U.S. ratification of UNCLOS would complicate counter-piracy efforts
UNCLOS provisions for counter-piracy have not kept pace with current developments and its EEZ provisions can complicate the ability of other states to act to thwart pirates.
[ Page 2302-2303 ]
The Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and other semi-autonomous regions within Somalia are actively en- gaging with antipiracy efforts.122 Somalia went further than waiving its expulsion right under UNCLOS.123 It actively requested international assistance to combat unlawful acts in its waters and piracy,124 perhaps because it could not do so itself, but also because neither UNCLOS nor SUA would otherwise permit foreign navies to intervene in its waters.125 The Security Council subsequently passed a number of resolutions on the matter, which have authorized a robust use of military force.126 Notably, Resolution 1816 provides authorization for foreign states cooperating with the TFG to enter its territorial waters for the purpose of repressing piracy, provided the TFG notifies the Secretary General in advance of the agreement.127 Resolu- tion 1950 provides the most recent extension of that permission from the date of its adoption.128 Further, Resolution 1851 argu- ably extends that permission to land-based operations as well, which the French military has undertaken.129
[ Page 2301-2302 ]
Several factors make naval patrols the only true legal and practical option.117 Only warships can seize pirates under UNCLOS,118 and the IMO strongly cautions against arming merchant ship crews or carrying private security forces on-board because of the possibility for escalation of violence during pirate attacks.119 Moreover, Somalia lacks the power to control its own maritime territory, and so international antipiracy efforts necessarily do the job for it. The UNCLOS provisions that protect coastal states’ sovereignty would hamper antipiracy efforts. Since UNCLOS permits the establishment of a state’s territorial sea at the waters within twelve nautical miles from the coastal low-water line,120 and Somalia is a signatory of the treaty,121 pirates operating in a vast area around Somalia’s long coastline could theoretically harass and hijack ships with a manner of double impunity. States have thus gone to great lengths to address that obstacle. Yet safeguarding their ability to exercise jurisdiction in foreign territorial waters for enforcement purposes did not provide the broad and flexible adjudica- tive jurisdiction states today require.