Research Information System
Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, vol.50, no.4, pp.407-449, 2019 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
© 2019 SPB Academic Publishing bv. All rights reserved.This article examines the geographical scope of piracy and armed robbery against ships. It clarifies, where, in the various maritime zones, these two maritime offences can and cannot be committed. The need for clarification of these issues arose from developments in Somali piracy which resulted in a lot of challenges to international law generally and piracy jurisprudence in particular. Adding to the challenges was the introduction of the Convention/or the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention) offences and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)'s separation of piracy definition from armed robbery against ships.1 Some of these issues have consequently cast doubts, not only on the internationally accepted definition, but also on the geographical scope of piracy within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ('UNCLOS' or the 'Convention'). The Geneva Convention on the High Seas ('Geneva Convention') did away with the old notion of piracy being committed in or on dry land and in inland and territorial seas. Among the lingering doubts are, however, where in the various maritime zones the offence of piracy and armed robbery against ships can be committed? The other is the apparent distinction between the high seas and areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) and the attribution of piracy to both in Article 101 of the Convention. This has been partly solved by the introduction of the offence of armed robbery against ships, SUA offences2 and various IMO Codes and Guideline on Piracy.3 Although neither deal directly with piracy, the IMO instruments eliminated some uncertainties on the nature and geographical scope of piracy within inland, internal, territorial and archipelagic waters; while SUA deals with maritime terrorist offences other than piracy. However, remaining uncertainties include the interchangeable and, therefore, confusing alternative use by the Convention of 'sovereign rights' and 'sovereign jurisdictions' in the affected maritime zones. Furthermore, there remains the issue of where the high seas begin and end in relation to the contiguous zone, the EEZ and the continental shelf. Finally, there is the still hitherto albeit theoretical question of whether piracy is a single-or three-dimensional offence.