Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:20:48.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE USE OF FORCE AND FIREARMS BY PRIVATE MARITIME SECURITY COMPANIES AGAINST SUSPECTED PIRATES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

Anna Petrig
Anna Petrig*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Basel, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The legal framework pertaining to the use of private armed guards protecting merchant ships from Somalia-based piracy is complex, sometimes ambiguous, and currently in a state of flux. Against the background that commercial shipping increasingly relies on Private Maritime Security Companies and that various regulatory projects on the subject matter are underway, this article sketches out what domestic and international rules govern the use of force and firearms by private armed guards on board merchant ships today. It concludes that at this juncture an effort to coordinate this legal framework is necessary, both regarding the interpretation of existing rules and the creation of new norms.

Keywords

piracyprivate armed guardsprivate security companiesSomaliause of force
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 667 - 701
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 H-G Ehrhart and K Petretto, ‘The EU and Somalia: Counter-Piracy and the Question of a Comprehensive Approach: Study for the Greens/European Free Alliance’ (Hamburg, February 2012) 4, 8, 33 <www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Ehrhart_Petretto_EUandSomalia_2012_fin.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013.

2 UNODC, ‘The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment’ (Vienna, 2010) 199.

3 A Bowden and S Basnet, ‘The Economic Cost of Somali Piracy 2011: Working Paper One Earth Future Foundation’ (2012) 11 <oceansbeyondpiracy.org/sites/default/files/economic_cost_of_piracy_2011.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013.

4 Geiss, R and Petrig, A, Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea: The Legal Framework for Counter-Piracy Operations in Somalia and the Gulf of Aden (Oxford University Press 2011) 55–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1950 (2010)’ (25 October 2011) UN Doc S/2011/662, paras 39–47; UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on Specialized Anti-Piracy Courts in Somalia and Other States in the Region’ (20 January 2012) UN Doc S/2012/50, para 9.

6 UNSC, ‘Report of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Legal Issues Related to Piracy off the Coast of Somalia’ (25 January 2011) UN Doc S/2011/30, paras 25 and 28.

7 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 33.

8 UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on Specialized Anti-Piracy Courts in Somalia’ (n 5) para 9.

9 UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on Specialized Anti-Piracy Courts in Somalia’ (n 5) para 9.

10 UNODC (n 2) 198.

11 UNSC, ‘Report of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Legal Issues Related to Piracy off the Coast of Somalia’ (n 6) para 25.

12 EUNAVFOR, ‘Operation Atalanta’ (2012) 4 <www.eunavfor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/20120912_Informationbroschure_english.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013.

13 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 35.

14 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 35.

15 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 35; EUNAVFOR, ‘Operation Atalanta’ (n 12).

16 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 35.

17 N Gros-Verheyde, ‘L'opération Ocean Shield en peine de navires’ (26 July 2012) <www.bruxelles2.eu/piraterie-maritime/loperation-ocean-shield-en-peine-de-navires.html> accessed 22 February 2013.

18 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 34–5; UNSC ‘Report of the Secretary-General on Specialized Anti-Piracy Courts in Somalia’ (n 5) para 9.

19 EUNAVFOR, ‘European Union's Naval Force Counter-Piracy operation enters its 3rd year as an extension to 2012 is confirmed’ (15 December 2010) <eunavfor.eu/european-unions-naval-force-counter-piracy-operation-enters-its-3rd-year-as-an-extension-to-2012-is-confirmed-2/> accessed 22 February 2013.

20 EUNAVFOR, ‘Operation Atalanta’ (n 12) 4.

21 Ehrhart and Petretto (n 1) 37; J Brown, ‘Pirates and Privateers: Managing the Indian Ocean's Private Security Boom’ (September 2012) 9 <lowyinstitute.cachefly.net/files/brown_pirates_and_privateers_web.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013.

22 EUNAVFOR, ‘EU NAVFOR Trains AMISOM Vessel Protection Detachment Troops’ (9 February 2012) <eunavfor.eu/eu-navfor-trains-amisom-vessel-protection-detachment-troops/> accessed 22 February 2013.

