From New Delhi to Rome (and Back) via Hamburg or The Hague: the Enrica Lexie Incident and the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism

The Italian Marines upon their initial return in Italy in December 2012. Will they remain for good?

The Italian Marines upon their initial return in Italy in December 2012. Will they remain for good?

The recent decision of the Italian Government not to return two Italian marines to India for trial in connection with the killing of Indian fishermen is heightening tensions between Italy and India and is spawning an international diplomatic fallout. Since its inception, the case attracted much debate and conjecture, both by the media but also by specialized political and legal commentators. We have provided our point of view, for instance here and here. In essence, Italy and India disagree on who has jurisdiction to try the Italian marines. Each of their respective arguments is premised on international law, notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as well as municipal law. India contends that it has jurisdiction to try the marines because (1) the victims were Indian nationals, (2) the victims were killed on an Indian ship and (3)  the incident occurred within India’s Contiguous Zone, which extends beyond its territorial waters. For its part, Italy claims it has jurisdiction to try the pair because (1) they are Italian citizens; (2) they were deployed as a Vessel Protection Detachment on the Italian ship Enrica Lexie and (3) the incident occurred within international waters. Worthy of note is that both countries, separately but concurrently, have indeed initiated criminal proceedings against the marines before their internal judicial systems.

Recently, the Italian government formally clarified that since the issuing of the Indian Supreme Court decision in January 2013 in this matter, indicating that the marines shall be tried by a special chamber set up within the Indian judicial system, it has pursued the cooperation of the Indian government under Articles 100 and 283 of UNCLOS for a settlement of this matter under international law. From a formal point of view, therefore, the actions of the Italian government are an attempt to bring the question of which State has jurisdiction to try the marines within the legal framework of UNCLOS provisions related to the settlement of disputes.

UNCLOS builds on the commitment by all United Nations Members States to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered. In particular, one of the main characteristic of UNCLOS and its dispute settlement system is the possibility for a State Party to unilaterally trigger the compulsory and binding jurisdiction of certain judicial institutions for the resolutions of such disputes. Given UNCLOS comprehensive reach, the range of controversies subject to resolution varies, and includes issues relevant to seabed and maritime delimitation, navigation, fisheries and the environment, etc.

Part XV of UNCLOS requires States Parties to first attempt to settle any dispute between them by peaceful means and seek a solution in compliance with the United Nations Charter (Articles 279-280). Importantly, States Parties can agree to seek the settlement of the dispute by peaceful means of their own choice (Article 281), including recourse to general, regional or bilateral agreements (Article 282). Parties also have an obligation to exchange views on the possible settlement (Article 283) and can decide to submit the dispute to a non-binding conciliation (Article 284). Where, however, no settlement has been reached, UNCLOS stipulates that the dispute must be submitted at the request of either party to the dispute to a court or tribunal having jurisdiction in this regard (Article 286). The relevant rules contained in Part XV of UNCLOS are quite complex and foresee the possibility of seeking relief before different fora, depending on the subject matter of the controversy, also setting forth a series of exceptions and opt-outs. With regard to controversies akin to that concerning the Enrica Lexie incident, Article 287 of UNCLOS defines available courts or tribunals as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in Hamburg (ITLOS), or the International Court of Justice, in the Hague (ICJ). In ratifying the UNCLOS, Italy already declared its acceptance of the jurisdiction of either of these institutions as binding, while India reserved its rights to any such declaration. Alternatively, the parties might choose to refer the unsettled dispute to an ad hoc arbitral tribunal. A Party to a dispute not covered by a declaration in force shall be deemed to have accepted arbitration.  If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same procedure for the settlement of the dispute, this may be submitted to arbitration unless the Parties otherwise agree. Finally, any decision rendered by a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over the dispute shall be final and shall be complied with by all the parties to the dispute (Article 296).

Arguably, the positions of the two States on this matter have not been more discordant. Italy’s sudden decision not to return its marines to India is premised on a change in circumstances following the perceived lack of cooperation by the Indian authorities in resolving the dispute in accordance with international law. This in itself is considered by the Italian government as a dispute on the scope of application of UNCLOS. The Indian government, on the other hand, has reacted strongly and called the Italian decision “unacceptable”. The Indian Supreme Court is currently precluding the Italian Ambassador, who acted as a guarantor for the return of the marines to India, from leaving the country. While it is unclear whether the Italian Ambassador has any immediate intention to leave India, the Indian Supreme Court should be cognizant of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) which provides in Article 29 that the person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. The Indian Supreme Court appears to misconstrue the Italian ambassador as a personal guarantor for the return of the marines, rather than a diplomatic agent of the Italian government. The two states maintain irreconcilable positions. India needs Italy to return the marines back on its soil to eventually commence a meaningful trial before its courts, while Italy needs India to comply with its international rogatory requests to complete its investigations into the matter, thus relaxing the jurisdictional dispute by bringing the marines to trial before its own courts.

