Anti-Piracy measures suggested in UN

Piracy at sea is similar to hijacking in air. Both involve armed aggression to take control of a moving vessel and causing unlawful interference in its scheduled movement. The issue can be accounted for under the domestic laws of the country in which the incident takes place. However complex issues arise when the incidents take place across territories or in areas over which no country has jurisdiction such as the high seas. It is in this context that international community has to arrive at a just solution. The rise in the number of incidents of piracy by the alleged Somalian pirates led the Security Council of the United Nations to deliberate vigorously over the issue.

It is in this this context that the Secretary General has presented its report to the Security Council "on possible options to further the aim of prosecuting and imprisoning persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, including, in particular, options for creating special domestic chambers possibly with international components, a regional tribunal or an international tribunal and corresponding imprisonment arrangements, taking into account the work of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, the existing practice in establishing international and mixed tribunals, and the time and resources necessary to achieve and sustain substantive results."

The Summary of the Report reads as under;

The Security Council, in its resolution 1918 (2010) of 27 April 2010, requested the Secretary-General to present a report on possible options to further the aim of prosecuting and imprisoning persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, including, in particular, options for creating special domestic chambers possibly with international components, a regional tribunal or an international tribunal and corresponding imprisonment arrangements, taking into account the work of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, the existing practice in establishing international and mixed tribunals, and the time and resources necessary to achieve and sustain substantive results. In response, the Secretary-General has identified seven options for the Security Council to consider:

Option 1: The enhancement of United Nations assistance to build capacity of regional States to prosecute and imprison persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia

Option 2: The establishment of a Somali court sitting in the territory of a third State in the region, either with or without United Nations participation

Option 3: The establishment of a special chamber within the national jurisdiction of a State or States in the region, without United Nations participation

Option 4: The establishment of a special chamber within the national jurisdiction of a State or States in the region, with United Nations participation

Option 5: The establishment of a regional tribunal on the basis of a multilateral agreement among regional States, with United Nations participation 

Option 6: The establishment of an international tribunal on the basis of an agreement between a State in the region and the United Nations

Option 7: The establishment of an international tribunal by Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations

In all, the report provides vital insights on the issue of piracy at sea and reflects upon the possible mechanisms to overcome the issue which has been an international concern lately. Have a look at the Report.

Indian Anti-Hijacking Law: An analysis

Having heard of 9/11 for just six years now, it seems quiet surprising that the law against hijacking of aircrafts has been in vogue for almost four decades now. Signed in 1970, the 'Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft' [click here for the full text of the Convention] was neither the first nor the last international treaty reflecting the concern of the States against the acts of aircraft hijacking and its relation to terrorism. But than reference to it is relevant as far as Indian Anti-Hijacking legislation is concerned.

The first international convention in this line was the Tokyo 'Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft' which was signed in 1963 but came into force only in 1969. This Tokyo Convention obliged all the signatories to take all appropriate measures required in order to restore control of an hijacked aircraft to the Captain of the ship or the person in-charge and various other measures in relation to the safety of the crew and the passengers. The 1970 Convention, signed in Hague and hence 'the Hague Convention', was a measure to strengthen up this 1963 Convention in the sense that it defined what constituted an "unlawful seizure of aircraft" and obliged the signatories to engraft this offence in their domestic laws as one punishable with various penalties. This Hague Convention was further built upon by the Montreal 'Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation (Sabotage)', signed in 1971 and provided for situations such as attack against a person on-board a civilian aircraft in flight or an attack which would endanger the aircraft.

As for India, as I mentioned, the 1970 Hague Convention is relevant for it formed the backdrop for the passing of the Anti-Hijacking Act enacted in 1982. Nonetheless, India being a dualist State, only the provisions of the Anti-Hijacking Act are applicable in India and the Convention per se is not of relevant except as it may be referred by courts for interpretation of Act if required. This Act of 1982 [click here for the full text] came under intense criticism when IC-814, an Indian Airlines plane, was kidnapped and taken to Kandhar and it was only upon the release of a few terrorists, as demanded by the kidnappers, that the hostages could be released. Nonetheless a newly wed Rupin Katyal was killed on-board for refusing to co-operate with the kidnappers. [click here for wiki version of it]

This Anti-Hijacking Act defines the act of hijacking is based upon a single line definition of hijacking, which has been defined as seizing or exercising control of an aircraft, unlawfully, by force or threat of force or by any other way of intimidation on board an aircraft in flight. The term aircraft in flight has also been defined as starting from the moment external doors of the aircraft are closed following by embarkation till the moment they are opened again for disembarkation. Here it to be noted that the Act covers any aircraft which is not a military aircraft or one used by customs or police and the nation in which the aircraft is registered is not relevant.

The punishment for hijacking is "imprisonment for life" along with a fine and there is no power with the judge to reduce the sentence below that and this raises question of constitutionality of this provision for Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code, which did not leave any power with the judge as to the quantum of punishment was declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on grounds that it interfered with judicial review, a facet of basic structure doctrine. As regards the commission of violence in connection with hijacking, the perpetrator shall be liable to the same punishment which is imposable for a similar offence if committed in India.

Then the Act also prescribes that hijacking of aircrafts shall be considered as a part and parcel of the various grounds under the extradition treaties signed by the Government of India with other countries. It also makes way to provide for extensive cooperation with and in relation to the Contracting Parties (to the Hague Convention).

This is the sum and substance of this eleven section Act. But the reality does not stop at that for this law is substantiated by the external and defense policy of India, as revamped by the former National Security Advisor, J.N. Dixit. Nonetheless, nothing has been done on the legal front as the 1982 Act continues whereas there have been a number of changes all across the world, brought in the legal systems to deal with the menace of terrorism, of which aircraft hijacking is a distinct part.

In retrospect, however, it looks that the system does work with this older law for the IC-814 hijackers have been finally brought to book and punished under this 1982 Act itself, as this NDTV news-item reports. But as there is always a room for improvement, so does the argument of reforming this outdated law find strength in the wake of the recent advances with the terrorist activities have made.