Issues in prosecuting piracy

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Milena Sterio, author of a forthcoming article on maritime piracy, who contributes this guest post)

After last week in the Seychelles, where, as posted, I attended meetings with the Seychelles’ Attorney General and Supreme Court judges, I am back in the United States. I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on some of the legal issues related to Somali piracy and prosecutions in the national courts of the Seychelles.

Jurisdiction
For any nation interested in prosecuting Somali pirates, the threshold issue is jurisdiction. In other words, if a country wants to prosecute pirates, it must amend and expand its jurisdictional statute to allow for such prosecution on the broadest possible basis.
The Seychelles (flag above) has thus revised its national law to allow for the prosecution of pirates captured on the high seas. This type of universal jurisdiction allows countries like the Seychelles to prosecute acts of piracy to which they have no nexus. (Such issues also have been discussed in prior IntLawGrrls posts, available here.)
Many countries, including the Seychelles before the recent revision, have jurisdictional statutes that allow for pirate prosecutions only if the act of piracy is committed in that country’s territorial sea, extending 12 nautical miles from the country’s shore. Thus, acts of piracy committed outside of such countries’ territorial sea cannot be prosecuted in those countries’ national courts because of a basic jurisdictional shortcoming.
Mauritius, another island nation in the Indian Ocean and another potential partner in the global fight against Somali piracy, has also started to consider expanding its jurisdictional statute to allow for national prosecutions of Somali pirates. It is unclear, however, how Mauritius will revise its statute. Some reports indicate that Mauritius’ law will only allow for prosecutions of piracy acts committed in the Mauritius exclusive economic zone, a stretch of sea extending 200 nautical miles from the country’s shore. This kind of a revision would seriously limit Mauritius’ ability to prosecute Somali pirates, as acts committed on the high seas would be excluded from Mauritius’ jurisdictional reach.
In the Seychelles, it appears that jurisdiction will not pose problems, in light of the new universal jurisdiction statute that this country passed.
One issue that remains unclear is whether the Seychelles’ government will demonstrate an ongoing political willingness to support piracy prosecutions on a true universal jurisdiction model. In fact, despite the mentioned universal jurisdiction statute, the Seychelles’ authorities may prove unwilling for policy reasons to extend their courts to prosecutions of Somali pirates who have not threatened the Seychelles’ national interests in any way.
Another possible mode of jurisdiction that countries like the Seychelles may adopt in the future is the protective principle – a type of jurisdiction that allows for prosecutions of acts which threaten the national interests of the prosecuting country. While traditionally this mode of jurisdiction has been used to prosecute offenses such as treason, immigration violations, and the counterfeiting of national flags, currency, and emblems, it is possible that acts of piracy could be conceived of as violating the national interests of certain countries and thus prosecuted under this model of jurisdiction.
The advantage of using the protective principle may be in the fact that it could allow for the prosecution of acts committed in preparation of piracy – acts that do not qualify as piracy itself.
Acts that do not constitute piracy, yet nonetheless may constitute presumptive offenses, include sailing on a skiff with a boarding ladder and weapons. For this type of preparatory act, universal jurisdiction is of no help, because universal jurisdiction statutes only cover true acts of piracy and do not extend to planning and preparatory offenses. Protective principle jurisdiction, on the other hand, could be used to cover these kinds of crimes; a country like the Seychelles may successfully make the argument that the planning of a piratical act could threaten its national interests, for the reason that the act of piracy, even if committed on the high seas, could be harmful if it can be shown that pirates were about to target the country's vessels or nationals or enter its exclusive economic zone.
Using a combination of universal jurisdiction to cover true acts of piracy, with the protective principle to cover preparatory offenses, would enable countries like the Seychelles to prosecute the maximum number of piracy-related violations occurring on the high seas.