ITLOS sits in Hamburg - Is the Enrica Lexie Case on its way there? Courtesy ITLOS

ITLOS sits in Hamburg – Is the Enrica Lexie Case on its way there? Courtesy ITLOS

The recent adjudication by the International Court of Justice in the Hissène Habré case provides useful guidance on the expected complexities of instances where the Parties cannot agree to settle their differences. The judgment of the Court in this case, particularly the findings concerning its admissibility, reveals several years of diplomatic exchanges between Belgium, which petitioned the Court, and Senegal, which was accused of neither prosecuting nor extraditing Mr. Habré, the former President of Chad, based on violations of the Convention Against Torture. The ICJ decision in Habre includes, in the first place, lengthy discussions on whether a disagreement occurred among the Parties, whether this could not be settled by them and whether the jurisdiction of the Court had been triggered.

Paradoxically, the divergences between Italy and India might facilitate recourse to compulsory jurisdiction with ITLOS or the ICJ. The route between New Delhi and Rome in the resolution of the Enrica Lexie incident therefore might  pass through Hamburg or The Hague. The voyage is far from clear and it will continue to be a perilous one.

Advertisements

Broadcast of Mekong Pirate’s Execution May Have Violated Chinese Law

You likely have heard about the execution of Naw Kham, the Mekong Pirate found guilty of killing 13 Chinese in the Golden Triangle. See our prior coverage here. The moments leading up to the execution were televised live in China, although the execution itself was not. Siweiluozi’s Blog points out this violates the spirit if not the letter of Chinese law meant to curb such public executions.

This prohibition was subsequently written into China’s Criminal Procedure Law, and the relevant Supreme People’s Court interpretation on implementation of the death penalty also prohibits “other acts that degrade the personality of criminals” (其他有辱罪犯人格的行为).

Siweiluozi’s Blog also points to a commentary in the Changjiang Daily, the official “organ” of the party in Wuhan, providing the following critique:

Perhaps it is not illegal in China to broadcast live as the condemned are transferred to the execution ground, but I still oppose broadcasting live. Before, China used to have so-called public sentencing rallies and parade bound criminals in the streets for public viewing. Now, live broadcast of the transfer is no different in any real sense and is even more repulsive. Why?
It is because the live broadcast voluntarily and consciously revived these kinds of backward, barbaric scenes lacking in any modern notion of rights or rule of law. The live broadcast even delivered these scenes right in front of your eyes, so that you didn’t even need to go out of doors or be in the streets: you could see the barbarity and backwardness from your own home. You could say, in other words, that this live broadcast was itself barbaric and backwards, displaying no progress at all.

One Step Closer to a Pirate Amnesty

The Special Court for Sierra Leone held that the amnesty granted to rebel leader Morris Kallon (left) did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused.

It is being reported that Somalia’s federal government is offering an amnesty to junior pirates in an attempt to end the hijackings of merchant vessels. The Somali President notes that the amnesty is intended for low-level pirates and not pirate kingpins. “We are not giving them amnesty, the amnesty is for the boys,” he said. Depending on how the amnesty is framed, however, it could run afoul of an international obligation to prosecute universal jurisdiction crimes. As we noted last August when President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed first discussed the possibility of a pirate amnesty, the duty to prosecute arises not only from the treaty obligations taken on by states but also the egregiousness of the proscribed conduct. Based on this international norm, there may be a duty to prosecute pirates who have engaged in the practice of torturing hostages or for any other act constituting piracy if sufficiently egregious.

Moreover, a national amnesty granted by Somalia might not be respected by other states who have prosecuted hundreds of Somali pirates over the last several years. The Special Court for Sierra Leone declared an amnesty was “ineffective in removing the universal jurisdiction to prosecute persons accused of such crimes that other states have by reason of the nature of the crimes. It is also ineffective in depriving an international court such as the Special Court of jurisdiction.” We previously noted the similar situation in Nigeria, where pirates had accepted an offer of amnesty, but subsequently returned to arms due to the Nigerian government’s failure to provide alternative means of livelihood as it had promised. For Somalia, the lesson is that an amnesty must be accompanied by job training and job creation to be effective. Such a program is potentially very expensive. However, certain international organizations and NGOs may be willing to assist in this regard.

