Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Rights in Counter-Piracy Operations: No Legal Vacuum but Legal Uncertainty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Piracy at Sea

Part of the book series: WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs ((WMUSTUD,volume 2))

Abstract

The Security Council has set an ambitious goal for itself: the full and durable eradication of piracy. In order to achieve this objective, it has amongst others set up an ad hoc legal framework authorizing States and regional organizations to take counter-piracy enforcement measures in Somali territorial waters and on its mainland. The powers conferred by the Resolutions supplement the existing legal instruments to combat piracy on the high seas, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The main ideas of this paper stem from two earlier publications: Geiss and Petrig (2011) and Duttwiler and Petrig (2009). This paper was submitted in October 2011 and reflects the state of law and practice at that time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UNSCR 1846, preambular para 10; UNSCR 1897, preambular para 13.

  2. 2.

    UNSCR 1846, para 10; renewed by UNSCR 1897, para 7, and later by UNSCR 1950, para 7.

  3. 3.

    UNSCR 1851, para 6; renewed by UNSCR 1897, para 7, and later by UNSCR 1950, para 7.

  4. 4.

    United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 December 1982, 1883 U.N.T.S. 3 (hereinafter UNCLOS).

  5. 5.

    UNSCR 1897, para 10; UNSCR 1950, para 10.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, European Union, Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union Military Operation to Contribute to the Deterrence, Prevention and Repression of Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery off the Coast of Somalia, 2008 O.J. (L 301) 31–37 (EU) (hereinafter EU Council Joint Action Operation Atalanta).

  7. 7.

    UNSCR 1851, para 6.

  8. 8.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocol No. 11, adopted 4 November 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 (hereinafter ECHR).

  9. 9.

    The Convention on the High Seas, adopted 29 April 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 11 (hereinafter Convention on the High Seas) contains counter-piracy rules similar to the UNCLOS. Since the Security Council Resolutions mainly refer to the UNCLOS as the legal framework applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery at sea (see, for example, UNSCR 1950, preambular para 6), the analysis at hand is limited to this treaty.

  10. 10.

    The right to stop a vessel is not explicitly stated in Article 110 UNCLOS. However, the right of visit implicitly comprises the right to stop a ship in order to visit it: United Nations (1956), pp. 283–284.

  11. 11.

    For further details on the right of visit, see Geiss and Petrig (2011), pp. 55–58.

  12. 12.

    Id., p. 56.

  13. 13.

    See introductory sentence of Article 105 UNCLOS allowing for the seizure of a pirate ship, arrest of the persons and seizure of the property on board: “On the high seas … every State may…”; for Article 110 UNCLOS, the right of visit of a ship engaged in piracy, this follows from the fact that according to Article 101 UNCLOS piracy can per definitionem only be committed on the high seas and in places outside the jurisdiction of any State.

  14. 14.

    UNSCR 1846, para 10; renewed by UNSCR 1897, para 7, and later by UNSCR 1950, para 7.

  15. 15.

    Id.

  16. 16.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), pp. 76–77.

  17. 17.

    UNSCR 1851, para 6; renewed by UNSCR 1897, para 7, and later by UNSCR 1950, para 7.

  18. 18.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 83.

  19. 19.

    International Maritime Organization (2011).

  20. 20.

    Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, adopted 10 March 1988, 1678 U.N.T.S. 221 (hereinafter SUA Convention).

  21. 21.

    Article 8bis, para 10, SUA Convention as amended by the SUA Protocol 2005.

  22. 22.

    See, for example, Article 8bis, para 5, SUA Convention as amended by the SUA Protocol 2005.

  23. 23.

    International Maritime Organization (2011).

  24. 24.

    International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea (The M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case), Judgment of 1 July 1999, para 155.

  25. 25.

    In addition to Article 8bis, para 10, SUA Convention as amended by the SUA Protocol 2005, see, for example, Article 22, para 1 of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, adopted 4 August 1995, 2167 U.N.T.S. 3, or Article 22 of the Agreement Concerning Co-Operation in Suppressing Illicit Maritime and Air Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in the Caribbean Area, available online: www.state.gov/s/l/2005/87198.htm.

  26. 26.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 100.

  27. 27.

    Guilfoyle (2009), pp. 266–267.

  28. 28.

    UNSCR 1897, para 10; UNSCR 1950, para 10.

  29. 29.

    UNSCR 1851, para 6 (emphasis added).

  30. 30.

    See, for example, the following cases of the International Court of Justice: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 180; and Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 243.

  31. 31.

    See, for example, United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, para 10.

  32. 32.

    For the European Court of Human Rights see case law below Sects. 4.1 and 4.2.

  33. 33.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 104.

  34. 34.

    The second sentence of Article 5, para 1, Convention on the High Seas is similarly worded.

  35. 35.

    König (2008), para 16.

  36. 36.

    König (2008), para 17.

  37. 37.

    Banković v. Belgium et al., app. no. 52207/99, Grand Chamber Decision of 12 December 2001, para 73. See also, for example, Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, app. no. 61498/08, decision of 30 June 2009, para 85.

  38. 38.

    The Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, Judgment of 7 September 1927, Collection of Judgments, Series A, No. 10, p. 25; id., Dissenting Opinion Judge Nyholm, p. 62.

  39. 39.

    United States of America, Supreme Court, United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137, 155ff. (1933); id., Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 585 (1953).

  40. 40.

    See, for example, United States of America, Supreme Court, Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 585 and footnote 18 (1953).

  41. 41.

    Brownlie (2008), p. 113.

  42. 42.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), pp. 104–106.

  43. 43.

    Id., p. 106.

  44. 44.

