Image Credits: @shaahshahidh on Unsplash (Unsplash License)

Somali pirates are wreaking havoc in the Gulf of Aden attempting to hijack vessels which disrupts international trade and contributes to the instability of the country. Those who are pirates are a part of Somalia’s warlord factions. They are motivated by economic gain and survival. Considering that Somalia’s waters are not well regulated, they are the ideal place for these predators to take advantage of the system to utilize local fishermen and exploit people on the sea. Currently, the practice of pirating results in a revenue of millions of dollars in ransom payments and has become a complex business venture. Typically, the pirates seek a ransom; other times they seize goods such as Saudi oil, tanks, or UN supplies. Although there is no direct oversight of the pirates, their operations are likely based out of Puntland, which broke away from Somalia after 1991. The pirates have infiltrated the Puntland government by gaining access to officials that allow them to use ports for their enterprise. NATO patrols the area to hinder piracy; due to the size of the area, they have a low degree of effectiveness. Furthermore, the Somali government does not operate effectively, therefore, they are unable to enforce anti-pirating laws. Even when the pirates are caught the judicial process is unable to achieve justice because there is a lack of rule of law, rendering the system as inefficient. Those who are affected the most are the Somali people who depend on the food that comes into the country through the ships; therefore, better regulation and mandate of international and Somali law must be enforced to promote better law of the sea practices and stability within the country.  

Currently, under international law, Somali pirates are unable to be prosecuted which contributes to Somalia’s internal conflicts. The UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 describes piracy: 

(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: 

1. on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; 
2. against a ship, aircraft, person 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

This narrow definition does not hinder piracy along the Somali coast because by this definition the act must be committed on the high seas, but in the case of Somalia they occur in the territorial waters. Even though nations can patrol the waters, the acts committed would not be considered piracy as defined by international law. Additionally, a pirate attack must consist of two vessels; however, pirates can board from the port and then hijack. This would not be considered illegal. Many pirates hijack a vessel for private purposes; therefore, a pirate could argue that they committed the act for political purposes and international law would protect them. Overall, the UNCLOS is not binding because it depends on member states to enforce it, which the Somali government does not have the ability to do because they lack the monetary resources and will of the government to do so. Therefore, it is necessary for maritime nations affected by piracy to develop more comprehensive laws and patrols to deter piracy. 

There have been other resolutions formulated to help address the lack of specificity of UNCLOS such as Resolution 1816 of June 2, 2008. In this Resolution, there were provisions that included territorial waters in the definition of piracy. Resolution 1816 also gave the authority to countries to utilize military force in the Somali waters and territory against the pirates. Although it may seem that there is legal backing for these states, there are inadequate options for trials of the pirates because of the lack of stability of the Somalian government. This policy makes the ability for trials to be carried out lessened. Additionally, the Security Council members were adamant that the piracy in Somalia would not be a precedent for international law because Somalia is a unique situation in that the government is incapable of resolving the solution on its own. In the long run the Somali government must develop a successful judiciary system and internal cohesion before real progress can be made.

International response to pirating has been innovative, but the best solution to this issue is the legal system in the prosecuting nation. Nations have deployed naval assets to protect the commercial trade in the Gulf of Aden. The United States, Great Britain, France, and India are leaders in this endeavor. This military presence of some of the major players in the global world has been effective in discouraging pirates; however, they have been deterring rather than apprehending them because they do not have the resources, nor the jurisdiction to do more. In the long run this will not keep the pirates from attempting to earn a financial gain. Additionally, these naval fleets are expensive and each country must determine its viability and effectiveness in order for this to proceed. 

The legal prosecution of the pirates has given way to conflict because of the lack of an effective process to indict them. Firstly, states where piracy occurs have failed to change their laws to address the issue. In Somalia, the leaders have not passed a law that deems pirating illegal. The pirates consider themselves as defending their resources and have gained some legitimacy in the country. Secondly, the question of where these pirates should be tried is up for debate. Should they be prosecuted in the capturing warship’s country or rather in a regional court? In terms of regional courts, they are deemed ineffective by the international community because they have a lack of resources to conduct adequate trials. Also, in countries where regional courts are, such as Kenya, they do not have an effective nor humane judicial system for their own country.   

The economic gains of Somali pirates contribute to the growth of the country’s economy to a limited extent. These gains are for personal gain because it is the pirate’s main source of income. Considering that Somalia is a very poor country “the 0.01 percent they might make—$30,000 on average—is 54 times the country’s average annual salary of about $550.” Some argue that the transfer of wealth that the pirates brought in from ransom created jobs and influenced a trickle-down economy. This increased revenue led to increased wages and stock exchanges. Despite this, it is impossible to attribute the overall growth rate of the Somali economy to pirates as the country has made advancements. Moreover, the country has not experienced economic prosperity even with an increase in pirating. Real economic growth can occur when there is stability and a decrease of corruption within the country. Other countries should be interested in influencing a positive change in Somalia because of the increased trade revenue they could procure. 

Stability in the region can thrive when countries unite to eliminate piracy in Somalia. Greater enforcement of international law will aid Somalia in defending their seas. Somali people live with a weak government that is powerless against the pirates and corrupt government official partners. Without international intervention, piracy will grow and harm the citizens of Somalia and trade even more. Providing better economic alternatives to the pirates will also result in a decrease in pirating; though, this change must come from the government which does not have the resources to do so. Overall, Somali pirates present an ever dangerous threat to Somalia and international law. The law of the sea is too narrow to allow for effective prosecution of the pirates and thereby contributes to the notion that international law is insignificant. For this reason, piracy in Somalia must be addressed internationally and domestically to give greater meaning to the law and for the people of the country to prosper.