Cooperation agreements
The next issue related to the prosecution of pirates for a country like the Seychelles is the ability to prosecute Somali pirates who are detained by the naval authorities of another country. Here, the Kenya model of transfer agreements or memorandums of understanding, which I discussed in my last post, proves useful.
The Seychelles, like Kenya (flag at right), has thus concluded transfer agreements with the European Union and the United Kingdom, pursuant to which Seychelles has accepted to prosecute Somali pirates detained by the EU or UK forces on the high seas.
The Seychelles’ Attorney General informed our delegation last week that eleven successful piracy trials had already taken place in the Seychelles’ courts; in all these cases the pirates had been detained by the European Union/British forces and transferred to the Seychelles.
The pirates have been prosecuted for the offense of piracy existing under the Seychelles’ domestic criminal law.
Moreover, pirates have been prosecuted under the theory of “common intention,” a mode of joint criminal liability which allows for combined prosecutions of all pirates involved in a single piracy incident. This has enabled the Attorney General to prosecute pirates in groups of ten or eleven, as well as to charge all those involved in a piracy incident with the same offenses, irrespective of their role in the incident itself. Thus, the prosecutors in these cases did not have to prove what exact role each pirate played in the piracy incident. Rather, each pirate was charged with the act of piracy itself, and each pirate would potentially be imposed the same criminal sentence. According to the Attorney General, convicted pirates have received sentences ranging from five to twelve years of imprisonment, and several other pirates are currently detained and awaiting trial.

Conditions of confinement
The next issue that countries like the Seychelles face is prison capacity and the adequacy of detainment conditions.
The Seychelles and Kenya both have benefited from financial assistance, from major maritime nations as well as the United Nations. Thus, in the Seychelles a new prison wing has been built; this wing is “reserved” for the detention of Somali pirates and arguably coincides with international detention standards.
This in turn will preempt non-refoulement, the human rights principle that prevents states parties to major human rights treaties from transferring pirates to any place where pirates would be likely mistreated. In fact, the Seychelles has clearly demonstrated that its prosecutions are fair and neutral, and that pirates are detained pre- and post-trial in humane conditions. Capturing nations should not face non-refoulement type issues when deciding whether to transfer detained Somali pirates to the Seychelles’ authorities.

After detention
Finally, countries like the Seychelles may be faced with post-detention issues – in other words, once Somali pirates have finished serving their sentences, they may choose to apply for political asylum in the Seychelles. While nobody should be blamed for wanting to live in this tropical haven, it is reasonable for the Seychelles’ authorities to question the need to extend their country’s protection to individuals who have committed heinous offenses such as piracy. It is one thing to detain Somali pirates for a set number of years, it is quite another to offer them political asylum and the possibility to freely live in the Seychelles forever. I would be loath to discourage countries like the Seychelles from prosecuting Somali pirates, but post-detention issues remain a complex issue that the Seychelles’ authorities may have to ponder in the near future.

I look forward to blogging about Somali piracy in the future, and hope that other countries, like Mauritius (flag at left), will follow in the footsteps of the Seychelles and seriously consider opening their courthouse doors to piracy prosecutions.

In Seychelles, in pursuit of pirates

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this guest post)

VICTORIA – Greetings from the Seychelles!
Along with Professor Michael Scharf of Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Sandra Hodgkinson, Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow at National Defense University, this week I have been engaged in meetings with the Seychelles’ Attorney General and members of the judiciary about the ongoing Somali pirate prosecutions in the Seychelles’ courts.
Mike, Sandy, and I form a delegation representing the Public International Law & Policy Group, a Washington, D.C.-based global pro bono organization. (pictured below, Sandy, left, and I outside The Pirate Arms)
PILPG recently began work in the area of Somali piracy, through the creation of its Piracy Working Group. Mike, Sandy, and I, along with a number of other distinguished academics, practitioners, and conflict resolution experts, are all members of a High-Level Expert Group, and we have traveled to the Seychelles with a two-fold mission:
► First, we have presented the Seychelles’ Attorney General, Ronny Govinden, with copies of eighteen legal memoranda, addressing various legal issues related to Somali piracy.
The memoranda have been written by law firm associates and law students who work for law firms and legal institutions which form the Expert Group’s consortium of academic partners. In fact, since its inception in May 2011, the Expert Group has identified pertinent legal issues related to Somali piracy, and has outsourced the research and writing of legal memoranda on such topics to our law firm and academic partners.
Thus, here in the Seychelles, we have officially entrusted this tiny nation’s prosecutors with the fruit of our research. It is our hope that the legal memoranda will prove useful in the short future, as several Somali pirates already have been prosecuted, and additional pirates are awaiting trial in the Seychelles’ domestic courts.
The legal topics covered by the memoranda range widely – from basic issues, such as the applicability of 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and customary law to piracy incidents off the coast of Somalia, to more specialized discussions on, for example, relevant international regimes related to the freezing both of piracy financiers' assets and of financial gains derived from piracy.
► Second, we reached an oral agreement with the Attorney General through which his office will establish a long-term cooperation and collaboration relationship with PILPG. Mainly, the Attorney General’s office will continue to request legal memoranda from PILPG on various piracy topics, as they arise in future prosecutions.
The Attorney General was able to identify several new topics of interest during our meeting, and he was very enthusiastic about the prospect of future collaboration, which would tremendously strengthen ongoing piracy prosecutions. The Attorney General’s office has a small staff and limited resources; thus, any research assistance by PILPG will be immensely valuable toward supporting piracy prosecution.
It is becoming obvious that the Seychelles’ government is a key player in the global fight against Somali piracy, and that Seychelles’ national courts are an appropriate venue for pirate prosecutions.
Until recently, as discussed in prior IntLawGrrls posts on piracy available here, captured Somali pirates were routinely released because of a lack of viable prosecution options. Major maritime nations which patrol the Gulf of Aden and other waters in the Indian Ocean seem uninterested in prosecuting captured Somali pirates, in their domestic courts, on a true universal jurisdiction model. Piracy prosecutions are logistically difficult, politically unpopular, financially costly, and may even ultimately result in the prosecuting country’s obligation to grant pirates political asylum upon the completion of their prison sentence. Thus, unless national interests of such maritime nations are directly threatened by a piracy incident, major maritime powers are generally not prone to setting up domestic piracy trials.
Over the last few years, Kenya has been identified as a stable regional partner, capable of conducting fair pirate prosecutions in a specialized domestic court in Mombasa. Thus, several countries concluded transfer agreements with Kenya, whereby Kenya would prosecute Somali pirates upon their transfer by the capturing state to Kenyan authorities. Alas, Kenya seems ambivalent about the prospect of accepting more Somali pirates in the future – the Kenyan authorities have indicated that they no longer wish to participate in such transfer programs. While more than a hundred Somali pirates await trial in Mombasa, Kenyan authorities suggested that no additional pirates will be transferred to Kenya in the future. While there are reports that Kenya may revert to its original position of willingness to prosecute pirates, nobody is certain as to what the Kenyan government will ultimately decide.
Hence the need to identify another stable regional partner, like the Seychelles.
The Seychelles are a group of relatively small islands in the Indian Ocean. (map credit) While not in direct proximity of Somalia, the Seychelles have nonetheless been negatively influenced by the development of piracy in this region. Pirate attacks have intensified and proliferated geographically, and Somali pirates have attacked boats and yachts sailing close to the Seychelles’ waters.
Moreover, the Seychelles derive most of their national revenue from tourism. (Pictured at right, a 100-year-old sea turtle at a Seychelles sanctuary; they used to be everywhere but today most live in captivity (sadly).) Any criminal activity taking place close to the Seychelles, like Somali pirate attacks, has the potential to deter tourists attracted to the Seychelles’ beaches and pristine turquoise waters and to thus undermine the development of tourism in this otherwise isolated region of the world. Thus, it will be in the interests of the Seychelles’ government to drastically reduce the number of pirate attacks in these waters.
Prosecutions in the Seychelles’ courts, pursuant to transfer agreements like those that have been in place in Kenya, constitute an important step in ensuring that pirate attacks do not go unpunished.
The Seychelles’ Attorney General confirmed to us the existence of transfer agreements between the Seychelles and the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom. Pursuant to these transfer agreements, the Seychelles has accepted pirates detained by the EU or UK forces on the high seas. Eleven successful piracy trials have already taken place, and 51 pirates have been convicted in the Seychelles’ courts. Several other pirates are currently detained and awaiting trial.
Finally, we ended our visit with a meeting with two members of the Seychelles’ judiciary. One of these two judges, Seychelles Supreme Court Justice Duncan Gaswaga, head of that Court's Criminal Division, has presided over several piracy trials, and was kind enough to show us two courtrooms which are currently being used for piracy prosecutions. (at left, front of Supreme Court, among the oldest buildings on Mahé, the Seychelles' largest island, on which is located the capital, Victoria; and Mike Scharf and I at the Court)
We explored the possibility of future assistance by PILPG to the Seychelles’ judiciary, in the form of amicus briefs or other research memoranda useful to support judges in their efforts to preside over piracy trials.
The trip was successful, and it will be my pleasure to report more on the topic of Somali piracy upon my return to the United States.

