Full Report Print page Back

Issue O: General policy to promote cooperation and ensure coordination on combating piracy and armed robbery at sea

• 52. The recent rapid growth in incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea, the harm that they cause to seafarers and the threats that they pose to the safety of shipping and, consequently, to marine and coastal environments and to the trade carried by sea make it essential to give higher national and international priority to efforts to eradicate these crimes which are often the result of transnational crime.
• 53. States and relevant international organizations should therefore consider whether their policies and programmes give adequate emphasis to the needs to prevent piracy and armed robbery at sea, to provide a proper framework for response to these crimes and to ensure an effective response to such incidents as they occur.
• 54. Effective prevention of and response to piracy and armed robbery at sea will require the support of the international community by providing adequate support to developing countries, in particular to coastal and flag developing States, in the areas of transfer of technology and capacity-building in their efforts to prevent piracy and armed robbery at sea.
• 55. In this connection, international financial institutions and the donor community should review their programmes to determine whether adequate provision is being made for investment in vessels and other equipment, including satellite tracking equipment.
• 56. It is suggested that the General Assembly should reiterate the need for all States and relevant international bodies to work together to prevent and combat piracy and armed robbery at sea.
• 57. The business sectors, such as chambers of shipping, maritime insurance industries and trade unions, can also play a useful role in support of the work led by the International Maritime Organization in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea.

Issue P: Prevention of piracy and armed robbery at sea

• 58. Effective prevention will involve the flag States of ships sailing into areas where piracy and armed robbery at sea are known to be likely, the owners, masters and crew of such ships, the coastal States in regions where incidents have occurred, and regional and international organizations concerned with shipping and crime prevention.
• 59. The International Maritime Organization should be invited to consider requiring that seafarers in regions where incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea are likely to occur receive training on precautions against incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea under the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.
• 60. Governments should ensure that their procedures for registering ships guard against fraudulent registrations, can give prompt and accurate responses about the details of ships which may be involved in incidents of piracy or armed robbery at sea and record details of such involvement. The International Maritime Organization should be invited to quickly complete its work on guidance on how this should be done. The work of IMO to require ships to be fitted with automatic identification systems is welcomed and any further relevant work should be encouraged.
• 61. States should ensure that port authorities have appropriate measures in place to deter attempts at armed robbery within the ports, and that port staff have appropriate training in such measures. There should be a welcome and support for the work of the World Maritime University and of States in providing such training, or support for attendance at the World Maritime University, by way of capacity-building.

Issue Q: The framework for responses to piracy and armed robbery at sea

• 62. Articles 100 to 107 and article 58, paragraph 2, of UNCLOS set out the proper framework for response to piracy. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and its Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf (“the Rome Convention and Protocol”) may also be used for the A/56/121 purpose of the prevention and suppression of armed robbery at sea.
• 63. It is proposed that the General Assembly should reiterate its call for States that have not done so to become parties to the Rome Convention and Protocol. Where they have not already done so, coastal States should adopt legislation to ensure that there is a proper framework for responses to incidents of armed robbery at sea. It is suggested for convenience that the approach in such legislation should work together with the approaches adopted by other States in their region.
• 64. All States should also ensure that the various public authorities, which are necessarily involved in dealing with incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea, have a consistent approach to such incidents and are able to operate in an integrated manner.

Issue R: Response to incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea

• 65. Effective responses to incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea must be based on measures for prevention, for reporting incidents and for enforcement, including the training of enforcement personnel and the provision of enforcement vessels and equipment. The ability of States to make such effective responses is substantially enhanced when regional cooperation arrangements are in place. The aim should be the creation of a network of contacts between the public authorities concerned, based on mutual trust, assistance and the fostering of a common approach to enforcement and capacity-building between States as to enforcement techniques, and to the investigation and prosecution of offences. Such regional cooperation arrangements may, in suitable cases, be strengthened by the conclusion of formal agreements. It is suggested that the General Assembly should welcome the initiatives of the International Maritime Organization and individual Governments to that effect.
• 66. Since under-reporting of incidents of piracy and armed robbery leads to an underestimation of the seriousness of the problem, and consequently to enhanced risks, the owners and masters of ships should be encouraged to ensure that all incidents and threats of incidents are reported to the appropriate authorities and, through the flag State concerned, to the International Maritime Organization. The reporting procedures developed by IMO should be used to make it easy for reports to be submitted promptly.
• 67. States in regions where incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea are likely to occur should ensure that there are adequate arrangements in place for receiving reports, communicating them without delay to all relevant authorities and alerting neighbouring States and ships in the area to incidents or threats of incidents. In this context, the cooperation of all States is essential.
• 68. The States concerned should take measures that the personnel involved in all aspects of the response, including apprehension, investigation, prosecution and exchange of evidence, are properly trained. There should be a welcome and support for work by international organizations and States to provide such training or to support its provision by others. The International Maritime Organization should be invited to complete its work quickly on a code of practice for investigations. The International Law Enforcement Academy should be asked to consider what contribution it can make to the development of good practice and training in enforcement in this field. States that might have information about facts or circumstances which lead to a presumption of the possible occurrence of acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea should provide such information to the relevant States.
• 69. Coastal States in regions where incidents of piracy and armed robbery are likely to occur should establish and keep up to date contingency plans for handling such incidents. In doing so, those States should, with the assistance of international and regional organizations, formulate arrangements to include handling of incidents which could result in major pollution of the marine environment. General issues of coordination and cooperation.

