¹ ‘Somali pirates hijack two more ships’ Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AA0VP20091111 (11 November 2009).

² eg: ‘UN empowers land operations against Somali pirates’ AFP http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2By-gJLrbPT2jlDBpo0ux4TKQjA (17 December 2008); M Verhagen, Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Speech at the Clingendael Institute, 8 July 2009, http://www.minbuza.nl/en/news/speeches_and_articles,2009/07/-Pioneering-for-solutions-against-piracy-focusing.html.

³ ‘Suspected pirates captured off Somali coast’ US Navy News (21 January 2006) www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=22026.

⁴ K Westcott, ‘Pirates in the Dock’ BBC News http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/africa/8059345.stm (21 May 2009).

⁵ ‘World Scrambles to Deal with Pirate Threat’ Spiegel Online http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,592433,00.html (24 November 2008).

⁶ ‘Danes free pirates from Navy ship’ Lloyd's List (London 26 September 2008).

⁷ Canada may follow: ‘Canada Seeks to Change Policy on Pirate Prosecution: MacKay’ CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/21/canada-piracy-kenya894.html (21 May 2009).

⁸ See: http://www.state.gov/t/pm/ppa/piracy/contactgroup/index.htm; http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/conflict-prevention/piracy/; and UNSC Res 1897 (2009) preamble and paras 4, 5, 13 and 16.

⁹ Geneva Convention on the High Seas (adopted on 29 April 1958, entered into force 30 September 1962) 450 UNTS 82 (‘High Seas Convention’) art 15; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 3 (‘UNCLOS’) art 101.

¹⁰ See A Rubin, The Law of Piracy (2nd edn, Naval War College Press, Newport, Rhode Island, 1998), 344 and D O'Connell The International Law of the Sea: Volume 2 (Clarendon, Oxford, 1984) 969 (the words ‘any illegal act’ are question-begging). The phrase may still usefully exclude lawful acts of self-defence.

¹¹ O'Connell (n 10) 966 and 972. See eg In Re Piracy Jure Gentium [1934] AC 586, 598. UK law now incorporates the UNCLOS definition: Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 (UK) c 28, s 26.

¹² ibid 966–7.

¹³ Rubin (n 10) 331–372.

¹⁴ North Sea Continental Shelf Cases [1969] ICJ Rep 3. On Security Council endorsement, see (n 54) below.

¹⁵ See: McCullough, L, ‘International and Domestic Criminal Law Issues in the Achille Lauro Incident: A Functional Analysis’ (1986) 36 Naval Law Review 53Google Scholar; Green, L, ‘The Santa Maria: Rebels or Pirates?’ (1961) 7 BYIL 496Google Scholar.

¹⁶ D Guilfoyle, Shipping Interdiction and the Law of the Sea (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009) 32–42. See also Halberstam, M, ‘Terrorism on the High Seas: The Achille Lauro, Piracy and the IMO Convention on Maritime Safety’ (1988) 82 AJIL 269, 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar–284; Bahar, M, ‘Attaining Optimal Deterrence at Sea: A Legal and Strategic Theory for Naval Anti-Piracy Operations’ (2007) 40 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1Google Scholar, 30–34. Morita, Contrast A, ‘Piracy Jure Gentium Revisited—For Japan's Future Contribution’ (2008) 51 Japanese Yearbook of International Law 76, 85–89Google Scholar.

¹⁷ M White, ‘Piracy: The Industry Perspective’ (paper delivered at the ILA British Branch Spring Conference, University of Hull, 17 April 2009). Quoted with permission.

¹⁸ See UNCLOS art 58(2).

¹⁹ International Law Commission, ‘Commentaries to the articles concerning the law of the sea’ [1956] II YbILC 265, 282 (discussing what became High Seas Convention art 15).

²⁰ Eg Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, (22 January 2002) IMO Doc A 22/Res.922 art 2.

²¹ UNCLOS arts 92(1) and 110.

²² UNCLOS art 105.

²³ Such a power has been suggested: JW Bingham (reporter), Harvard Research in International Law: Draft Convention on Piracy (1932) 26 AJIL Sup 739, 744 and 833 [hereinafter, Harvard Draft Convention and Commentary]; US Navy, The Commanders' Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (Naval Warfare Library, Port Richey, Florida, 2007) para 3.5.3.2, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/cnws/ild/documents/1-14m_(jul_2007)_(nwp).pdf. State practice has rejected the proposition: L Lucchini and M Voelckel, Droit de la mer, Tome 2, vol 2 (Pedone, Paris, 1996), 165; O'Connell (n 10) 978.