23 Brown (n 21) 10; Ronzitti, N, ‘The Use of Private Contractors in the Fight against Piracy: Policy Options’ in Francioni, F and Ronzitti, N (eds), War by Contract: Human Rights, Humanitarian Law, and Private Contractors (Oxford University Press 2011) 44–5Google Scholar.

24 Government of the Netherlands, ‘The Netherlands Increases its Protection of Merchant Vessels of the Kingdom’ (Press Release, 11 October 2011) <www.government.nl/documents-and-publications/press-releases/2011/10/07/the-netherlands-increases-its-protection-of-merchant-vessels-of-the-kingdom.html> accessed 22 February 2013 (Government of Netherlands, VPDs); Brown (n 21) 9.

25 Brown (n 21) 10.

26 Brown (n 21) 9.

27 UK House of Commons – Foreign Affairs Committee, ‘Piracy off the Coast of Somalia: Tenth Report of Session 2010–12’ (5 January 2012) 20 <www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmfaff/1318/131802.htm> accessed 22 February 2013.

28 UK House of Commons, ‘Piracy off the Coast of Somalia’ (n 27) 7 (15–35 per cent); A Thorp, ‘Preventing and Prosecuting Piracy at Sea: Legal Issues: Standard Note 6237’ (28 February 2012) 21 <www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn06237.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (15–25 per cent); INCE & Co, ‘Piracy – Armed Guards Revisited and General Overview’ (2012) <incelaw.com/ourknowledge/publications/piracy-armed-guards-revisited-and-general-overview> accessed 22 February 2013 (35 per cent); C Ménard and J-C Viollet, ‘Rapport d'information par la commission de la défense nationale et des forces armées sur les societies militaires privées’ (Assemblée Nationale, 14 February 2012) <www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/rap-info/i4350.asp#P455_118562> accessed 22 February 2013 (30 per cent).

29 Bowden and Basnet (n 3) 17.

30 Florquin, N, ‘Escalation at Sea: Somali Piracy and Private Security Companies’ in Small Arms Survey, Small Arms Survey 2012: Moving Targets (Cambridge University Press 2012) 204Google Scholar.

31 ‘Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the Coast of Somalia’ (Version 2, August 2009) annexed to Commission Recommendation of 11 March 2010 on measures for self-protection and the prevention of piracy and armed robbery at sea [2010] OJ L67/13, art 2(b)(vii).

32 See below n 40.

33 IMO, ‘Revised Interim Recommendations for Flag States Regarding the Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area’ (25 May 2012) MSC.1/Circ.1406/Rev.2, Annex, r 1 (IMO Flag State Recommendations).

34 BIMCO, ‘BIMCO's Position: Piracy, Armed Robbery, Kidnapping, Torture and Murder at Sea’ (November 2011, last updated March 2012) <www.bimco.org/en/About/Viewpoint/03_Piracy.aspx> accessed 22 February 2013.

35 K Berkenkopf, ‘German Shipowners Threaten Flag Exodus in New Anti-Piracy Row’ (Lloyd's List, 26 January 2012).

36 Oceans beyond Piracy, ‘Introduction to Private Maritime Security Industry’ (2011) 8 <http://oceansbeyondpiracy.org/sites/default/files/pmsc_map_final.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (OBC, Introduction to PMSCs) [see generally for an overview on Flag States’ stance on PMSCs].

37 Abeyratne, R, ‘The Use of Armed Guards on Board Merchant Vessels’ [2012] Journal on Transportation Security 3Google Scholar [citing AJ Shapiro, ‘Remarks to the Defense Trade Advisory Group’ (US Department of State, 9 November 2011) <www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/176925.htm> accessed 22 February 2013].

38 For a compilation of various PMSCs flag State laws and legal reform projects, see International Chamber of Shipping, ‘Comparison of Flag State Laws on Armed Guards and Arms on Board Vessels’ (updated June 2012) <www.ics-shipping.org/ICS-ECSA%20Private%20Armed%20Guards%20Flag%20State%20Laws%20June%202012.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (ICS, Flag State Law Comparison).