Part B Co-Chairpersons’ summary of discussions

Agenda item 3 Exchange of views on areas of concern and actions needed

(b) Piracy and armed robbery at sea

• 68. Delegations stressed the importance of discussing the matters of piracy and armed robbery in the context of the Consultative Process. It was pointed out that all nations needed to be actively engaged in combating these growing threats which seriously affected navigation, the security of the crews of ships, as well as international maritime trade. It was further pointed out that, owing to the global nature of the threats, there was a need to consider countermeasures on a global level. Particular concern was expressed in connection with the recent increase in piracy and armed robbery in the seas of South-East Asia.
• 69. Delegations also commended and endorsed efforts by the International Maritime Organization in this respect. A number of endeavours were mentioned, such as the correspondence group on “Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crime of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships”, the IMO Regional Expert Meeting on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships, held in Singapore in March 2001; various seminars organized by IMO; as well as other actions, including resolutions of the IMO Assembly encouraging member States to cooperate to combat piracy. It was pointed out that IMO should be further reinforced in order to be the institution for coordination in the suppression of crimes at sea.
• 70. In addition to the cooperation within the framework of IMO, delegations mentioned several regional initiatives, such as the Regional Conference on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships, held at Tokyo in March/April 2000, and the planned Asian cooperation conference on combating piracy and armed robbery, to be held at Tokyo in the latter part of 2001. It was stressed that regional cooperation should be strengthened to develop an efficient information-exchange system among the States concerned with crimes at sea.
• 71. It was reiterated that the Consultative Process should address issues of piracy mainly from the perspective of cooperation and coordination and that the relevant organizations should deal with specifics, in the light of the duty of all States to combat piracy.

Panel discussions: Areas of focus

Discussion Panel B: Coordination and cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea

• 245. The discussions in Panel B on coordination and cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea were led off by presentations from the following representatives: Mr. E. E. Mitropoulos, Assistant Secretary-General/Director, Maritime Safety Division, International Maritime Organization; Mr. J. Abhayankar, Deputy Director, International Maritime Bureau, International Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. H. Sato, Director of the Ocean Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan.
• 246. Mr. Mitropoulos in his presentation pointed out that in addition to piracy and armed robbery, other unlawful acts under consideration in IMO included unlawful seizures of cargo and other forms of maritime fraud, terrorism at sea, illicit drug trafficking, stowaway cases and illegal transport of migrants by sea.
• 247. He said that piracy and armed robbery had consistently figured on the agenda of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) since 1984. A number of IMO Assembly resolutions and MSC circulars had been adopted, but as statistical information received demonstrated, there had been a considerable deterioration of the situation in the Malacca Strait, the South China Sea, the Western/Central African region, parts of the northern area of Latin America and the Caribbean, and parts of the Indian Ocean.
• 248. Mr. Mitropoulos provided information on past efforts by IMO to assist countries most affected by acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships, for example, the dispatch of an IMO working group to Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia in 1993 to report on the situation in the Malacca Strait; and an IMO mission to China, Hong Kong and the Philippines in 1994 to study the situation in the South China Sea. Following those missions, a significant improvement had been experienced, albeit temporarily. In 1998, MSC had launched an anti-piracy project comprising a number of missions of experts and seminars/workshops in countries in the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait and in Brazil; followed by a regional seminar and workshop for the Latin American and Caribbean region, held in Brasilia in October 1998; a regional seminar and workshop for the South-East Asia region, held in Singapore in February 1999; a mission of experts to Abuja, followed by a regional seminar and workshop for the West and Central African region, held in Lagos in October 1999; and a regional seminar and workshop for the Indian Ocean region, held in Mumbai, India, in March 2000.
• 249. Unfortunately, he noted, the completion of the 1998 anti-piracy project had not coincided with any significant improvement of the situation; on the contrary, the situation had worsened and this had caused grave concern to MSC, which, at its seventysecond session in May 2000, had decided, subject to the availability of funds, that a number of assessment missions should be undertaken to countries bordering waters where pirates and armed robbers continued to operate unabated.
• 250. The purpose of this new IMO effort (phase 2 of the anti-piracy project) was: (a) to evaluate the actions taken by the invited Governments to implement the IMO recommendations to prevent and suppress acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships within areas of their jurisdiction; (b) to receive information on the measures the national authorities of the participating countries had put in place for the purpose of implementing at the national level the recommendations of the IMO regional seminars and the workshops held within the 1998 anti-piracy project as well as those contained in revised MSC circulars 622 and 623; (c) to identify where such measures had not been successful and what had impeded their implementation; (d) to explain the reasons behind any total or partial inability to implement the measures; e) to seek information on any ideas/proposals the participating Governments might have with respect to regional cooperation for the purpose of combating piracy and armed robbery against ships (for example, joint or coordinated exercises, patrolling of particular vulnerable sea areas, exchange of intelligence on moves of pirates/armed robbers); and (f) to specify ways in which IMO could assist in overcoming any difficulties the participating countries had encountered in the process.
• 251. The first such mission had been dispatched to Jakarta from 13 to 14 March 2001, and a regional meeting had been held in Singapore from 15 to 16 March 2001, which was attended by representatives from countries that were experiencing extensive piracy in waters off their coasts. The States participating in the Singapore meeting either: (a) could play a substantial role in addressing the problem by virtue of their strategic location vis-à-vis the most affected areas, stretching from the South China Sea to the Malacca Strait to the Eastern Indian Ocean; or (b) had a genuine interest in seeing the problem effectively addressed because of the large number of ships under their national flag using the waters concerned.
• 252. The mission to Jakarta and the meeting in Singapore had been undertaken against a backdrop of a deteriorating situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery. In the Malacca Strait, the situation had dramatically worsened, with 75 attacks reported during 2000, as opposed to 2 incidents in 1999.
• 253. The number of acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships in 2000, as reported to IMO, was 471, an increase of 52 per cent over the figure for 1999. The total number of incidents of piracy and armed robbery against ships reported to have occurred from 1984 to the end of April 2001 was 2,289. During the period March 2000-March 2001, as compared to 1999, in the Mediterranean Sea the number of reported incidents had decreased from 4 to 2, while in West Africa there had been a decrease from 36 to 33. On the other hand, the number of incidents had increased from 37 to 112 in the Malacca Strait, from 136 to 140 in the South China Sea, from 51 to 109 in the Indian Ocean, from 16 to 29 in East Africa and from 29 to 41 in Latin America and the Caribbean. Most of the attacks worldwide were reported to have occurred in the territorial waters of coastal States while the ships were at anchor or berthed. During the same period, 72 crew members had been killed, 129 had been wounded and five reported missing. One ship had been destroyed, two ships had been hijacked and three ships had been reported missing.
• 254. The Singapore meeting identified the following main problem areas (not applicable in all participating countries): the continuing adverse economic situation prevailing in certain parts of the region; the geographical configuration of certain countries; the resource constraints on law-enforcement agencies; the lack of communication and cooperation among the various national agencies involved; the delayed response time after an incident had been reported to the coastal State concerned by affected ships; general problems of incident reporting, such as alerting the nearest coastal States and other ships in the area of a ship under attack or threat of attack; the prosecution of pirates and armed robbers when apprehended; and the lack of regional cooperation.