²⁴ See: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, President Guillaume (Separate Opinion) para 5 and Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal (Joint Separate Opinion) para 61; I Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, (7^th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) 229; cf Harvard Draft Convention and Commentary, 852–856 and O'Connell (n 10) 977.

²⁵ cf High Seas Convention arts 14 and 19; in accord, Treves, T, ‘Piracy, Law of the Sea, and Use of Force: Developments off the Coast of Somalia’ (2009) 20 EJIL 399, 402CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ [1956] II YbILC 282 (on latitude); Lucchini and Voelckel (n 23) 158–9 (on lack of national offences).

²⁷ E Kontorovich, ‘International Legal Responses to Piracy off the Coast of Somalia’ ASIL Insights, vol 13(2) (6 February 2009) http://www.asil.org/insights090206.cfm.

²⁸ [1956] II YbILC 283, as cited in Kontorovich (n 27).

²⁹ cf A Aust, ‘Lockerbie: The Other Case’ (2000) 49 ICLQ 278, 283–5 (one State's courts may sit in another's territory by consent); Treves (n 25) 402 (art 105 does not create exclusive jurisdiction).

³⁰ R Cryer, H Friman, D Robinson, E Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007) 37; AU-EU Technical Ad hoc Expert Group on the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction (Report) Council of the European Union (16 April 2009) Doc 8672/1/09 REV.1 para 14.

³¹ Whether aut dedere aut judicare is a general rule of international law is contentious: International Law Commission, ‘Report on the Work of its 59th Session’ (2007) UN Doc A/62/10 para 354.

³² UNSC Res 1816 (2008), para 11; UNSC Res 1846 (2008) para 14 (calling for cooperation).

³³ See: IMO Annual Reports on Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships (MSC.4 report series) http://www.imo.org; and Guilfoyle (n 16) 47–50.

³⁴ United Nations International Expert Group on Piracy off the Somali Coast, ‘Piracy off the Somali Coast: Final Report’(2008) (hereinafter ‘UN Expert Report’) 14, www.imcsnet.org/imcs/docs/somalia_piracy_intl_experts_report_consolidated.pdf.

³⁵ On Somali piracy's origins, see UN Expert Report 14 ff; R Middleton, ‘Piracy in Somalia: Threatening Global Trade, Feeding Local Wars’ (Chatham House, London, 2008) 4–5, http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/12203_1008piracysomalia.pdf.

³⁶ UN Expert Report, 19.

³⁷ IMO (6 December 2007) Doc A 25/Res 1002 para 6.

³⁸ UNSC Res 1676 (2006); UNSC Res 1772 (2007); UNSC Res 1801 (2008).

³⁹ UNSC Res 1772 (2007) para 18; UNSC Res 1801 (2008) para 12; cf UNSC Res 1814 (2008) para 11.

⁴⁰ A Panossian, ‘L'Affaire du Ponant et le renouveau de la lute internationale contre la piraterie’ (2008) 112 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 661, 662.

⁴¹ A Vasseur, ‘Légalité de l'arrestation, du transfèrement et du jugement en France des 6 preneurs d'otages du navire «le Ponant»’ Sentinelle, no 145, 20 August 2008, http://www.sfdi.org/actualites/a2008/Sentinelle%20145.htm#securitemer1.

⁴² J-M Roche, ‘Opération Thalatine: L'affaire du Ponant’ (Avril 2008) http://www.netmarine.net/forces/operatio/ponantsomalie/index.htm; French Foreign Affairs Press Conference of 15 April 2008, https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/pointpresse.asp?liste=20080415.html&submit.x=5&submit.y=6#Chapitre4.

⁴³ ‘France charges Somali pirates’ BBC News (18 April 2008) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7355598.stm It is unclear whether permission preceded the pirates' removal, see: French Foreign Affairs Press Conferences of 16 April 2008, https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/actual/ael2/pointpresse.asp?liste=20080416.html&submit.x=7&submit.y=8#Chapitre5.

⁴⁴ Panossian (n 40) 665–6.

⁴⁵ ‘UN urged to tackle Somali pirates’ BBC News, (28 April 2008) http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/7372390.stm.

⁴⁶ para 11. See also para 5, UNSC Res 1838 (2008). While pirates may be captured in the course of such operations, the resolutions provide no novel powers to this end.

⁴⁷ The wording of operative paras 7, 9 and 11 of Resolution 1816 are repeated mutatis mutandis as paras 10, 11 and 14 of Resolution 1846.

⁴⁸ D Guilfoyle, ‘Piracy Off Somalia: UN Security Council Resolution 1816 and IMO Regional Counter-Piracy Efforts’ (2008) 57 ICLQ 690.

⁴⁹ See comments in UN Doc S/PV.6046 (16 December 2008) 4 (United Kingdom), 9 (United States), 27 (Germany); Treves (n 25) 404.

⁵⁰ A mechanism first used in UNSC Res 1814 (2008) para 11.

⁵¹ JG Dalton, JA Roach, and J Daley, ‘Introductory Note to United Nations Security Council: Piracy and Armed Robbery at Sea—Resolutions 1816, 1846 and 1851’ (2009) 48 ILM 129, 130; cf Treves (n 25) 407–8.

⁵² para 3.

⁵³ UNSC Resolutions 1848 and 1851 (2008) and 1897 (2009), preamble (reaffirming ‘that international law, as reflected in [UNCLOS], sets out the legal framework applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as other ocean activities’); similarly, see UNSC Res 1838 (2008), preamble and para 3.

⁵⁴ UNSC Res 1816 paras 2 and 3; cf UNSC Res 1846 para 7 and UNSC Res 1897 (preamble).

⁵⁵ UNSC Res 1846 para 9, UNSC Res 1851 para 2; cf UNSC Res 1897 para 3.

⁵⁶ Kontorovich (n 27). See UNSC Res 1851 para 6; renewed by UNSC Res 1897 para 7.

⁵⁷ Guilfoyle (n 16) 70 (IHL might have limited application: i.e. pirates who are also insurgents).

⁵⁸ See: ibid, 277–293; PJ Kwast, ‘Maritime Law Enforcement and the Use of Force: Reflections on the Categorisation of Forcible Action at Sea in the Light of the Guyana/Suriname Award’ (2008) 13 Journal of Conflict & Security Law 49.

⁵⁹ UNSC Res 1816 para 9; UNSC Res 1846 para 11; UNSC Res 1851 para 10; UNSC Res 1897 para 8.

⁶⁰ para 3.

⁶¹ para 7 (with ‘urges’ changed to ‘calls upon’).

⁶² para 15; cf UNSC Res 1897 preamble.

⁶³ arts 3(1)(a) and 4(1). Note that the SUA Convention does not expressly require any ‘terrorist’ motive.

⁶⁴ SUA Convention art 8(3).

⁶⁵ SUA Convention art 7 and 10(1).

⁶⁶ SUA Convention art 6.

⁶⁷ 156 parties at 30 November 2009, including regional States such as Djibouti, Egypt, Kenya and Yemen.

⁶⁸ UNSC Res 1851, para 3; UNSC Res 1897, para 6.

⁶⁹ See: K-A Brown, The Shiprider Model (University of the West Indies, Bridgetown, 1997); W Gilmore, ‘Counter-Drug Operations at Sea: Developments and Prospects’ (1999) 25 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 609, 612–14; Byers, M, ‘Policing the High Seas: The Proliferation Security Initiative’ (2004) 98 AJIL 526, 538–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guilfoyle (n 16) Chapter 5.

⁷⁰ (2005) 44 ILM 829.

⁷¹ See, eg: www.recaap.org/incident/pdf/special/2008/Special%20Rpt%20(whale%207).pdf.

⁷² ‘Eyes in the sky see strait attacks slashed to zero’ Lloyd's List (London 15 April 2008) 1.

⁷³ Guilfoyle (n 48) 698–9.

⁷⁴ One significant change is the Code's omission of any procedure allowing ‘reverse hot pursuit’ into territorial waters. Text available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf9/piracy-djibouti-meeting. Space precludes further consideration of the Code here.

⁷⁵ Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Somalia, United Republic of Tanzania and Yemen were original signatories, Egypt joined on 1 October 2009. See further (n 215).

⁷⁶ AM Costa, ‘Fighting Piracy on Land and at Sea’ (Testimony to the United States House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, Washington DC, 14 May 2009) http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/about-unodc/speeches/2009-14-05.html; EU-Kenya Agreement art 6(a) (EUNAVOR to assist investigations/trials); UNSC Res 1897 preamble (praising various efforts) and see Naert (n 84 below) 190.