UN Optimistic for Progress in Somalia – Looks to Increase Its Engagement

Later next week, the UN Security Council will resume its discussion on Somalia. Among the main issues will be the future of AMISON as well as the embargo on arms and Somali charcoal. Before the Security Council is also the Secretary General Report S/2013/69 pursuant to Resolution 2067 (2012) containing the Secretary General’s options and recommendations on the UN presence in Somalia. The Report considers several possible structural configurations for a future UN presence in Somalia further to the end of the political transition period and the development of the democratization process, including the setting up of a peacekeeping, peace-support or a peacebuilding institution, either in coordination or jointly with the existing Africa Union presence. While the possible establishment of a peacekeeping operation in the near future remains under review, the Secretary General currently favors an assistance mission located directly in Somalia that would integrate the functions of the UN Political Office for Somalia and the UN Support Office for AMISOM (UNSOA) but keep the UN humanitarian country team separate:

United Nations assistance mission. Under this option, a new United Nations mission would deliver political and peacebuilding support with a presence across Somalia. In terms of logistics support to AMISOM, a dedicated Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Mission Support would report directly to the Department of Field Support in New York on delivery of the AMISOM support package, in order to ensure efficient delivery to AMISOM. At the same time, she or he would report to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on United Nations mission support issues and policy and political questions arising from the functions of UNSOA relevant to the mandate of the United Nations assistance mission. The United Nations country team would remain structurally separate, but would participate in enhanced mechanisms for strategic integration and operational collaboration, supported by an expanded office of the Resident Coordinator/Humanitarian Coordinator. The scope for full structural integration would be reviewed annually, on the basis of progress in the political, security and humanitarian situation. Criteria for this review would be developed by the Somalia Integrated Task Force. This option enhances the strategic integration of United Nations functions while preserving distinct reporting lines for different United Nations mandates at the current sensitive stage of operations. This option is recommended; (para. 75(c))

There are reasons to believe that the Security Council will endorse the Secretary General’s recommendations and the deployment of the new mission will commence soon. The fight against piracy remains one of the main area of focus. Resolution 2077 (2012) renewed the current anti-piracy operations for another 12 months. Worthy of note is also the Secretary General support for the creation of a maritime component for AMISOM to consolidate control over southern and central Somalia and contribute to the training and mentoring of the Somali coast guard and maritime police (para. 82). Undoubtedly, the current drop in piracy attacks in the region is among the major successes of the international community involvement in Somalia so far. In this regard, it is essential that the current piracy deterrence and prosecution efforts are further developed as a starting point to enhance Somalia’s overall security and justice sectors:

The improved security situation in Somalia should help in the fight against piracy by denying the perpetrators safe havens both on land and along the coast. I encourage the new Government to develop a comprehensive national maritime economic and security strategy and a supporting legal framework, including declaring Somalia’s exclusive economic zone, working closely with all stakeholders. The resources that the maritime environment brings would contribute to financing the changes that are necessary for Somalia to recover from the last two decades of conflict. In this regard and as part of the wider security sector support, assistance should also be mobilized and delivered to the justice and corrections services. I have emphasized that the international community must address the root causes of piracy — instability, lawlessness and a lack of effective governance in Somalia — and therefore continue to intensify its engagement to link the counter-piracy approach with development and State-building goals (see S/2012/783). (Para. 88)

Upcoming Event: “Counter Piracy – Rules for the Use of Force” Conference in London, UK

The international conference “Counter Piracy – Rules for the Use of Force” will take place in London, UK on 8 February 2013. The event aims to bring together various stakeholders in the anti-piracy field, including maritime lawyers, flag States, ship-owners and shipping  associations, insurance companies and P&I Clubs as well as maritime security companies and other interested parties. The main topic of discussion will be the legal framework relevant to the use of force by privately contracted security personnel in the maritime industry, particularly the status of the so called “100 Series Rules”.

The 100 Series Rules, developed by David Hammond, aim to be an international model standard and example benchmark of best practice for the use of force in the maritime and anti-piracy field for application by privately contracted armed security personnel and private maritime security companies. Further details about the 100 Series Rules can be found at www.100seriesrules.com.

