Abstract
This chapter considers the involvement of a particular non-state actor, private maritime security companies (PMSCs), in the conduct of anti-piracy operations. Specifically, this chapter critiques their role and status as part of the current broader security framework arising from a modification of the normative preconception of security challenges in the post cold war era. The central argument is that the legitimacy of PMSCs in contributing to international maritime security governance through anti-piracy measures occurs within the framework of the existing system made up of a plurality of states and other non-state actors. Despite this participation through roles that are similar to those of the state, it does not necessarily constitute a challenge to the firm grip that states have over international law and consequently the involvement of PMSCs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Hassan (2006), p. 62.
- 3.
Liss (2015), p. 85.
- 4.
The literature on the use of private companies in providing security in the maritime domain is sated with debates as to the nature and scope of the companies that the industry covers. This gives rise to the use of several terms and acronyms. See Struwe (2012), p. 590; Liss and Schneider (2015), pp. 81–83. In this chapter, Private maritime security companies (PMSCs) denote private for-profit actors engaged in security services in the maritime sector. On meaning of maritime security services, see ISO 28007-1: 2015(en), 3.7. Cf with IMO Cir 1405 Rev. 2, and ISO 28007:1-2015(en), 3.1 which defines PMSCs as ‘private contractors employed to provide security personnel, both armed and unarmed, on board for protection against piracy.’ This definition appears to limit the PMSC to only armed and unarmed services. However, the perceived restriction can arguably be attributed to the fact that the documents address particular types of security service provided by the private organisation for anti-piracy services.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
International law distinguishes between the threat of piracy and armed robbery against ships. See United Nations, Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982) Article.101; IMO, Resolution A 26/Res.1025, 18 January 2010 annex 2.2. Following the definition in the strictest sense, the threat of piracy becomes almost non-existent globally. Contemporary maritime scholars argue for an expansion of the definition of the threat of piracy to cover persistent acts of armed robbery against ships. Gagain (2010), p. 180; Mejia (2003), p. 153; Kao (2016), p. 1.
- 10.
For instance, in 2017, there were about 84, 456 transits in the Malacca Strait. www.seatrade-maritime.com/news/asia/exclusive-malacca-straits-vlcc-traffic-doubles-in-a-decade-as-shipping-traffic-hits-all-time-high-in-2017.html. Accessed 20 December 2018. On the importance of the waterways, see generally Liss (2012), p. 53; Liss (2013), p. 194.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Liwång (2017), p. 386.
- 14.
Otto (2015), p. 33; https://www.maritimeprofessional.com/news/pirate-attacks-worsen-gulf-guinea-316094. Accessed 11 April 2018; Anele (2017), p. 325.
- 15.
- 16.
Parsons (2010), p. 164.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
Mejia et al. (2012), pp. 360–367.
- 20.
Hasan and Hassan (2016), p. 215.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
Liss (2013), p. 199.
- 24.
- 25.
On the various services which PMSCs can provide for protection against pirate attacks see Cullen (2012), p. 26; Liss (2015), pp. 87–88, ISO 28007-1:2015, 3.7. On the categorization of the services, see Liss (2015), pp. 87–88. Contrast with the categorization in Struwe (2012), pp. 590–595. Struwe categorises the services into four main groups—security intelligence, security services, crisis response and intervention on land. This chapter adopts Liss’ options of classification-active and passive services or land and sea-based services. Apart from the simplicity, Liss’ categorisation options offer a more encompassing classification that that caters for other forms of services that may arise in future as well as reflects the operational distinctions of the services identified as conflicting with the state monopoly in the legal provision of security. Furthermore, the Struwe classification can easily be subsumed under either of Liss’ classification.
- 26.
Ryngaert (2016), p. 186.
- 27.
Liss (2015), p. 87. For instance, the guidelines for applying risk-based quality management systems to PMSCs (ISO 28007) provide for sector-specific recommendations, which may be the basis for certification. There are expectations from relevant international organisations, states, and even clients that security personnel of companies acquires some form of security certification specific to the maritime subsector.
- 28.
Parsons (2010), p. 178.
- 29.
- 30.