⁷⁷ UNSC Res 1816 para 11; UNSC Res 1846 para 14; UNSC Res 1851 para 6; UNSC Res 1897 preamble, paras 11 and 12.

⁷⁸ UNSC Res 1838 para 3.

⁷⁹ Becker, M, ‘The Shifting Public Order of the Oceans’ (2005) 46 Harvard International Law Journal 131, 152Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ CRS Report, 14.

⁸¹ UNSC, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Somalia’ (17 November 2008) UN Doc S/2008/709) para 55.

⁸² ‘De-confliction’ aims at mutual awareness and avoiding duplication, not unitary command.

⁸³ The Maritime Trade Organisation was established in Dubai in October 2001 by the Royal Navy. It is available to provide support to shipping of all flags, and works through ships voluntarily reporting their movements. See: http://rncom.mod.uk/uploadedFiles/Pages/Maritime_Operations/0001-UKMTO.pdf.

⁸⁴ EU NAVFOR is not a permanent body and has no wider mission than Operation Atalanta. See generally: F Naert, International Law Aspects of the EU's Security and Defence Policy (Intersentia, 2009), Chapter 3.

⁸⁵ Its predecessor was NATO Operation Allied Protector: http://www.manw.nato.int/page_operation_allied_protector.aspx. A previous NATO operation escorted WFP vessels in October–December 2008.

⁸⁶ I use ‘disposition’ to refer to the process of determining whether to release suspect pirates or send them for prosecution and, if so, where.

⁸⁷ ‘NATO to resume counter piracy operation off Horn of Africa’ (undated) http://www.snmg1.nato.int/SNMG1_ficheiros/Page4065.htm#OP1.

⁸⁸ ‘Kenya agrees to take captured pirates’ Copenhagen Post Online http://www.cphpost.dk/news/international/89-international/45494-kenya-agrees-to-take-captured-pirates.html (26 April 2009).

⁸⁹ R Middleton, ‘Pirates and How to Deal With Them’ (Africa Programme and International Law Discussion Group, Chatham House, London) (22 April 2009) www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/13845_220409pirates_law.pdf.

⁹⁰ Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Prisoner transfer agreements’ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-issues/conflict-prevention/piracy/prisoners; Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles on the Conditions and Modalities for the Transfer of Suspected Pirates and Armed Robbers from EUNAVFOR to the Republic of Seychelles and for their Treatment after such Transfer [2009] OJ L 315/37 (has transitional application pending the conclusion of a further agreement).

⁹¹ See: Al-Jedda v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58 paras 3, 26–39 per Lord Bingham; paras 115–118 per Lord Roger; para 125 per Baroness Hale; paras 131–6 per Lord Carswell; and paras 151–152 per Lord Brown; contrast Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P [2008] ECJ Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Judgment) para 306 (inability of measures implementing UNSC Resolutions to displace ‘fundamental rights’) note also paras 310–314 (dealing with Behrami, see n 113 and accompanying text).

⁹² UNSC Res 1816 para 11; UNSC Res 1846 para 14; UNSC Res 1851 para 6; UNSC Res 1897 paras 11 and 12.

⁹³ Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85 art 3(1).

⁹⁴ Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 150 (Refugee Convention) art 33(1).

⁹⁵ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (opened for signature 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 221 art 3.

⁹⁶ 999 UNTS 171.

⁹⁷ UN High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol’ (26 January 2007) para 26, http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html.

⁹⁸ See the useful discussion in R (on the application of European Roma Rights Centre and Others) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport [2004] UKHL 55 paras 13–21 per Lord Bingham, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell agreeing; and compare: para 43 per Lord Steyn; paras 64, 68–71 per Lord Hope (denying extra-territorial effect).

⁹⁹ Contrast Sale v Haitian Centres Council, 509 US Reports 155, 179–80 (1992). See further: Guilfoyle (n 16) 222–226; E Lauterpacht and D Bethlehem, ‘The Scope and Content of the Principle of Non-Refoulement: Opinion’ in E Feller, V Turk and F Nicholson (eds), Refugee Protection in International Law: UNHCR's Global Consultations on International Protection (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003), 110–15, 159–60.

¹⁰⁰ A Harding, ‘Postcard from Somali pirate capital’ BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8103585.stm (16 June 2009) (Puntland trials/prison conditions); Middleton (n 35) 5 (alleged pirate payments to Puntland leaders).

¹⁰¹ Refugee Convention art 1(f)(b).

¹⁰² Supra (n 93) art 3(1).

¹⁰³ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture (United States of America) (25 July 2006) UN Doc CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (‘Committee Against Torture (USA Recommendations))’ para 20.

¹⁰⁴ Committee Against Torture, PK et al v Spain Decision (21 November 2008) UN Doc CAT/C/41/D/323/2007 para 8.2; see also Committee Against Torture, General Comment No 2 (24 January 2008) UN Doc CAT/C/GC/2 (‘CAT General Comment No 2’) para 16 (application to ships and aircraft).

¹⁰⁵ Medvedyev v France, ECtHR, Application No 3394/03 (Judgment) 10 July 2008; Rigopoulos v Spain, ECtHR, Application No 37388/97, 12 January 1999; see also Xhavara and Others v Italy and Albania, ECtHR, Application No 39473/98, 11 January 2001. Respondent States conceded the Convention's applicability.

¹⁰⁶ Eg: Case of Cyprus v Turkey (2001) 35 EHRR 731 para 77; Issa and Ors v Turkey (2004) 41 EHRR 567 para 71; Öcalan v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No 46221/99 (Judgement) 12 March 2003 (applicant's abduction by Turkish agents in Kenya an act within Turkish ‘jurisdiction’).

¹⁰⁷ Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v United Kingdom ECtHR, Application No 61498/08 (Admissibility Decision) 30 June 2009 para 35 (summarizing the findings of the Divisional Court).

¹⁰⁸ Al-Saadoon para 88, referring to R (on the Application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, in which see para 61, per Lord Rodger; paras 90–92, per Baroness Hale; para 97, per Lord Carswell; and para 132, per Lord Brown; see also Wilde, R, ‘Triggering State Obligations Extraterritorially: the Spatial Test in Certain Human Rights Treaties’ (2007) 40 Israel Law Review 503, 508–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ See eg Banković v Belgium and others (2001) 11 BHRC 435, para 73; Al-Skeini (n 108) para 109 per Lord Brown; Al-Saadoon (n 107) para 76.

¹¹⁰ R Wilde, ‘R (on the Application of Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence’ (2008) 102 AJIL 628, 629.

¹¹¹ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] ICJ Rep 136, 179–80; Lopez v Uruguay, UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 29 July 1981, CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979 (person abducted, held and tortured in Argentina by Uruguayan officials); see also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31 on art 2 of the ICCPR (29 March 2004) UN Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para 10.

¹¹² UK courts have not accepted State agent ‘authority and control’ as a principle of broad application, starting instead from the Banković proposition that the ECHR applies only in a limited espace juridique (n 109 para 73). Cases where the Strasbourg court has found extra-territorial jurisdiction are thus seen as exceptional and limited to their facts. This is unprincipled: it is ‘unconscionable’ to interpret the Convention to allow a party to commit violations in the territory of a non-ECHR party it could not commit within its own territory (Issa, n 106, para 71). See further: Al Skeini paras 72–82 per Lord Rodger, para 91 per Baroness Hale, para 97 per Lord Carswell, paras 119–122, 127 per Lord Brown; Al Saadoon [2009] EWCA Civ 7, paras 24–27, 37–40 per Lord Laws and commentary in Wilde, R, ‘Legal “Black Hole”? Extraterritorial State Action and International Treaty Law on Civil and Political Rights’ (2005) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 739, 794–6Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Milanović, M and T, Papic, ‘As Bad as it Gets: The European Court's Behrami and Saramati Decision and General International Law’ (2009) 58 ICLQ 267, 294–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁴ See: ibid; D Van der Toorn, ‘Attribution of Conduct by State Armed Forces Participating in UN-Authorised Operations: The Impact of Behrami and Al-Jedda’ (2009) 15 Australian International Law Journal 9; P Klein, ‘Responsabilité pour les faits commis dans le cadre d'opérations de paix étendue du pouvoir de contrôle de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme: quelques considérations critiques sur l'arrêt Behrami et Saramati’(2007) 53 Annuaire Français de Droit International 43; C Laly-Chevalier, ‘Les Opérations Militaires et Civiles des Nations Unies et la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme’ (2007) 40 Revue Belge de Droit International 627 and articles quoted in International Law Commission, ‘Report of the 61st Session’ UN Doc A/64/10 (2009), 67 and n 102 (‘ILC Report 2009’).

