Abstract
This article outlines a regulatory proposal for the crime of piracy and its penalties. Following the introduction, Section 2 addresses the duty to cooperate in the repression of maritime piracy established in Article 100 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It also discusses the existence of an obligation to codify the crime of piracy and establish appropriate penalties, as part of the duty under Article 100. In this context, Section 4 is a de lege lata analysis of how national legislators have codified maritime piracy while Section 5 is a de lege ferenda proposal. Namely, Section 4 identifies some regulatory patterns in a wide number of jurisdictions that show to what extent there is a lack of harmonisation of domestic laws on maritime piracy. Section 5 discusses a regulatory proposal for the crime of piracy and its penalties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See annual and monthly incident reports from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) from January 1983 to January 2016. Available at http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/ShipsAndShippingFactsAndFigures/Statisticalresources/Piracy/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 1 July 2016. See also: http://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy-reporting-centre/piracynewsafigures. Accessed 1 July 2016.
However, the difference between maritime piracy and maritime terrorism may be much less evident for instance when a terrorist group embraces maritime piracy to obtain funding, as the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf (Banloi 2007). In the same vein, pirates may also collaborate with a terrorist group, so that an attack act would combine both a private and a political purpose (Herbert-Burns and Zucker 2004).
Press release. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN). Available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13211&LangID=E. Accessed 1 July 2016.
Measuring crime seriousness is a complex task. While a mere criminological perspective on maritime piracy’s seriousness would lead us to conclude that maritime piracy is one of the most important international crime, the starting point for a normative analysis should be the proportionality principle, recognised in continental and common law (see, for instance, Roxin 2006; von Hirsch and Ashworth 2005).
The list of 80 countries and the corresponding legislation on maritime piracy can be found in the appendix.
On maritime piracy hotspots, see International Chamber of Commerce-International Maritime Bureau 2009–2013.
ATALANTA operation was launched in 2008 within the framework of the European Common Security and Defence Policy to counteract maritime piracy in Somalia. And Operation Ocean Shield was launched by NATO in 2008 to deter pirates attacks in the Gulf of Aden and off the Horn of Africa.
This database can be consulted on http://www.un.org/Depts/los/piracy/piracy_national_legislation.htm. Accessed on 1 July 2016.
Currently, the scope of Article 100 of UNCLOS is confined de facto to the high seas since there is not any maritime zone not belonging to some State.
This is why Treves pointed out that “international law rules on action to be taken against pirates permit action, but are far from ensuring that such action is effectively taken” (Treves 2009).
See also: United Nations (2011). Report of the Special Adviser on Legal Issues Related to Piracy off the Coast of Somalia. Letter from the Secretary-General (S2011/30), p. 22. Available at http://www.un.org/en/sc/presidency/letters/2011.shtml. Accessed 1 July 2016. By contrast, Bassiouni considers that maritime piracy constitutes an international crime that raised to the level of ius cogens, and thus the duty to cooperate in the repression of this phenomenon is an erga omnes obligation (Bassiouni 1996).
See article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which incorporates the customary norm pacta sunt servanda.
See Articles 5 and 6 of SUA Convention, Articles 3 and 5 of the Protocol to the SUA Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of the International Convention against the taking of hostages (1979).
By contrast, Bassiouni considers that piracy falls under the so-called “first category of crimes” (the most important international crimes for international community), and therefore piracy is listed in its Draft International Criminal Code (Bassiouni 1980). Nevertheless, the ILC decided not to include maritime piracy in the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (International Law Commission 1954). Nor was piracy placed in the revised test of the 1996 Draft Code. While the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind classifies crimes with a significant political impact, the international legal concept of piracy excludes such kind of violent acts.
Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Holland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, México, Moldavia, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, the United Arab Emirates, Ukraine and the United States.
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cuba, Djibouti, England, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo and the United Arab Emirates.
For example, Australia, Belgium, Cuba, France, India, Japan, Kenya, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Thailand and Togo.
See Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, England, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Liberia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldavia, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Russia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Ukraine and the United States.
Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Ecuador, Estonia, Georgia, Guatemala, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malta, Moldavia, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Slovakia and Tanzania. Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Qatar, Sweden and United Arab States classify piracy as an offence against public order.
Argentina, Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Malta, Mexico, Moldavia, Morocco, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo and Ukraine.
Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, England, Estonia, France, India, Kenya, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa and the United States.
See also Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Mexico, Moldavia, Morocco, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, the United Arab States and Ukraine.
Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, England, France, Germany, Guatemala, Holland, India, Iran, Japan, Liberia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Panama, Poland, Qatar, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.
Penalties for piracy vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This is particularly true in the case of the penalties for aggravated piracy—even considering the same aggravating factor, for instance, piracy resulting in death.
Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, England, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malta, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Tanzania, Togo, the United Arab States, Ukraine and the United States.
There is not any minimum term of imprisonment in these jurisdictions, except in Slovakia and Japan where the minimum term of imprisonment is 20 and 5 years.
See Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldavia, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden and Ukraine.
Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Israel, Italy, Panama, Philippines, Slovakia and Spain.
Canada, Chile, Estonia, Georgia, Holland, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Moldavia, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka and Ukraine.
As stated above, although the SUA Convention was not drafted to counteract maritime piracy, it codifies unlawful acts against maritime navigation from a comprehensive approach. This is why this Convention can be used to counteract piracy, maritime terrorism and armed robberies in territorial waters.
On the other hand, although this is a de lege ferenda proposal of crimes relating to the safety of maritime navigation, it should be stated that a de lege ferenda proposal of crimes relating to the safety of aerial navigation would be fairly similar. The latter would implement the 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, and 2010 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to Civil Aviation.
See also Roger Judge v. Canada, Communication No. 829/1998, UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (2003). Available at http://www.acnur.org/secciones/index.php?viewCat=220. Accessed 15 November 2015. While China and Cuba signed the ICCPR in 1998 and 2008, they have not ratified it yet. South Korea (1990), Philippines (1996), India (1979), Iran (1975), Japan (1979), Kuwait (1996), Lebanon (1972), Thailand (1996) and Togo (1984) form part of the Covenant. So it can be argued that domestic laws on maritime piracy providing for a death sentence are in breach of the ICCPR.
The 1998 Rome Statute codified the so-called core crimes category (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crime of aggression) under Articles 5–8, and established the International Criminal Court (Werle 2011).
See Öcalan v. Turkey, (Application no. 46221/99), Judgment, 12 March 2003.
By contrast, Stiles supports the application of the death penalty and considers it an effective punishment: “The sentences for committing piracy are harsh, and states should not show any mercy to accessories to piracy. Accessory law punishes accomplices who do not take an active role in the crime with the same punishment that the law metes out to active participants. Sentencing pirates’ organizers to life imprisonment or death will permanently deprive the pirates of their masterminds, and combined with the other measures described above will result in fewer successful pirate raids” (Stiles 2004).
It should be noted that when the International Criminal Court stated that piracy was one of the most serious crimes against the international community in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, it referred to the principle of universal jurisdiction. International Criminal Court, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium (14 February 2002). See votes from Judges Higgins, Koojiman and Buergenthal.
See also Kontorovich, E. (2013). The Penalty for Piracy: An Empirical Study of National Prosecution of International Crime. Faculty Working Paper, Paper 211. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/211. Accessed 1 July 2016.
References
Abad Castelos, M. (1997). La toma de rehenes como manifestación del terrorismo y el Derecho internacional. Madrid: Ministerio del Interior.
American Society of International Law. (1932). Supplement: research in international law, competence of courts in regard to foreign states. Part IV- piracy. American Journal of International Law, 26, 746–886.
Andersen, E. et al. (2012). Suppressing maritime piracy: exploring the options in international law. Resource document. One Earth Future American Society of International Law, and ACUNS conference report. http://acuns.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SuppressingMaritimePiracyExploringOptionsIntlLaw.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
Banloi, R. C. (2007). The Abu Sayyaf group: Threat of maritime piracy and terrorism. In P. Lehr (Ed.), Violence at Sea. Piracy in, the age of global terrorism (pp. 122–138). London: Routledge.
Bassiouni, M. C. (1980). International Criminal Law. A draft international criminal code. The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
Bassiouni, M. C. (1996). International Crimes: Ius Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes. Law and Contemporary Problems, 4, 63–74.
Blanco Bazán, A. (2009). War against piracy? Some misconceptions and oversights in the repression of crimes at sea. Il Diritto Marittimo, 111(1), 264–271.
Chalk, P. (2008). The maritime dimension of international security: terrorism, piracy and challenges for the united states. Resource document. RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG697.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
Churchill, R. R., & Lowe, A. V. (2002). The law of the sea. Manchester: Iuris Publishing-Manchester University Press.
De la Cuesta Arzamendi, J. L. (1996). ¿Pena de muerte para los traficantes de drogas? In R. Cario (Ed.), La pena de muerte en el umbral del tercer milenio (pp. 203–212). Madrid: Edersa.
Dutton, Y. (2011). Pirates and Impunity: is the threat of asylum claims a reason to allow pirates to escape justice? Fordham International Law Journal, 34, 236–295.