• 255. Mr. Mitropoulos said that the Singapore meeting had agreed upon a number of recommendations, which he believed IMO would consider when MSC met in May 2001. The meeting had recommended that participating Governments identify, on the basis of experience and statistical information, vulnerable areas off their coasts and in their ports and direct their resources to cope with the increased risks to safe navigation and environmental protection in such areas, with particular emphasis on areas used by international shipping; and provide specific advice for ships on protective measures and local reporting procedures. The participants identified focal points in their respective administrations for the exchange of information and coordination of efforts in the fight against piracy and armed robbery in the region. The effectiveness of coordinated patrols and joint exercises, where appropriate, to test existing anti-piracy systems and strengthen cooperation among neighbouring countries in their efforts to eradicate piracy and armed robbery against ships in their waters had been recognized and encouraged. Governments were encouraged to continue and further strengthen regional initiatives, such as the 2000 Tokyo conferences and the follow-up meeting in Kuala Lumpur.
• 256. Governments in the region which had not yet done so were encouraged to ratify the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Navigation (SUA Convention) and the 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (the SUA Protocol) to consider doing so. Currently there were 52 States parties to the 1988 Convention, representing 48 per cent of the world tonnage; and 48 States parties to the Protocol.
• 257. Furthermore, the industry was encouraged to ensure that all attacks or attempted attacks were reported promptly to the nearest Rescue Coordination Centre as well as the designated focal points of the coastal and flag State concerned. Concern was expressed at the lack of reporting to IMO by flag States on most instances of attacks or attempted attacks on their ships and MSC was invited to urge all flag States to make such reports in accordance with the relevant IMO instruments.
• 258. The meeting also invited the Secretary-General of IMO to undertake consultations with Governments in the region for the purpose of convening, at an appropriate time, a meeting to consider concluding a regional agreement on cooperation against piracy and armed robbery against ships.
• 259. Participating Governments lacking the necessary expertise and associated resources were encouraged to seek technical assistance from IMO in order to improve their capabilities to prevent and suppress piracy and armed robbery against ships in their waters.
• 260. Mr. Mitropoulos explained that other IMO activities regarding the combating of piracy and armed robbery included the preparation of a draft Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships for submission to the IMO Assembly at its twenty-second session in November 2001.
• 261. Member Governments were invited to use the Code when arranging for investigations into the crimes of piracy and armed robbery against ships to be conducted under their jurisdiction. He noted that the draft Code provided a definition of “armed robbery”. IMO was also working on the prevention of the registration of “phantom ships”.
• 262. In conclusion, he stated that IMO would like to see the Consultative Process increase awareness of the problem of piracy and armed robbery; motivate the political will to act; build a consensus position and shape a uniform policy to prevent and suppress acts of piracy and armed robbery; and sensitize countries in areas affected to act and others in a position to assist or provide resources to do so.
• 263. Mr. Abhayankar in his presentation said that pirates today generally fell into two categories: poor, opportunistic people; and professional pirates. Both types were usually armed and difficult to apprehend. He pointed out that pirates did not hesitate to murder the crew, often with extreme brutality, as had been the case with the crew of the MV Erria Inge.
• 264. He said that in 2000, the highest number of acts of piracy had been recorded. The trend was continuing in 2001: as at the end of April, the number of reported incidents had approached 100. At the same time, it was to be noted that only one in three attacks was actually reported. There had been an increase in the number of incidents, especially in the Malacca Strait, and also in the Red Sea, where there had been 13 incidents so far, compared with none in 1999. A comparison of statistics of incidents reported to the International Maritime Bureau during 1999 and 2000 showed a total number of attacks reported in 2000 of 469, representing a 56 per cent increase over 1999; 15 crew members killed in 2000, as opposed to 3 in 1999; and 8 ships hijacked in 2000, as against 10 in 1999.
• 265. Mr. Abhayankar described some common features of what he termed “maritime mugging”, which accounted for 85 per cent of the incidents: the target of most attacks would be cash and valuables. Vessels were boarded in port, at anchorage or steaming, and attacks lasted from 30 to 60 minutes, during which time the ship usually was not under command. Pirates were armed, but not necessarily organized. Violence was employed mainly if the crew resisted. Regions or particular countries most affected were South Asia, South-East Asia, the Far East, West Africa and Brazil.
• 266. The common scenario of a cargo or ship hijacking was described by Mr. Abhayankar as follows: the target of the attack would be the entire cargo or the ship; the ship was boarded at sea by heavily armed pirates; the attacks lasted several days; violence was used and the crew was locked up or killed; and organized criminal syndicates were involved. Such incidents, of which there were about 12 annually, were predominant in South-East Asia or the Far East.
• 267. He then enumerated the major hijackings that had taken place between 1998 and 2000 and provided a detailed account of the hijacking of the Alondra Rainbow in October 1999 and its subsequent recovery by the Indian authorities. One of the highlights of that incident had been the name changes that the vessel had undergone in attempts to conceal its identity. The pirates had painted new names over the original name of the vessel, but when the vessel was brought into port by the Indian authorities and the paint was removed, the true identity of the vessel was revealed. To thwart such activities in future, the International Maritime Bureau had proposed that an IMO identification number be welded onto vessels.