¹¹⁵ Behrami v France (2007) 45 EHRR SE 10 Saramati v France, Germany and Norway (2007) 45 EHRR SE10; 46 ILM 746; (2008) 133 ILR 1; paras 128 ff and 151.

¹¹⁶ Kadi (n 91) para 314 (summarizing and distinguishing Behrami). On the misleading term ‘delegated’ see Milanović and Papic (n 113) 276–9.

¹¹⁷ Behrami, paras 132–135; Milanović and Papic (n 113) 279–81.

¹¹⁸ ILC Report 2009, 62.

¹¹⁹ G Gaja (ILC Special Rapporteur) ‘Seventh Report on Responsibility of International Organizations (27 March 2009) UN Doc A/CN.4/610, 10; see also Laly-Chevalier (n 114), 641–2.

¹²⁰ ILC Report 2009, 67 and n 102 (citing with approval the ‘[v]arious authors [who have] pointed out that the European Court did not apply the criterion of effective control in the way that had been envisaged by the Commission’).

¹²¹ Milanović and Papic (n 113) 273; Van der Toorn (n 114) 18 ff.

¹²² Klein (n 114) 53.

¹²³ eg Matthews v United Kingdom, ECtHR, Application No 24833/94 (Judgement) 18 February 1999, para 32; but note Bosphorus Airways v Ireland, ECtHR, Application No 45036/98 (Judgement) 30 June 2005, paras 152–158.

¹²⁴ See Behrami para 125, 129–130 (finding on legal control/administration of territory); cf Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia (2004) 40 EHRR 1030 paras 332–5, 392–4 (Russia and Moldova jointly responsible for events in Transdniestria under the former's de facto and the latter's de jure control).

¹²⁵ See (n 107) paras 77–80. This argument succeeded in the UK Court of Appeal: [2009] EWCA Civ 7, paras 32–33; contrast Cross, M and S, Williams, ‘Between The Devil and The Deep Blue Sea: Conflicted Thinking in the Al-Saadoon Affair’ (2009) 58 ICLQ 689, 693–5Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ The analysis here assumes NATO to have a separate legal personality from its constituent member States. The point is not free from controversy. Under the Lisbon Treaty the EU is to accede to the ECHR: Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, 13 December 2007, 2007/C 306/01, art 6 (entered force 1 December 2009).

¹²⁷ ILC Report 2009, 63.

¹²⁸ See inter alia: arts 3 and 6, Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union Military Operation to Contribute to the Deterrence, Prevention and Repression of Acts of Piracy and Armed Robbery off the Somali Coast [2008] OJ L 301/33 (‘EUNAVFOR Joint Action’). These facts alone might satisfy the test in Behrami, paras 132–139.

¹²⁹ Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Government of Kenya on the Conditions and Modalities for the Transfer of Persons Suspected of Having Committed Acts of Piracy and Detained by the European Union-led Naval Force (EUNAVFOR), and seized property in the possession of EUNAVFOR, from EUNAVFOR to Kenya and for their treatment after such transfer [6 March 2009] OJ L 79/49 (‘EU–Kenya Agreement’) para 2.

¹³⁰ EUNAVFOR Joint Action (n 128) art 12 refers to the transfer of suspects without specifying the decision-making procedure.

¹³¹ See (n 87) above.

¹³² Al-Jedda (n 91) as discussed in Milanović and Papic (n 113) 289–93 and approved of in ILC Report 2009, 69–70.

¹³³ See eg: Kadi (n 91) para 5 and the Lisbon Treaty (n 126) art 6.

¹³⁴ UNCLOS, art 105.

¹³⁵ SUA Convention, art 8(1).

¹³⁶ UNSC Res 1838 para 3.

¹³⁷ UNSC Res 1851 and 1897 preamble.

¹³⁸ Westcott (n 4).

¹³⁹ Medvedyev (n 105) para 50.

¹⁴⁰ Rigopoulos (n 105).

¹⁴¹ paras 10, 14 and 18.

¹⁴² paras 65–69 (concurring with Rigopoulos).

¹⁴³ See especially para 61.

¹⁴⁴ paras 56 and 59 (emphasis added).