    For a discussion of the case-law on the extraterritorial application of the ECHR see Duttwiler and Petrig (2009), pp. 1247–1260.

  45. 45.

    The principles developed in the ECtHR: Loizidou v. Turkey, app. no. 15318/89, judgment (preliminary objection) of 23 March 1995, were later confirmed in other decisions; see, for example, Cyprus v. Turkey (GC), app. no. 25781/94, judgment (merits) of 10 May 2001, paras 69ff. or the more recent case Solomou et al. v. Turkey, app. no. 36832/97, judgment of 24 June 2008, paras 43ff. or Ilaşcu et al. v. Moldova and Russia, app. no. 48787/99, judgment (merits and just satisfaction) of 8 July 2004, pars. 376ff.

  46. 46.

    Loizidou v. Turkey, app. no. 15318/89, judgment (preliminary objection) of 23 March 1995, para 62 (emphasis added).

  47. 47.

    Id.

  48. 48.

    Cyprus v. Turkey (GC), app. no. 25781/94, judgment (merits) of 10 May 2001, para 77 (emphasis added).

  49. 49.

    See, for example, ECtHR cases: Issa et al. v. Turkey, app. no. 31821/96, judgment (merits) of 16 November 2004, para 74, and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, app. no. 61498/08, decision of 30 June 2009, para 89.

  50. 50.

    Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, app. no. 61498/08, decision of 30 June 2009.

  51. 51.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), pp. 107–109.

  52. 52.

    International Maritime Organization, Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Waters off the Coast of Somalia, Information on Internationally Recommended Transit Corridor (IRTC) for Ships Transiting the Gulf of Aden, IMO Doc. SN.1/Circ.281 (3 August 2009).

  53. 53.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 108.

  54. 54.

    EUNAVFOR, Mission, available online: www.eunavfor.eu/about-us/mission; the operational area of EUNAVFOR, for example, includes not only the Gulf of Aden but also the south of the Red Sea, the western part of the Indian Ocean including the Seychelles.

  55. 55.

    For a rather exhaustive discussion of the “control over persons”-criterion, see, for example, Duttwiler and Petrig (2009), pp. 1254–1257.

  56. 56.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 110. Another line of reasoning could be that the Flag State Principle applies to enforcement measures taken on board a law enforcement vessel, but displaying its effects beyond the railing and not only to pure “on board situations”.

  57. 57.

    Andreou v. Turkey, app. no. 45653/99, decision of 3 June 2008, legal considerations, para A.3.c.

  58. 58.

    Duttwiler and Petrig (2009), p. 1256.

  59. 59.

    Isaak et al. v. Turkey, app. no. 44587/98, decision of 28 September 2006, legal considerations, para A.2.b.

  60. 60.

    Duttwiler and Petrig (2009), p. 1256: In the case at hand, no other jurisdictional link was given; the victim vessel was namely not in the territorial waters of Portugal and did not fly Portugal’s flag.

  61. 61.

    Issa et al. v. Turkey, app. no. 31821/96, judgment (merits) of 16 November 2004, para 71.

  62. 62.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 111.

  63. 63.

    In the German version of Article 12 EU Council Joint Action Operation Atalanta the word “arrest” (“Festnahme”) was officially changed to “holding” (“Festhalten”): Berichtigung der Gemeinsamen Aktion 2008/851/GASP des Rates vom 10. November 2008 über die Militäroperation der Europäischen Union als Beitrag zur Abschreckung, Verhütung und Bekämpfung von seeräuberischen Handlungen und bewaffneten Raubüberfällen vor der Küste Somalias, 2009 Abl. (L 10) 35 (EU). However, since the “control over persons”-criterion hinges on an exclusively factual assessment and not on terminology, this should be without consequence.

  64. 64.

    Medvedyev et al. v. France, app. no. 3394/03, judgment of 10 July 2008, para 50.

  65. 65.

    Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, app. no. 61498/08, decision of 30 June 2009, para 88.

  66. 66.

    Geiss and Petrig (2011), p. 113.

  67. 67.

    Id., p. 113.

  68. 68.

    Isaak et al. v. Turkey, app. no. 44587/98, decision of 28 September 2006, para 115.

  69. 69.

    The President of the Security Council, for example, issued a landmark statement in relation to international drug trafficking where he underlined that illegal drug trade is increasingly a problem that requires an internationally coordinated response: United Nations, Security Council, Statement by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/PRST/2009/32 (8 December 2009).

References

  • Brownlie I (2008) Principles of public international law, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Duttwiler M, Petrig A (2009) Neue Aspekte der extraterritorialen Anwendbarkeit der EMRK. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis/Pratique Juridique Actuelle 10:1247–1260

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle D (2009) Shipping interdiction and the law of the sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • International Maritime Organization (2011) Status of conventions summary. As of 30 September 2011. Available online www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx

  • König D (2008) Flag of convenience. In: Wolfrum R (ed) The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international Law, (online edition), available online: www.mpepil.com

  • United Nations (1956) International Law Commission, commentary on the articles concerning the law of the sea. Yearbook 2:283–284

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law of the University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Anna Petrig

Authors
  1. Anna Petrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Petrig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Maritime Industry Authority, Manila, Philippines

    Maximo Q. Mejia, Jr.

  2. Musashino University Faculty of Political Science & Economics, Tokyo, Japan

    Chie Kojima

  3. Richmond Hill, USA

    Mark Sawyer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Petrig, A. (2013). Human Rights in Counter-Piracy Operations: No Legal Vacuum but Legal Uncertainty. In: Mejia, Jr., M., Kojima, C., Sawyer, M. (eds) Piracy at Sea. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39620-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation