Cap. Saujanya Sinha - Cmmi - Webinar - April 2020

1. Suppression of Unlawful
Acts (SUA) Convention;
1988
& Piracy in Indian Context
By
Capt. SAUJANYA SINHA;
MSc (WMU), MCMMI, MNI
1

2. Layout of Presentation
1. Brief narration of ACHILLE
LAURO Incident of 1985 - led to
development of SUA
Convention in 1988 - came into
force on 1st March 1992;
2. Objectives of The SUA
Convention with focus on
concept of “Offence”;
2

3. Layout of Presentation
3. What is “Piracy” under UNCLOS
1982?
4. Why “Offence” under SUA
Convention does NOT
constitute PIRACY under
UNCLOS 1982?
3

4. Layout of Presentation
5. India is a party to the SUA
Convention 1988;
6. The Indian Context – Anti-
Maritime Piracy Bill; December
2019 – A Definite Way Ahead
BUT More Could Have been
Included!
4

5. ACHILLE LAURO Incident
i. Year – 1985;
ii. Uniqueness of the passenger
ship;
iii.Where was it hijacked; By whom
& What was the ransom?
iv.What were the issues in
international law that prevented
prosecution? 5

6. SUA Convention 1988 -
Objective
i. Mechanism for cooperation
among countries for
preventing/handling of terrorist
activities involving a ship;
ii. The focus of SUA Convention is
on the definition & concept of
OFFENCE;
6

7. SUA Convention 1988 –
OFFENCE
It’s an offence if the Navigation of
the vessel is Endangered due to
any of the following reasons:
i. Causing harm/death of a person
on-board;
ii. Causing damage to ship or
cargo;
7

8. SUA Convention 1988 –
OFFENCE
It’s an offence if the Navigation of
the vessel is Endangered due to
any of the following reasons:
iii. Deliberately causing damage to
navigational aids ashore;
iv. Communication of false
information. 8

9. Endangering Navigation
of Vessel in
Commission of Offence?
i. It’s endangered when the
Master is Under Duress;
ii. Under Duress - due to
circumstantial reasons, powers
of person in-charge are taken
away & thus the person is
unable to execute his/her9

10. Endangering Navigation
of Vessel in
Commission of Offence?
iii. Master’s powers to execute
Passage of ship under his
command - If powers are taken
away where Master is UNABLE
to execute the Passage; Master
would said to be UNDER
DURESS. 10

11. Endangering Navigation
of Vessel in
Commission of Offence?
 EXAMPLE - If Master is
threatened with life of a
crewmember & asked to divert
the ship - Master is put under
duress thereby endangering the
navigation of ship – WHY? 11

12. Endangering Navigation of
V/L in Commission of
Offence?
 Because Master is ONLY
behaving like a human-being &
trying to save the life of a fellow
human-being thus SUA
Convention becomes applicable.
12

13. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
Countries party to SUA
Convention are required to do the
following:
i. Amend their national law to
make provisions to punish
offenders who have committed
an “offence” beyond the
13

14. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
ii. Use all available means to
capture the offenders &
conduct an immediate inquiry
into the incidence;
iii. If applicable, punish the
“offender” as per its amended
national law; 14

15. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
iv. If applicable, hand-over
offenders to another country if
offence is directed towards that
country; OR flag State; OR
country of the offenders’
nationality.
15

16. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
IMPORTANT – SUA Convention
does not require countries to have
Extradition Treaty between them
for offenders to be handed over.
16

17. SUA Protocol of 1995
Entry into force - 28th July 2010;
Protocol EXPANDS definition of
“Offence”:
i. It’s an offence if a vessel is
involved in illegal carriage of
Biological, Chemical, Nuclear
(BCN) material or weapons;
17

18. SUA Protocol of 1995
ii. To have on-board persons who
have committed an offence in
past/are likely to be involved
in an offence in future;
iii. Powers to countries to STOP &
BOARD a passing ship if
reasons to believe of
commission/likely to be
18

