[i]n addition to piracy by the law of nations, States have occasionally, by treaty or in their
internal law, established a piracy by analogy which has no claim to be universally recognized
and must not be confused with true piracy; the assimilation in question can only create a sort
of piracy under internal law and from the point of view of the countries which make them.
The acts dealt with are of a grave nature, it is true, but they do not constitute a danger to the
shipping and commerce of all nations indiscriminately . . . on the international point of view,
the acts come within the competence only of the country in which they are punishable. No
country making a capture can cite them as the basis of a claim to international competence
nor can they justify actual capture by a foreign State, unless there is a convention which
expressly provides otherwise.
8
The subcommittee consisted of only a Japanese and a Chinese member,
suggesting that contemporary piracy was viewed as being a regional (east Asian)
problem.
9 Nonetheless, a report was delivered to the Committee in January of 1926,
which was amended and circulated to governments for comment.
[T]he eight articles of the ‘Draft Provisions for the Suppression of Piracy’ . . . reflect the
assumption that there is a single conception of ‘piracy’ in the international legal order
reflecting a stable natural law . . . .” Despite responses by several governments, doubts
arose as to whether piracy was a pressing issue. The topic was not mentioned in the League’s
resolution of 27 September 1927 dealing with the Codification Conference “and nothing
more came of . . . [the] Report or the documentation it provoked.
10
At the same time, the League’s initiative,
prompted the faculty of the Harvard Law School to organize its own research effort to
contribute to the Codification Conference . . . . The result . . . was a full draft Convention of
19 articles . . . . [T]he drafters of the Convention regarded it as not merely codifying, but also
as blending the international law of ‘piracy’ into the system of legal relationships that they
believed applied in the world of their time . . . [I]ts function, [was] as an aid to the attempts of
the time to ‘codify’ the rules of international law as they ought to exist rather than as they
could be shown to exist by an examination of theory and past practice.
11
While it has been noted that the Harvard draft “must be evaluated on its own
merits as a legislative proposal, and cannot be supported as a reflection of a scholarly
analysis of precedent and theory,”
12 the Draft deserves recognition for its seminal
role in the post-war work of the International Law Commission.”
13 While not the
first draft codes dealing with piracy, the League of Nations’ and more particularly,
the Harvard draft initiatives showcase the problems of creating and molding international anti-piracy agreements and the tension between existing international norms
on the subject and the need/desire to deal with emerging problems and activities.
8 Report of the Sub-Committee of the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive
Codification of International Law, League of Nations, Doc. C. 196 M. 70 1927V at 118–119 (1927),
quoted in Joyner (1974), p. 64; Menefee (1987), p. 197.
9 See Menefee (1995), p. 7.
10 Id.
11 Rubin (1988), pp. 306–309.
12 Id., at 313.
13 Menefee (1995), p. 7.
A Century of Piracy Treaties: An Overview for the Future
549
internal law, established a piracy by analogy which has no claim to be universally recognized
and must not be confused with true piracy; the assimilation in question can only create a sort
of piracy under internal law and from the point of view of the countries which make them.
The acts dealt with are of a grave nature, it is true, but they do not constitute a danger to the
shipping and commerce of all nations indiscriminately . . . on the international point of view,
the acts come within the competence only of the country in which they are punishable. No
country making a capture can cite them as the basis of a claim to international competence
nor can they justify actual capture by a foreign State, unless there is a convention which
expressly provides otherwise.
8
The subcommittee consisted of only a Japanese and a Chinese member,
suggesting that contemporary piracy was viewed as being a regional (east Asian)
problem.
9 Nonetheless, a report was delivered to the Committee in January of 1926,
which was amended and circulated to governments for comment.
[T]he eight articles of the ‘Draft Provisions for the Suppression of Piracy’ . . . reflect the
assumption that there is a single conception of ‘piracy’ in the international legal order
reflecting a stable natural law . . . .” Despite responses by several governments, doubts
arose as to whether piracy was a pressing issue. The topic was not mentioned in the League’s
resolution of 27 September 1927 dealing with the Codification Conference “and nothing
more came of . . . [the] Report or the documentation it provoked.
10
At the same time, the League’s initiative,
prompted the faculty of the Harvard Law School to organize its own research effort to
contribute to the Codification Conference . . . . The result . . . was a full draft Convention of
19 articles . . . . [T]he drafters of the Convention regarded it as not merely codifying, but also
as blending the international law of ‘piracy’ into the system of legal relationships that they
believed applied in the world of their time . . . [I]ts function, [was] as an aid to the attempts of
the time to ‘codify’ the rules of international law as they ought to exist rather than as they
could be shown to exist by an examination of theory and past practice.
11
While it has been noted that the Harvard draft “must be evaluated on its own
merits as a legislative proposal, and cannot be supported as a reflection of a scholarly
analysis of precedent and theory,”
12 the Draft deserves recognition for its seminal
role in the post-war work of the International Law Commission.”
13 While not the
first draft codes dealing with piracy, the League of Nations’ and more particularly,
the Harvard draft initiatives showcase the problems of creating and molding international anti-piracy agreements and the tension between existing international norms
on the subject and the need/desire to deal with emerging problems and activities.
8 Report of the Sub-Committee of the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive
Codification of International Law, League of Nations, Doc. C. 196 M. 70 1927V at 118–119 (1927),
quoted in Joyner (1974), p. 64; Menefee (1987), p. 197.
9 See Menefee (1995), p. 7.
10 Id.
11 Rubin (1988), pp. 306–309.
12 Id., at 313.
13 Menefee (1995), p. 7.
A Century of Piracy Treaties: An Overview for the Future
549