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.

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.

Ali post-script – Potential Rehearing en banc

As readers will note from the last two posts, the Federal Court of Appeals in Washington DC ruled in US v. Ali, that piracy may include aiding and abetting committed from shore (i.e. not on the high seas). As per custom, a three-judge panel issued this ruling. Ali’s attorney has now filed a Petition for Rehearing en banc (by the entire court). Federal Courts of Appeal are reluctant to grant rehearing en banc because of the drain on judicial resources. This is especially true in the DC Circuit which has only granted rehearing in a single case in each of the last few terms. Nonetheless, the DC Circuit has indicated some interested in Ali’s petition for rehearing as last week it ordered the government to respond. Rehearing of the case could result in the same or different outcome. But it would also raise the profile of the case for possible hearing at the US Supreme Court.

The DC Circuit’s Ali Decision

DC Circuit Court of Appeals

DC Circuit Court of Appeals

On June 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided the case of United States of America v. Ali Mohamed Ali, a case about which I have written extensively. This post will provide a brief factual and procedural background of the case, briefly discuss the DC Circuit’s treatment of three of the four charges against Ali, and explain how and why the court rejected my argument about a high seas requirement for facilitators of piracy.

Background

Ali Mohamed Ali, the Minister of Education for the semi-autonomous Somali region of Somaliland, negotiated the release of eleven hostages aboard the Bahamian-flagged, Danish-owned merchant vessel CEC Future. Regrettably, in the era of piracy off the Horn of Africa, this is not an uncommon occurrence. What is interesting about Ali’s case, however, is that he negotiated the ransom from Somali territorial waters, never facilitating while on the high seas. Nonetheless, the United States government built a case against him, planned a fairly elaborate ruse to invite Ali to an education conference in North Carolina, and arrested him on the tarmac when his plane touched down in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2011.

After a number of superseding indictments, a grand jury charged Ali with conspiracy to commit piracy, aiding and abetting piracy, conspiracy to commit hostage taking, and aiding and abetting hostage taking. Ali filed a motion to dismiss and was successful on a number of counts, with the lower court dismissing the conspiracy to commit piracy count, narrowing the aiding and abetting count to acts of facilitation that occurred on the high seas, and dismissing both hostage taking charges as a violation of due process.

On appeal, the DC Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the conspiracy to commit piracy charge, but reversed the dismissal of the hostage taking charges and held that the United States may assert universal jurisdiction over acts of facilitation that take place entirely within the territory of another state.

Conspiracy to Commit Piracy and Hostage Taking Charges

Of the four charges considered by the court, three were relatively uncontroversial. In affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the conspiracy to commit piracy charge, the court relied on the Charming Betsy canon, concluding that because “UNCLOS [art. 101]’s plain language does not include conspiracy to commit piracy,” the government cannot charge conspiracy to commit piracy “as defined by the law of nations.”

As for the hostage taking charges, Ali’s principle argument was that asserting universal jurisdiction over hostage taking – a non-UJ offense – the government violated Ali’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. constitution. However, the court concluded that the Hostage Taking Convention provided global notice that an alleged hostage taker could be haled into court. That, combined with the fact that 18 USC § 1203, the American hostage taking statute, asserts jurisdiction over all offenders “found in the United States,” was enough to sustain Ali’s hostage taking charges. This section contains some interesting discussion of the relationship between United States and international law, but it remains to the side of what I believe the most interesting aspect of the Ali case: whether universal jurisdiction exists over facilitators of piracy who never leave the territorial jurisdiction of a state.

Aiding and Abetting Piracy

In considering whether “piracy as defined by the law of nations” allows for universal jurisdiction prosecutions over territorial facilitators, the court considered the text of UNCLOS art. 101, the context provided by surrounding provisions, as well as the relevant drafting history. Though it did not consider the underlying policy implications of criminalizing piracy, the structure of the court’s argument closely mirrored that from my law review article. However, the similarities between our analyses went no further.