19. SUA Protocol of 1995
VERY IMPORTANT: It’s NOT an
OFFENCE if a ship is transporting
nuclear material from a country
that is party to Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) to another country
that is also party to NPT.
19

20. SUA Protocol of 1995
 Since, INDIA is not a party to
NPT, therefore India is NOT a
PARTY to SUA Protocol of 1995;
 INDIA is only party to the SUA
Convention 1988 & NOT to SUA
Protocol of 1995.
20

21. PIRACY – Art. 101 of
UNCLOS 1982
a. “...An illegal act of violence,
detention or depredation;
b. In International Waters & on the
High Seas;
c. Committed for private ends, and
d. By a private vessel against
another vessel...”
21

22. PIRACY – What does it Mean
In Context of “Offence”?
i. Piracy is for "private ends”;
ii. It means an act committed for
"political" motives cannot be
piracy;
iii. Therefore, Terrorism cannot be
piracy because it is politically
motivated.
22

23. PIRACY – What does it Mean
In Context of “Offence”?
iv. “Two-Vessel Rule” - Piracy must
be committed by one private
vessel against another vessel;
v. This requirement excludes
“Offence” (internal hijacking)
committed solely aboard one
ship & is thus NOT Piracy.
23

24. PIRACY – Art. 101 of
UNCLOS 1982
vi. Where evidence of piracy is
discovered, the State vessel
may seize the suspect vessel,
arrest persons & subject them
to jurisdiction of that State's
courts;
vii. Does not require consent of
flag State of the vessel seized. 24

25. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
If an Indian Navy ship captures
Somali pirates in International
Waters in act of attacking a
Panamanian flagged merchant
ship crewed by Indian & Philippine
nationals - questions of
jurisdiction/applicable law will be
unclear & complex - NOT THE
25

26. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
i. Any State in the world may
exercise universal jurisdiction to
prosecute any pirate
irrespective of any "nexus"
between that prosecuting State,
the pirate, the victims or the
vessel attacked;
26

27. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
ii. Such a prosecution will occur
under Universal Jurisdiction of
the prosecuting State's own
national law;
27

28. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
iii. Unlike some other international
crimes, law of piracy does not
absolutely require States to
have adequate national law to
conduct prosecutions – NOT
NECESSARY BUT SHOULD HAVE
had ELEMENTS OF SUA
Convention. 28

29. Relationship between
Piracy (UNCLOS)
& Offence (SUA Convention)
i. SUA Convention does not
cover crime of piracy & its
offences are not within the
same boundaries with crime of
piracy under UNCLOS.
29

30. Relationship between
Piracy (UNCLOS)
& Offence (SUA Convention)
ii. Piracy is restricted by the
"Two-Vessels Rule" (which
excludes internal hijackings) &
by "Private Ends" requirement;
iii. SUA Convention –
comprehensive to avoid any
such restrictions; 30

31. Points MISSED OUT in
Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
Piracy commonly committed off
Somalia INVOLVES BOTH - attack
from one vessel against another
AND acts of violence intended to
seize control of a ship.
31

32. Points MISSED OUT in
Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
1. Such acts can clearly constitute
both piracy & offence under
the SUA Convention - The
Indian Bill LIMITS to acts of
piracy alone;
32

33. Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
2. Piracy - duty to cooperate in
suppression of piracy, but NOT
a necessary REQUIREMENT to
prosecute;
Whereas…
33

34. Points MISSED OUT in
Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
2. Offence - express obligations
upon State to have national
laws to prosecute/extradite
suspects irrespective of where
offence was committed - The
Indian Bill LIMITS to acts of
piracy alone; 34

35. Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
3. The Bill restricts Court
jurisdiction & not applicable
over offences committed on a
foreign ship, unless an
intervention is requested – Had
the Indian Bill included
Offence; it would have
INCLUDED this aspect as well. 35

36. THANK YOU
36