M/V Saiga (No.2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) merits (1999) 4 ITLOS Rep 132, 105. Although reference was made to persons generally, a broad interpretation of persons would include PMSC personnel present on the vessel. See also Barnes (2015), p. 314.
- 31.
UNCLOS Article 2, 21, 25 and 33.
- 32.
Petrig (2013), p. 677.
- 33.
Apart from the seventeenth-century privateers policing the high seas under the authority of European governments, the subsequent establishment of the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code provided room for the expansion of PMSC services. See Harrelson (2010), pp. 296–297 (asserting that use of PMSC within the maritime domain is not a new phenomenon); Cullen (2012), pp. 26–28; Liss (2013), p. 198; Liss (2015), p. 85.
- 34.
Various categorization of the types of services PMSCs offer exists. Liss (2015), pp. 87–88. Contrast with the categorization in Struwe (2012), pp. 590–595. Struwe categorises the services into four main groups—security intelligence, security services, crisis response and intervention on land. This chapter adopts Liss’s options of classification-active and passive services or land and sea-based services. Apart from the simplicity, Liss’ categorization options offer a more encompassing classification that that caters for other forms of services that may arise in future as well as reflects the operational distinctions of the services identified as conflicting with the state monopoly in the legal provision of security. Furthermore, the Struwe classification can easily be subsumed under either of Liss’ classification.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
Bürgin and Schneider (2015), p. 127.
- 38.
Van Hespen (2014), p. 361.
- 39.
Williams (2014), p. 347.
- 40.
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA), signed on 10 March 1988 in Rome. Entered into force on 1 March 1992.
- 41.
- 42.
United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition (Firearms Protocol), Signed on 11 July 2001 in New York. Entered into Force on 5 July 2004.
- 43.
Kraska (2015), p. 179.
- 44.
Ibid.
- 45.
UNCLOS, Articles 21, 92, 94.
- 46.
Kopel et al. (2007), pp. 129–130.
- 47.
UNCLOS, Article 94(2); Barnes (2015), p. 314.
- 48.
M/V Saiga (No.2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) merits (1999) 4 ITLOS Rep 132, 105. References were made to persons generally because the ship is regarded as a unit for the purpose of flag state exercising (protective) jurisdiction.
- 49.
Petrig (2016a), p. 7; UNCLOS Articles 9, 27 and 218 which provide instances where a coastal or port state may invoke its jurisdiction on a vessel not flying its flag. Art.2 emphasises the subjectivity of coastal state sovereignty in territorial waters to international law.
- 50.
UNCLOS Article 17.
- 51.
UNCLOS, Article 19(1).
- 52.
IMO, Resolution A 26/Res.1025.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
SUA 2005, Art. 3, 3bis, 3ter and 3 quarter.
- 56.
SUA 2005, Art. 8(1).
- 57.
SUA 2005, Art. 8bis(4).
- 58.
SUA 2005, Art. 3, 3bis, 3ter and 3 quarter.
- 59.
SUA 2005, Art. 4.
- 60.
Mejia and Mukherjee (2006), pp. 181–184.
- 61.
SUA 2005, Art 9.
- 62.
SUA 2005, Article 8 (2).
- 63.
SUA 2005, Article 8bis.
- 64.
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, Chapter XI-2.
- 65.
For an in-depth discussion on the background to and development of the ISPS Code, see generally Jones (2006).
- 66.
Mileski et al. (2015), pp. 97–98.
- 67.
Cullen (2012), p. 29.
- 68.
ISPS Code, Part A, sec. 6.
- 69.
SOLAS, XI-2, Reg. 8.
- 70.
On the right to individual self defence, see Ashworth (1975), pp. 282–284; Priddy and Casey-Maslen (2012), pp. 844–845. The right to self defence or defence of others does not negate the possibility of criminal prosecution, depending on the jurisdiction, if the amount of force is more than lawfully necessary at the time. See Priddy and Casey-Maslen (2012), p. 845.
- 71.
For instance, see Bahama Maritime Authority (2011) Guidance to shipowners on carriage of armed personnel for vessel protection, Rule 3.2; UK Department for Transport, Interim Guidance to UK Flagged Shipping on the Use of Armed Guards to Defend Against the Threat of Piracy in Exceptional Circumstances, (Updated May 2013), Rule 5.1; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, Port Security Advisory (3-09), Guidance on Self-Defense or Defense of Others by U.S. Flagged Commercial Vessels Operating in High Risk Waters, Rule 3(a).
- 72.
Interview with Maritime Security Expert, 12 April, 2017; BIMCO (2012a) Section 4 & Annex D.
- 73.
BIMCO (2012b) Section 4(8)(d).
- 74.
United Nations Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition (Firearms Protocol). Signed on 11 July 2001 in New York. Entered into Force on 5 July 2004.
- 75.
Kirsten and Stott (2008), p. 3.
- 76.
UN General Assembly, United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime: resolution (adopted 8 January 2001) A/RES/55/25.
- 77.
UN Firearms Protocol, Art. 2.
- 78.
MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2 (25 May 2012); MSC.1/Circ. 1406/Rev.3 (12 June 2015); MSC.1/Circ. 1408 (25 May 2012); MSC.1/Circ. 1443 (25 May 2012).
- 79.
MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2 (25 May 2012).
- 80.
MSC.1/Circ. 1443 (25 May, 2012).
- 81.
MSC.1/Circ. 1406/Rev.3 (12 June 2015).
- 82.
MSC.1/Circ. 1408 (25 May 2012).
- 83.
MSC.1/Circ. 1406/Rev.3, explanation 6; MSC.1/Circ. 1405/Rev.2, explanation 5.
- 84.
Van Hespen (2014), p. 363.
- 85.
MSC.1/Circ.1406/Rev.3, Annex 1 par. 2.
- 86.
MSC.1/Circ. 1406/Rev.3, Annex 1 par.4.
- 87.
MSC.1/Circ. 1406/Rev.3, Annex 1, par.4.
- 88.
MSC.1/1048/Rev.1.
- 89.
MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 3(3.3).
- 90.
Shipping Circular No. 11 (2011).
- 91.
Ibid. See also Republic of Marshall Island, Marine Notice (2016) No. 2-011-39; Antigua and Barbuda, Department of Marine Services and Merchant Shipping (ADOMS), (2013) Cir. 2013-003.
- 92.
Carreira Da Cruz (2017), pp. 64 and 74.
- 93.
- 94.
- 95.
MSC1/1406/Rev. 3, Annex 1, par.1; MSC.1/Circ. 1443, Annex1, par. 1.5; MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2, Annex 1, pa. 1.3.
- 96.
Statute of the International Court of Justice Article 38.
- 97.
Reimann (2004), p. 407.
- 98.
Menkel-Meadow (2011), p. 104.
- 99.
Bürgin and Schneider (2015), p. 131.
- 100.
Van Hespen (2014), p. 367.
- 101.
Maritime Security Directive (MARSEC) 104-6. This Directive undergone seven revisions since it was issued in February 2006; National Defence Authorization Act 2010, section 3506. For a detailed discussion on the US approach, see De Nevers (2015), pp. 154–159.
- 102.
Department of transport (2013), version 1.2; Department for Trade (2017) Open General Trade Control Licence (specifically applicable to use of arms in waters off the coast of Somalia only).
- 103.
Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) (2014) Licensing of Security Companies on Board Ocean-Going Vessel; Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) (2014) Licence under the Weapons Act.
- 104.
Marine Notice 2-011-39 (Rev.Aug/2016).
- 105.
Act on Special Measures Concerning the Guarding of Japanese Ships in Pirate-Infested Waters (2013).
- 106.
An Act respecting various measures relating to the fight against maritime piracy (2013) Loi portant diverses mesures relatives à la lutte contre la piraterie maritime; Belgium, Royal Decree amending the Royal Decree of 11 February 2013 laying down maritime zones for the use of private security guard against maritime piracy (2016) (Arrêté royal modifiant l’arrêté royal du 11 février 2013 fixant les zones maritimes pour l’utilisation de gardiennage privé contre le piraterie maritime).
- 107.
- 108.
Richemond-Barak (2014), p. 779.
- 109.
- 110.
Richemond-Barak (2014), p. 779.
- 111.
These initiatives include the Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for states related to operations and private military and security companies during armed conflict (Montreux document); International Code of Conduct, Association, International Code of Conduct for Private Security Providers, November 2010; Ship and Marine Technology-Guidelines for Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC) providing privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) on board ships (and pro forma contract) (ISO/28007-1: 2015); 100 Series Rules: An International Model Set of Maritime Rules for the Use of Force (RUF); The Best Management Practice for the Protection against Somali Piracy.
- 112.
Although the Code is open for signature by only private security companies, the principles contained in it were developed after extensive consultation with a range of governments and non-governmental organisations.
- 113.
Petrig (2016a), p. 2.
- 114.
MSC.1/Circ. 1443 (2012), Annex 2.1. The IMO describes both initiatives as not directly relevant to the situation of piracy and armed robbery in the maritime domain and do not provide sufficient guidance for PMSC. Because they address states relations with private security companies providing military-like services in armed conflict situations. See also Carreira Da Cruz (2017), p. 71. Contrast with Petrig (2016a), pp. 2–20 where the author gives a maritime perspective to the Montreux document.
- 115.
Petrig (2016a), pp. 18–20. Notably, the ISO PAS 28007-2015, as a revision of the ISO PAS 28007-2012 no longer contains the remarks in the definitions section which stated that the IMO ‘does not believe that the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC) or the Montreux Document are applicable to maritime security operations. The Code and Montreux Document are also included in the bibliography of ISO PAS 28007-2015 as relevant documents consulted in the formation of the ISO standards.
- 116.
ISO 28007-1, Article 1.
- 117.
ISO does not carry out certification. Rather the standards developed are utilized by external certification bodies who are usually accredited by the International Accreditation Forum. For an in depth discussion on the ISO and its potential to generate legal consequences, see Carreira Da Cruz (2017).
- 118.
ISO 28007-1, Article 1.
- 119.
Williams (2014), p. 352; BIMCO Circular 5/12.
- 120.
For more information on the mission and of the association visit http://iamsponline.org/.
- 121.
International Association of Maritime Security Professionals (2011).
- 122.
Maritime Security Professionals Voluntary Professional Code of Practice (MarSecPro).
- 123.
IAMSP Rules, Clause 36.
- 124.
IAMSP Rules, Clause 63.
- 125.
IAMSP Rules, Appendix B-D.
- 126.
- 127.
- 128.
This authority over citizens hinges on theoretical bases highlighted by scholars firmly established as far back as the seventeenth century. See Calvin’s Case/Postnanti (1572)(77 ER 377)/(1932) 2KB 210 where Lord Cook expands on the common law tradition and original contract based on a natural bond of allegiance between king and subject. See also Krahmann (2009), p. 2 where the author refers to the social contract theory; Heyman (1991), p. 507.
- 129.
- 130.
Msc.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2 (May 25, 2012).
- 131.
- 132.
- 133.
Bockmann and Katz (2012) www.globalpolicy.org/pmscs/51600-shooting-to-kill-pirates-risks-blackwater-moment.html. Accessed 22 December 2018; Lloyds List (2012) <https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL032585/Eagle-Bulk-and-Trident-identified-in-pirate-shooting-video> accessed 31 December, 2018.
- 134.
Bockmann and Katz (2012) www.globalpolicy.org/pmscs/51600-shooting-to-kill-pirates-risks-blackwater-moment.html. 22 December 2018. Conflicting statements exists as to whether the skiff, reported to have AK 47s and RPGs on board actually returned fire in the course of the warning shots. This makes it difficult to conclusively assess whether the actions of the armed guard exceeded the force reasonably necessary in the circumstance. However, the incident goes to show how easily the use of force may be abused.
- 135.
Notably, Italy and India provide different accounts of the events leading up to the death of the fishermen. See In the Dispute Concerning the ‘Enrica Lexie’ Incident (The Italian Republic v The Republic of India), Notification Under Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 of UNCLOS and Statement of Claim (26 June 2015) https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/simply-put-2-killings-at-sea-an-international-legal-battle/; Dispute Concerning the ‘Enrica Lexie’ Incident (The Italian Republic v The Republic of India), Written Observations of the Republic of India on the Request of the Italian Republic for the Prescription of Provisional Measures Under Article 290, Paragraph 1, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/Response/Indias%20Written%20Observations.pdf (Written Observations of India). Accessed 2 January, 2019.
