This document provides an overview of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA) Convention of 1988 and how it relates to piracy. It discusses key events that led to the development of the SUA Convention, including the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro passenger ship. It explains the objectives and definitions of "offences" under the SUA Convention, which include endangering a vessel's navigation through acts of violence. While piracy under UNCLOS requires attacks between private vessels for private ends, SUA Convention offences do not have the same restrictions. The document argues India's Anti-Maritime Piracy Bill of 2019 could have been improved by also addressing SUA Convention offences, rather than

1. Suppression of Unlawful
Acts (SUA) Convention;
1988
& Piracy in Indian Context
By
Capt. SAUJANYA SINHA;
MSc (WMU), MCMMI, MNI
1

2. Layout of Presentation
1. Brief narration of ACHILLE
LAURO Incident of 1985 - led to
development of SUA
Convention in 1988 - came into
force on 1st March 1992;
2. Objectives of The SUA
Convention with focus on
concept of “Offence”;
2

3. Layout of Presentation
3. What is “Piracy” under UNCLOS
1982?
4. Why “Offence” under SUA
Convention does NOT
constitute PIRACY under
UNCLOS 1982?
3

4. Layout of Presentation
5. India is a party to the SUA
Convention 1988;
6. The Indian Context – Anti-
Maritime Piracy Bill; December
2019 – A Definite Way Ahead
BUT More Could Have been
Included!
4

5. ACHILLE LAURO Incident
i. Year – 1985;
ii. Uniqueness of the passenger
ship;
iii.Where was it hijacked; By whom
& What was the ransom?
iv.What were the issues in
international law that prevented
prosecution? 5

6. SUA Convention 1988 -
Objective
i. Mechanism for cooperation
among countries for
preventing/handling of terrorist
activities involving a ship;
ii. The focus of SUA Convention is
on the definition & concept of
OFFENCE;
6

7. SUA Convention 1988 –
OFFENCE
It’s an offence if the Navigation of
the vessel is Endangered due to
any of the following reasons:
i. Causing harm/death of a person
on-board;
ii. Causing damage to ship or
cargo;
7

8. SUA Convention 1988 –
OFFENCE
It’s an offence if the Navigation of
the vessel is Endangered due to
any of the following reasons:
iii. Deliberately causing damage to
navigational aids ashore;
iv. Communication of false
information. 8

9. Endangering Navigation
of Vessel in
Commission of Offence?
i. It’s endangered when the
Master is Under Duress;
ii. Under Duress - due to
circumstantial reasons, powers
of person in-charge are taken
away & thus the person is
unable to execute his/her9

10. Endangering Navigation
of Vessel in
Commission of Offence?
iii. Master’s powers to execute
Passage of ship under his
command - If powers are taken
away where Master is UNABLE
to execute the Passage; Master
would said to be UNDER
DURESS. 10

11. Endangering Navigation
of Vessel in
Commission of Offence?
 EXAMPLE - If Master is
threatened with life of a
crewmember & asked to divert
the ship - Master is put under
duress thereby endangering the
navigation of ship – WHY? 11

12. Endangering Navigation of
V/L in Commission of
Offence?
 Because Master is ONLY
behaving like a human-being &
trying to save the life of a fellow
human-being thus SUA
Convention becomes applicable.
12

13. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
Countries party to SUA
Convention are required to do the
following:
i. Amend their national law to
make provisions to punish
offenders who have committed
an “offence” beyond the
13

14. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
ii. Use all available means to
capture the offenders &
conduct an immediate inquiry
into the incidence;
iii. If applicable, punish the
“offender” as per its amended
national law; 14

15. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
iv. If applicable, hand-over
offenders to another country if
offence is directed towards that
country; OR flag State; OR
country of the offenders’
nationality.
15

16. SUA Convention 1988 –
OBJECTIVES
IMPORTANT – SUA Convention
does not require countries to have
Extradition Treaty between them
for offenders to be handed over.
16

17. SUA Protocol of 1995
Entry into force - 28th July 2010;
Protocol EXPANDS definition of
“Offence”:
i. It’s an offence if a vessel is
involved in illegal carriage of
Biological, Chemical, Nuclear
(BCN) material or weapons;
17

18. SUA Protocol of 1995
ii. To have on-board persons who
have committed an offence in
past/are likely to be involved
in an offence in future;
iii. Powers to countries to STOP &
BOARD a passing ship if
reasons to believe of
commission/likely to be
18

19. SUA Protocol of 1995
VERY IMPORTANT: It’s NOT an
OFFENCE if a ship is transporting
nuclear material from a country
that is party to Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) to another country
that is also party to NPT.
19

20. SUA Protocol of 1995
 Since, INDIA is not a party to
NPT, therefore India is NOT a
PARTY to SUA Protocol of 1995;
 INDIA is only party to the SUA
Convention 1988 & NOT to SUA
Protocol of 1995.
20

21. PIRACY – Art. 101 of
UNCLOS 1982
a. “...An illegal act of violence,
detention or depredation;
b. In International Waters & on the
High Seas;
c. Committed for private ends, and
d. By a private vessel against
another vessel...”
21

22. PIRACY – What does it Mean
In Context of “Offence”?
i. Piracy is for "private ends”;
ii. It means an act committed for
"political" motives cannot be
piracy;
iii. Therefore, Terrorism cannot be
piracy because it is politically
motivated.
22

23. PIRACY – What does it Mean
In Context of “Offence”?
iv. “Two-Vessel Rule” - Piracy must
be committed by one private
vessel against another vessel;
v. This requirement excludes
“Offence” (internal hijacking)
committed solely aboard one
ship & is thus NOT Piracy.
23

24. PIRACY – Art. 101 of
UNCLOS 1982
vi. Where evidence of piracy is
discovered, the State vessel
may seize the suspect vessel,
arrest persons & subject them
to jurisdiction of that State's
courts;
vii. Does not require consent of
flag State of the vessel seized. 24

25. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
If an Indian Navy ship captures
Somali pirates in International
Waters in act of attacking a
Panamanian flagged merchant
ship crewed by Indian & Philippine
nationals - questions of
jurisdiction/applicable law will be
unclear & complex - NOT THE
25

26. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
i. Any State in the world may
exercise universal jurisdiction to
prosecute any pirate
irrespective of any "nexus"
between that prosecuting State,
the pirate, the victims or the
vessel attacked;
26

27. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
ii. Such a prosecution will occur
under Universal Jurisdiction of
the prosecuting State's own
national law;
27

28. Piracy –
Misconception/Misnomer!
iii. Unlike some other international
crimes, law of piracy does not
absolutely require States to
have adequate national law to
conduct prosecutions – NOT
NECESSARY BUT SHOULD HAVE
had ELEMENTS OF SUA
Convention. 28

29. Relationship between
Piracy (UNCLOS)
& Offence (SUA Convention)
i. SUA Convention does not
cover crime of piracy & its
offences are not within the
same boundaries with crime of
piracy under UNCLOS.
29

30. Relationship between
Piracy (UNCLOS)
& Offence (SUA Convention)
ii. Piracy is restricted by the
"Two-Vessels Rule" (which
excludes internal hijackings) &
by "Private Ends" requirement;
iii. SUA Convention –
comprehensive to avoid any
such restrictions; 30

31. Points MISSED OUT in
Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
Piracy commonly committed off
Somalia INVOLVES BOTH - attack
from one vessel against another
AND acts of violence intended to
seize control of a ship.
31

32. Points MISSED OUT in
Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
1. Such acts can clearly constitute
both piracy & offence under
the SUA Convention - The
Indian Bill LIMITS to acts of
piracy alone;
32

33. Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
2. Piracy - duty to cooperate in
suppression of piracy, but NOT
a necessary REQUIREMENT to
prosecute;
Whereas…
33

34. Points MISSED OUT in
Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
2. Offence - express obligations
upon State to have national
laws to prosecute/extradite
suspects irrespective of where
offence was committed - The
Indian Bill LIMITS to acts of
piracy alone; 34

35. Indian Anti-Maritime Piracy
Bill
3. The Bill restricts Court
jurisdiction & not applicable
over offences committed on a
foreign ship, unless an
intervention is requested – Had
the Indian Bill included
Offence; it would have
INCLUDED this aspect as well. 35

36. THANK YOU
36