The court begins with a textual analysis of art. 101, which takes only three sentences and is re-printed in full here:

Explicit geographical limits – ‘on the high seas’ and ‘outside the jurisdiction of any state’ – govern piratical acts under article 101(a)(i) and (ii). Such language is absent, however, in article 101(c), strongly suggesting a facilitative act need not occur on the high seas so long as its predicate act has. So far, so good; Charming Betsy poses no problems.[1]

Although the court could have ended its analysis there, it turned to Ali’s contextual arguments concerning arts. 86 and 105, introducing the relevant Part in UNCLOS and describing states’ power to capture pirates, respectively. Regarding art. 86, the court concluded that it was not meant to limit the provisions of the Part to high seas acts, but rather to explicate the meaning of “high seas” for the purposes of the Part. As for art. 105, the court explained that “the provision’s reference to the high seas highlights the broad authority of nations to apprehend pirates even in international waters.” The court further asserted that Ali’s argument that art. 105 limits universal jurisdiction captures to the high seas “proves too much, leaving nations incapable of prosecuting even those undisputed pirates they discover within their own borders.”

Finally, the court considered UNCLOS’s drafting history, or, as it phrased the inquiry, the “drafting history’s drafting history.”  The court traced UNCLOS back to the 1932 Harvard Draft Convention’s explicit pronouncement that acts of facilitation must take place on the high seas to be subject to universal jurisdiction. The court found this evidence unpersuasive, stating that, “[e]ffectively, Ali would have us ignore UNCLOS’s plain meaning in favor of eighty-year-old scholarship that may have influenced a treaty that includes language similar to UNCLOS art. 101. This is a bridge too far.”  Indeed, the court stated that it would not completely address the drafting history, as the plain meaning of UNCLOS art. 101(c) was clear.

The court concluded that UNCLOS art. 101, and by extension 18 USC § 1651, and by further extension 18 USC § 2, all allow for universal jurisdiction prosecutions for acts of piratical facilitation which take place entirely with another state’s borders.

In the end, the D.C. Circuit’s analysis and my own departed ways at the very beginning, perhaps even before.  In conceptualizing piratical facilitation as a form of liability distinct from piracy rather than piracy in and of itself, the court was able to resolve the textual argument in one short paragraph. From there, the court sought independent justifications for the limitation in the context and drafting history, where I looked to the context, drafting history, and underlying policy rationale to resolve the ambiguous language.


[1] Omitting the internal citation to the general proposition that inclusion of language in one section of a statute and exclusion in another should be taken as purposeful.

When the Use of Force is Lawfull: The 100 Series Rules are Released

After a lengthy incubation process, the 100 Series Rules have finally been released. Courtesy of the author, David Hammond, we have obtained a copy here.

The Logo of the 100 Series Rules

The Logo of the 100 Series Rules for the Use of Force

The 100 Series Rules are an international model standard and example benchmark of best practice for the use of force in the maritime security and anti-piracy fields for application by privately contracted armed security personnel (PCASP) and private maritime security companies (PMSCs) on board ships.

The Rules are set out for the benefit of the Master, Ship owner, charterer, insurer, underwriters, PMSCs, PCASP and interested third parties, providing guidance on lawful graduated response measures and lawful use of force, including lethal force, in accordance with the right of self-defence in the context of maritime piracy, armed robbery or hijacking. The Rules aim to provide for transparency of rules, clarity in use and accountability of actions in those situations, and hope to fill gaps in these areas often lamented by the stakeholders of maritime industry and maritime security.

The 100 Series Rules have been developed for the benefit of the entire maritime industry and under-pinned by a thorough public international and criminal law legal review of what is “reasonable and necessary” when force is used, as a lawful last resort, in self-defence.

Further details about the 100 Series Rules can be found at www.100seriesrules.com.

Kiobel Postscript

Further to my earlier analysis here, there was one other remarkable detail in the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kiobel. Although, the opinion in Kiobel was devoted to the application of the Alien Tort Statute, it injected some confusion into a strictly piracy matter. Citing to Blackstone’s definition of piracy the court majority noted, “the offence of piracy by common law, consists of committing those acts of robbery and depredation upon the high seas, which, if committed upon land, would have amounted to a felony there.” This is an outdated definition of piracy inconsistent with the law of nations. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has held in two recent opinions that piracy does not require an intent to rob (animus furandi) because the piracy statute 18 USC 1651 incorporates modern developments in “the law of nations” including the customary definition of piracy in Article 101 on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Only a few months ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear these two cases, thereby taking no view on whether the definition of piracy has been updated by modern developments. By now citing to Blackstone’s definition in the Kiobel opinion, however, the court has muddied the waters.

%d bloggers like this: