The Functions of the Pirate Transfer Agreement

پژوهش نامه ایرانی سیاست بین الملل

Article 7, Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 16, June 2020, Pages 171-190   

Document Type: مقالات

DOI: 10.22067/ijip.v8i2.37288

Author

javad salehi^*

Associate professor, Payam-e-Noor university

Abstract

Seizing state of pirate in the high seas tends to submit to the regional state based onthe piratetransfer agreement. Criminal justice can be done to him by applying the principle of universal jurisdiction to a third state. Meanwhile, the seizing state has also been detained based on universal jurisdiction, and his submission presents serious challenges. In this respect, this article's primary purpose is to examine the pirate transfer agreement's function with the criteria laid down in the UNCLOS and the principle of universal jurisdiction based on the descriptive-analytic method. The research's central question is, what are the pirate transfer agreement's function with the principle of universal jurisdiction and the provisions of the UNCLOS? The study's findings show that the seizing state, in light of the universal jurisdiction principle provided in article 105 of the UNCLOS, is required to exercise full criminal jurisdiction from arrest to punishment. But seizing state handles the first part and entrusts the second part to the regional state with which the seizing state has arranged the pirate transfer agreement. This division stems from the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. It prescribes by article 100 of the UNCLOS in connection with states' specific obligation to cooperate in the fight against piracy on the high seas. But it does not comply with the principles of personal, territorial, and protective criminal jurisdiction in other offenses and territorial seas.

Keywords

Pirates Transfer Agreement; Regional State; Seizing State; Principle of Universal Jurisdiction; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

References

References

Agreement between the European Union and Mauritius (2011). No. OJEU L 254/3.

     Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-Led Naval Force to the United Republic of Tanzania (2014).

Bevilacqua, G. (2014). Transfers of piracy suspects, a crucial element of the regional prosecution strategy in light of international law of the sea, in Eva, M.; Gomez, V., & Cinelli, C. (eds.), Regional strategies to maritime security: a comparative perspective; second marsafenet volume regional strategies, Valencia, 213-228.

Etzioni, A. (2010). Somali pirates: an expansive interpretation of human rights. Texas Review of Law and Politics, 15(1), 39-60.

European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (1950).

Exchange of letters between the European Union and Kenya on the conditions and modalities for the transfer of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy and detained by the EUNAVFOR (2009). No. OJEU L79/52.

Exchange of letters between the European Union and Seychelles (2009). No. OJEU L 315/37.

Geiss, R., & Petrig, A. (2011). Piracy and armed robbery at sea; the legal frameworkfor counter-piracy operations in somalia and the gulf of aden, Oxford scholarship online.

Ghasemi, Gh., & Setayeshpur, M. (2019). International community’s acts to confronting modern piracy. Iranian Research Letter of International Politics, 7(2), 217-238. (in Persain).

International maritime organization convention for the suppression on unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation (1988).

Kazemi, S., & Heidari, S. (2019). Trial of piracy defendants in the international criminal court (ICC). International Studies Journal, 16(2), 49-69. (in Persian).

Kelley, P. R. (2011). Unclos, but no cigar: overcoming obstacles to the prosecution of maritime piracy. Minnesota Law Review, 95(6), 2285-2317.

Kontorovich, E. (2010). A guantanamo on the sea: the difficulty of prosecuting pirates and terrorists. California Law Review, 98(1), 243-275.

Mauritius piracy and maritime violence Act, 2011.

Muneesamy, J. N. (2013). Counter-piracy state practice in mauritius, in; Andreoene, G.; Bevilacqua, G.; Cataldi, G., & Cinelli C. (eds.), Insecurity at sea: piracy andother risks to navigation, Giannini editore, 173-180.

Poorbafrani, H.; Omidi, A., & Gholizadeh, B. (2017). Analyzing the legal doctrine on necessity of equaling modern piracy with terrorism (with emphasis on piracy off the coast of somalia). Journal of Legal Studies, 9(2), 27-50. (in Persain).

Roach, J. A. (2010). Countering piracy off somalia: international law and international institutions. American Journal of International Law, 104(3), 397-416.

Sajjadpour, M. K., & Abdolhoseini, A. (2018). Iran and the security threat of piracy. Journal of Foreign Policy, 31(3), 7-36. (in Persain).

Salehi, J. (2018). Jurisdiction in the international law of the sea in conflict between right to protection of offshore facilities and freedom of navigation. Journal of Oceanography, 8(32), 21-30. (in Persain).

Salehi, J. (2020). Provisional measures and its implications in the international tribunal on the law of the sea’s judicial procedure; a manifestation of the defendant’s human rights considerations with respect to the victim’s requirements. Journal of Comparative Law Review, 11(1), 171-190. (in Persain).

United nations secretary general (2019). Report of the united nations secretary general on the situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of somalia.

United nations security council (2010). Res 1950, UN Doc. S/RES/1950.

United nations security council (2011a). Res 2015, UN Doc. S/RES/2015.

United nations security council (2011b). Report of the special adviser to the secretary general on legal issues related to piracy off the coast of somalia, UN Doc. S/2011/30.

United nations security council (2012). Res 2077, UN Doc. S/RES/2077.

United nations security council (2013). Res 2125, UN Doc. S/RES/2125.