- 136.
Written Observations of India, 8–9.
- 137.
- 138.
Liss (2015), pp. 91–92.
- 139.
Page 18.
- 140.
Liss (2013), p. 202.
- 141.
Liss (2007), https://www.murdoch.edu.au/Research-capabilities/Asia-Research-Centre/_document/working-papers/wp141.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2019.
- 142.
Liss (2007), https://www.murdoch.edu.au/Research-capabilities/Asia-Research-Centre/_document/working-papers/wp141.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2018; Liwång et al. (2015), p. 201.
- 143.
Most of them are in European countries. See Liss (2015), p. 88.
- 144.
Affi et al. (2016), p. 939.
- 145.
- 146.
Affi et al. (2016), p. 939.
- 147.
- 148.
Skype Interview with Maritime Security Expert (12 April 2017).
- 149.
The Maritime Organization’s IMO’s stance over a two-year period evolved from actively discouraging to ‘tacitly accepting the industry and flag state practice of deploying armed security personnel on board vessels under certain circumstances.’ See http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Security/PiracyArmedRobbery/Pages/Private-Armed-Security.aspx. Accessed 18 October 2018. Similarly, prominent maritime nations such as United Kingdom, Italy and the Netherlands have also changed their stance about the use of armed personnel onboard vessels. See Van Hespen (2014), p. 373. The author asserts that no open registry explicitly prohibits the use of PMSCs while almost all European Flag states accept the use of PMSC services on board vessels.
- 150.
- 151.
D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 4.
- 152.
Avant (2004), p. 155.
- 153.
Ryngaert (2016), p. 185.
- 154.
- 155.
Ryngaert (2016), p. 185.
- 156.
Skaanild (2013), p. 26.
- 157.
D’Aspremont (2011b), pp. 430–431.
- 158.
Jakobi (2013), p. 140.
- 159.
D’Aspremont (2011a), p. 5.
- 160.
Ryngaert (2016), p. 192.
- 161.
Liss (2012), p. 52.
- 162.
Liss (2013), p. 202.
- 163.
Ryngaert (2017), p. 159.
References
Aatstad AK (2017) Maritime security and transformations in global governance. Crime Law Social Change 67(3):313–331
Affi L, Elimi A, Knight WA, Mohamed S (2016) Countering piracy through private security in the Horn of Africa: prospects and pitfalls. Third World Q 27(5):934–950
Anele KK (2017) A study of the role of seafarers in combating piracy off the coast of Nigeria. WMU J Marit Aff 16:313–349
Ashworth AJ (1975) Self defence and the right to life. Camb Law J 34(2):282–307
Avant D (2004) The privatization of security and change in the control of force. Int Stud Perspect 5:153–157
Bahama Maritime Authority (2011) Guidance to shipowners on carriage of armed personnel for vessel protection
Barnes R (2015) Flag states. In: Rothwell DR et al (eds) The Oxford handbook on the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Berube CG, Cullen P (2012) The emergence of maritime private security. In: Berube CG, Cullen P (eds) Maritime private security: market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century. Routledge, Oxon
Bile AK (2013) Warships alone will not curb piracy off piracy off the Somalia Coast: lessons from Puntland, State of Somalia. In: Mejia MQ Jr, Kojima C, Sawyer M (eds) Piracy at sea. Springer, Berlin
BIMCO (2012a) GUARDCON Standard Contract for the Employment of Security Guards on Vessels (2012)
BIMCO (2012b) Guidance on Rules for the Use of Force (RUF) by Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) in Defence of a Merchant Vessel (MV)
Bockmann MW, Katz A (2012) Shooting to kill pirates risks backwater moment. Retrieved 22 May 2018 from www.globalpolicy.org/pmscs/51600-shooting-to-kill-pirates-risks-blackwater-moment.html
Brinberg D, Wood R (1983) A resource exchange theory analysis of consumer behaviour. J Consum Res 10(3):330–338
Brooks D (2000) Messiahs or Mercenaries? The future of international private military services. Int Peacekeeping 7(4):129–144
Bürgin A, Schneider P (2015) Regulation of private maritime security companies in Germany and Spain: a comparative study. Ocean Dev Int Law 46(2):123–137
Calvin’s Case/Postnanti (1572)(77 ER 377)/(1932) 2KB 210
Carreira Da Cruz M (2017) Regulating private maritime security by standards: causes and legal consequences. Marit Saf Secur Law J 3:63–81
Chaisse J, Ji X (2018) ‘Soft law’ in international law-making- how soft international taxation law is reshaping international economic governance. Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 13(2):463–509
