Changes from the ILC Draft included the addition of aircraft to the definition of
piracy and the expansion of seizures to include “other ships or aircraft on government service authorized to that effect.”
25
The 1958 Convention, as the climax of the League of Nations, Harvard draft, and
ILC draft, represents the first multilateral convention to coherently deal with the
topic of piracy, a new approach. Unfortunately, continuing problems with defining
the crime and the generally-opposed positions of the Soviet Bloc and Free World
states served to limit the success of this treaty and foreshadowed the problems of
future multilateral agreements on the topic.
2.4 The Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982)
Piracy was not one of the areas stimulating major debate during the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Most of changes from the 1958
Convention on the High Seas therefore resulted from jurisdictional shifts created
elsewhere in the treaty. The greatest difference between the two conventions lies in
the geographic area covered; the advance in national jurisdictions in the 1982
document means that a smaller area is governed by the Convention than by its
1958 counterpart.
26 (Rubin notes only one other significant change, requiring “other
ships or aircraft” allowed to seize a pirate to be “clearly marked and identifiable as
being on government service and authorized to that effect.”)
27
It is hard to know whether the lack of revision in the 1982 Convention was due to
general satisfaction with the 1958 regime, a decision to reserve fire for other
conflicts, or a realization that the “nationalization” of major areas of the sea, in
which many such attacks had occurred, automatically reduced the importance of the
issue. The Soviet Bloc-Free World split of the 1958 Convention had been partially
superceded by the growing influence of the Third World, but it is perhaps most
useful to view the provisions in toto as a stealthy victory for coastal States. While the
1982 Convention does not appear to represent much of a change on piracy, in reality
it represents a major transfer of responsibility, and as such, an implicit check on the
budding internationalism of the Convention on the High Seas.
25 Id., at 28–29.
26 See Menefee (1995), pp. 31–35; Menefee (2009).
27 Rubin (1998), p. 372.
552
S. P. Menefee
piracy and the expansion of seizures to include “other ships or aircraft on government service authorized to that effect.”
25
The 1958 Convention, as the climax of the League of Nations, Harvard draft, and
ILC draft, represents the first multilateral convention to coherently deal with the
topic of piracy, a new approach. Unfortunately, continuing problems with defining
the crime and the generally-opposed positions of the Soviet Bloc and Free World
states served to limit the success of this treaty and foreshadowed the problems of
future multilateral agreements on the topic.
2.4 The Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982)
Piracy was not one of the areas stimulating major debate during the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Most of changes from the 1958
Convention on the High Seas therefore resulted from jurisdictional shifts created
elsewhere in the treaty. The greatest difference between the two conventions lies in
the geographic area covered; the advance in national jurisdictions in the 1982
document means that a smaller area is governed by the Convention than by its
1958 counterpart.
26 (Rubin notes only one other significant change, requiring “other
ships or aircraft” allowed to seize a pirate to be “clearly marked and identifiable as
being on government service and authorized to that effect.”)
27
It is hard to know whether the lack of revision in the 1982 Convention was due to
general satisfaction with the 1958 regime, a decision to reserve fire for other
conflicts, or a realization that the “nationalization” of major areas of the sea, in
which many such attacks had occurred, automatically reduced the importance of the
issue. The Soviet Bloc-Free World split of the 1958 Convention had been partially
superceded by the growing influence of the Third World, but it is perhaps most
useful to view the provisions in toto as a stealthy victory for coastal States. While the
1982 Convention does not appear to represent much of a change on piracy, in reality
it represents a major transfer of responsibility, and as such, an implicit check on the
budding internationalism of the Convention on the High Seas.
25 Id., at 28–29.
26 See Menefee (1995), pp. 31–35; Menefee (2009).
27 Rubin (1998), p. 372.
552
S. P. Menefee