The Report of the International Piracy Ransoms Task Force is Available

The International Piracy  Ransoms Task Force, established at the London Conference on Somalia, issued its final Report on December 2012. The objective of the Task Force, composed of representatives of 14 States, was “to develop a greater understanding of the payment of ransoms in cases of piracy, in order to put forward policy recommendations to the international community as to how to avoid, reduce or prevent the payment of ransoms. The ultimate goal of this effort is to reach a point where pirates are no longer able to profit from ransom payments and thus abandon the practice of kidnapping for ransom.”

The conclusions and recommendations of the Task Force, included in the Report, build upon the following main options to reduce and avoid the risk of ransom payments to pirates:

  • strengthen the co-ordination between Flag States, the private sector and military responders to prepare for potential hostage situations, in order to shorten the decision-making process during the narrow window of opportunity for intervention after a piracy incident;
  • develop a new strategic partnership between Flag States, the private sector and law enforcement agencies that brings together those tackling piracy and those subjected to it in a united effort to break the piracy business model. In particular, this partnership should develop a more co-ordinated approach to information-sharing which would greatly enhance the quality and quantity of information exchange both to reduce ransom payments and to provide evidence to pursue and prosecute all involved in piracy, from those directly attacking ships to the kingpins who direct this organised crime;
  • encourage the implementation of anti-piracy measures, including still greater compliance with industry Best Management Practice, under the leadership of flag states and supported by the private sector, including insurance companies, in whose interests it is to mitigate risks.

Among the main practical recommendations put forward in the Report are the consolidation of various regional information-sharing frameworks to achieve a “one stop shop” mechanism for the diffusion of relevant information in the immediate post-hijack phase; the conduct of ransom negotiations with the knowledge of relevant national and international authorities in order to foster mutual assistance between these and the private sector; and the development of a mechanism maximising the evidence-gathering process immediately after the release of the vessel or its crew for subsequent prosecutions.

In line with the Task Force’s objective, the 15 page-long Report focuses mainly on the establishment of broad policies to improve communication and coordination to prevent hostage and ransom situations in the future. Several of these policies have been already under discussion for long time and by a number of institutions involved in the fight against piracy. Hopefully, the issuing of the Report will provide for a swift implementation of these policies. Regrettably, the Report does not contain an analysis and more practical recommendations directly relevant to actual hostage-taking, vessels’ hijacks and, more particularly, ransom situations. Given the wealth of knowledge and the technical resources available to the Task Force and its member states, as well as other participants from the private sector, it would have been preferable to expand on the Task Force’s mandate to immediately initiate an information sharing and lesson-learned process relevant to these aspects of piracy ransoms.

Ahead of Security Council Debate, Secretary General Outlines Anti-Piracy Progress

As anticipated by Roger, on 19 November 2012 the UN Security Council is scheduled to hold an open debate on piracy as a threat to international peace and security. The meeting is called under the auspices of India’s current presidency. Earlier this month, the Council already approved the extension of the UN-AU joint military mission in Somalia (AMISOM) until March 2013, in another effort to provide continuity in security and governance to the current state authorities. Yet, the Council failed to reach an agreement on the funding of a maritime component for AMISOM. The Council also received the latest 3-montlhy report of the Sanctions Committee for Somalia. The briefing included an update on requests received by the Committee for exemptions to the on-going arms embargo on Somalia. It appears that calls by the African Union for a partial lifting of the arms embargo to strengthen Somalia’s poorly equipped military were so far unsuccessful.

Nigerian Troops Attached to AMISOM on Patrol in Mogadishu – Press TV

The upcoming debate will review the most recent UN Secretary General efforts to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden region, contained in his latest report on this matter. The report covers the most important activities relevant to the fight against piracy launched by or in cooperation with the UN following the Council’s Resolution 2020 last year. These include the progress in prosecution, detention and transfer of convicted pirates, the activity of the main UN bodies and of the Contact Group on Piracy Off the Coast of Somalia, naval patrolling and anti-piracy capacity building in the region as well as a number of international conferences. Throughout the year, we have covered these issues here, here and here.

Interestingly, the report takes quite a direct stance on the impact of illegal fishing and illegal dumping toward piracy:

64.  Some observers continue to argue that illegal dumping of toxic waste and illegal fishing off the coast of Somalia is one of the factors responsible for forcing Somali youths to resort to piracy and attack foreign vessels because such activities deprive them from engaging in gainful employment opportunities. However, the United Nations has received little evidence to date to justify such claims. Most pirate attacks have been carried out against large merchant vessels several hundred nautical miles off the coast of Somalia.