Report from U.N. meeting on Somali piracy

On September 17-18, 2012, I had the opportunity to attend the 11th meeting of the U.N. Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, Working Group 2, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Professor Michael Scharf of Case Western Reserve University Law School and I, in our capacity as independent academics as well as members of the Public International Law and Policy Group, Piracy Working Group, were invited to give a presentation at the Working Group 2 meeting. (We're pictured above left, and below with Ambassador Thomas Winkler, the Chair of Working Group 2.)
Our topic was juvenile pirates – the treatment of detained juvenile pirates by the capturing and/or prosecuting state, as well as the need to aggressively detain and prosecute those who recruit juvenile pirates. Our brief presentation was followed by an intense question-and-answer session, during which we attempted to answer many provocative inquiries addressed at us by the delegations of more than 50 states represented at this meeting.
It was our recommendation that juvenile pirates should not be caught and released, but that instead they should be prosecuted under special circumstances, taking into account their age as well as the possibility to retrain, re-educate and rehabilitate them.  If juvenile pirates are released, they should not be simply "dumped" on the shore of Somalia; instead, every effort should be made to contact their family members for the purpose of reuniting them.
It was also our recommendation that those who affirmatively recruit juvenile pirates should be treated more harshly: for example, that the use of juvenile pirates would be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Another innovative approach would be to argue that the use of juvenile pirates is a crime against humanity, citing international criminal tribunal precedents in which the accused were convicted of of child-soldier recruitment.
In addition to our presentation on the issue of juvenile pirates, Working Group 2 members discussed several other important topics. The meeting started with updates by member states on any developments regarding their own experiences in combating Somali piracy in the last six months. Some such notable developments include:
►the first-ever post-conviction transfer of Somali pirates, convicted in the national courts of the Seychelles, to Somaliland, where they will serve their entire sentences;
►the first-ever extradition of detained pirates from the Seychelles to the Netherlands for the purposes of prosecution in the Netherlands;
►the signing of transfer agreements between Mauritius and several maritime nations, whereby Somali pirates captured by the latter will be transferred to Mauritius for prosecution in this country’s national courts;
►the update by Kenya that a long-awaited appellate judgment, which could effectively restart piracy trials in Mombasa, will be rendered at the end of September.
Working Group 2 members then discussed various human rights considerations linked to the detention and possible prosecution of suspected Somali pirates.