Fouché, H. (2009). Piracy: The African experience. In T. Potgieter & R. Pommerin (Eds.), Maritime security in South African waters (pp. 77–87). South Africa: SUN Press.
Geiß, R., & Petrig, A. (2011). Piracy and armed robbery at sea. The legal framework for counter-piracy operations in Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gidel, G. (1981). Le Droit International Public de la Mer. Le temps de paix. Paris: Librairie Edouard Duchemin.
Herbert-Burns, R., & Zucker, L. (2004). Malevolent tide: Fusion and overlaps in piracy and maritime terrorism. Washington: Maritime Intelligence Group.
Hood, R. (2012). Hacia la abolición universal de la pena de muerte: Progresos y perspectivas. In L. Arroyo Zapatero, P. Biglino, & W. Schabas (Eds.), Contra el espanto. Por la abolición de la pena de muerte (pp. 15–38). Valencia: Ed. Tirant Lo Blanch.
Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty. A worldwide perspective. Osford: Oxford University Press.
International Chamber of Commerce-International Maitime Bureau. ‘Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. Report for the period 1 January-31 December 2009’; ‘Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. Report for the period 1 January-31 December 2010’; ‘Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. Report for the period 1 January-31 December 2011’; ‘Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. Report for the period 1 January-31 December 2012’ and ‘Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships. Report for the period 1 January-31 December 2013’. Resource documents. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
International Law Commission. (1954). Draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II.
International Law Commission. (1956). Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II.
Kontorovich, E. (2013). The penalty for piracy: an empirical study of National Prosecution of International Crime. Resource document. Faculty Working Paper, Paper 211. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/211. Accessed 30 Sept 2014.
Kraska, J., & Wilson, B. (2009). Piracy repression, partnering and the law. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 40, 43–58.
Liss, C. (2014). Assessing contemporary maritime piracy in Southeast Asia: trends, hotspots and responses. PRIF Report No. 125.
López Lorca, B. (2014). La piratería y otros delitos contra la seguridad de la navegación marítima. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Menefee, S. P. (1986). Terrorism at sea: The historical development of an international legal response. In E. Ellen (Ed.), Violence at sea: A review of terrorism, acts of war and piracy, and countermeasures to prevent terrorism (pp. 191–220). Paris: ICC.
Menefee, S. P. (1999). Anti-piracy law in the year of the ocean: problems and opportunity. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 18, 309–318.
Murphy, M. (2007). Contemporary piracy and maritime terrorism. The threat to international security. The International Institute for Strategic Studies: Adelphi Paper 388.
O’Connell, D. P. (1984). The international law of the sea. Volume I. Oxford: Clarendon.
Roach, J. A. (2011). General problematic issues on exercise of jurisdiction over modern instances of piracy. In C. R. Symmons (Ed.), Selected contemporary issues of the law of the sea. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Roxin, C. (2006). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil. Leinen: Beck.
Satkauskas, R. (2011). Piracy at sea and the limits of international law. Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law, 1, 217–235.
Schabas, W. (1996). The death penalty as cruel treatment and torture: Capital punishment challenged in the world’s courts. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Sobrino Heredia, J. M. (2009). Piratería y terrorismo. In Cursos de derecho internacional y relaciones internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz 2008 (pp. 81–148).
Stiles, E. C. (2004). Reforming current international law to combat modern sea piracy. Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 27, 299–326.
Treves, T. (2009). Piracy, law of the sea and the use of force: developments off the coast of Somalia. The European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 399–414.
Tribelli, C. (2006). Time to update the 1988 Rome convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation. Oregon Review of International Law, 8, 133–156.
Von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (2005). Proportionate sentencing. Exploring the principles. Oxford: Oxfor University Press.