¹⁴⁵ The permission given incorporated procedural restrictions from art 17, UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 (1989) 28 ILM 497 (UN Narcotics Convention). On complications that may arise from this Article's drafting see: R v Dean and Bolden [1998] 2 Cr App R 171, 182–185.

¹⁴⁶ Medvedyev (n 105) para 61.

¹⁴⁷ ibid.

¹⁴⁸ Van Schaak, B, ‘Crimen Sine Lege: Judicial Lawmaking at the Intersection of Law and Morals’ (2008) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 118, 136Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Treves (n 25) 409.

¹⁵⁰ UN Narcotics Convention art 17(4).

¹⁵¹ A Cassese, International Criminal Law (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008) 37–38, 41 (‘[t]he principle is still far from being fully applicable in international law’) 51–52.

¹⁵² Saadi v Italy, ECtHR, Application No 37201/06, 28 February 2008, para 148.

¹⁵³ M Kamto, ‘Second Report on the Expulsion of Aliens, International Law Commission’ UN Doc A/CN.4/573 (2006) paras 174–177.

¹⁵⁴ See Al-Saadoon (n 107) paras 65 and 101 referring to R(B) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2004] EWCA Civ 1344, discussed in Cross and Williams (n 125) 697–8.

¹⁵⁵ Chahal v UK (1996) 23 EHRR 413, para 74; Saadi (n 156) para 125.

¹⁵⁶ paras 104–105.

¹⁵⁷ Saadi (n 152) paras 143–148.

¹⁵⁸ ibid para 148.

¹⁵⁹ Committee Against Torture (USA Recommendations), para 21; see also CAT General Comment No 2, para 19.

¹⁶⁰ K Jones, ‘Deportations with Assurances: Addressing Key Criticisms’ (2008) 57 ICLQ 183, 187. See eg: Y v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Special Immigration Appeals Commission, Appeal No: SC/36/2005, 24 August 2006, paras 219–259 for a detailed account of the process.

¹⁶¹ Jones (n 162) 187.

¹⁶² Y v Secretary of State (n 160) paras 256, 335 (reasons assurances might not be offered).

¹⁶³ Jones (n 162) 187.

¹⁶⁴ See eg RB (Algeria) v Home Secretary [2009] UKHL 10 at para 117 per Lord Phillips, paras 185–187 per Lord Hoffmann and para 239 per Lord Hope.

¹⁶⁵ Saadi (n 156) para 148.

¹⁶⁶ art 3(1) and (2).

¹⁶⁷ art 3.

¹⁶⁸ Saadi para 148.

¹⁶⁹ Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 SCR 3 para 39, per de Montingy J; as quoted in RB (n 164) para 117 per Lord Philips. Emphasis added.

¹⁷⁰ Contrast Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism’, (2 September 2009) UN Doc. A/HRC/12/22, paras 32–34; such arguments were unsuccessful in RB (n 164), see para 238 per Lord Hope.

¹⁷¹ The relevant UK and US MOUs are not publically available.

¹⁷² EU–Kenya Agreement para 2(c).

¹⁷³ para 5(c).

¹⁷⁴ para 5(d).

¹⁷⁵ para 5(e)–(f).

¹⁷⁶ para 4.

¹⁷⁷ para 9.

¹⁷⁸ Westcott (n 4); M Gebauer and H Stark, ‘Somali Pirate Trial Tests Limits of EU Mission’ Spiegel Online http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,616760,00.html (1 April 2009).

¹⁷⁹ ‘Presto in carcere in Italia i nove pirati somali catturati dalla Marina’ Il Tempo, 26 March 2009, http://iltempo.ilsole24ore.com/interni_esteri/2009/05/26/1028794-presto_carcere_italia_nove_pirati_somali_catturati_dalla_marina.shtml. The pirates were ultimately transferred to Kenya instead.

¹⁸⁰ Committee Against Torture, ‘Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Kenya’ (21 November 2008) UN Doc CAT/C/KEN/CO/1 para 13; see also Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Kenya’ (29 April 2005) UN Doc CCPR/CO/83/KEN para 18.

¹⁸¹ ibid paras 14 and 15.

¹⁸² African Peer Review Mechanism, Country Review Report of the Republic of Kenya (May 2006) 78, http://www.aprmtanzania.org/docs/APRM%20Kenya%20report.pdf.

¹⁸³ Soldatenko v Ukraine, Application No 2440/07 (Judgment) 23 October 2008, paras 71–74.