39 IMO Flag State Recommendations (n 33); IMO, ‘Revised Interim Recommendations for Port and Coastal States Regarding the Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel On Board Ships in the High Risk Area’ (25 May 2012) MSC.1/Circ.1408/Rev.1, Annex (IMO Port and Coastal State Recommendations); IMO, ‘Revised Interim Guidance to Shipowners, Ship Operators, and Shipmasters on the Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel On Board Ships in the High Risk Area’ (25 May 2012) MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2, Annex (IMO Shipowner Recommendations).

40 IMO ‘Interim Guidance to Private Maritime and Security Companies Providing Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area’ (25 May 2012) MSC.1/Circ.1443, Annex (IMO PMSC Guidance).

41 UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1950 (2010)’ (n 5) para 24.

42 Information on file with author.

43 UK Department for Transport, ‘UK Interim Guidance to UK Flagged Shipping on the Use of Armed Guards to Defend Against the Threat of Piracy in Exceptional Circumstances’ (Version 1.1, November 2011, updated June 2012), <assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/use-of-armed-guards-to-defend-against-piracy/use-of-armed-guards-to-defend-against-piracy.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs).

44 Government of India, ‘Shipping Ministry Issues Guidelines for Deployment of Armed Guards in Merchant Ships’ (Press Information Bureau, 29 August 2011) <www.pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=75281> accessed 22 February 2013; H Devineni, ‘Summary of Indian Ministry of Shipping Guidelines on Deployment of Armed Security Guards on Merchant Ships’ <oceansbeyondpiracy.org/sites/default/files/indian_policy_armedguards.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (Indian PMSC Guidelines).

45 See eg ‘Industry Guidelines for the Use of Private Maritime Security Contractors (PMSC) as Additional Protection in Waters Affected by Somali Piracy’ (May 2011) <psm.du.edu/media/documents/industry_initiatives/industry_guidelines_for_use_of_private_maritime_security_contractors_somali_piracy.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (Industry Guidelines).

46 See eg The Norwegian Shipowners' Mutual War Risk Insurance Association, ‘Guidance on the Selection of Private Security Companies (PSC)’ (29 March 2011) <www.warrisk.no/filestore/Sirkulrer_og_informasjon_til_medlemmer/PSCGuidanceMaypdf.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (Norwegian PMSC Guidelines).

47 BIMCO, ‘GUARDCON’ <www.bimco.org/Chartering/Documents/Security/GUARDCON.aspx> accessed 22 February 2013; The Shipowners' Protection Limited, ‘BIMCO GUARDCON contract for the employment of security guards on vessels’ (March 2012) <www.shipownersclub.com/media/377127/bimcoguardconcontractfortheemploymentofsecurityguardsonvesselsmarch2012.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013.

48 Confédération Suisse, ‘International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ (9 November 2010) <www.icoc-psp.org/uploads/INTERNATIONAL_CODE_OF_CONDUCT_Final_without_Company_Names.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013 (ICoC).

49 T Haueter, ‘Countering Piracy: What Are the Rights and Obligations of States and Private Security Providers?’ (Wilton Park Conference, ‘Countering Piracy: What Are the Rights and Obligations of States and Private Security Providers?’, 30 January–1 February 2012) [quoted with permission]. The figures are based on self-declaration by the companies and were not verified by DCAF.

50 A Priddy and S Casey-Maslen, ‘Counter-Piracy Efforts and Operations: Law and Policy Issues’ (draft dated 13 January 2012, Background Paper for the Wilton Park Conference, ‘Countering Piracy: What Are the Rights and Obligations of States and Private Security Providers?’, 30 January–1 February 2012).

51 IMO PMSC Guidance (n 40) r 2.1.

52 UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 3.2.

53 IMO PMSC Guidance (n 40) r 3.3.2.

54 Florquin (n 30) 207–8. More on a graduated response in the present context, see below at section 3B.

55 Legal frameworks and rules pertaining to the use of firearms are discussed below at section 3B.

56 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982) 1883 UNTS 3 (UNCLOS) art 91(1), 2nd sentence.