Chintoan-Uta M, Silva JR (2017) Global maritime domain awareness: a sustainable development perspective. WMU J Marit Aff 16:37–52
Cullen P (2012) Surveying the market in maritime private security services. In: Berube CG, Cullen P (eds) Maritime private security: market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century. Routledge, Oxon
D’Aspremont J (2011a) Non-state actors in international law: oscillating between concepts and dynamics. In: D’Aspermont J (ed) Participants in the international legal system. Routledge, London
D’Aspremont J (2011b) Inclusive law-making and law–enforcement process for an exclusive international legal system. In: D’Aspermont J (ed) Participants in the international legal system. Routledge, London
De Nevers R (2015) State interests and the problem of piracy: comparing U.S. and UK approaches to maritime PMSCs. Ocean Dev Int Law 46(2):153–166
Dickinson LT (2006) Public law values in a privatized world. Yale J Int Law 31(2):383–426
Fonseca J (2018) Pirate attacks worsen in the Gulf of Guinea –IMB. Retrieved 11 April 2018 from https://www.maritimeprofessional.com/news/pirate-attacks-worsen-gulf-guinea-316094
Gagain M (2010) Neglected waters: territorial maritime piracy and developing states. N Engl J Int Comp Law 16:169–196
Guzman AT, Meyer TL (2010) International soft law. J Leg Anal 2(1):171–225
Hall RB, Biersteker J (2002) The emergence of private authority in the international system. In: Hall RB, Biersteker J (eds) The emergence of private authority in global governance. Cambridge University, Cambridge
Harrelson J (2010) Blackbeard meets Blackwater: an analysis of international conventions that address piracy and the use of private security companies to protect the shipping industry. Am Univ Int Law Rev 25(2):296–297
Hasan S, Hassan D (2016) Current arrangement to combat piracy in the Gulf of Guinea region: an evaluation. J Marit Law Commer 47:171–218
Hassan D (2006) The rise of the territorial states and the treaty of Westphalia. Yearb N Z Jurisprud 9:62–70
Heyman S (1991) The first duty of government: protection, liberty and the fourteenth amendment. Duke Law J 41(3):507–571
IMO (2012a) (Revised) Interim Guidance to Ship Owners, Ship Operators and Shipmasters on the Use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area, MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.2
IMO (2012b) Interim Recommendations for Port and Coastal States Regarding the use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area, MSC.1/ Circ. 1408
IMO (2012c) Interim Guidance to Private Maritime Security Companies Providing Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area, MSC.1/Circ. 1443
IMO (2015) (Revised) Interim Recommendations for Flag States Regarding the use of Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel on Board Ships in the High Risk Area, MSC.1/Circ. 1406/Rev.3
IMO Assembly, Code of Practice for the Investigation of Crimes of Armed Robbery against Ships, Resolution A 26/Res.1025 (18 January 2010)
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Ship and Marine Technology-Guidelines for Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC) providing privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) on board ships (and pro forma contract) (ISO/287000-1)
Jakobi AP (2013) Non state actors all around, the governance of cyber crime. In: Jakobi AP, Wolf KD (eds) The transnational governance of violence and crime. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Jakobi AP (2016) Non-state actors and global crime governance: explaining the variance of public-private interaction. Br J Polit Int Rel 18(1):72–89
Jones S (2006) Maritime security: a practical guide. The Nautical Institute, London
Kao B (2016) Against a uniform definition of piracy. Marit Saf Secur J 3:1–20
Kirsten A, Stott N (2008) Controlling the transfer of arms: progress and challenges in the African context. Int Secur Stud 159:1–16
Kontos A (2004) Private security guards: privatized force and state responsibility under international human rights law. Non-State Actors Int Law 4:199–238
Kopel DB, Gallant P, Eisen JD (2007) The human right of self defence. BYU J Public Law 22(1):43–178
Krahmann E (2009) Private security companies and the state monopoly on violence: a case of norm change? PRIF-Reports (No. 88), Peace Research Institute Frankfurt