• 268. He outlined some of the legal issues arising from the typical hijacking of a vessel. Problems of jurisdiction might arise in situations where UNCLOS had not been ratified or was not applicable, the State concerned was not a party to the SUA Convention or there was no provision in the national legislation on piracy. In such cases one possibility might be to try the offenders under jure gentium. In the area of investigations, possible issues might centre on the number of countries involved or the expertise and the costs involved — which in the case of the Alondra Rainbow had been borne by India, the intercepting State. The possibility of such a burden might discourage States from becoming involved in preventing and suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea. With regard to the prosecution of the offenders, he pointed out that in these types of criminal matters the degree of proof required was high. Mr. Abhayankar underscored the paramount importance of enacting appropriate national legislation.
• 269. He emphasized that piracy was responsible for bringing about physical and psychological trauma for the crew, monetary loss and threats to the marine environment. He made the following recommendations for combating piracy: (a) preventive measures by the crew — the IMO circulars provided excellent guidance in that respect; (b) industry initiatives — establishment of a piracy reporting centre in Kuala Lumpur financed by shipowners and the Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs; (c) application of the model law developed by the Comité Maritime International (CMI), which might be of assistance in answering some of the problems; (d) use of technology — tracking devices cost less than US$ 300 per month and could be hidden on board a ship; (e) a proactive approach by coastal and flag States — for example, if a coastal State were unable or unwilling to prosecute pirates, the flag State should have a role to play; (f) regional cooperation — joint patrols had proved to be a deterrent; (g) intergovernmental involvement — IMO had done an excellent job, but it might be useful to have some law enforcement involvement at the intergovernmental level. He did not recommend the use of arms by the crew or the use of armed guards providing security. In conclusion, he raised the question of whether an international task force was needed.
• 270. Mr. Sato, in his presentation, noted that Asian waters, particularly the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait, had been affected severely by piracy and armed robbery against ships. Over the past two years, Japan had been doing its utmost to promote global as well as regional cooperation in dealing with the problem of piracy.
• 271. With regard to cooperation at the global level, he said that, firstly, Japan felt it was taking effective steps to combat piracy by taking up the problem at international forums, such as the United Nations General Assembly and the Consultative Process. In doing so, it was demonstrating the political will to fight piracy as well as heightening public awareness of the issue. Secondly, his country appreciated and supported the efforts undertaken by IMO, as demonstrated, for example, in Japan’s participation in the correspondence group on the IMO draft Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships as well as in the IMO Regional Expert Meeting on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships held at Singapore in March 2001. Thirdly, he said, Japan would also continue to make efforts to urge States to become parties to the SUA Convention and its Protocol, and to ensure its effective implementation.
• 272. In connection with regional cooperation, Mr. Sato said that in response to the proposal made by former Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi at the Summit Meeting of Japan and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in November 1999, Japan had held the Regional Conference on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships at Tokyo, in April 2000, in which 17 countries had participated. The Conference had adopted three documents, namely the Tokyo Appeal, a Model Action Plan and “Asia Anti- Piracy Challenges 2000”.
• 273. The Tokyo Appeal proposed the establishment of contact points for all maritime-related concerns as well as the elaboration of action plans for combating piracy and armed robbery against ships, in particular a plan for strengthening the self-defence capability of private ships. The Model Action Plan contained more concrete measures based upon the proposals put forward in the Tokyo Appeal.
• 274. The paper entitled “Asia Anti-Piracy Challenges 2000” provided guidelines for facilitating regional cooperation on combating piracy and armed robbery against ships and proposed such measures as: information exchange among coast guard authorities; mutual cooperation in dealing with unlawful activities; technical cooperation to enhance the individual capability of coast guard authorities; and the continuous holding of expert meetings.
• 275. As a follow-up to the Conference, Japan had dispatched a mission to the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia in September 2000 to consult with the Governments concerned about concrete measures aimed at implementing the proposals enunciated at the Tokyo Regional Conference. As a result of those consultations and bearing in mind the mutual cooperation proposed in “Asia Anti-Piracy Challenges 2000”, the Japanese Coast Guard had conducted joint exercises with India and Malaysia. The exercises covered areas of communication, search and rescue, interception and boarding. A further joint exercise with the Indian Coast Guard was to be held in May 2001 in Japan.
• 276. At the Regional Experts Meeting on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships, held at Kuala Lumpur in November 2000, Japan had expressed its willingness to accept students from the Asian region at the Japan Coast Guard Academy starting in April 2001. Mr. Sato stated that students from Thailand, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines had already enrolled at the school.
• 277. Japan would also be holding a Maritime Law Enforcement Seminar in 2001, where participants would be provided with the knowledge, skills and techniques for planning, conducting and supervising maritime law-enforcement activities.
• 278. Mr. Sato recalled that at the “ASEAN + 3” (Japan, China, Republic of Korea) Summit Meeting in November 2000, Prime Minister Mori of Japan had proposed holding an Asian Cooperation Conference on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in 2001, again to be held in Japan. Issues proposed for the conference included information exchange, the future direction of regional cooperation and capacitybuilding.