57 UNCLOS (n 56) art 94; on the flag State's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction, see Dupuy, R-J and Vignes, D, A Handbook on the New Law of the Sea, vol 1 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1991) 405–6Google Scholar; a State not regulating the use of PMSCs on board its ships may violate this provision.

58 UNCLOS (n 56) art 92(1).

59 Dupuy and Vignes (n 57) 401; D König, ‘Flag of Convenience’, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) paras 16–17 <www.mpepil.com> accessed 22 February 2013.

60 On the differing national concepts, see ICS, Flag State Law Comparison (n 38).

61 D König and T René Salomon, ‘Private Sicherheitsdienste auf Handelsschiffen – Rechtliche Implikationen’, PiraT-Arbeitspapiere zur Maritimen Sicherheit Nr 2 (March 2011) 25–30 <www.maritimesecurity.eu/de/publikationen/workingpapers.html> accessed 22 February 2013 (König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste); D König et al, ‘Piraterie und maritimer Terrorismus als Herausforderungen für die Seesicherheit: Objektive Rechtsunsicherheit im Völker-, Europa- und deutschem Recht’, PiraT-Arbeitspapiere zur Maritimen Sicherheit N. 7 (July 2011) 38–42 and 62 <www.maritimesecurity.eu/de/publikationen/workingpapers.html> accessed 22 February 2013 (König, Rechtsunsicherheit).

62 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 30–1; König, Rechtsunsicherheit (n 61) 43–4.

63 Berkenkopf (n 35).

64 Bundesrat, Gesetz zur Einführung eines Zulassungsverfahrens für Bewachungsunternehmen auf Seeschiffen, Drucksache 12/13, 11 January 2013 <www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsvorgaenge/2013/0001-0100/0012-13.html> accessed 22 February 2013.

65 For Greece, see Law No 4058: provision of security services by armed guards to commercial ships and other provisions <www.hcg.gr/sites/default/files/docs/archive/n4058y2012eng.pdf> accessed 22 Feburary 2013; for Cyprus, see Law No 77/2012: The Protection of Cyprus Ships against Acts of Piracy and Other Unlawful Acts Law of 2012 <www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/dms/dms.nsf/marsecvessels_en/marsecvessels_en?OpenDocument#11> accessed 22 February 2013.

66 IMO PMSC Guidance (n 40) r 1.3.2.

67 ‘Loi fédérale sur les prestations de sécurité privées forunies à l’étranger (LPSP)’ (2011) <www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Mercenaries/WG/Law/Switzerland/LPSP.pdf> accessed 22 February 2013.

68 ICoC (n 48) rr 56–8.

69 ICoC (n 48) r 59.

70 Put simply, shipriders are law enforcement officials of State A who are embarked on a law enforcement vessel of State B.

71 On potential conflicts of law arising from the use of shipriders and how they are practically solved, see Geiss and Petrig (n 4) 90–2.

72 König, Flag of Convenience (n 59) paras 31 and 37; IMO PMSC Guidance (n 40) r 1.3.3.

73 Gavouneli, M, Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff 2007) 39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 On innocent passage, see below at section 2B1.

75 See below at section 2B2.

76 Reprinted in AJIL Supplements 3 (1909) 123–7.

77 M Arcari, ‘Suez Canal’, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) para 9 <www.mpepil.com> accessed 22 February 2013 (Arcari).

78 Arcari (n 77) para 21.

79 Egyptian Marine Insurance Consultations & Services (EMICS), ‘Piracy – Weapons and Armed Guards on board vessels transiting the Suez Canal’ (on file with author); Gard, ‘Gard Alert, Egypt/Suez Canal – new instructions regarding weapons and armed security guards onboard commercial vessels’ (November 2011) <www.gard.no> accessed 22 February 2013 and ‘Gard Alert, UPDATE – Instructions regarding weapons and armed security guards onboard commercial vessels in Egypt’ (December 2011) <www.gard.no> accessed 22 February 2013.