Kraska J (2015) Excessive coastal state jurisdictional control: shipboard armed security personnel. In: Ringbom H (ed) Jurisdiction over ships: post UNCLOS developments in the law of the sea. Brill Njihoff, Boston
Liss C (2007) The privatisation of maritime security-maritime security in Southeast Asia: between a rock and a hard place. Murdoch University Working Paper No 14
Liss C (2011) Oceans of crime: maritime piracy and transnational security in Southeast Asia. ISEAS Publishing
Liss C (2012) Commercial anti-piracy escorts in the Malacca Strait. In: Berube CG, Cullen P (eds) Maritime private security: market responses to piracy, terrorism and waterborne security risks in the 21st century. Routledge, Oxon
Liss C (2013) Private military and security companies in maritime security governance. In: Jakobi AP, Wolf KD (eds) The transnational governance of violence and crime. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Liss C (2014) The privatisation of maritime security in Southeast Asia: the impact on regional security cooperation. Aust J Int Aff 68(2):194–209
Liss C (2015) (Re)Establishing control? Flag state regulation of antipiracy PMSCs. Ocean Dev Int Law 46:84–97
Liss C (2017) Challenging sovereignty and state control of violence at sea? The operations of private anti-piracy security providers. In: Gertheiss S et al (eds) Resistance and change in world politics: international dissidence. Palgrave Macmillan
Liss C, Schneider P (2015) Regulating private maritime security providers. Ocean Dev Int Law 46:81–83
Liwång H (2017) Piracy off West Africa from 2010 to 2014: an analysis. WMU J Marit Aff 16:385–403
Liwång H, Sörenson K, Österman C (2015) Ship security challenges in high-risk areas: manageable or insurmountable? WMU J Marit Aff 14:201–217
Marin J, Mudric M, Mikac R (2017) Private maritime security contractors and the use of lethal force in maritime domain. In: Andreone G (ed) The future of the law of the sea: bridging gaps between national, individual and common interests. Springer Open
McMahon L (2012) Eagle Bulk and Trident identified in pirate shooting video. https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL032585/Eagle-Bulk-and-Trident-identified-in-pirate-shooting-video
Menefee S (2013) International legal framework (UNCLOS, SUA, and UN resolutions): how adequate are they in tackling piracy? In: Mejia MQ (ed) Selected issues in maritime law and policy. Nova Science Publishers, New York
Mejia M (2003) Maritime gerrymandering: dilemmas in defining piracy, terrorism and other acts of maritime violence. J Int Commer Law 2:153–175
Mejia MQ Jr (2012) Maritime piracy – a multi-dimensional issue. Swedish Maritime Administration, Norrköping
Mejia MQ Jr (2013) Economic development, political stability, and maritime piracy: exploring the linkages. In: Mejia MQ Jr (ed) Selected issues in maritime law and policy: Liber Amicorum Proshanto K. Mukherjee. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge
Mejia M Jr, Mukherjee PK (2006) The SUA Convention 2005: a critical evaluation of its effectiveness in suppressing maritime criminal acts. J Int Marit Law 12:170–191
Mejia MQ Jr, Cariou P, Wolff FC (2012) Piracy in shipping. In: Talley WK (ed) The Blackwell companion to maritime economics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Menkel-Meadow C (2011) Why and how to study transnational law. UC Irvine Law Rev:97–128
Mileski J, Mejia MQ Jr, Ferrell T (2015) Making lemonade out of lemons: port operators’ perceptions of their port security regulation compliance. WMU J Marit Aff 14:93–108
Mukherjee PK, Mejia MQ Jr (2004) The legal framework of maritime security in international law. In: Eremeev VN, Radchenko VN (eds) A gateway to sustainable development. International Ocean Institute, Ukraine
Osnin NA (2006a) Private Maritime Security Company (PMSC) in the Strait of Malacca — options for Malaysia. WMU J Marit Aff 5(2):195–206
Osnin NA (2006b) Private Maritime Security Companies in the Strait of Malacca: are they here to stay? Paper presented at the 5th Maritime Institute of Malaysia Conference on the Strait of Malacca, Kuala Lumpur, 1–2 August 2006
Otto L (2015) Maritime crime in Nigeria and waters beyond: analysing the period 2009 to 2013. Afr Insight 45:15–29
Parsons DM (2010) Protecting the booty: creating a regulatory framework to govern increased use of private security companies in the fight against pirates. Tulane Marit Law J 35:153–182
