, intended to be referred to without the imposition of State or geographical boundaries, overly restrictive interpretations, interference from commercial entities seeking commercial advantage or State authorities seeking State advantage.  In short, the previous lacuna in provision to the international community of an actual model set of rules has been filled and is now being further developed alongside the registered “Supporting Entities”, as highlighted on the website.

The Law

The law that underpins the Rules is that of individual self-defence; itself a universal concept that can be found to outdate modern legislative interpretations going back to the Bible, Koran and other main religious texts by way of example. It is the individual right of all persons in every region, in every country and that includes indigenous seafarers, merchant sailors, as well as Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP), to be able to lawfully defend themselves against criminal acts of violence.

The Rules themselves are concise in terms of their core principles. They are concise in their outline of graduated defensive response measures that individuals may be required to undertake to protect themselves and those immediately around them. This, of course, includes the use of lethal/deadly force as a last resort, in self-defence.

The drafters of the Rules have researched significant numbers of individual State’s legislation covering the issue of self-defence (presentations containing this research may be found open-source on the website). They have subsequently identified the international objective law test of what is “reasonable and necessary” within the Rules, while accounting for proportionality in the use of any force as against an identified treat. The objective test stands as a higher standard as against which actions may be measured than that necessarily found in some State’s legislation at the individual national subjective level. In some cases, individual State’s legislation may well exceed that laid down in the Rules.

The 100 Series Rules will not, however, provide any form of indemnity or immunity whatsoever against civil or criminal liability when force has been used unlawfully.

International Supporting Entities

The Rules are currently supported in their conception and use by over 40 international entities. These currently include a main flag State, ISO, Lloyds Register, BIMCO, UNICRI, SAMI as well as international maritime associations representing the world’s shipowners and ship managers, international PMSCs, insurance and maritime intelligence providers and leading international law firms specialising in piracy matters. In short, this is an international effort driven by leading commercial entities based upon practical and pragmatic real-time experiences, combined with the general call for clarity of rules, transparency in their use and accountability for the lawful use of force at sea.

IMO and ISO

In support of ISO PAS 28007-2012, the Rules were first submitted to ISO in October 2012. They were accepted a work item and are undergoing a final review at the time of writing.

 In June 2013, the Rules passed through the IMO at Maritime Safety Committee 92 as an INF paper sponsored by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, ISO, BIMCO and the International Chamber of Shipping. They were subsequently noted by the IMO and unchallenged for the detail of their contents following the session.

American Standards

There appears to be a dual-track approach to this issue of standardisation as between the US-based ASIS organisation and the European International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). This article will not debate the pros and cons of the two initiatives, noting only that up to the point of the release of the 100 Series Rules, there was no other reference to an international model standard freely made available to the maritime industry.  Further, without competition, in what is an otherwise commercially focused arena, lone imposed standards may fall foul of anti-competition rules and legislations.

The maritime environment is of course is an entirely different environment to that of both established and emerging land-based operations, often undertaken with the backing of a UN mandate following a period of war-fighting as part of an international, non-international or internal armed conflict, often involving NATO forces and where the Law of Armed Conflict may have been invoked.  In stark comparison and as most readers will know, piracy, armed robbery and hijacking are criminal acts that require a constabulary response and hence the restriction in the maritime environment, (outside of armed conflict) for the need for recognised RUF, as opposed to offensive Rules of Engagement (ROE).

In tandem with the text of the American National Standard PSC 1-2012 ‘Management System for Quality of Private Security Company Operations – Requirements with Guidance’ and reassuringly so, the 100 Series Rules includes the same consideration and understanding for the need of the requirement for human rights at a State, commercial and individual level. The essence and intent of the American and European Human Rights Conventions, as well as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and supporting texts have been rightly integrated as part of the comprehensive approach to the issue of maritime RUF.

Furthermore, 9 Bedford Row International (9BRi) Chambers’ Maritime Practice, will shortly be releasing the first international model guideline document “Model Guiding Principles and Best Practice for Human Rights Considerations in the Maritime Industry” ©Copyright 2013 9BRi. It will be available through http://www.100seriesrules.com/Human_Rights. This will be for the reference and use by the maritime (including the maritime security) industry and interested third parties. It will be based upon current international conventions and decided international case law, backed by a comprehensive legal advice.

Summary

Currently, there stands a lawful international model for maritime RUF that works, is internationally supported, widely socialised and rapidly growing so.  As a model set of actual rules, the 100 Series addresses the commercial requirements of the international maritime industry in greater depth than any other currently available RUF guidance and there are no cogent reasons why the established 100 Series cannot complement emerging land standards.

As seen with the development of Best Management Practice (BMP), the 100 Series Rules will remain at the disposal and for the use of the international maritime industry. It will be an iterative document that will develop over time, but most importantly, it should not be undermined by entities seeking commercial advantage at the expense of supporting and protecting seafarers in undertaking often difficult and dangerous roles at sea.

The 4th Circuit Agrees – Kingpins on Land are Pirates Too

Weeks after the DC Circuit issued its opinion in US v. Ali, finding pirate aiders and abettors who never enter the high seas to be equally guilty of piracy, the 4th Circuit has issued its opinion in US v. Shibin reaching the same result. It held:

[UNCLOS] Article 101 reaches all the piratical conduct, wherever carried out, so long as the acts specified in Article 101(a) are carried out on the high seas. We thus hold that conduct violating Article 101(c) does not have to be carried out on the high seas, but it must incite or intentionally facilitate acts committed against ships, persons, and property on the high seas.

The 4th Circuit relies in part on the DC Circuit opinion in Ali, but it also points to recent UN Security Council resolutions encouraging states to investigate and prosecute those who illicitly finance, plan, organize, or unlawfully profit from pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia. The 4th Circuit panel states that “Clearly, those who “finance, plan, organize, or unlawfully profit” from piracy do not do so on the high seas.”

Let us take a moment to take a broader view of the policy implications of these legal results. Both Shibin and Ali raise interesting points of law that will need to be resolved before high-level pirates are prosecuted in national courts. But it bears emphasis that there remains a level of the pirate hierarchy that continues to enjoy impunity. The financiers of these operations and their criminal masterminds have not been indicted in any jurisdiction, despite international efforts to trace funds and to bring inciters and facilitators to justice. If the courts in Ali and Shibin had reached the opposite result, it would limit the prosecution of pirate aiders and abettors to the jurisdiction where the facilitator acted. In these cases, that state is Somalia. Despite some recent improvements, it is not clear that Somalia’s criminal justice system is prepared for complex prosecutions of financial criminals or for criminal masterminds who never set foot on pirate ships. Thus a contrary legal result in these cases would have undermined the transnational system of criminal justice that has been adopted to address Somali piracy.