80 UNCLOS (n 56) art 17.

81 UNCLOS (n 56) art 18(1); Churchill, R and Lowe, A Vaughan, The Law of the Sea (Manchester University Press 1999) 81–2Google Scholar; Yang, H, Jurisdiction of the Coastal State Over Foreign Merchant Ships in Internal Waters and the Territorial Sea (Springer 2006) 148–9Google Scholar; K Hakapää, ‘Innocent Passage’, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) para 6 <www.mpepil.com> accessed 22 February 2013.

82 Hakapää (n 88) para 43; Yang (n 81) 143–5.

83 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(1).

84 UNCLOS (n 56) art 25(1).

85 Churchill and Lowe (n 82) 87–8; Hakapää (n 82) para 19.

86 It suffices that a ship engages in one of these activities in order to render passage non-innocent; whether or not the activity involves a violation of coastal State law is not decisive: Churchill/Lowe (n 81) 86; Yang (n 81) 164.

87 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(2)(a).

88 It suffices that a ship engages in one of these activities in order to render passage non-innocent; whether or not the activity involves a violation of coastal State law is not decisive: Churchill/Lowe (n 81) 86; Yang (n 81) 164.

89 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(2).

90 Dupuy and Vignes (n 57) 914; Yang (n 81) 164.

91 Randelzhofer, A, ‘Article 2’ in Simma, B et al. (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, vol I (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2002)Google Scholar para 28; O Dörr, ‘Prohibition of Use of Force’, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) paras 26 and 30 <www.mpepil.com> accessed 22 February 2013.

92 Nandan, SN and Rosenne, S (eds), ‘Volume II, Articles 1 to 85’ in Nordquist, MH (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993) 174–5Google Scholar, para 19(10)(c) (UNCLOS Commentary Vol II); Anderson, D, Modern Law of the Sea (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2008) 143Google Scholar.

93 Yang (n 81) 164.

94 UNCLOS Commentary Vol II (n 92) 174, para 19(10)(c).

95 Yang (n 81) 164.

96 Anderson (n 92) 143.

97 Randelzhofer (n 91) para 48.

98 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(2)(b).

99 Yang (n 81) 164.

100 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 12.

101 Churchill and Lowe (n 81) 85.

102 Yang (n 81) 164.

103 UNCLOS Commentary Vol II (n 92) 175, para 19(10(d) [where Articles 19(2)(b) and 25(3) UNCLOS are mentioned together].

104 Beckert, E and Breuer, G, Oeffentliches Seerecht (Walter de Gruyter 1991)Google Scholar 115, para 309; UNCLOS Commentary Vol II (n 92) 175, para 19(1)(d) [stating that sub-paragraph (b) is related with sub-paragraph (f) of Article 19(2) UNCLOS].

105 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(2)(e).

106 UNCLOS Commentary Vol II (n 92) 175, para 19(10)(f).

107 The PMSC was formerly known under the names Blackwater and later Xe: J Ukman, ‘Ex-Blackwater Firm Gets a Name Change, Again’ The Washington Post (12 December 2011) <www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/ex-blackwater-firm-gets-a-name-change-again/2011/12/12/gIQAXf4YpO_blog.html> accessed 22 February 2013; ACADEMI, ‘Leading Training and Security Service Provider Xe Services Announces Name Change to ACADEMI’ (Press Release, 12 December 2011) <www.academi.com/press_releases/1> accessed 22 February 2013.

108 J Seper, ‘Blackwater Joins Fight against Sea Piracy’ The Washington Post (4 December 2008) <www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/04/blackwater-joins-fight-against-sea-piracy/?page=all> accessed 22 February 2013.

109 Ronzitti (n 23) 48.

110 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(2)(g).

111 UNCLOS (n 56) art 19(2)(1).

112 The clause compromises to a large extent the exhaustive character of the list of non-innocent activities provided in art 19(2) UNCLOS (n 56): Dupuy and Vignes (n 57) 913.