• 279. He summarized the main problem areas with respect to piracy and armed robbery at sea as: (a) the lack of communication and cooperation among the various national agencies involved within individual countries; (b) the response time after an incident has been reported to the coastal State concerned by affected ships; and (c) general problems of incident reporting. It was the view of Japan that the solution to these problems lay in the improvement of the system of information exchange.
• 280. In order to address other problems, including the timely and proper investigation of reported incidents, the prosecution of pirates and armed robbers when apprehended and the lack of regional cooperation, it was necessary to strengthen regional cooperation among the maritime law-enforcement authorities of the countries concerned.
• 281. A third set of problems included: the continuing adverse economic situation prevailing in certain parts of the region; the geographical configuration of certain countries; and the resource constraints on lawenforcement agencies. Mr. Sato pointed to capacitybuilding as one possible solution to those issues.
• 282. In the discussions that followed the presentations by the three speakers, the following points were raised.
• 283. Delegations, including those not currently affected by the problem of piracy and armed robbery, expressed concern at the recent dramatic increase in incidents of piracy and armed robbery at sea and the associated level of violence, particularly in South-East Asia and the Malacca Straits.
• 284. It was recognized that acts of piracy and armed robbery represented a serious threat to the lives of seafarers, the safety of navigation, the marine environment and the security of coastal States. They also had a negative impact on the entire maritime transport industry, leading, for example, to increases in insurance rates and even the suspension of trade.
• 285. Several delegations noted that armed robbery, particularly repeated acts committed in the territorial seas of coastal States and in international straits, could threaten the rights of innocent passage and transit passage and, in archipelagic waters, the passage through archipelagic sea lanes, as enjoyed by all States under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It was further noted that armed robbery also affected the management of ports.
• 286. Delegations highlighted the potential of an environmental disaster from an attack on a ship, particularly if a ship carrying hazardous cargo was left steaming with no one in command in a high-traffic area and/or a narrow waterway.
• 287. Delegations agreed that piracy and armed robbery at sea was a global problem, which in order to be combated effectively required action and cooperation at all levels. Acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships were characterized as international crimes that were often part of organized transnational crimes, which no State could combat on its own. This was particularly true in cases which involved so-called “phantom ships”.
• 288. It was also noted that piracy and armed robbery should be seen in the larger context of illegal activities at sea, such as illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the illegal transport of migrants and organized crime, which constituted a threat to international peace and security.
• 289. It was pointed out by several delegations that the flag State, the coastal State, the port State and the State of which the criminals were nationals had a particular responsibility to combat piracy and armed robbery. The importance of consistent and uniform measures in combating piracy and armed robbery at the regional and global levels was underscored.
• 290. Delegations recalled the duty of all States under article 100 of UNCLOS to cooperate to the fullest extent possible in the repression of piracy on the high seas and in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State. In that connection, it was pointed out that the Convention only applied to piracy on the high seas or in areas outside the jurisdiction of States, while the majority of acts of violence against ships occurred in the territorial waters or ports of States while the ships were at anchor or berthed.
• 291. The importance of cooperation at the international level was raised by a number of delegations. They noted with appreciation the activities of IMO in order to prevent and combat piracy and armed robbery against ships. It was observed that while regional initiatives and activities should be strongly encouraged and supported, IMO should be recognized as the international organization with the primary mandate to deal with the problem of piracy and armed robbery at sea at the global level. Several delegations, concerned at the current under-reporting of acts of piracy and armed robbery and stressing the importance of reporting all incidents, proposed that IMO should be a focal point for receiving such reports.
• 292. Several delegations highlighted the importance of implementing the IMO guidelines on preventing attacks of piracy and armed robbery contained in the MSC circulars, as also called for by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolutions 54/31 and 55/7 on oceans and the law of the sea. Reference was also made to the recent circulation of the IMO draft Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships and the work of the IMO Subcommittee on Flag State Implementation in preparing a draft resolution to prevent registration of so-called “phantom ships”. The draft texts were to be submitted to the IMO Assembly in November 2001 for adoption.
• 293. A number of delegations highlighted the importance of developing preventive measures with respect to phantom ships. Reference was made to a proposal from Hong Kong, China, to the forthcoming meeting of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee, that the IMO Ship Identification Number should be visibly welded onto the stern of all vessels required to possess an IMO number. It was proposed that States should transmit to IMO and flag States information they have on phantom ships and that IMO should establish a database of this information, which could be accessed by shipowners. It was also suggested that consideration should be given to increasing the onus upon flag States not to register stolen vessels. Furthermore, it observed that article 110 of UNCLOS provided a basis for boarding vessels flying questionable flags.
• 294. Several delegations expressed the view that more attention should be paid to the applications of current technology to vessel-tracking, e.g., the role that an Automatic Identification System could play in curbing criminality. It was suggested that home port verification should also be considered.
• 295. A number of delegations noted the valuable work carried out by the International Maritime Bureau of the International Chamber of Commerce in combating piracy and armed robbery and also the work of other organizations, such as Interpol, the International Chamber of Shipping, the Baltic and International Maritime Council, the International Transport Workers’ Federation, the International Union of Marine Insurance and the International Group of P&I Clubs.