Werle, G. (2011). Tratado de Derecho Penal Internacional. Valencia: Ed. Tirant Lo Blanch.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Annex
Annex
Legislation on Maritime Piracy
Jurisdiction | Domestic criminal law |
Argentina | Articles 198 and 199 of the Código Penal |
Australia | Sections 51 and 52 of the Crimes Act. |
Austria | Sections 45 and 46 of the Maritime Law, and Criminal Code |
Bahamas | Article 404 of the Penal Code |
Bangladesh | Criminal Code |
Belgium | Articles 68–73 of the Code disciplinaire et pénal pour la marine marchande et la pêche maritime and article 3 of the Loi relative à la lutte contre la piraterie maritime (2009) |
Brazil | Article 157 and 261 of the Codigo Penal |
Brunei | Criminal Code |
Bulgaria | Criminal Code |
Canada | Articles 74–78 of the Criminal Code |
Chile | Article 434 of the Código Penal |
China | Criminal Code |
Colombia | Article 153 of the Código Penal |
Comoros Island | Criminal Code |
Costa Rica | Article 258 of the Código Penal |
Cuba | Articles 16, 21 and 22 of the Ley n. 93 contra actos de terrorismo (2001) |
Cyprus | Section 69 of the Criminal Code |
Czech Republic | Articles 290 and 291 of the Criminal Code |
Denmark | Section 183a and article 260 of the Bekendtgørelse af straffeloven |
Djibouti | Articles 208 and 209 of the Code des Affaires Maritimes and article 385–387 of the Code pénal |
Ecuador | Article 423 of the Código Penal |
England | Section 26 of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act (1997) |
Estonia | Article 110 of the Criminal Code |
Finland | Criminal Code |
France | Loi n° 94–589 du 15 juillet 1994 relative à la lutte contre la piraterie et aux modalités de l’exercice par l’Etat de ses pouvoirs de police en mer, Loi n° 2011–13 du 5 janvier 2011 relative à la lutte contre la piraterie et à l’exercice des pouvoirs de police de l’Etat en mer and Code pénal |
Georgia | Article 228 of the Criminal Code |
Germany | § 316c of the Strafgesetzbuch |
Greece | Article 215 of the Code on Public Maritime Law |
Guatemala | Articles 299 and 300 of the Código Penal |
Holland | Articles 381–385 of the Wetboek van Strafrecht |
India | Piracy Bill (2012) |
Indonesia | Article 438 of the Criminal Code |
Iran | Articles 185, 653 and 683 of the Islamic punishment Act |
Ireland | Maritime Security Act (2004) |
Israel | Article 169 of the Criminal Code |
Italy | Articles 1.135-1.139 of the Codice de la Navigazione (1942) |
Jamaica | Terrorism Prevention Act (2005) and Criminal Code |
Japan | Law on punishment and Measures against Acts of Piracy (2009) |
Kazakhstan | Article 240 of the Criminal Code |
Kenya | Articles 369 and 371 of the Merchant Shipping Act (2009) |
Kuwait | Article 252 of the Criminal Code |
Latvia | Sections 176.3 and 268 of the Criminal Code |
Lebanon | Articles 641 and 642 of the Criminal Code |
Liberia | Section 15 of the Criminal Code |
Lithuania | Criminal Code |
Malaysia | Criminal Code |
Malta | Article 328 N of the Criminal Code |
Mauritius | Piracy and Maritime Violence Act (2011) |
Mexico | Articles 146 and 147 of the Código Penal |
Moldavia | Article 289 of the Criminal Code |
Morocco | Article 23.3 of the Code disciplinaire et pénal de la marine marchande |
Myanmar | Criminal Code |
New Zealand | Articles 92–94 of the Crime Act |
Nigeria | Merchant Shipping Act (2007) |
Norway | Criminal Code |
Panama | Articles 325–328 of the Código Penal |
Peru | Criminal Code |
Philippines | Sections 2and 3 of the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law (1974) and articles 122 and 123 of the Criminal Code. |
Poland | Articles 166 and 167 of the Criminal Code |
Portugal | Codigo penal |
Qatar | Articles 245 and 246 of the Criminal Code |
Russia | Article 297 of the Criminal Code (угoлoвный кoдeкc) |
Seychelles | Article 65 of the Criminal Code |
Singapore | Articles 130B-130C of the Admiralty Offences (Colonial Act) and articles 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Offences Act |
Slovakia | Articles 185, 188 and 291 of the Criminal Code |
Slovenia | Article 374 of the Criminal Code |
Somalia | Criminal Code |
South Africa | Article 24 of the Defence Act |
South Korea | Article 340 of the Criminal Act (Act n. 5057) and Act Concerning Punishment of Unlawful Acts Against Ships and Marine Navigational Facilities (2003) |
Spain | Articles 616 ter and 616 quarter of the Criminal Code |
Sri Lanka | Piracy Act (2001) |
Sweden | Article 5a of the Criminal Code |
Tanzania | Article 66 of the Criminal Code |
Thailand | Act on Prevention and Suppression of Piracy |
Togo | Articles 147–153 of the Code de la Marine Merchande |
Turkey | Criminal Code |
Ukraine | Article 446 of the Criminal Code |
United Arab Emirates (UAE) | Articles 208–210 of the Commercial Maritime Law and articles 288 and 289 of the Criminal Code |
United States | Section 1.651-1.661 and 2.280 of the United States Code |
Vietnam | Criminal Code |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
López Lorca, B. Harmonisation of National Criminal Laws on Maritime Piracy: a Regulatory Proposal for the Crime of Piracy and its Penalties. Eur J Crim Policy Res 23, 115–132 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9325-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9325-y