Private Political Activists and the International Law Definition of Piracy: Acting for ‘Private Ends’

Piracy under international law grants states the right to exercise universal
jurisdiction, provided that all conditions of its definition are cumulatively
met. Yet academic debate continues as to whether the requirement
that piratical acts be committed ‘for private ends’ excludes politically
motivated non-state actors. This article attempts to resolve the dispute
through a thorough analysis of the term ‘private ends’. An application
of the rules of treaty interpretation is followed by an in-depth examination
of ‘private ends’ historical development. State practice is examined
in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities found. Finally the rationale of
universal jurisdiction underlying the definition of piracy is explored, in
order to answer whether such actors should be excluded. This article
argues that a purely political ends exception developed, but its application
beyond insurgents was never resolved. Limited state practice has
ensured such ambiguity survived. Nevertheless given the objective of
providing discretionary universal jurisdiction over violence and depredation
between vessels at sea, violent actors should not be excluded
solely upon their political motivations. Instead the limited (but growing)
precedents of equating ‘private ends’ to a lack of state sanctioning should
be followed.