Mauritius: Forum for Somali piracy prosecutions

Greetings from Mauritius, a small island nation in the south of the Indian Ocean, where Professor Michael Scharf and I have traveled to meet with various government officials regarding Somali piracy issues (pictured left).
Mauritius is about to start prosecuting Somali pirates in its national courts, pursuant to transfer agreements which it has signed with the United Kingdom and the European Union. Under the terms of these agreements, alleged Somali pirates detained by maritime fleets of the United Kingdom or countries in the European Union can be transferred to Mauritius, where they can be prosecuted in Mauritian courts under Mauritian law.
Kenya and the Seychelles have similar transfer agreements in place and have successful prosecuted dozens of Somali pirates. Mauritius joined this “club” of piracy-prosecuting nations earlier this year, and although no actual transfers of suspected pirates have actually taken place as of today, many in the international community are eagerly awaiting the start of prosecutions in this new venue.
Professor Scharf and I have previously engaged in various projects related to Somali piracy about which I have previously posted. The visit to Mauritius is a continuation of these projects: we are here both as representatives of the Piracy Working Group, an expert group within the auspices of the Public International Law and Policy Group, a Washington D.C.-based NGO, and as independent academics and representatives of our respective institutions, Case Western Law School and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
One of our goals is to advise the Mauritian government on best strategies regarding various aspects of piracy prosecutions. Toward that end, we delivered a presentation at the Deputy of Public Prosecutions’ office, to an audience consisting of prosecutors, judges, practicing attorneys, and other government officials, on the issue of juvenile pirates. It was our recommendation that Mauritius should not shy away from prosecuting juvenile pirates, but that instead, it should put in place an appropriate mechanism under which juveniles can be prosecuted in separate proceedings, detained separately from the adult prison population, and accorded educational opportunities in order to properly rehabilitate them. It was also our recommendation that those who recruit juvenile pirates should be treated more harshly, and that the recruitment and use of juvenile pirates should be an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Another goal in Mauritius is to establish a working relationship with the prosecutor’s office, whereby Mauritian prosecutors will be able to commission legal memoranda on challenging legal issues which may arise in connection with future piracy prosecutions from the Piracy Working Group. Various members of the Piracy Working Group, including Professor Scharf’s and my own students at our law schools, have already produced such memoranda for the Kenyan and Seychellois prosecutors. It is our hope that in the future members of the Piracy Working Group will be able to assist Mauritian prosecutors in a similar manner.
We anticipate that Mauritian prosecutors will face very difficult legal issues once they open their courtroom doors to Somali pirates. Some such issues, in addition to the treatment of juvenile pirates mentioned above, include the possibility of expanding jurisdiction to cover preparatory acts falling short of traditional notions of piracy, the question of whether the prosecuting forum should be divested of jurisdiction if the detained suspected pirates were mistreated by the arresting nation, whether Mauritius can use any extradition treaties in addition to its existing transfer agreements to acquire jurisdiction over suspected pirates, the issue of respecting the suspected pirates’ right to a speedy trial, as well as the question of long-term incarceration for any convicted pirates and whether Mauritian prisons have the adequate capacity if pirates are to serve lengthy sentences in Mauritius.
Our other meetings over the next few days in Mauritius include a visit at the U.S. Embassy in Port Louis, the capital city, a working session with the Attorney General, a visit to the University of Mauritius Law School, as well as a conversation with the Mauritian police forces, whose role may prove to be of vast importance once Mauritian authorities began to handle detained pirates. I will be happy to report on these future meetings upon my return home.

Kenya Again Has Universal Jurisdiction Over Piracy

The Kenyan Court of Appeal in Nairobi has overturned the Mombasa High Court judgment of November 9, 2010, in which Judge M.K. Ibrahim had ruled that Kenyan courts did not have jurisdiction to prosecute anybody for the crime of piracy, unless the crime took place in Kenyan territorial waters.
In the case of In re Mohamud Mohammed Hashi, et al., decided on October 18, 2012, the Court of Appeal determined that Kenyan courts would once again have universal jurisdiction over the crime of piracy.
As yours truly and many others have written before, Kenya had concluded a series of transfer agreements with maritime nations, whereby Somali pirates captured by such maritime nations would be transferred to Kenya, for prosecution in the Kenyan magistrate-level courts. The Mombasa High Court’s 2010 judgment signaled the end of the Kenyan transfer program, because of its holding that only territorial piracy crimes could be prosecuted in the Kenyan courts (for an excellent analysis of this judgment, see this post). Most instances of Somali piracy take place on the high seas, and as such, none would have been eligible for prosecution in the Kenyan courts under the magistrate court ruling.
After the November 9, 2010, ruling, the international community reacted with both concern and pragmatism.
Attempts were made at the diplomatic level to persuade the Kenyan authorities to resume prosecutions. In addition, two new regional partners were identified: the Seychelles and Mauritius both concluded similar transfer agreements with major maritime nations, whereby these two nations agreed to prosecute captured Somali pirates in their national courts.
Facing pressure by the international community, as well as the prospect of losing the transfer model exclusivity, Kenya responded by establishing a special appellate jurisdiction in which the November 9, 2010, ruling would be challenged. The appellate panel was composed of five justices, who, after almost a 2-year delay, unanimously determined that the 2010 ruling would be overturned.
The appellate judgment should result in the restart of the Kenyan transfer program, and in the resumption of ongoing piracy trials in the Mombasa courts, which had all been halted pending this appeal.