Percy S (2012) Regulating the private security industry: a story of regulating the last war. Int Rev Red Cross 94:941–960
Petrig A (2013) The use of force and firearms by private maritime security companies against suspected pirates. Int Comp Law Q 62:667–701
Petrig A (2016a) Application of the Montreux document to maritime security. Marit Saf Secur J 2:1–19
Petrig A (2016b) Regulating PMSCs at sea: operational and legal specificities. Presentation at the United Nations Human Rights Council Intergovernmental Working Group on Private Military and Security Companies, 5th Session, Geneva, 12–16 December 2016
Priddy A, Casey-Maslen S (2012) Counter-piracy operations by private maritime security contractors: key legal issues and challenges. J Int Crim Just 10:839–856
Reimann M (2004) From the law of nations to transnational law: why we need a new basic course for international curriculum. Penn State Int Law Rev 22(3):397–415
Richemond-Barak D (2014) Can self-regulation work? Lessons from the private security and military industry. Mich J Int Law 35(4):773–826
Ronzitti N (2011) The use of private contractors in the fight against piracy: policy options. In: Francioni F, Ronzitti N (eds) War by contract: human rights, humanitarian law, and private contractors. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ryngaert C (2016) Non state actors: carving out a space in a state-centred international legal system. Neth Int Law Rev 63:183–195
Ryngaert C (2017) Non state actors in international law: a rejoinder to Professor Thirlway. Neth Int Law Rev 64:155–162
Skaanild T (2013) Piracy: armed robbery, kidnapping, torture and murder at sea. In: Mejia MQ Jr, Kojima C, Sawyer M (eds) Piracy at sea. Springer, Berlin
Steffen D (2014) Troubled waters? The use of the Nigerian Navy and police in private maritime security roles. Centre for International maritime Security (CIMSEC) Report. http://cimsec.org/troubled-waters-use-nigerian-navy-police-private-maritime-security-roles
Struwe LB (2012) Private Security Companies (PSCs) as a piracy countermeasure. Stud Conflict Terrorism 35(7–8):588–596
United Nations, Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (1974) entered force 25 May 1980
United Nations, Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome 1988) entered into force on 1 March 1992
United Nations, Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982) 1833 UNTS 3/ 21 ILM 1261 (1982) entered into force 16 November 1994
United Nations, Protocol of 2005 to the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located in the Continental Shelf
United Nations Security Council, Security Council Resolution on Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Vessels in Territorial Waters and the High Seas off the Coast of Somalia, S/Res/1816 (2 June 2008)
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2017) Review of Maritime Transport (UNCTAD/RMT/2017). United Nations Publication, New York
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2018) Review of Maritime Transport (UNCTAD/RMT/ 2018). United Nations Publication, New York
Van Hespen I (2014) Protecting merchant ships from maritime piracy by privately contracted armed security personnel: a comparative analysis of flag state legislation and port and coastal state requirements. J Marit Law Commer 45:361–400
Vijayan S (2014) The use of armed forces on merchant vessels without strict rules for the use of force. J Marit Law Commer 45:15–34
Williams E (2014) Private armed guards in the fight against piracy. In: Papastavridis E, Trapp KN (eds) La criminalité en me: crimes at sea. Brill Nijhoff, Boston
Cases
In the matter of an arbitration under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dispute concerning the ‘Enrica Lexie’ Incident (Italian Republic v the Republic of India) PCA Case No. 2015-28
M/V Saiga (No.2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea) merits (1999) 4 ITLOS Rep 132
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eruaga, O.A. (2020). Private Maritime Security Companies Within the International Legal Framework for Maritime Security. In: Mukherjee, P.K., Mejia, M.Q., Xu, J. (eds) Maritime Law in Motion. WMU Studies in Maritime Affairs, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31748-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31749-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)