Flag state responsibility for maritime terrorism

Modern international shipping is largely a flag state-based system. Only the flag state has complete authority over the vessels that fly its flag, and as a result, other states’ jurisdiction over these vessels is very limited. Against this backdrop, this article examines the flag state’s responsibility for maritime terrorism, a major security issue and vulnerability in the global supply chain. It is not an exaggeration that the global community’s repeated statements regarding the illegality of terrorism have created a customary international law obligation for states to take all possible steps for the prevention of terrorism. This article argues that providing flags to suspicious entities in an obscure registration system is not compatible with this obligation.

State responsibility for maritime terrorism

Maritime terrorism is one of the main maritime security issues in the contemporary world. The threat of maritime terrorism is more apparent than ever in the post-September 11 era. Although maritime terrorism is an old issue, the disastrous events of 11 September 2001 brought this issue again onto the global agenda. This incident brought to the forefront the longstanding concerns that terrorists could severely disrupt the global maritime supply chain by using shipping containers or vessels to attack major business centres, port facilities and offshore installations. A number of international criminal law studies have been conducted to identify international legal challenges in maritime security. Some of these works have critically examined the international legal framework for maritime security and identified the lacunas in the existing system. Some of these writings have also identified that emerging maritime terrorism issues are prompting States to introduce some stringent measures. Although the international legal regime related to maritime terrorism is a well-researched area, very little research work has explored the legal issues related to State responsibility for maritime terrorism. This article argues that, although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provisions related to maritime piracy may not be applicable for some dimensions of maritime violence, different provisions of UNCLOS may relevant in identifying State responsibility for maritime terrorism.

The rise and fall of the international law of maritime terrorism : the ghost of piracy is still hunting!

Maritime terrorism is a serious threat to global security. A major debate in this regard is the treating of acts of maritime terrorism as piracy by some scholars and a rejection of this view by others. Moreover, the international law of maritime terrorism suffers from fundamental definitional issues, much like the international law of terrorism. This article examines the current international law of maritime terrorism with a particular emphasis on the debate regarding the applicability of the international law of piracy in the case of maritime terrorism. It argues that the international law of piracy is not applicable in the enforcement and prosecution of maritime terrorists on the high seas. International treaties on terrorism and the post-September 11 developments relating to international laws on terrorism have created a workable international legal framework for combating maritime terrorism, despite some bottlenecks.

Prosecution of maritime terrorists : the role of national courts in ensuring accountability

Maritime security has emerged as a critical legal and political issue in the contemporary world. Terrorism in the maritime domain is a major maritime security issue. Ten out of the 44 major terrorist groups of the world, as identified in the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism, have maritime terrorism capabilities. Prosecution of maritime terrorists is a politically and legally difficult issue, which may create conflicts of jurisdiction. Prosecution of alleged maritime terrorists is carried out by national courts. There is no international judicial institution for the prosecution of maritime terrorists. International law has therefore anticipated a vital role for national courts in this respect. The international legal framework for combating maritime terrorism has been elaborately examined in existing literature therefore this paper will only highlight the issues regarding the prosecution of maritime terrorists. This paper argues that despite having comprehensive intentional legal framework for the prosecution of maritime terrorists there is still some scopes for conflicts of jurisdiction particularly where two or more States are interested to prosecute the same offender. This existing legal problem has been further aggravated in the post September 11 era. Due to the political and security implications, States may show reluctance in ensuring the international law safeguards of alleged perpetrators in the arrest, detention and prosecution process. Nevertheless, international law has established a comprehensive system for the prosecution of maritime terrorists where national courts is the main forum of ensuring the international law safeguards of alleged perpetrators as well as ensuring the effective prosecution of maritime terrorists thereby playing an instrumental role in establishing a rule based system for combating maritime terrorism. Using two case studies, this paper shows that the role of national courts has become more important in the present era because there may be some situations where no State is interested to initiate proceedings in international forums for vindicating rights of an alleged offender even if there is a clear evidence of violation of international human rights law in the arrest, detention and prosecution process. This paper presents that despite some bottlenecks national courts are actively playing this critical role. Overall, this paper highlights the instrumental role of national courts in the international legal order.

Prosecution of maritime pirates : the national court is dead—long live the national court

Piracy is one of the main maritime security concerns in the contemporary world. The number of piracy incidents is increasing rapidly, which is highly problematic for maritime security. Although international law provides universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of maritime pirates, the actual number of prosecutions is alarmingly low compared to the number of incidents of piracy. Despite many states becoming parties to the relevant international conventions, they are reluctant to establish the necessary legal and institutional frameworks at the national level for the prosecution of pirates. The growing incidences of piracy and the consequential problems associated with prosecuting pirates have created doubts about the adequacy of the current international legal system, which is fully dependent on national courts for the prosecution of pirates. This article examines the possible ways for ensuring the effective prosecution of pirates. Contrary to the different proposals forwarded by researchers in the wake of Somali piracy for the establishment of international judicial institutions for the prosecution of pirates, this article argues that the operationalization of national courts through the proper implementation of relevant international legal instruments within domestic legal systems is the most viable solution. However, this article submits that the operationalization of national courts will not be very successful following the altruistic model of universal adjudicative jurisdiction. A state may enact legislation implementing universal jurisdiction but will not be very interested in prosecuting a pirate in its national court if it has no relation with the piratical incident. Rather, it will be successful if the global community seriously implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention), which obligates the states that have some connection with a piratical incident to prosecute pirates in their national courts.