• 296. In a letter it had addressed to the Secretariat, the International Labour Organization emphasized the need to protect the lives of seafarers and to ensure that they were not deprived of the elementary and universal rights to freedom, security and dignity.
• 297. Reference was made to the work of the Comité Maritime International, particularly its elaboration of a model national law on piracy and maritime violence. Several delegations said that the work of CMI should be honoured. Piracy was truly a global problem which cut across all sectors of society. However, those delegations pointed out that, given the number of forums in which the problem was under discussion, there was a risk that it was being dealt with in disparate ways. Also, attempts to define criminal acts against ships not included in the definition of piracy in UNCLOS represented one area that needed further discussion.
• 298. Encouraging cooperation between States and relevant international bodies, several delegations pointed to the need for a global management regime, as well as to the need to ensure that measures taken by individual States were consistently enforced within the framework of international law. The World Bank, together with regional bodies and States, should support those measures, it was suggested.
• 299. Several delegations proposed that the World Maritime University should serve as the focal educational point at the global level and begin a more organized education campaign on the issue of piracy and armed robbery against ships. It was noted that the University already provided lectures on piracy, and that it could develop a seminar on piracy in which representatives of United Nations bodies could participate. Alternatively, a “professional development course”, with the participation of maritime administrators from around the world, might be developed. Such courses would include the training of investigators of piracy and armed robbery against ships and might also serve as a contact point for representatives from those regions where the problem of piracy was most serious.
• 300. Also with respect to training, the United States stated that its Federal Bureau of Investigation was providing training, which could enhance regional efforts to combat piracy and armed robbery.
• 301. Many delegations underlined the importance of cooperation at the regional level, in particular among States in regions most affected by acts of piracy and armed robbery. The value of the IMO regional workshops and seminars and their follow-up was emphasized in that regard.
• 302. With a particular focus on the problem in South- East Asia, many delegations commended the holding of recent regional conferences and other cooperative initiatives among the States in the region. Reference was made to the 1976 Declaration of the ASEAN Concord and the 1997 ASEAN Plan of Action to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. The latter was described as constituting a milestone for combating piracy in the South-East Asian region. It put in place a cohesive regional strategy and facilitated information exchange among ASEAN member States, cooperation in legal and law-enforcement matters, institutional capacity-building, training and extra-regional cooperation. Other ongoing efforts in the South-East Asian region included the two high-level international conferences on combating piracy held at Tokyo in March and April 2000, the meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum, held in India in October 2000, the Experts Meeting on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships, held in Malaysia in November 2000, and the South-East Asian Programme in Ocean Law, Policy and Management (SEAPOL) Inter- Regional Conference on “Ocean Governance and Sustainable Development in the East and Southeast Asian Seas: Challenges in the New Millennium”, held in Thailand from 21 to 23 March 2001, which devoted one of its sessions to piracy and law enforcement.
• 303. Several delegations pointed out that tangible progress had been made in the South-East Asian region in terms of both deterrence and enforcement; cooperation had been intensified with neighbouring countries by increasing maritime patrol and equipment with greater use of satellite tracking vessel and monitoring systems. However, the States of the region still required the assistance and expertise of developed nations and relevant international organizations.
• 304. Several delegations were encouraged by the initiatives taken by ASEAN to combat acts of piracy and armed robbery and hoped that the outcome of the Consultative Process would help further consolidate such regional efforts. One delegation proposed that the issue of piracy and armed robbery could also perhaps be addressed within the framework of the organization for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.
• 305. Several delegations pointed out that serious consideration should be given by States sharing borders in areas threatened by piracy to establishing — preferably formal — bilateral/regional cooperation arrangements. Regional agreements would provide a legal framework for cooperation. In that regard, reference was made to the example of a draft regional agreement appended to IMO Circular 622/Rev.1. It was noted, however, that in drafting regional agreements, attention should be paid to the different characteristics of the various regions, as well as to their political environments. The ideal, therefore, would be to forge a consensus before calling on IMO’s expertise in the elaboration of regional agreements.
• 306. One delegation noted that it was important for regional cooperative arrangements or agreements to be open not only to the States of the region, but also to other States with a substantial interest in navigation in the region. Capacity-building in law enforcement and sharing of expenses, etc., could be addressed within the framework of such arrangements or agreements.
• 307. Since acts of piracy and armed robbery could result in collisions or groundings, the importance of regional emergency plans in the event of a pollution incident was emphasized by several delegations.
• 308. It was noted by several delegations that flag States whose ships were sailing in waters affected by crimes at sea and were the targets of piracy attacks or armed robbery should make an increased effort to advise their ships on how to take precautions against those attacks. The importance of the IMO Guidance to Shipowners and Ship Operators, Shipmasters and Crews on Preventing and Suppressing Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships (MSC Circular 623/Rev.1) and several other guidelines developed by other organizations or Governments were referred in this regard.
