MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MARITIME SCIENCE MASTER DISSERTATION Academic year 2017 – 2018 The importance of the SUA Convention in the fight against violence at sea Student: Jan Van Hauwaert Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Frank Maes the degree of: Master of Science in Maritime Science Assessor: Klaas Willaert Master of Science in Maritime Science 2 Word of thanks Before moving on to the content of this master’s dissertation, I would like to express some words of gratitude. In the first place, I would like to thank my promotor, Prof. Dr. Frank Maes, for granting me the opportunity and the privilege to write a thesis on such an interesting topic. Also, I would like to thank him for sharing his knowledge with me and for discussing with me the best way to approach this task. I would like to express thanks to my assessor, Mr. Klaas Willaert, as well, for observing my progress and for reaching out new ideas. Finally, a word of gratitude for my family and the people around me, especially my parents, for the many support throughout the difficult process of writing a thesis. 3 List of abbreviations BCN weapons Biological, chemical and nuclear weapons ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ICFTU International Confederation of Free Trade Unions ICS International Chamber of Shipping ISF International Shipping Federation ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Code IMO International Maritime Organization Interpol International Criminal Police Organization LNG Liquified Natural Gas MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships NATO North-Atlantic Treaty Organization PLF Palestine Liberation Front PLO Palestine Liberation Organization SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea SUA Convention Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of violence at Sea against the Safety of Maritime Navigation UN United Nations UK United Kingdom USA United States of America WMD Weapons of mass destruction 4 Table of contents I. Historical background of the existence of the SUA Convention ..................................................... 7 1. The Achille Lauro incident – the facts ......................................................................................... 7 2. Consequences of the Achille Lauro incident ............................................................................... 8 2.1 A series of Resolutions ........................................................................................................ 8 2.2 The General Assembly of the United Nations ..................................................................... 9 2.3 The International Maritime Organization ........................................................................... 9 2.4 The Security Council of the United Nations ...................................................................... 11 3. Measures to Prevent Unlawful Acts against Passengers and Crews on Board Ships ................ 11 4. The 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of violence at sea against the Safety of Maritime Navigation .......................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Adoption of the SUA Convention ...................................................................................... 14 4.2 Entry into force .................................................................................................................. 16 II. The content of the 1988 SUA Convention ..................................................................................... 19 1. Scope of application .................................................................................................................. 19 1.1 Geographical scope of application .................................................................................... 19 1.2 Material scope of application ............................................................................................ 23 2. Juridical mechanisms of the 1988 SUA Convention .................................................................. 35 2.1 Obligation to criminalize and penalize the offences ......................................................... 35 2.2 Jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................... 36 2.3 Aut dedere aut iudicare ..................................................................................................... 44 2.4 Measures of preventive nature ......................................................................................... 49 3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 51 III. The 2005 Protocol ..................................................................................................................... 52 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 52 2. New maritime offences ............................................................................................................. 53 2.1 First category of offences .................................................................................................. 54 2.2 Second category of offences ............................................................................................. 55 2.3 Third category of offences ................................................................................................. 59 2.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 61 3. Ship-boarding procedures ......................................................................................................... 62 IV. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 67 5 Introduction Ever since people have been sailing the seas and oceans, they also have been subject to many kinds of perils. First of all, there is the harsh environment. Vessels and their crew are continuously left at the mercy of the elements of water, wind, fire and even earth, when encountering sandbanks for example. But the perils of the sea are certainly not only of natural origin. Bearing in mind the Latin adage “homo homini lupus”, humanity itself may pose a serious threat to the safety of maritime navigation as well. The incident with the Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, which was attacked by terrorists is a well-known example. Just like aviation, international maritime traffic should benefit from an international legal framework which aims at suppressing acts of violence at sea and maritime terrorism. After the Achille Lauro attack, the IMO Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (and later on, in 2005, a Protocol to it) came into existence, providing such framework. This is the subject of this master’s dissertation. A thorough research into the content and the effectiveness of the provisions will be done. As the title of this master’s dissertation says, this will be the main topic and research question. Also, I will try to identify the deficiencies of the texts. However, in my view, since the concept of anti-terrorism conventions in international law is a rather sensitive subject to States, it is important to take a closer look at the historical background and the drafting of the SUA Convention. The methodology that will be followed, consists of a classic source research of legislation, jurisprudence and, to a very small extent, case law. There are very little actual cases known in relation with the Convention. Of course, the fewer the incidents, the better. 6 I. Historical background of the existence of the SUA Convention The history and the main reason of the existence of the SUA Convention has to be held against the background of the Achille Lauro case and the combat against maritime terrorism. Concerning (civil) aviation, a series of hijackings of aircrafts towards the end of the 1960s, made clear that a legal framework was required for criminalizing and prosecuting those who were guilty of unlawful acts against safety of aviation. In 1970, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (the “Hague Convention”) came into existence and in 1971, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (the “Montreal Convention”) was adopted and later on replaced by the 2010 Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts relating to International Civil Aviation (the “Beijing Convention”, which has not yet entered into force).1 The Achille Lauro case made clear that a legal framework and similar rules were also required to ensure safety at sea. 1. The Achille Lauro incident – the facts The MS Achille Lauro was a cruise ship flying the Italian flag at the time of the incident. On the 7th of October, 1985, the ship was hijacked by four armed members, who boarded the ship as tourists, of the Palestine Liberation Front (a faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO) off the coast of Egypt, while on its way from Alexandria to Port Said. The ship was locates on the high seas while being held by the hijackers.2 The four hijackers held the ship’s crew and passengers hostage and threatened to kill them in the case their demands would not have been