65.  As for the dumping of toxic waste on land and at sea, while this may have occurred a few years ago in the waters off the coast of Somalia, there is no evidence of such activities currently. Concerns about the protection of the marine environment and resources should not be allowed to mask the true nature of piracy off the coast of Somalia, which is a transnational criminal enterprise driven primarily by the opportunity for financial gain.

The possibility for a specialized judicial structure solely devoted to investigate and prosecute piracy cases is also still gaining some momentum. The report refers to the initiative by Qatar for the establishment of a “special court for piracy” in the Gulf State (para. 42). As a first step, a delegation from UNODC and the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia visited Qatar last September for detailed discussions with the Qatari authorities. Additional initiatives pertain to a possible direct involvement of the UN in anti-piracy policing activities. The Asian Shipowners’ Forum called for the establishment of a multinational anti-piracy military task force under the auspices of the UN that could be deployed, a sort of UN Peacekeeping Vessel Protection Detachment on board of merchant ships (para. 43). These developments are not ripe for further exploration in the Secretary General report, but they raise fascinating preliminary legal issues. For instance, on the jurisdiction of special criminal fora, rule of law enforcement and the immunity of peacekeepers in connection with the prevention and punishment of universal jurisdiction crimes, that are worth considering for discussion in the near future.

Unused Pirate Skiffs in the Somali Town of Hobyo – AP

The most updated figures show a significant drop of both attempted and successful piracy attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the larger Indian Ocean area, speaking volume of the regional, international, government-lead as well as the private industry’s efforts in combating piracy. With the end of the monsoon season and the possible risk of disengagement by the international community as Somalia continues its current path of democratization, the jury is still out on how effective these efforts have been and what, if any, the pirates’ next move will be. These concerns are addressed in the report, which also recalls the need to add focus on land-based solutions to piracy:

74.  The recent gains made by the international community in its collective fight against piracy off the coast of Somalia are encouraging. However, although there are signs of progress, they can be easily reversed. Until the root causes of piracy, namely, instability, lawlessness and a lack of effective governance in Somalia, are addressed, counter-piracy efforts must not be minimized. In particular, ongoing efforts to build the rule of law and livelihood opportunities ashore should be intensified.

75.  A significant gap still exists in land-based programmes in Somalia to address piracy. This is primarily owing to the lack of security on the ground and lack of sufficient funding to support capacity-building and alternative livelihoods. An ever greater emphasis must now be placed on providing focused assistance to States in the region and to authorities in Somalia to build their capacity to deal with the institutional and operational challenges to governance, the rule of law, maritime law enforcement and security, and economic growth. In addition, counter-piracy actions should run alongside a concerted effort to rebuild the civil structures and institutions of Somalia in close cooperation with the Somali authorities and civil society.

76.  The successful end of the political transition in Somalia should act as a catalyst to address the root causes of piracy. I encourage the new Government to develop a comprehensive national counter-piracy strategy, working closely with the regional administrations and neighbouring States. This should include efforts to facilitate the development of skills necessary to earn sustainable incomes in such sectors as agriculture, livestock, fisheries and industry. I also call upon the Somali authorities to adopt appropriate counter-piracy legislation without further delay to ensure the effective prosecution of individuals suspected of piracy and to facilitate the transfer of prosecuted individuals elsewhere to Somalia. The new Government should proclaim an exclusive economic zone off the Somali coast in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

77.  Although pirates’ proceeds decreased significantly in 2012 owing to a lower number of executed attacks, militias and parallel illicit activities sponsored by pirate money will continue to pose a threat to the stability and security of Somalia. It is imperative that pressure on Somali pirates and their business model be maintained.

The current lull in piracy activity in Somalia is, however, matched by a growing rise of violent robbery-style pirate attacks in West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea, often connected with other illicit activities of a transmaritime and transnational nature. The Security Council already held an open debate on piracy in West Africa in October 2011. For the first time, the upcoming debate within the Security Council will provide the opportunity for a joint and integrated discussion on piracy in both East and West Africa. Hopefully, it will also be capable to provide for an opportunity to confront these differing realities, identify their root causes and peculiarities and, most importantly, share the relevant lessons learned on the ground so far. We will closely follow the debate and report on its achievements, or failures, as soon as possible.