113 Emphasis added.

114 UNCLOS Commentary Vol II (n 92) 171, para 19(6); 173, para 19(7); 173–4, para 19(8); 174, para 19(9).

115 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (entered into force on 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331, art 32.

116 Hakapää (n 81) para 44.

117 However, some authors suggest that sub-paragraph (l) dispenses with the need for the coastal State to prove that in the specific case in question its peace, good order or security are threatened: see eg Vitzthum, W, ‘Maritimes Aquitorium und Anschlusszone’ in Vitzthum, W (ed), Handbuch des Seerechts (CH Beck 2006)Google Scholar 124, para 123.

118 Bryde, B-O, ‘Militärische und sicherheitspolitische Implikationen der neuen Seerechtskonvention’ in Delbrück, Jost, Das neue Seerecht (Duncker & Humblot 1984) 174Google Scholar.

119 Guilfolyle, D, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press 2009) 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 See eg Beckert and Breuer (n 104) 117, paras 314(a) and 314(b) [referring to the Okinawa incident and arguing that towing a Soviet nuclear-powered submarine, which went on fire on the high seas, through Japanese territorial waters was in line with UNCLOS for it is the manner of the ship and not its features or armament which is decisive for qualifying whether passage is innocent].

121 Vitzthum (n 117) 124, para 123.

122 UNCLOS (n 56) art 23; see eg Churchill and Lowe (n 81) 76.

123 Churchill and Lowe (n 81) 91; König, Flag of Convenience (n 59) para 37.

124 UNCLOS (n 56) art 21(2).

125 UNCLOS Commentary Vol II (n 92) 175, para 21(11)(f).

126 D Nelson, ‘Maritime Jurisdiction’ in The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) para 11 <www.mpepil.com> accessed 22 February 2013; Beckert and Breuer (n 104) 116, para 313.

127 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 13.

128 See section 2C regarding other practices to avoid a potential violation of law.

129 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 13.

130 UNCLOS (n 56) art 21(1)(a).

131 UNCLOS (n 56) art 21(1)(h). The subject matter listed in sub-paragraph (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of art 21 UNCLOS are not relevant to the use of armed guards on board merchant and so are not considered further here.

132 UNCLOS (n 56) art 21(1), introductory sentence.

133 See UNCLOS (n 56) arts 22(1)(a), 39(3)(a), 42(1)(a), 60(3) and 225.

134 See eg art 34 of the International Law Commission's Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea and the related commentary, which deals with ‘safety of navigation’, ILC, ‘Commentary on the Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea’ (Yearbook, 1956, Vol 2, 265–301) 280Google Scholar (ILC Commentary on Law of the Sea Articles).

135 UNCLOS (n 56) art 21(1)(h).

136 D Osler, ‘Ships Openly Allowed to Carry Arms in Saudi Waters’ (Lloyd's List, 25 May 2010) (Osler).

137 Florquin (n 30) 209.

138 L McMahon, ‘Insurance Backed Private Navy to Launch Next Year’ (Lloyd's List, 4 November 2011).

139 Liss, C, ‘Losing control? The privatisation of anti-piracy services in Southeast Asia’ (2009) 63 Australian Journal of International Affairs 309, 397CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 Liss ibid 397.

141 C Liss, ‘Southeast Asia's Maritime Security Dilemma: State or Market?’ <www.japanfocus.org/-Carolin-Liss/2444> accessed 22 February 2013.

142 Liss ibid.

143 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 15.

144 Florquin (n 30) 210; Osler (n 136).

145 Osler (n 136).

146 UNSC, ‘Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea Pursuant to Security Council resolution 1916 (2010)’ UN Doc S/2011/433 (18 July 2011), annex 6.5, 310, para 2 (Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010); Osler (n 136); Brown (n 21) 9.

147 UNSC Res 1907 (23 December 2009) UN Doc S/RES/1907.

148 Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010 (n 146) annex 6.5, 312, para 11.

149 Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010 (n 146) annex 6.5, 310, para 9.

