The Contact Group on Maritime Navigation on the Somali Coast (CGPCS) brings together States and international organizations to find a comprehensive response to the causes of piracy. [21] The International Maritime Organization Code of Conduct for Djibouti (DCoC) is a non-binding approach in which Arab and African states cooperate on maritime security against piracy and armed robbery. [21] The Shared Outreach and Deconfliction Mechanism (SHADE) was established in 2008 as an informal forum for states and organizations to cooperate to combat piracy off the Horn of Africa. [21] The jury said that if Smith`s actions were deemed hacking under U.S. law, he would be guilty. But if his actions weren`t piracy under U.S. law, then he wasn`t guilty. Unfortunately, the judge could not determine whether Smith`s actions constituted piracy within the meaning of the 1819 law and upheld the case for decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Second Constitutional Appeal Since the Smith decision in 1820, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the definition of maritime piracy. However, in 2010, two piracy cases were brought in federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The two judges in charge of the cases interpreted the piracy law differently. In 2012, the Fourth District Court of Appeals resolved their differences. The 1986 Castle John v. Hassan, 747 F.Supp.2d 599 (2010) concerned pirates who had mistaken a military ship, the USS Nicholas, for a merchant ship. The pirates opened fire on the USS Nicholas and the crew of the USS Nicholas returned fire. The pirates escaped in their ship, but were captured and taken to the United States to be pursued. They also requested that the charge be dismissed for violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1651. They argued that the facts presented in the indictment were insufficient to support the crime of piracy. In his case, the judge took a different approach and dismissed the application. After a thorough review of developments in piracy law in the United States, as well as international conventions, customs, and laws, the judge concluded that piracy must be defined under “contemporary customary international law.” He further noted that contemporary customary international law could change over time and had in fact changed since 1820, when the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Smith case. The court went on to conclude that contemporary customary international law did not require that robbery on the high seas be a prerequisite to a piracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1651. In the 2013 case The Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a U.S. District Court ruled that the actions of Sea Shepherd vessels against Japanese whaling vessels fell within UNCLOS` definition of piracy as “private use.” [19] In an 1818 case, the U.S. Supreme Court held, among other things, that the 1790 Act did not empower courts to punish persons who commit acts of piracy if those persons (1) were not U.S. citizens; (2) not to operate on a U.S.-flagged vessel; or (3) do not harm U.S.

citizens. In 1819, Congress responded with a new anti-piracy law that applied not only to piracy with ties to the United States, but also to piracy unrelated to the United States. Unlike the 1790 Act, the 1819 Act did not specify the acts constituting the crime of piracy. Instead, he referred to the “crime of piracy as defined in international law.” In the Statute of 1819, Congress also expanded the jurisdiction of the courts to hear cases of non-U.S. citizens who had committed acts of piracy on the high seas. The courts have jurisdiction if the defendants are found in the United States or brought to the United States. When Achille Lauro was kidnapped in 1985, the ship was hijacked in the Mediterranean Sea by Palestinian extremists who were already on board. [16] Although there was violence on board the ship, it could not be considered piracy because there were not “two ships.” [16] Following the abduction of Achille Lauro, the International Maritime Organization developed the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Maritime Security. [18] The 1988 SUA Convention and the 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention are United Nations treaties.

[18] The Fourth Circle`s Approach to Piracy After being sentenced to life in prison by a jury, Hassan`s defendants appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Judicial District upheld the conviction. He reviewed the bodies on which the District Court relied and concluded that when Congress passed 18 U.S.C.