• 309. Several delegations expressed the view that IMO and other organizations should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms on board merchant vessels.
• 310. The importance of alerting other ships in the vicinity of an attack was highlighted as an important tool in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea. It was pointed out by IHO that the appropriate coordinator of the navigational warning service needed also to be informed of all actual and attempted attacks which took place in the area for which he or she was responsible under the IMO/IHO worldwide navigational warning service.
• 311. One delegation stressed that States which had information about facts or circumstances leading to a presumption that acts of piracy or acts against the safety of navigation might occur should provide information to the relevant States.
• 312. One delegation raised the issue of the effects of acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships on the level of insurance premiums that shipowners might be charged and the subsequent impact on the costs of transportation of goods and their delivery.
• 313. Delegations recognized the importance of action at the national level to combat acts of piracy and armed robbery. Many reported on steps they had undertaken to increase port security and strengthen their maritime enforcement capabilities, including through increased coordination among various national administrations and departments.
• 314. Some delegations stated it was imperative for Governments to consider taking the actions identified in paragraphs 209 to 223 of the report of the Secretary- General on oceans and the law of the sea (A/56/58), including: the development of national action plans for preventing an attack as well as steps to take in the event of an attack; augmenting surveillance; and enhancing port security.
• 315. Reference was made to the need for full cooperation between the coastal State and the flag State, including the role of the State in warning ships in the area where the attacks were likely to take place, in particular in cases of repeated attacks.
• 316. The importance of adequate charting of waters was highlighted in order, inter alia, to locate the hideouts of pirates and armed robbers. In that connection, IHO pointed out that hydrographic surveying was very expensive.
• 317. Delegations agreed that the strengthening of the capacity of developing countries was intrinsically linked to improved efforts in the suppression of piracy and armed robbery against ships.
• 318. The importance of training for port personnel was stressed. The United States, referring to the current two-year course offered by the World Maritime University, said it would be in a position to fund requests for attendance by personnel from developing countries at the course if such requests were identified as a priority. In addition, the United States Coast Guard was available for instruction on law-enforcement tactics and port security measures and enhancements to member States. Member States were encouraged to send their personnel to the United States for training or, alternatively, the United States Coast Guard could send international training detachments to other States.
• 319. It was suggested that the World Bank and other donor agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme should give priority to requests for assistance from developing countries in addressing two major issues with respect to piracy and armed robbery at sea, namely enhancing enforcement capability and implementation of port security measures. One delegation stated that donor institutions should be encouraged to engage in a dialogue with developing countries to assess the needs identified to address piracy and report their findings to the Secretary-General.
• 320. Delegations noted that acts of piracy were by definition confined to the high seas or the exclusive economic zone and that not all of the attacks that took place in these maritime zones could be classified as traditional acts of piracy over which all States might exercise jurisdiction under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
• 321. It was noted that when attacks against ships occurred in port or at anchorage they were most likely proscribed and should be punishable by local criminal law. When acts endangered the safety of navigation and occurred on board foreign flag ships while under way in the territorial sea, in international straits or in waters beyond the limits of the territorial sea, those acts were frequently not proscribed or punishable by the criminal law of the coastal State. It was noted in that regard that the SUA Convention and its Protocol could fill many of the jurisdictional gaps. The SUA Convention required States parties to criminalize such acts under national law and to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of their perpetrators.
• 322. One delegation recalled the draft ocean space treaty proposed by Malta in 1971 to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, which contained provisions on combating piracy also in the territorial sea.
• 323. Many delegations underlined the importance for States to ratify or accede to UNCLOS and the SUA Convention and its Protocol, as well as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. It was suggested that the Consultative Process could endorse the United Nations General Assembly’s call for States that had not done so to consider adhering to the SUA Convention and its Protocol and to implement its provisions.
• 324. Several delegations stated that States should be encouraged to enact and enforce national legislation for effective implementation and enforcement of the above Conventions and that all States should review their national legislation and practice to see if they fully reflected the rights and duties embedded in the Conventions. One delegation suggested that elements of legislation necessary to implement the obligations under the SUA Convention should be identified, following the approach taken for the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
• 325. The importance of ensuring that measures by individual States were consistently enforced within the framework of international law was highlighted by several delegations.
• 326. They underlined the importance of a common understanding of States’ enforcement rights under international law. One delegation emphasized that, more than reaching a common understanding on existing rules, there should be a direct reference to and application of such rules.
• 327. In conclusion, several delegations said that they looked forward to a strong statement in the report of the meeting to the United Nations General Assembly on the importance of preventing and combating piracy, suggesting measures and decisions that could be reviewed at future meetings of the Consultative Process and by the General Assembly.