Red sky warning, pirate season is fast approaching. As the promise of calmer seas in springtime Somalia nears, international ships are readying themselves for the next wave of attacks. While many ships are deploying defensive measures such as radar, thermal video equipment, fire hoses, electric fences and ingenious acoustic distractions (such as the sound of dogs barking), an increasing number of ships are stocking up on something that comes with much weightier legal dilemmas: armed guards.
In order to combat the oldest recognized international crime commercial ships are taking notes from the violent pirate days of yore – and this is quickly escalating the threat of violence and raising tricky issues of legal liability.
In early March, Somali pirates hit a Spanish fishing boat off the coast of Kenya with a rocket-propelled grenade while private security guards on board shot at the pirates. In the early days of Somalian pirating, such sophisticated weaponry was unknown – all the pirates needed to do was wave a rusty gun at the surprised crew jumped into action.
Hostage-taking may result in huge ransoms and a flurry of media attention yet, despite the number of pirate attacks at sea increasing each year, deaths among the crew are uncommon (four in total in 2009) and international businesses have continued to risk the odds against attacks by sailing through the narrow Somalian seaway and trusting their insurance companies to cover the costs. But now, as piracy insurance premiums continue to rise and are up 10 times what they once were, shipping companies are looking for new options, and armed guards can reduce some premiums by half.
This raises tough legal liability questions. When an armed guard mistakenly shoots an innocent fishing vessel, who is at fault? According to the International Maritime Bureau and the traditional approach to employment contracts, it’s the ship owner, not the armed guard, who will have to deal with the sticky consequences. What court has jurisdiction over this international issue is another matter altogether, complicated by the diversity of national interests represented in a single ship. Recognizing the legal dilemmas, some insurance brokers have come up with a three-part anti-piracy package for ships that they must hope is too good to refuse: they provide the insurance, the armed guards, and a special deal from a law firm.
How attractive does this make armed guards to rich ship owners? There are still some definite setbacks. Attacks can result in expensive lawsuits, damaged goods or a sunken ship, costing the companies hundreds of millions of dollars, where ransoms cost only a few million. Some flag states do not allow armed guards at all, and many ports will not allow weapons.
Yet despite these drawbacks, American policy towards armed guards appears to be warming, and a new Bill passed by Congress has dramatically limited the liability of firms that use force against pirate attacks. The United States has also begun advising its ships to carry armed guards despite the costs. With countries such as Spain deciding to allow the use of armed guards, the momentum seems to be moving toward more weapons at sea.
The legal dilemmas surrounding Somalian piracy, as discussed in an insightful earlier article, have been recognized for years. So far no one has been able to fully solve these problems, which is why some ships are choosing to fight back in frustration. But the long-term implications of more weaponry around the Somalian seaway seems disastrous for Somalians caught in the crossfires.
In the short term, pirates will likely avoid the ships with difficult defences and seek out the likelier targets, enforcing the strategy behind the saying that you don’t have to be faster than the bear, only the guy standing next to you. But if armed ships become the norm, the pirates will likely seek more powerful weapons in retaliation and give a boost to the arms trade in Somalia. Man the crow’s deck this pirate season -the battle between the clever deterrence tricks and the heavy guns is on.
Emily this is an informative article – but I can’t help thinking that the law and the international community are asses… It is common sense to understand that international waters need international law! We have an international law court in The Hague…surely it’s not such a great leap to have the twp linked to adjudicate in these matters here???
Also, your article highlights the good guys and bad guys – but we never hear why Somalia is so prone to Piracy??? Why??? Because the story behind the story is far too hard for today’s so called Journalists to actually spend any time on…WE the West created the Somali problem by destroying their fishing habitat…WE created the problem by ignoring their pleas for help…so now we get what we had coming.
So if there is a depression caused by the government, it is OK to arm yourself and go out and shhot, kill and mame people.
I cant help thinking that Joe Trimboli is the ASS.
If you do not put a stop to these thugs,they will only continue to grow and eventually start looking into other more profitable waters.
The fact is in Africa only violence sorts out violence, The man with the bigger stick wins, take it from me, I have lived there for fifty years.
The soft approach does not, and never has worked.