The 'Private Ends' of International Piracy: The Necessity of Legal Clarity in Relation to Violent Political Activists

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 one requirement, that piratical acts be committed ‘for private ends’, excludes politically motivated actors from piracy under international law. With the 2015 submission by Sea Shepherd to the US judiciary arguing, amongst others, that ‘private ends’ is ill defined under the international law of piracy, this article revisits the definition of ‘private ends’ as developed by states. After espousing the requirement for ‘private ends’ under the international law definition of piracy, this article demonstrates the lack of clarity in relation to the coverage of violent high seas activists pursuing purely political ends. The necessity of defining ‘private ends’, which, in turn, defines the universal piracy jurisdiction of states, is elaborated upon, before offering suggestions as to why courts should follow the limited precedents of not excluding ‘political ends’ from ‘private ends’.