Teaching and Learning in Maritime Security: A Literature Review

With the rise in attacks and attempted attacks on marine‐based critical infrastructure, maritime security is an issue of increasing importance worldwide. However, there are three significant shortfalls in the efforts to overcome potential threats to maritime security: the need for greater understanding of whether current standards of best practice are truly successful in combating and reducing the risks of terrorism and other security issues, the absence of a collective maritime security best practice framework and the need for improved access to maritime security specific graduate and postgraduate (long) courses. This paper presents an overview of existing international, regional national standards of best practice and shows that literature concerning the measurement and/ or success of standards is virtually non‐existent. In addition, despite the importance of maritime workers to ensuring the safety of marine based critical infrastructure, a similar review of available Australian education courses shows a considerable lack of availability of maritime security‐specific courses other than short courses that cover only basic security matters. We argue that the absence of an Australian best practice framework informed by evaluation of current policy responses – particularly in the post 9/11 environment – leaves Australia vulnerable to maritime security threats. As this paper shows, the reality is that despite the security measures put in place post 9/11, there is still considerable work to be done to ensure Australia is equipped to overcome the threats posed to maritime security.

Improved maritime target tracker using colour fusion

Searching for humans lost in vast stretches of ocean has always been a difficult task. This paper investigates a machine vision system that addresses this problem by exploiting the useful properties of alternate colour spaces. In particular, the paper investigates the fusion of colour information from the HSV, RGB, YCbCr and YIQ colour spaces within the emission matrix of a Hidden Markov Model tracker to enhance video based maritime target detection. The system has shown promising results. The paper also identifies challenges still needing to be met.

Economics of maritime disasters : essays on the Titanic and Lusitania

This work seeks to fill some of the gap existing in the economics and behavioural economics literature pertaining to the decision making process of individuals under extreme environmental situations (life and death events). These essays specifically examine the sinking’s of the R.M.S. Titanic, on 14th April of 1912, and the R.M.S. Lusitania, on 7th May 1915, using econometric (multivariate) analysis techniques. The results show that even under extreme life and death conditions, social norms matter and are reflected in the survival probabilities of individuals onboard the Titanic. However, results from the comparative analysis of the Titanic and Lusitania show that social norms take time to organise and be effective. In the presence of such time constraints, the traditional “homo economicus” model of individual behaviour becomes evident as a survival of the fittest competition.

Self-defence against terrorism in the post 9/11 world

In 1986 the then United States Secretary of State George Shultz asserted that: It is absurd to argue that international law prohibits us from capturing terrorists in international waters or airspace; from attacking them on the soil of other nations, even for the purpose of rescuing hostages; or from using force against states that support, train and harbor terrorists or guerrillas. At that time the United States’ claim of a right to use military force in self-defence against terrorism2 received little support from other states.3 The predominant view then was that terrorist attacks committed by private or non-state actors were a form of criminal activity to be combated through domestic and international criminal justice mechanisms. The notion that such terrorist acts should be treated as ‘armed attacks’ triggering a victim state’s right of self-defence was not accepted by the majority of states. To suggest, as Shultz had done, that a state not directly responsible for terrorist acts could have its territorial integrity violated by military action targeting terrorists located within that state, was a controversial proposition in 1986. However, some fifteen years later, when the United States and a coalition of allies launched a military campaign in Afghanistan following the 11 September 2001 (hereafter ‘9/11’) terrorist attacks, there was virtually unanimous international support for the use of force.

The taxation of international maritime leasing profits : has the commissioners ship come in?

In light of McDermott Industries (AUST) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation, and Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2006/D8, this article considers the current Australian taxation position of profits arising from the cross-border leasing of vessels in the maritime industry. It focuses on the tax treaties to which Australia is a party, in particular the application of the business profits provisions of those treaties, and the deemed existence of a permanent establishment where substantial equipment, owned by a fiscal non-resident, is used within Australian waters.

Contemporary State Terrorism: Theory and Practice

This volume aims to 'bring the state back into terrorism studies' and fill the notable gap that currently exists in our understanding of the ways in which states employ terrorism as a political strategy of internal governance or foreign policy. Within this broader context, the volume has a number of specific aims. First, it aims to make the argument that state terrorism is a valid and analytically useful concept which can do much to illuminate our understanding of state repression and governance, and illustrate the varieties of actors, modalities, aims, forms, and outcomes of this form of contemporary political violence. Secondly, by discussing a rich and diverse set of empirical case studies of contemporary state terrorism this volume explores and tests theoretical notions, generates new questions and provides a resource for further research. Thirdly, it contributes to a critical-normative approach to the study of terrorism more broadly and challenges dominant approaches and perspectives which assume that states, particularly Western states, are primarily victims and not perpetrators of terrorism. Given the scarceness of current and past research on state terrorism, this volume will make a genuine contribution to the wider field, particularly in terms of ongoing efforts to generate more critical approaches to the study of political terrorism. This book will be of much interest to students of critical terrorism studies, critical security studies, terrorism and political violence and political theory in general.