Editing Piracy (section)

==Legal aspects==

===United Kingdom laws===
[[File:Target practice.jpg|thumb|right|A merchant seaman aboard a fleet oil tanker practices target shooting with a [[Remington 870]] 12 gauge shotgun as part of training to repel [[Piracy in the Strait of Malacca|pirates in the Strait of Malacca]], 1984]]
Section 2 of the [[Piracy Act 1837]] creates a statutory offence of aggravated piracy. See also the [[Piracy Act 1850]].

In 2008 the British [[Foreign Office]] advised the Royal Navy not to detain pirates of certain nationalities as they might be able to claim asylum in Britain under [[Human Rights Act 1998|British human rights legislation]], if their national laws included execution, or mutilation as a judicial punishment for crimes committed as pirates.<ref>{{cite news |first=Marie |last=Woolf |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/pirates-can-claim-uk-asylum-x9vzxzv2m6g |title=Pirates can claim UK asylum |work=[[The Sunday Times]] |date=April 13, 2008 |access-date=February 26, 2021 |location=London |archive-date=May 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210517213935/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pirates-can-claim-uk-asylum-x9vzxzv2m6g |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Definition of piracy jure gentium====
See section 26 of, and Schedule 5 to, the [[Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997]]. These provisions replace the Schedule to the [[Tokyo Convention Act 1967]]. In ''Cameron v HM Advocate'', 1971 SLT 333, the [[High Court of Justiciary]] said that that Schedule supplemented the existing law and did not seek to restrict the scope of the offence of piracy jure gentium.

See also:
*''Re Piracy Jure Gentium'' [1934] AC 586, [[Privy Council|PC]]
*''Attorney General of Hong Kong v Kwok-a-Sing'' (1873) LR 5 PC 179

====Jurisdiction====
See section 46(2) of the [[Senior Courts Act 1981]] and [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/41-42/73/section/6 section 6] of the [[Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878]]. See also ''R v Kohn'' (1864) 4 F & F 68.

====Piracy committed by or against aircraft====

See section 5 of the [[Aviation Security Act 1982]].

====Sentence====
The book ''[[Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice|Archbold]]'' says that in a case that does not fall within section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, the penalty appears to be determined by the [[Offences at Sea Act 1799]], which provides that offences committed at sea are liable to the same penalty as if they had been committed upon the shore.<ref>''[[Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice]]'', 1999, para. 25–46 at p. 1979</ref>

====History====
William Hawkins said that under [[common law]], piracy by a subject was esteemed to be [[petty treason]]. The [[Treason Act 1351]] provided that this was not petty treason.<ref>William Hawkins, [https://books.google.com/books?id=vZc0AAAAIAAJ ''Treatise of Pleas of the Crown''] (1824 ed.), vol. 1, chapter XIV.<!--Book citations don't really need an archive link--> See also 40 Ass. 35</ref>

In English [[admiralty law]], piracy was classified as petty treason during the medieval period, and offenders were accordingly liable to be [[hanged, drawn and quartered]] on conviction. Piracy was redefined as a [[felony]] during the reign of [[Henry VIII]]. In either case, piracy cases were cognizable in the courts of the Lord High Admiral. English judges in [[admiralty court]]s and [[vice admiralty court]]s emphasized that "neither Faith nor Oath is to be kept" with pirates; i.e. contracts with pirates and oaths sworn to them were not legally binding. Pirates were legally subject to [[summary execution]] by their captors if captured in battle. In practice, instances of summary justice and annulment of oaths and contracts involving pirates do not appear to have been common.{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}

===United States laws===
In the United States, criminal prosecution of piracy is authorized in the [[Article I of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 10]]:
{{blockquote|To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;}}

The founding fathers were at loggerheads over piracy.<ref name=rubin88>{{Cite journal |last=Rubin |first=Alfred P. |date=1 January 1988 |title=The Law of Piracy. By Alfred P. Rubin. Newport, R.I.: Naval War College Press, 1988. Pp. xiv, 444. Indexes. $22. |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203491 |journal=American Journal of International Law |volume=84 |issue=2 |pages=620–622 |doi=10.2307/2203491 |jstor=2203491 |s2cid=246010971 |issn=0002-9300 |via=Digital Commons}}</ref> and the [[Marshall Court]] (1801-1835) dealt with many cases of piracy.<ref name=ziegler39>Benjamin Munn Ziegler. International Law of John Marshall; a Study of First Principles (1939)</ref><ref name=white89>G. Edward White, The Marshall Court and International Law: The Piracy Cases, 83 AM. J. INT'l L. 727 (October 1989)</ref> In 1820 the penalty for piracy was death.<ref name=usvsmith/> By 1909 the penalty was life imprisonment.<ref name="p1909">{{cite news |url=https://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=35&page=1145 |title=Piracy under the law of nations }}</ref> Title {{USC|18|1651}} now states:

{{blockquote|
Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.
}}

Citing the United States Supreme Court decision in the 1820 case of ''[[United States v. Smith (1820)]]'',<ref name=usvsmith>18 U.S. 153 (1820).</ref> a U.S. District Court ruled in 2010 in the case of ''[[United States v. Said]]'' that the definition of piracy under section 1651 is confined to "robbery at sea". The piracy charges (but not other serious federal charges) against the defendants in the ''Said'' case were dismissed by the Court.<ref>Memorandum Opinion and Order, August 17, 2010, docket entry 94, ''United States v. Said'', 2:10-cr-00057-RAJ-FBS, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk Div.).</ref>

The U.S. District Court for the E.D.Va. has since been overturned: "On May 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the Court's dismissal of the piracy count. ''United States v. Said'', 680 F.3d 374 (4th Cir.2012). See also ''United States v. Dire'', 680 F.3d 446, 465 (4th Cir.2012) (upholding an instruction to the jury that the crime of piracy includes 'any of the three following actions: (A) any illegal acts of violence or detention or any act of depredation committed for private ends on the high seas or a place outside the jurisdiction of any state by the crew or the passengers of a private ship and directed against another ship or against persons or property on board such ship; or (B) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship; or (C) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in (A) or (B) above").{{'"}} The case was remanded to E.D. Va., see ''US v. Said'', 3 F. Supp. 3d 515 – Dist. Court, ED Virginia (2014).