150 Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010 (n 146) annex 6.5, 312, para 10.

151 Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010 (n 146) para 179.

152 Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010 (n 146) para 179.

153 Florquin (n 30) 210.

154 Florquin (n 30) 210; Report UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea 2010 (n 146) annex 6.4, 305, para 24.

155 Florquin (n 30) 210–11.

156 Florquin (n 30) 211.

157 IMO,‘Interim Guidance to Private Maritime and Security Companies Providing Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area’ (25 May 2012) MSC.1/Circ.1443, para 3.

158 See eg Swiss Criminal Code of 21 December 1937, SR 311.0, art 15; an English translation of the code by the Swiss Government is available at <www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/c311_0.html> accessed 22 February 2013 (Swiss Criminal Code).

159 See Sieber, U and Cornils, K (eds), Nationales Strafrecht in rechtsvergleichender Darstellung, Vol 5 (Duncker & Humblot 2010)Google Scholar comparing the requirements of self-defence in twelve different jurisdictions.

160 See eg Swiss Criminal Code (n 158) art 17.

161 See Sieber and Cornils (n 159) discussing the existence respectively requirements for the choice of evils defence.

162 Eg, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocol No. 11 (adopted 4 November 1950) 213 UNTS 222, art 2; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966) 999 UNTS 171, art 6.

163 The Government of the Netherlands mentions this option as a possible future scenario: Government of Netherlands, VPDs (n 24).

164 In the ICoC (n 48) r 30, the verb ‘shall’ is used while the IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.14, and the Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9, the verb ‘should’ is used.

165 ICoC (n 48) r 30; IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.14; Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9.

166 ICoC (n 48) r 30; IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.14; Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9.

167 UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 8.3; IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) rr 5.13 and 5.14; Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9.

168 ICoC (n 48) r 30.

169 IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.14; Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9.

170 ICoC (n 48) r 30; Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9.

171 IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.15.

172 ICoC (n 48) r 31.

173 Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9.

174 UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 8.4 (read together with r 8.5.) and ICoC (n 48) r 29, require the adoption of rules on the use of force; the ICoC does not explicitly require that they provide for a graduated response, but since the ICoC obliges to observe the principles of necessity and proportionality a graduated response is implicitly required. Indirectly, the Industry Guidelines (n 45) r 3.6, also require rules on the use of force and a graduated response plan.

175 IMO Shipowner Guidelines (n 39) r 5.13; the Indian PMSC Guidelines (n 44) r 6.9 contains almost identical language.

176 Appendix to Norwegian PMSC Guidelines (n 46) (Norwegian Pro Forma Rules).

177 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 3.1.

178 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 3.2.

179 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 3.3.

180 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 3.4.

181 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.2.

182 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.3.

183 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.4.

184 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.5.

185 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.6.

186 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.7.

187 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) r 4.8.

188 Even though not directly applicable, rule 2 of the ‘UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials’ highlights the relationship between differentiated equipment and a graduated response.

189 IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.6.5.

190 Convention on the High Seas (adopted 29 April 1958) 450 UNTS 11 (Convention on the High Seas).

191 ILC Commentary on Law of the Sea Articles (n 134) 283.

192 Ronzitti (n 23) 43.

193 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (adopted 10 March 1988) 1678 UNTS 221.

194 See eg UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1950 (2010)’ (n 5) para 59.

195 See eg Richard, T, ‘Reconsidering the Letter of Marque: Utilizing Private Security Providers against Piracy’ (2010) 39 Public Contract Law Journal 411Google Scholar.

196 See above at section 3B.

197 UNCLOS (n 56) art 107.

198 Nandan, SN and Rosenne, S (eds), ‘Volume III, Articles 86 to 132’ in Nordquist, MH (ed), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995)Google Scholar para 107(2) (UNCLOS Commentary Vol III); ILC Commentary on Law of the Sea Articles (n 134) 283: the commentary on Article 45, on which Article 21 Convention on the High Seas (n 190) and Article 107 UNCLOS (n 56) are based, reads: ‘the right to take action should be confined to warships, since the use of other government ships does not provide for the same safeguards against abuse.’

