Maritime Information

What Our Clients Say

Disclaimer

Seafarers once again caught in the middle in recent pirate attack

What you don’t read in the news accounts of the first pirate killed by armed security is that no mariners lost their lives.

What you do see in many of those stories is the obsession with the legal tug of war over the merits or detriments of carrying armed security aboard commercial ships.

March 23rd, a Somali pirate was shot to death in a gunfight with armed security guards aboard the Panamanian flagged M/V Almezaan. This is believed to be the first case where armed security took the life of a Somali assailant.

An EU helicopter located the suspected attacking party and the body of the dead pirate, who was riddled with bullet holes. Seven other suspects were apprehended.

But rather than celebrating the fact that no crewmembers’ lives were lost, the media has chosen to cast doubt upon the actions of the security team. The following quote from an AP report of the attack is typical of the coverage focusing on the potential reckless actions of security guards hired to protect defenseless sailors.

"There's always been concern about these (private security) companies,” said Arvinder Sambei, a legal consultant for the UN anti-piracy program. “Who are they responsible to? ... The bottom line is somebody has been killed and someone has to give an accounting of that."

This is followed by:

"Regulating maritime security companies is a very gray area," Sambei said.

The article goes on to describe how “jittery security guards could accidentally open fire on ordinary Somalis.”

It is not unreasonable, in looking at the big picture of mariner piracy defense, to report on the controversial aspects of placing armed guards on commercial ships. With companies like the former Blackwater having been under the unflattering spotlight from alleged contractor security abuses in the Middle East, the background of security teams that may not be ideally suited for hostilities in a maritime environment is open for questioning.

Another area worthy of examination, and one which receives fair news coverage, is the issue of the jurisdiction of crewmembers and security guards regarding engagement and apprehension of assailants. Because Letters of Marque are non-existent in the 21st century, the laws governing self-defense on the high seas are not yet established.

So when a security guard has to think twice about legal liability before he or she pulls the trigger because that pirate opening fire on him or her with an AK-47 just might be portrayed as an innocent fisherman, it’s no surprise that the rules of engagement, or lack thereof, can prove to be a major hindrance.

While armed security on ships merits discussion for the reasons outlined above, the news coverage should be balanced with examining how mariners can best be protected, beyond the typical answer of “finding shore based solutions” or focusing on “escalation of violence.”

It’s not surprising that mariners’ lives are given short shrift in the media, which is always quick to highlight the number of gallons of oil spilled in the lead line of a story and number of human casualties reserved for the tag line.



Jones Act Maritime | Jones Act Lawyer | Jones Act Attorney | Maritime Attorney | Maritime Lawyer | Cruise Ship Injury Lawyer | Diving Accident | Maritime Injury | Maritime Death | Death On The High Seas Act | Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act

Private Consultation

Free Consumer Reports

Web Resources