===International law===
{{main|International piracy law}}

====Effects on international boundaries====
During the 18th century, the British and the Dutch controlled opposite sides of the [[Straits of Malacca]]. The British and the Dutch drew a line separating the Straits into two halves. The agreement was that each party would be responsible for combating piracy in their respective half. Eventually this line became the border between Malaysia and Indonesia in the Straits.

====Law of nations====
[[File:Imoconfsom.jpg|thumb|[[International Maritime Organization]] (IMO) conference on capacity-building to counter piracy in the Indian Ocean]]
Piracy is of note in [[international law]] as it is commonly held to represent the earliest invocation of the concept of [[universal jurisdiction]]. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of {{lang|la|[[jus cogens]]}}, a conventional peremptory international norm that states must uphold. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to hold the status of {{lang|la|[[hostis humani generis]]}} (an enemy of humankind).<ref name=HK-2001>{{cite magazine|author-link=Henry Kissinger|last=Kissinger|first=Henry|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010701faessay4996/henry-a-kissinger/the-pitfalls-of-universal-jurisdiction.html|title=The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction|magazine=[[Foreign Affairs]]|date=July–August 2001|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114024521/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010701faessay4996/henry-a-kissinger/the-pitfalls-of-universal-jurisdiction.html|archive-date=January 14, 2009}}</ref>

Because of universal jurisdiction, action can be taken against pirates without objection from the flag state of the pirate vessel. This represents an exception to the principle {{lang|la|[[extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur]]}} ("One who exercises jurisdiction out of his territory is disobeyed with impunity").<ref>''Black's Law Dictionary'', p. 528 (5th ed. 1979).</ref>

A [[Convention on Piracy]] was adopted by the [[League of Nations]] in 1932. To this day, the Harvard Draft adds to the debate of what constitutes piracy.<ref name=birnie87>{{Cite journal |last=Birnie |first=P.W. |date=July 1987 |title=Piracy Past, Present, Future |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0308-597x(87)90054-6 |journal=Marine Policy |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=163–183 |doi=10.1016/0308-597x(87)90054-6 |bibcode=1987MarPo..11..163B |issn=0308-597X |via=Elsevier Science Direct}}</ref>

====International conventions====

====Articles 101 to 103 of UNCLOS====
[[File:Commodore Bob Mansergh at MAST.jpg|thumb|right|British [[Royal Navy]] [[Commodore (Royal Navy)|Commodore]] gives a presentation on piracy at the MAST 2008 conference]]
Articles 101 to 103 of the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] (UNCLOS) (1982) contain a definition of piracy ''[[iure gentium]]'' (i.e. according to international law).<ref name="Archbold Criminal Pleading 1999">[[Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice]]. 1999. Paragraph 25–39 at p. 1976.</ref> They read:

<blockquote>
<div style="font-variant:small-caps">Article 101</div>

''Definition of piracy''

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
*(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed—
**(i) on the [[high seas]], against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
**(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
*(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
*(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

<div style="font-variant:small-caps">Article 102</div>

''Piracy by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied''

The acts of piracy, as defined in article 101, committed by a warship, government ship or government aircraft whose crew has mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated to acts committed by a private ship or aircraft.

<div style="font-variant:small-caps">Article 103</div>

''Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft''

A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm|title=Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea|website=www.un.org|access-date=June 29, 2017|archive-date=June 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170620050654/http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
</blockquote>

This definition was formerly contained in articles 15 to 17 of the [[Convention on the High Seas]] signed at Geneva on April 29, 1958.<ref>[[Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice]]. 1999. Paragraph 25–39 at p. 1976 refers to the Schedule to the [[Tokyo Convention Act 1967]]. That Schedule, and section 4 of that Act, refer to the said articles of Convention on the High Seas.</ref> It was drafted<ref>Yearbook of the ILC [1956] Vol 2, 282</ref> by the [[International Law Commission]].<ref name="Archbold Criminal Pleading 1999"/>

A limitation of article 101 above is that it confines piracy to the High Seas. As the majority of piratical acts occur within territorial waters, some pirates are able to go free as certain jurisdictions lack the resources to monitor their borders adequately.{{citation needed|date=December 2011}}

====IMB definition====
The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) defines piracy as:

{{blockquote|the act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cargolaw.com/presentations_pirates.html#what_piracy%7ctitle=cargolaw.com|title=Modern High Seas Piracy|work=cargolaw.com|access-date=November 15, 2015|archive-date=November 9, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151109054924/http://www.cargolaw.com/presentations_pirates.html#what_piracy%7ctitle=cargolaw.com|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

====Uniformity in maritime piracy law====
Given the diverging definitions of piracy in international and municipal legal systems, some authors argue that greater uniformity in the law is required in order to strengthen anti-piracy legal instruments.<ref>{{cite journal |ssrn=1682624 |last=Bento |first=Lucas |title=Toward An International Law of Piracy Sui Generis: How the Dual Nature of Maritime Piracy Law Enables Piracy to Flourish |journal=Berkeley Journal of International Law |volume=29 |number=2 |date=2011 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682624 |access-date=January 13, 2021 |archive-date=January 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210124122947/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682624 |url-status=live }}</ref>