Justice David K. Maraga

The Court of Appeals judgment was delivered by Justice David K. Maraga. Justice Maraga determined that the Mombasa High Court had misinterpreted Kenyan law, by subordinating a specialized substantive section on piracy to a more general section on jurisdiction.
In addition, Justice Maraga decided that the lower court had failed to appreciate the applicability of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction.  He wrote that

'the offence of piracy on the coast of Somalia, which we are dealing with in this appeal, is of great concern to the international community as it has affected the economic activities and thus the economic well being of many countries including Kenya. All States, not necessarily those affected by it, have therefore a right to exercise universal jurisdiction to punish the offence.'

It seems that, according to Justice Maraga, Somali piracy constitutes a global threat, and that courts of all nations, including Kenya, should be able to prosecute the crime of piracy under the concept of universal jurisdiction.
The re-opening of Kenyan courtrooms for the prosecution of Somali pirates is a welcome development in the global fight against Somali piracy.

Guest Blogger: Milena Sterio

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Milena Sterio (right) as today's guest blogger.
Milena's an Associate Professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in Ohio, where she teaches International Law, International War Crimes, Commercial Law, and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Her personal blog, as well as her publications, reflect those interests. Among those most recent is a 2010 article on "Fighting Piracy in Somalia" -- the subject as well of her guest post below, written from the Seychelles, an island state in the Indian Ocean.
Milena holds a bachelor's degree summa cum laude in French literature/Political Science from Rutgers College, New Brunswick, master's cum laude in French-American law and in private international law from Université Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne), and a J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell Law School, where she served as general editor of the Cornell International Law Journal. After graduation, she was an Adjunct Law Professor at Cornell, teaching in its International War Crimes Clinic. Milena practiced law as an associate at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton in New York.
As have other IntLawGrrls before her, Milena dedicates her post to foremother Eleanor Roosevelt, former U.S. 1st Lady and human rights activist. (image credit)

Heartfelt welcome!

Cluster bomb ban in force

Chalk up another law regulating the way that war is waged.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions today enters into force for the 30-plus countries that have joined the treaty since it was adopted on May 30, 2008, in Dublin, Ireland. To date this this legal prohibition on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions has been ratified by these countries : Albania, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Comoros, Croatia, Denmark, Equador, Fiji, France, Germany, The Holy See, Ireland, Japan, The Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Luxembourg, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Samoa, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.
This November in Vientiane, Laos, states parties will assemble for the 1st time.
The campaign for more states parties to the treaty continues. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts) Campaign tools include the International Committee of the Red Cross publication Death in the fields, a moving comic book, by Swiss-Lebanese cartoonist Chappatte. It depicts the harm that cluster bombs wreak on children and their communities in South Lebanon.

Ahoy, there! New tribunal?

Keep reading that ad hoc criminal tribunals are destined for Davey Jones' locker.
Apparently no one's given the United Nations that memo.
Not only did that intergovernmental organization establish the Special Tribunal for Lebanon a while back (prior posts), but also yesterday the U.N. Security Council unanimously resolved to consider an international piracy tribunal.
The latest in a 2-years-on series of resolutions on "The situation in Somalia," Resolution 1918 (2010) 1st recited a litany of concerns about attacks by pirates off the coast of that horn-of-Africa nation. (See Beth Van Schaack's post today, above, as well as IntLawGrrls' prior posts). Then it alluded to problems in bringing offenders to account, even as it noted that there've been some prosecutions in some national courts. (Justice systems specifically mentioned were Kenya (right) (photo credit) and the Seychelles. A few pirates also have found themselves haled before national courts in the United States and elsewhere.)
After urging more concerted efforts by all countries, the Security Council, in ¶ 4 of Resolution 1918, requested U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

to present to the Security Council within 3 months a report on possible options to further the aim of prosecuting and imprisoning persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia ...

Options explicitly contemplated:

► "creating special domestic chambers possibly with international components"

► "a regional tribunal or an international tribunal and corresponding imprisonment arrangements"

In preparing its report, Ban's staff is to consider the work of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, as well as "the existing practice in establishing international and mixed tribunals ..."

Time will tell if yet another tribunal weighs anchor.