The firm's Speaking engagementss

The geographical dimension of piracy and armed robbery against ships reveals gaps in the legal transposition between maritime and terrestrial spaces under French law. While international law, notably through Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), regulates piracy on the high seas, France has only partially transposed these provisions, omitting essential elements such as armed robbery at sea. This partial transposition is accompanied by the removal in French law of the concept of terra nullius, complicating jurisdictional attribution for acts committed outside territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the interpretation of the concept of “jurisdiction” varies, causing confusion regarding the extraterritorial application of criminal law. This situation leads to problems of reciprocity, particularly concerning judicial cooperation or extradition with states such as Peru, El Salvador, Ecuador, Benin, Somalia, or Togo. Ultimately, the imperfection of the transposition and the ambiguity of concepts undermine the legal effectiveness in repressing acts of piracy or related offenses committed at sea.

Maritime piracy, particularly in the Gulf of Aden, has had a major economic impact on several developing countries, justifying the increasing use of private security companies (PSCs) aboard merchant vessels. While their operational effectiveness is recognized, their use raises significant legal questions: lack of universal regulation, uncertain status of armed guards (often supernumeraries without maritime training), risks of authority conflicts with captains, legal ambiguity regarding the classification of violent acts (piracy or armed robbery), and potential liability in case of incidents.

The international framework relies on a patchwork of binding norms (SOLAS, ISPS, SUA) and recommendations (IMO circulars, Montreux Document, PSC Code of Conduct), with uncertain application at sea. Concrete issues persist, such as arms supply, informing economic partners, and recognition of national jurisdictions, especially in states with extensive territorial seas or poorly transposed international law.

The presentation concludes with an urgent need for a specific international legal framework for maritime PSCs, potentially in the form of a dedicated annex to the Code of Conduct, and recommends governance based on transparency, legitimacy, and coordination among flag, port, and coastal states.

The use of private security companies (PSCs) in the maritime industry, particularly to combat piracy, raises numerous legal and practical issues. The international legal framework remains incomplete, while national frameworks vary significantly, as illustrated by the contrasting approaches of France and the United States. The status of armed guards, often civilians, raises questions of responsibility and legitimacy, especially in cases involving the use of force. Tensions may arise between the authority of the ship’s captain and that of the PSC team leader. Furthermore, hostile acts can be legally classified as piracy or armed robbery depending on the circumstances, creating uncertainties about the applicable law. Arms supply also presents logistical and legal challenges, particularly during port calls. The lack of information provided to economic partners (insurers, ports, charterers) regarding the presence of PSCs on board poses risks in terms of liability and reputation. In response to these challenges, a move toward certification of PSCs and improved international coordination appears necessary to legally secure their use at sea.