¹⁸⁴ ‘Kenya decries lack of global support over piracy’ Daily Nation, 12 October 2009, http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/671334/-/unyjn3/-/index.html.

¹⁸⁵ See (n 76).

¹⁸⁶ EU–Kenya Agreement, para 3(b); ICCPR, art 9(4); and ECHR, art 5(3).

¹⁸⁷ EU–Kenya Agreement, para 3(c); ICCPR, art 9(3); and ECHR, art 5(3).

¹⁸⁸ EU–Kenya Agreement, para 3(d); ICCPR, art 14(1) (second sentence); and ECHR, art 6(1) (first sentence).

¹⁸⁹ EU–Kenya Agreement, para 3(e); ICCPR, art 14(2); and ECHR, art 6(2).

¹⁹⁰ EU–Kenya Agreement, para 3(f)(1)–(7); ICCPR, art 14(3)(a)–(g); and similarly ECHR, art 6(3)(a)–(e).

¹⁹¹ EU–Kenya Agreement, para 3(g); ICCPR, art 14(5).

¹⁹² R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, para 50, per Lord Steyn.

¹⁹³ Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 494, joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan at para OIII-14; the principle stems from Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439, para 113 (where a fugitive ‘risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country’ this could ‘exceptionally’ engage art 6).

¹⁹⁴ ibid paras OIII-14 to OIII-19.

¹⁹⁵ ibid para OIII-14.

¹⁹⁶ RB (n 164) para 9 per Lord Phillips, para 197 per Lord Hoffman, para 245 per Lord Hope and para 260 per Lord Brown (emphasis added). Lord Mance was in agreement.

¹⁹⁷ Mamatkulov (n 193) para OIII-17.

¹⁹⁸ ibid para OIII-18.

¹⁹⁹ See in particular RB (n 164) para 248, per Lord Hope.

²⁰⁰ Elliott, M, ‘Torture and Deportation and Extra-Judicial Detention: Instruments of the “War on Terror”’ [2009] CLJ 245, 248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰¹ African Peer Review Mechanism (n 182) 85, 90.

²⁰² M Gebauer, ‘Attorneys File Suit in Germany on Behalf of Alleged Pirates’ Spiegel Online http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,619103,00.html (15 April 2009); J Gettleman, ‘The West Turns to Kenya as Piracy Criminal Court’ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/world/africa/24kenya.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y (23 April 2009).

²⁰³ Westcott (n 4).

²⁰⁴ Middleton (n 89) 7.

²⁰⁵ Chahal (n 155) paras 151–2; cf Jabari v Turkey (2000) 9 BHRC 1, para 50. The Court has made no distinction between deportation and extradition proceedings for art 13 purposes: Ben Khemais v Italy, ECtHR, Application no 246/07 (Judgment) 24 February 2009, para 80; Mamatkulov (n 193) para 124.

²⁰⁶ DJ Harris (et al), Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) 564.

²⁰⁷ Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v France, ECtHR, Application No 25389/05 (Judgment) 26 April 2007, paras 53–67.

²⁰⁸ Meijers Commitee, ‘Comment on the Agreement Between the EU and Kenya on the Transfer of Persons Suspected of Piracy to Kenya’ www.statewatch.org/news/2009/may/eu-meijers-cttee-kenya.pdf (20 May 2009).

²⁰⁹ The Strasbourg Court may also give a ‘Rule 39 indication’ that a person should not be transferred until further notice: see, eg Al Saadoon (n 107) para 56.

²¹⁰ Khemais (n 205) paras 59–61.

²¹¹ Arts 5(e)–(f), discussed at text accompanying (n 175).

²¹² See: Verhagen (n 2); UN Doc S/PV.6046, 31 (Egypt); Statement by President Dmitry Medvedev (Russian Federation) ‘Countries need to make a joint legal response to piracy’ http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/dnD9E8B6DFDFF46F50852575AC005DF7BE (4 May 2009).

²¹³ As late as September 2009 this option was still under discussion: ‘Press Release: Fourth Plenary Meeting of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia’ (11 September 2009) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/sept/129143.htm.

²¹⁴ On ‘hybrid’ or ‘internationalized’ courts see, eg Cryer et al (n 30) Chapter 9.

²¹⁵ S Speares, ‘Mitropoulos Highlights Industry's Death Toll’ Lloyd's List (London 24 June 2009) 3; on the Djibouti Code see text at (nn 73–75).