199 UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 107(7)(b).

200 Thus, for instance, Article 26 LPSP (n 67) limits the use of private security personnel by federal agencies to specific protection tasks, which are purely defensive in nature. The list is exhaustive and does not include further potential services offered by private security providers described in Article 4 of the draft law, namely the operational and logistical support of armed forces or security personnel.

201 Dupuy and Vignes (n 57) 416; UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 98(11)(f): Other conventions stating an obligation to render assistance to persons in distress are: Annex to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (adopted 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980) 1184 UNTS 3, chap V, reg 10 (SOLAS Convention); Annex to the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (adopted 27 April 1979, entered into force 22 June 1985) 1403 UNTS, chap 2, para 2.1.10; 1989 International Convention of Salvage (adopted 28 April 1989, entered into force 14 July 1996) 1953 UNTS 193, art 10 (International Convention of Salvage).

202 Art 12 Convention on the High Seas (n 190) is almost identically worded.

203 UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 98(11)(b).

204 UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 98(11)(g).

205 UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 98(11)(b).

206 UNCLOS (n 56) art 18(2); UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 98(11)(g).

207 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 20, argue that a ship not having armed PMSC personnel on board might rather not be under an obligation to assist other merchant ships under a pirate attack.

208 Eg, UNCLOS (n 56) art 98(1); UNCLOS Commentary Vol III (n 198) para 98(11)(a).

209 Eg, International Convention of Salvage (n 201) art 10(1).

210 See eg Swiss Criminal Code (n 158) art 128.

211 International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, Part B, Rule 4.10. The ultimate responsibility of the master of the ship can, negatively formulated, also be found SOLAS Convention (n 201) reg 34, chap V: safety of navigation.

212 See eg UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 5.1; IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.9 (this follows from the reference ‘at all times’); Norwegian PMSC Guidelines (n 46) rr 7.1 and 8.2.

213 See eg IMO Shipowner Recommendations (n 39) r 5.7.

214 UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 5.3.

215 UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 5.4.

216 UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 5.5. Even though Rule 1.1 of the Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) requires that the master retains ultimate control and authority at all times, Rule 1.2 only requires that the security team leader shall coordinate with the master before firearms are deployed, save in circumstances where coordination would interfere the armed guards right to self-defence; to coordinate might be insufficient in the light of the master's ultimate authority and control.

217 Norwegian Pro Forma Rules (n 176) rr 1.2 and 1.3; UK Interim Guidance on PMSCs (n 43) r 5.6.

218 From Article 27 UNCLOS (n 56) pertaining to the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State over foreign ships follows that the coastal State's criminal law extends to the territorial sea: König, Flag of Convenience (n 59) para 37.

219 Guilfoyle (n 119) 11.

220 UNCLOS (n 56) art 27(1)(a).

221 UNCLOS (n 56) art 27(1)(b). The other two exceptions seem irrelevant in the present context.

222 UNCLOS (n 56) art 27(1)(b).

223 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 14.

224 See above at section 2B.

225 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 15; INCE & Co, ‘Piracy: Issues Arising from the Use of Armed Guards’ 3 <incelaw.com/news-and-events/news/piracy-issues-arising-from-armed-guards> accessed 22 February 2013.

226 Churchill and Lowe (n 81) 54–55; EJ Molenaar, ‘Port State Jurisdiction’, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) paras 1, 7 and 11 <www.mpepil.com> accessed 22 February 2013: while this is common practice among States, the theoretical bases to explain it differ between the Anglo-American and French school.

227 Mali v Keeper of the Common Jail 120 US 1, 18 (1887) [this and other relevant cases are cited in Churchilland Lowe (n 81) 55].

228 Churchill and Lowe (n 81) 55–6; Molenaar (n 226) para 11.

229 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 17.

230 König and Salomon, Private Sicherheitsdienste (n 61) 17–18.

231 Churchill and Lowe (n 81) 55.

232 Molenaar (n 226) para 31.