Private Political Activists and the International Law Definition of Piracy: Acting for ‘Private Ends’

Abstract

Piracy under international law grants states the right to exercise universal jurisdiction, provided that all conditions of its definition are cumulatively met. Yet academic debate continues as to whether the requirement that piratical acts be committed ‘for private ends’ excludes politically motivated non-state actors. This article attempts to resolve the dispute through a thorough analysis of the term ‘private ends’. An application of the rules of treaty interpretation is followed by an in-depth examination of ‘private ends’ historical development. State practice is examined in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities found. Finally the rationale of universal jurisdiction underlying the definition of piracy is explored, in order to answer whether such actors should be excluded. This article argues that a purely political ends exception developed, but its application beyond insurgents was never resolved. Limited state practice has ensured such ambiguity survived. Nevertheless given the objective of providing discretionary universal jurisdiction over violence and depredation between vessels at sea, violent actors should not be excluded solely upon their political motivations. Instead the limited (but growing) precedents of equating ‘private ends’ to a lack of state sanctioning should be followed.